III”
Illlll

 

‘ \

x, m. 5,2;

 

«if; -

:éi:§

 

 

 

 

Fl-ll'Illl'l-l-l

 

 

.-

 
  

/(
.‘r.

 

  

 

, , \

Ill-I-I-III-l-III II

 

   

; V

 

SIS

llllllllllllll||||III||||||llllllllllIIIIHIIHHIHIH|||||||||

3 1293 02079 9403

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT:
COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN DETROIT

presented by
KERRY E. VACHTA

has been accepted towardsfiulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degree in Forestry

 

Date December , 1999

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

   
    

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

     

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

AUG 2 5 2001
0 I 0 4 2601
5EP01107 280i
, 0 .

JAiI (ii/2&1

OEDTSIDS 2002

] Him $3033

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT:
COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN DETROIT

By

Kerry E. Vachta

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department Of Forestry

1999

Professor Maureen H. McDonough

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL EMPOWERMENT:
COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN DETROIT
By
Kerry E. Vachta

Rooted in historical observations of Europe and the United States, modernization
theory errs in its conception of development as linear, its unsubstantiated assumptions
regarding the primacy of economic development and of large scale infrastructure—
centered interventions as facilitative of economic development and its theoretical
treatment of participation. As evidenced by the deindustrialization and depopulation of

urban centers in this country such as Detroit, Modernization Theorists accounted only for

 

a portion of the deveIOpment cycle and continued reliance on modernization strategies
has failed to address the resulting economic and social ramifications in these settings.

However, collective efforts of Detroit citizens to reclaim their city in local efforts
to establish mutual reliance and economic independence belie to the presumed linearity
of the development process. Exploring appropriate roles for professionals in supporting
such local initiatives, the Urban Resources Initiative of Michigan State University's
Department of Forestry (URI/MSU) applied participatory deveIOpment, in the form of
social (or community) forestry 'technologies' borrowed from the South, through
collaborative partnerships with community-based organizations in Detroit.

A review of the literatures in participation, empowerment theory and the
sociological study of community and local organizing as well as in participatory

development, determined several overlapping themes and concerns. A conceptual model

 

 

 

W35

was derived which posits that involvement in participatory development would facilitate
stronger community cohesion, improved organizing capacity and eventually an increased
ability of local organizations to develop and realize a collective vision for their
communities. This model was tested through quarterly group interviews, bi-annual focus
groups and anonymous individual mail surveys in a multi-level, multi—method evaluation
of the URI/MSU community forestry program which also explored the utility of
participatory development to address the objectives identified by community
organizations in the urban United States.

While the participatory approach resulted in a great deal of qualitative data and
important insights on the implications of the program for the seven participant groups, the
sample was too small to conduct analyses necessary to determine the validity of some
aspects of the conceptual model. However, there was provisional support for those
aspects of the model which were specific to participatory development. The implications
of involvement in participatory development activities for community cohesion were
inconclusive. However, the data do imply that cohesion could be positively impacted
through participatory development activities. There is much stronger evidence that
involvement in the program positively influenced organizing capacity and moderately
strong evidence for the program's positive contribution to organizational empowerment.
In addition to these impacts relating to organizational capacity and empowerment, the
Program was most successful in addressing participants‘ aesthetic and safety concerns.
Efforts to address economic objectives directly relating to forest products were less
successful, although indirect economic benefits in the form of improved land values were

reported.

 

 

Copyfightby
Kerry E. Vachta

1999

 

 

 

"Dr

Pat

"Development is people's development of themselves, their lives and their environment.
People cannot develop if they have no power. And development will occur if and only if

the people can organize their own power in their own interests."

-J. K. Nyerere

"People's participation is based on the democratic conviction that there are extra-ordinary

possibilities in ordinary people."

- D. L. Umali

This dissertation is dedicated to the extraordinary possibilities
made real every day by people reclaiming power and rebuilding neighborhoods

through community-based organizations in Detroit and elsewhere...

and to my grandmothers
Marie Vachta, whose strength and courage
taught me the importance of independence and self-determination
and in memory of my Nana, Mary L. Cerny,

who first showed me what dedicated and loving people could do for the world

m‘

QWWEMMMM

 

 

 

I wish to acknowledge my personal and professional indebtedness and gratitude to the following people and
organizations without whom this study could not have been completed successfully.

T AND F REM T THE PARTICIPANT IN THE S PR GRAM IN IN '
Mr. Melvin Christian & the 9000-9100 Prairie St. Block Club
Ms. Sheri Robinson, Mr. James Bettis & Mr. Earlie Weston & the Burnett St. Block Club
Rev. Alice Dye & the Appoline Block Club
Mr. Ralph Holtz & the St. Mary’s St. Block Club
Ms. Toni McIlwaine & the Ravendale Neighborhood Association
Mr. John Kavanaugh and the New Center North Neighbors; and
Ms. Stephanie Smothers & Ms. Gloria Hall and the Burlingame-Webb-Lawrence-Calvert-Collingwood-

Glynn Court Neighborhood Association.

FQR ACADEMIC SUPPORT AND CQNTREUTIONS TO INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT

Dissertation Committee
Chair: Maureen H. McDonough; Professor, Forest Sociology and Social Forestry

Members: Marilyn Aronoff; Associate Professor, Sociology
Tracy Dobson; Professor, Fisheries and Wildlife
Larry Leefers; Associate Professor, Forest Economics and Planning.
MSU Department of Forestry Faculty: Michael Gold, Dan Keathly, Karen Potter-Witter
MSU Department of Forestry Graduate students: Amy Geiche, Sarah Funkhouser and Julia Parker
The ASEED, SEAC and Detroit Summer folks who contributed immensely to my understanding of the
relationships between international development and environmental justice, especially:
Lydia Alpizar, Premesh Chandran, Helen Denham, Michael Dorsey, Sandy F alby, Liz Gres,
Gerald Hairston, Shea Howell, James Hung, Grace Lee Boggs, Francois Meloche, Terry
Monahan, Martin Prieto, Naomi Swinton and Miya Yoshitani.
My students and colleagues at Antioch College and Penn State, Capitol College for their support and
encouragement, staff assistant/ goddess Kathy Ritter for last minute typing and keeping me

sane and Carol Graysmith for averting a printing disaster!

A N I OTHER PAR R WHO S PORTED THE URI/MSU PROGRAM

Detroit Department of Public Works: Alicia Kizner, Joyce Jackson and Vanessa Hines.

Special Thanks to District Manager George Lowe
Detroit Recreation Department, Forestry and Landscape Division; Michael McLeod, Asst. Superintendent

Project Pride, Inc; Yvette Harper, Asst. Director and Sebastian Wade, Executive Director.
Greening of Detroit with special thanks to former Forester, Maureen Austin

Northern Area Association with special thanks to Wanda Jones
Wayne County Cooperative Extension Service with special thanks to Consumer Horticulturist,
Bob Bricault and former Community Gardening Coordinator, Jocelyn Fitzpatrick

Bordine’s Nursery with special thanks to Mike DeKold

A N E ‘ I O DOATIN P'OVIDING 'OPRT OTHEURl/M PRO RA
Michigan Department of Natural Resources with special thanks to Cara Boucher, Director, Urban and

Community Forestry Program
The W. K. Kellogg Foundation with special thanks to Tom Thorbum and Carlene Clemmons,

The USDA Forest Service North Central Experiment Station, with special thanks to Gina Childs and
John Dwyer

“.QN A PERSS 2NAL NOTE

To my parents, Stanley and Rosemary, and siblings, Maureen and Michael (all of whom actually read
previous draftsl), my friends (especially Dabie Sandborg, Carla Monestere, Janet Weinstein, Doug Shaw,
Jean Gregorek, Ken Kyle & Holly Angelique) and the grrrls who put up with dissertation-induced moods

and neglect over the better part of a decade.

vi

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ X
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... XII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
The Current Study ................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2 OUTSIDE-IN AND TOP-DOWN: THE PROBLEM OF
MODERNIZATION IN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................. 11
Modernization And Technocratic Planning .......................................................... 14
Expanding The Development Agenda ............................................................. 16
Increasing Participation in Development ......................................................... l7
Assessing Participation in Practice ....................................................................... 20
Contested Issues: Development, Participation And Community ................................ 25
Modernization and Urban Development in the United States .............................. 27
Participation in Urban Community Development ........................................... 28
Urban Environmental Policy and Planning ...................................................... 34
Management of the Urban Forest .................................................................... 36
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3 THE CURRENT CASE: MODERNIZATION IN THE
"ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY" .................................................................................. 45
The Setting: Detroit ..................................................................................................... 46
A Brief History ..................................................................................................... 46
Social And Economic Conditions ......................................................................... 50
A Tradition Of Local Organizing ......................................................................... 51
Participatory Development in Detroit: The URI/MSU program ................................ 55
Gaining Access And Entré .................................................................................... 56
Developing Partnerships ....................................................................................... 57
Collaborative Planning .......................................................................................... 58
Organizational Development Through Community Forestry ............................... 5 9
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 61
CHAPTER 4 PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSFORMATIVE PARTICIPATION .................................................................... 63
Participatory Development: Learning from the South .......................................... 69
Social Forestry as Participatory Development ................................................. 72
Power, Partnership and Community in Participatory Development ................ 74
Defining Community ....................................................................................... 77
Participation in Community: Community-Based Organizations .................... 82
Building Community Through Local Organizations ................................................... 85
Community Cohesion, Organizational Capacity And Local Empowerment ........ 86
The Model ............................................................................................................. 92
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 98

vii

 

 

CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY

Procedures

 

Collaborative Planning and Design

Evaluation

 

 

Measures

 

 

Data Analyses
Quantitative Analyses

 

Qualitative Analyses

 

CHAPTER 6 RESULTS OF THE PROCESS EVALUATION ...............................

Pdfi' I ‘

Individual R Pcpnn d ante

 

 

Organizations
Organizational Profiles

 

Crab Apple Block Club

 

 

The Burning Bush Block C lnb

The Georgia Peach Block Clrrh
The Star Magnolia Block Club
The Forsythia Neighborhood Association
The Quince Neighborhood Association
The Crimson King Maple (C.K. Maple) Neighborhood Association .....
Summary of Organizational Participation

Process Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Transformative Participation

 

Power And Resources

 

Community—Driven Partnership
SUMMARY

 

 

Community Attachment

CHAPTER 7 RESULTS OF THE CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS ............................
Attachment, Cohesion And Neighborliness

 

 

 

Organizing Capacity

Membership

Organizational History, Mission, And Collective Vision ..............................

 

 

Increasing Diversity

Leadership: Expanding The Core
Power, Empowerment and Internal Democracy ......................................

 

 

Organizing Skills

Resources

Sense Of Empowerment (SOE) And Capacity

 

 

'4
ur

 

Safety

Interorganizational Networking
Actual Organizational Empowerment (AOF)
Summary of Organizational Objectives

 

 

 

 

Participation

 

viii

104
105
106
109
114
114
115

117

118
118
120
122
122
125
127
128
130
132
134
135
137
137
139
142
144

146

148
151
156
157
160
162
164
165
166
168
173
175
178
178
180
181
183

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic 1 84

ani 21 1 85

Other 1 86

Aesthetic 187
Summary of Results Assessing the Conceptual Model 189
Community Cohesion 189
Organizational Capacity 193
Organizational Empowerment 194

Sense of Empowerment 194

Actual Organizational Empowerment 196
Implications for the Conceptual Model 198
CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 701
Research Limitations 215
Conclusions: Lessons of the Current Study 716
...in Theory 216

...in Practice 218
REFERENCES 777
APPENDIX A: MEASURES 737
Block Club/Neighborhood Association URI Needs Assessment .............................. 237
Quarterly Group Interviews 738
Sample Participant Cover Letter 741
Consent form for Individual Mail Questionnaire 742
Individual Post-Planting Questionnaire 743
Focus Group Discussion Guidelines 750

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: LEVY‘S FOCI OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RELATIVELY MODERNIZED AND
RELATIVELY NON-MODERNIZED SOCIETIES ............................................................... 12

TABLE 2: THE PLASTIC TERMINOLOGY OF PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT AND
CENTRAL CONCEPTS AND DEBATES ........................................................................... 27

TABLE 3: FROM THE ‘PARADIGM OF THINGS’ To THE ‘PARADIGM OF PEOPLE’

(CHAMBERS, 1995) .................................................................................................... 66
TABLE 4: SPEER & HUGHEY’S (1995) CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EMPOWERMENT

APPLIED To THE ORGANIZING DOMAIN ....................................................................... 91
TABLE 5: QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS SORTED BY SCALE CLUSTERS ..................................... 1 11

TABLE 6: NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS RESPONDING TO QUANTITATIVE MEASURE

 

AT EACH ASSESSMENT BY ORGANIZATION .............................................................. 136
TABLE 7: FOCUS GROUP ASSESSMENT OF TRANSFORMATIVE PARTICIPATION ............... 137
TABLE 8: FOCUS GROUP ASSESSMENT OF POWER AND RESOURCES ............................... 140
TABLE 9: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY-DRIVEN PARTNERSHIP ............... 142
TABLE 10: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY COHESION ................................ 149
TABLE 11: MEANS FOR ITEMS ASSESSING SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY

ATTACHMENT AMONG MEMBERS OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS ............................... 152
TABLE 12: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF LOCAL ORGANIZING CLIMATE ....................... 157
TABLE 13: MEANS FOR ITEMS ASSESSING ORGANIZING CAPACITY ................................. 158
TABLE 14: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF COLLECTIVE VISION ..................................... 159
TABLE 15: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF MEMBERSHIP BUILDING ............................... 161
TABLE 16: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF MEMBER DIVERSITY ..................................... 163
TABLE 17: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF LEADERSHIP ISSUES ...................................... 164
TABLE 18: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF ORGANIZATION ADAPTABILITY .................... 167
TABLE 19: MEANS FOR ITEMS ASSESSING SENSE OF EMPOWERMENT ............................. 169

   

 

 

 

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

IABLI

 

TABLE 20: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES INFLUENCING

 

 

PARTICIPATION 172
fABLE 21: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF INTERORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKING ......... 176
TABLE 22: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION OF PROJECT OUTCOMES 180
TABLE 23: OVERVIEW OF RESULTS OF CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS .................................... 190

 

xi

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: CONTINUUM OF PARTICIPATION IN NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ......

.. 42

93

 

FIGURE 2: THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

FIGURE 3: MEAN YEARS OF MEMBERSHIP BY GROUP

 

FIGURE 4: MEAN HOURS CONTRIBUTED PER MONTH BY GROUP .....................................

FIGURE 5: ASSESSMENT OF COOPERATION AMONG NEIGHBORS BEFORE AND AFTER

 

FIGURE 6: ATTACHMENT T0 NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES

 

FIGURE 7: ATTACHMENT TO CITY FEATURES

 

FIGURE 8: ACHIEVEMENT OF PARTICIPATION OBJECTIVES

 

FIGURE 9: PERCENTAGE OF DISCUSSION OF RESOURCES DEVOTED To EACH FORM ...........
FIGURE 10: GROUP GOALS FOR URI/MSU COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROJECTS ..............

FIGURE 11: ACHIEVEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE GOALS OVER TIME

 

FIGURE 12: ASSESSMENTS OF LOT SAFETY BEFORE AND AFTER URI ............................
FIGURE 13: CHANGING ASSESSMENTS OF DANGEROUSNESS OF VACANT LOTS ...............
FIGURE 14: ASSESSMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT OF ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES OVER TIME .....
FIGURE 15: ASSESSMENTS OF ACHIEVEMENT OF SOCIAL OBJECTIVES OVER TIME .........
FIGURE 16:ASSESSMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT OF ‘OTHER’ OBJECTIVES ............................
FIGURE 17: AVAILABILITY OF CHILDREN’S ACTIVITIES BEFORE AND AFTER URI .........
FIGURE 18: ASSESSMENTS OF ACHIEVEMENT OF OF AESTHETIC OBJECTIVES ..................
FIGURE 19: PRE- AND POST-URI ASSESSMENTSOP LOTS AS AN EYESORE .....................

FIGURE 20: EVIDENCE OF CONCEPTUAL RELATIONSHIPS

 

119

119

148

155

155

160

174

179

181

182

182

184

185

186

186

188

188

198

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

 

 

 

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been engaged in facilitating the
transition to democratic governance and market economies among the former Soviet bloc
nations (Love, 1991). Billions of dollars in international aid and services of development
consultants as well as the energies of numerous diplomats have been channeled toward
this process. While fostering democratic reform is consistently identified as a priority in
supporting development activities, there are active debates among political theorists
regarding the defining characteristics of democracy (see, for example, Roelofs, 1998 and
Green, 1997). Those debates include whether democracy requires the active participation
of the governed in policy making or is determined by the popular election of
representatives, the role of a political élite in facilitating or impeding democratic
governance, and issues of equity and representation (Green, 1997). In Situations where
democratic and economic reform are so intimately linked, the tensions between the two
and the means by which they are established have been subject to close scrutiny. Debates
over development policy and globalization rest largely on the outcomes of these analyses.

Each theoretical model of democracy suggests different approaches to
development. For example, the liberal democratic models presume that economic
security is requisite for democratic reform to be successful. Therefore, economic
development has frequently taken precedence with the assumption that democratic reform

ould follow (Blake, 1998). However, in recent years, a number of authors (e.g. Blake,
1998; Muller, Bollen & J ackrnan, 1995; Adams, 1994) have begun to question whether
his approach has been appropriate or effective. At the heart of the debate is the question
f whether those who have achieved economic security can or will accurately represent

he interests of those who have not and whether a system developed under such

 

 

 

 

 

..._ —w—«—q.- -—,—_—.._-.- .
. .~ 1-

WI

conditions will become more democratic over time. Unfortunately, the evidence to-date
would indicate that it is unlikely that it will. Muller, Bollen and Jackman (1995)
documented that especially in Latin America in the 1970s and 19803, for instance,
“economic development or ‘modernization’ tended to be associated with declines in
democracy.” Key in their observation is the fact that most formal development programs
have been carried out according to modernization theory with its emphasis on
standardized, large—scale, economically-centered approaches.

Based on the Observed patterns of development followed by the US. and many
European nations, modernization theory presumes that land-based agricultural and social
systems are "less developed" than are those characterized by industrialization and mass
resource extraction systems (So, 1990). Guided by this theory, many programs rely on
the technical expertise of professional economists, planners, development specialists and
resource managers to determine the goals of development efforts and to design and assess
projects. If local residents are involved at all, it is commonly through the physical labor
of implementation and maintenance. By relying on external direction and applying
"standardized" solutions, these programs are often critiqued as insensitive and
unresponsive to the cultures, interests and needs of the people who will be most directly
affected by them and to the specific ecological conditions within which they are
implemented. Consequently, they may actually exacerbate the very problems they seek
to resolve or may create unanticipated problems in other areas (Thomas, & Chhibber,
1989).

As the prototype for modernization, the development process in the United States

has been characterized by large-scale projects implemented under the direction of

technical experts with little participation among those most directly affected. Urban
planning and environmental and natural resource management practices in the US. can
be particularly technocratic. Federally funded highWay and public housing projects, for
instance, attempt to address critical economic problems with standardized large scale
economically-oriented projects. This approach has been dubbed the 'Paradigm of Things‘
(Chambers, 1995) because of its presumptions that construction of the right infrastructure
will provide the context within which ongoing economic improvements and, by
extension, resolution of other development concerns, can take place. While these
approaches have generated technological and economic gains, they have also generated a
number of important unintended cultural, ecological and social consequences which,
given their scale, have proven difficult to redress. Furthermore, given the level of
analysis, typically regional or national, economic impacts on the local level which may
be less consistent, are sometimes overlooked. For example, while metropolitan regions
in the US. may be enjoying great economic growth and expansion, deindustrializing
central cities are often experiencing critical depopulation and job loss (Boggs, 1998).

In response to the questionable success of and increasing resistance to top-down
techniques, public involvement has been increasingly incorporated in planning efforts
both domestically and internationally, and more participatory alternatives have been
implemented in some cases. The resulting development projects would be expected to
encounter less resistance, be more cost effective and require less ongoing support from
any centralized authority (Lane, 1997; Adams, 1994). Public participation incorporated
in the service of these professionally—defined goals has been referred to as 'instrumental'

or 'functional' participation (Nelson & Wright, 1995). However, several authors have

 

 

questioned this definition of participation (e. g. Amstein, 1969; Wandersman, 1981;
Peiris, 1997). 'True' participation, they contend, allows for shared power and
responsibility as well as community control. Such 'transformational' participation
(Nelson & Wright, 1995) is predicated on the need to transform the relationship between
professionals and local residents to one that serves the needs and interests of the
community by shifting the locus of power to community members.

Development activities relying on transformational participation are referred to as
'participatory development and are more consistent with participatory models of
democracy. These models assume the right of citizens to participate in planning and
decision making that will directly affect them and their communities (Roelofs, 1998). In
these approaches, professionals work in partnership with community residents to identify
local needs and interests and to develop solutions that are culturally, socially and
environmentally appropriate. The solutions focus on human, social and community
development with the presumption that empowered communities will be better able to
ensure their future needs are addressed whether directly through the products Of their
development projects, or indirectly through political or economic channels.

One such participatory approach to development is social (or community)
forestry. Originally intended to address the needs of rural communities in the non-
industrialized world, social forestry calls for the formation of close partnerships between
communities and natural resource professionals. The approach results in small scale,
highly participatory projects controlled by local residents to whom the benefits directly
accrue. While some misapplications of these approaches have been documented (Shiva,

1989), appropriately implemented they can be more successfiil in meeting local interests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and needs and ar
technocratic met
In pursui
social foresters I
organizanons. l
organically amo
interests and an
Amstein (1969]
residents which
upheld in the p:
consolidation o
more In addit
understanding
comm). T
OfPam'cipani !
Closely paralle
PTOcess by Wh
co30611110 the
orgmlationa]
Winkel. 1996
Howe-
“311315 of 1h

ex““5“": lite

 

and needs and are more sensitive to Specific cultural and ecological settings than are more
technocratic methods (Rebugio, 1985).

In pursuit Of these Objectives, participatory development practitioners such as
social foresters typically work in partnership with established community-based
organizations. These groups represent a form of participation-in-community evolving
organically among community residents already working on behalf of community
interests and aware of local concerns and resources (Pretty & Scoones, 1995). As
Arnstein (1969) suggests, such groups represent an established power base among
residents which may help to ensure that the principles of transformative participation are
upheld in the partnership. The activities of participatory development Should foster the
consolidation of a shared Vision for the community and collective effort in achieving that
Vision, in addition to providing opportunities to build new Skills and greater
understanding Of the role and impact of existing power dynamics affecting the
community. Thus, the process would be expected to contribute to the organizing capacity
of participant groups and eventually to their ability to realize their collective vision. This
closely parallels Rappaport's (1987) definition of empowerment, “empowerment is a
process by which people, organizations, and communities gain mastery over issues of
concern to them.” In other words, participatory development activities should facilitate
organizational empowerment (Rappaport, 1977; Speer & Hughey, 1995; Saegert &
Winkel, 1996).

However, while Rappaport's (1977) initial definition reflected an ecological
analysis of the concept at the individual, organizational and community levels, the

extensive literature in empowerment has focused almost exclusively at the

 

 

indiiidual/inufip?
attempted to dev
based on empiric
community orga
for the expectati
organizational e
might occur. B:
literature in the

tests a model of

development.

The Current S
The inv
program of Mi.
thURl/MSL?
‘0 help address
Ofurban center
lhcse settings ;
Wins pron
“We“? and
we letThnolo
W neuron;

mm Swings

 

individual/intrapsychic level of analysis. The authors of two important exceptions have
attempted to develop models of empowerment at the community/organizational level
based on empirical work with networks (Speer & Hughey, 1995) and individual
community organizations (Saegert & Winkel, 1996). While these models provide support
for the expectation that involvement in participatory development may well contribute to
organizational empowerment, they fail to explicate the mechanisms through which that
might occur. Based on a synthesis of those models in combination with lessons fiom the
literature in the sociology of community and community organizations, the current study
tests a model of the processes of organizational empowerment through participatory

development.

The Current Study
The investigation takes place in the context of the Urban Resources Initiative

program of Michigan State University’s Department of Forestry (URI/MSU). In 1991,
the URI/MSU program was established to test the potential for social forestry approaches
to help address some of the social, economic and environmental issues faced by residents
of urban centers in the United States. A surprising number of parallels exist between
these settings and those in which participatory development initially evolved such as
growing problems of air and water contamination, shifting land-use patterns, high levels
of poverty and unemployment and increasing reliance by local governments on large
scale technological “fixes.” Additionally, the settings are each characterized by active
local networking and development of citizen organizations; from farmer's alliances in

rural settings to urban neighborhood associations, working to identify and develop

 

innovative $11312}
technologies firs
United States. U
development the
to urban natural
lo—date.
have been unde
some of the mo
The Lurnpen St
presumption th
related values I
residents of so:
development a
season 9"65’0
“thin Walking
What about co:
Erlieh. 1995)?
eonmmmty m
000110ij eon
have for “test
demolttttent

Gommmty_b

 

innovative strategies for addressing common concerns. By applying the social forestry
technologies first developed in rural settings in the non-industrialized world to the urban
United States, URI/MSU represents a fundamental shift, both in the direction of flow of
development thought, from North ! South to South ! North, and in domestic approaches
to urban natural resource planning, from technocratic to participatory.

To-date, participatory natural resource management and development activities
have been undertaken primarily in rural communities in Southern nations where, perhaps,
some of the more romantic notions of community as gemez'nschaft (Bell & Newby, 1971;
The Lumpen Society, 1997) are not too far from reality. In these settings, the
presumption that the majority of residents share a common heritage, religion, culture and
related values may be well—founded. It is, furthermore, not too far-fetched to assume that
residents of such areas are likely to benefit collectively from small-scale participatory
development activities. When one farmer’s fields lay baking in the sun during the dry
season, everyone’s fields might benefit from irrigation. When there is no more fuelwood
within walking distance of the village, everyone must find an alternative fuel source. But
what about communities more appropriately characterized by neogemeinschaft (Rivera &
Erlich, 1995)? Could participatory development strategies facilitate the efforts of
community organizations in urban settings to address local environmental, social and
economic concerns and what other implications might involvement in such endeavors
have for those organizations? The current study examines the utility of participatory
development in building community empowerment through the mediating structures of

community-based organizations in such settings.

 

 

 

 

 

Working
bill/MSU progr
which address lc
vacant lots. 36:
traditional urbar
organization ha
whether such pr

current study er
bid/MSU prog
organizing cap:
The pit]
literatures expl
communitym
the theoretical
potential of pa
PWCipatory c
iImportant gap
utility inarti
an analysis of
indhidual la
Thep

Chapter 2. T

SCR‘easdmn

 

Working with block clubs and neighborhood associations in Detroit, the
URI/MSU program facilitates the development of community-based forestry projects
which address locally defined needs and interests, including the reclamation of the city’s
vacant lots. Because community residents seldom have a role in setting the agenda for
traditional urban development programs and impacts on local social and political
organization has seldom been an identified objective, there has been little assessment of
whether such programs can meet the goals of local citizen’s organizations. Thus, the
current study expands on conventional program evaluations to explore the impact of the
URI/MSU program on broader community-identified objectives such as building
organizing capacity and political empowerment.

The purpose of the study is to contribute to both the conceptual and professional
literatures exploring the mechanisms and utility of participatory development as a
community-organizational empowerment strategy because these outcomes reflect both
the theoretical questions of interest as well as practical considerations regarding the
potential of participatory development in the urban United States. Through a blend of
participatory development and participatory research strategies, the study fills two
important gaps in the existing literature. First, it provides an empirical assessment of the
utility of participatory development applied in the urban United States. Second, it offers
an analysis of the mechanisms of empowerment at the organizational rather than
individual level, as influenced by participatory development.

The problem of modernization, both in theory and in practice, are explored in
Chapter 2. The history and evolution of urban areas in the United States, for example,

serve as dramatic examples of the implications of modernization-driven development.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps no cityt
history and evol1
efforts of com
Ilil MSU cornr
research 3 disc
local identificat
seen as a form (
centering local
participatory dc
analyses of par
conceptual mo
to influence tht
development c
emPovt'errnent
methods throu
in the form of
Urban US” tv
The fim a pr
retlect the P11
Presented in (
Rfisultg of th:
0fthtse resut

in Chapter 8.

 

 

Perhaps no city better typifies the consequences of modernization than Detroit. The
history and evolution of the City as it reflects on modernization theory as well as the
efforts of community-based organizations to reclaim the city, including through the
URI/MSU community forestry program, constitute the case examined by the current
research as discussed in Chapter 3. Given its reliance on collaborative partnerships and
local identification and accruement of benefits, social (or community) forestry can be
seen as a form of participatory development, an alternative development paradigm
centering local human, social and community development. The theory and practice of
participatory development is described in Chapter 4. Given the dearth of empirical
analyses of participatory approaches to development in the urban United States, a
conceptual model of the mechanisms through which such an approach might be expected
to influence the capacity of local organizations to address a broad range of social and
development objectives is derived from the related literatures in participation and
empowerment theory and the sociological study of community and local organizing. The
methods through which that model, as well as the potential for participatory development
in the form of community forestry to address community—identified objectives in the
urban U.S., were tested are explored in Chapter 5. Data were analyzed in two phases.
The first, a process evaluation, assessed whether the URI/MSU program did indeed
reflect the principles of participatory development. The results of that analysis are
presented in Chapter 6. The second assessed the validity of the conceptual model.
Results of that conceptual analysis are presented in Chapter 7. Finally, the implications
of these results for participatory development, both in theory and in practice are discussed

in Chapter 8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TH:

 

CHAPTER 2

OUTSIDE-IN AND TOP-DOWN:
THE PROBLEM OF MODERNIZATION IN DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early det
observations of 1
According to EN
evolve from “pr
loinnes referrer
(1967, cited in f
informal. tradit:
sufficiency and

(Table l). Thl‘

theorists to be t

l
I

= Specialization of
IE Organization

t

t Commie-mm
l of life

interdependmfl
Organization

l
l
l
l
i Relationshlp em
l fimcnollfll ldiffm
l
l
i
l

‘ Bureaumfl' an
CODSidCTaDm

TM Village
Immerse:

ab\

i k 13 Len;

 

Early development theorists proposed modernization theory based on historical

observations of the development processes of Europe and the United States (So, 1990).

According to modernization theory, development is a process through which societies

evolve from “primitive” to “civilized;” characterized by qualities consistent with what

Tdinnes referred to as Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft respectively. As described by Levy

(1967, cited in So, 1990), ‘relatively less modernized’ societies are decentralized,

informal, traditional collectives which are characterized by a high level of self-

sufficiency and low compartmentalization of life; the antithesis of modernized societies

(Table 1). This transition in social and economic structure was viewed by modernization

theorists to be natural and desirable (So, 1990). In contrast, while community

 

 

 

Specialization of
organization

Compartmentalization
of life

Interdependency of
organization

Relationship emphasis
functional diffuseness

Degree of centralization

Generalized media of
exchange and market

Bureaucracy and family

consideration

Town-village
Interdependence

Relatively Nonmodemized

Societies

low
low
low (high level of

self-sufficiency)

tradition, particularism,
functional specificity

low

less emphasis

precedence of family
norm (nepotism as a
virtue)

one-way flow of goods

and services from
rural to urban contexts

Relatively Modemized
Societies

high

high

high

rationality, universalism,

high

more emphasis

insulate bureaucracy
from other contacts

mutual flow of goods
and services between
towns and villages

 

 

Table 1: Levy's Foci of Differences Between Relatively Modemized and Relatively Non-modemized

Societies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sociologists unit
and Vidich and I
from the process
as desirable. 1n
traditional socie
goods. Given t
domestically. h
that moderniza‘
sociologists. A
Enlightenment
as apolitical-e

Harvey goes 0

 

 

 

sociologists writing at the same time (e.g. Redfield, as cited in Effiat, 1974; Stein, 1960;

and Vidich and Bensman, 195 8) often agreed that such a transition inevitably evolved
from the processes of urbanization and industrialization, they hardly viewed these results
as desirable. Instead, for these sociologists, the transition was associated with a decay of
traditional society and a loss of community, along with its presumed attendant social
goods. Given that development efforts in the twentieth century, both internationally and
domestically, have exemplified the proscriptions of modernization theory, it would seem
that modernization theorists had greater influence with policy makers than did the
sociologists. As Harvey (1990) observed, “...a corporate capitalist version of the
Enlightenment project of development for progress and human emancipation held sway
as a political-economic dominant.” In describing the intellectual bases of modernization,

Harvey goes on to explain,

 

The belief in linear progress, absolute truths, and rational

planning of ideal social orders, under standardized

conditions of knowledge and production was particularly

strong. The modernism that resulted was, as a result,

‘positivistic, technocratic, and rationalistic’.
Contrary to the realities of deindustrialization and the current political fashion of calling
for a return to “traditional” decentralized social and political systems, modernization
theorists assumed that the development process reflected a sort of socio-economic
evolution: linear and irreversible. They viewed those nations which had achieved
modernization as more ‘advanced’ than non-modernized societies. Hence, the processes
of bureaucratization, urbanization and industrialization followed by the US. and other

Northern industrialized societies characterize the hegemonic, or archetypal, expression of

modernization. Since the US. was considered the most economically successful nation,

13

 

 

 

 

 

as measured b)’ l
the most develot
despite the num'
economic succe
Thus. the task 0
facilitating the 1
‘traditional" co

interdependent

Modernizatior
ln man
development”
conducive to i
have. as a resr
those most div
Control have t
d€\’€10pmem
rely 011 the ex
resource man
iject; Lin
gm‘emant .
9%ngij a}

them As:

 

 

 

 

 

as measured by growth indicators such as the gross national product (GNP), it constituted
the most developed in the minds of those operating under such assumptions (So, 1990),
despite the number of communities within the nation which have not benefited from its
economic successes; sometimes referred to as "the South in the North" (Boggs, 1998).
Thus, the task of the development professional has conventionally been perceived as
facilitating the linear process through which communities and nations evolve from
“traditional” collectives of extended families pursuing their own subsistence to become

interdependent participants in the global market economy.

Modernization And Technocratic Planning
In many cases, ‘development’ has been primarily construed to mean ‘economic

development,’ which is often pursued through the construction of infrastructure
conducive to increased industrial activity and commercial competition. These efforts
have, as a result, frequently been undertaken on a large-scale with little participation from
those most directly affected, even as demands for increased participation and local
control have been growing among communities subjected to such externally-driven
development efforts. Given their scale and advanced technical nature, such programs
rely on the expertise of professional economists, planners, development specialists and
resource managers to determine the goals of development efforts and to design and assess
projects. Unfortunately, these projects are often implemented in a top-down approach by
government and agency professionals, sometimes with little foreknowledge of the

ecological and social factors which would potentially determine the outcome of such

efforts. As a result, the benefits are often short lived and accrue primarily to the

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

economic and P‘
Chambers, 1995
unintended soci
1985; Welsh Br
which seldom f
(Chambers. 19%
The tail

most commonl

(Thompson 15

impart from d

empirical appr

Chambers. 19:

Local residen
public Pattici
m\’01\’emem
and Practitiot
devek‘l‘tttent
”memes a
at*lllainted v

“Manta

 

economic and political élite (Amanor, 1994; Colchester, 1994; Gadgil & Guha, 1994;
Chambers, 1995; Curtis, 1995; Nelson & Wright, 1995). There are also often a range of
unintended social (Shiva, 1989), economic (Clayton, 1983) and environmental (Uquillas,
1985; Welsh Brown, 1988; Brown, 1989) costs unaccounted for in project planning
which seldom fall on the same groups who receive the benefits of the projects
(Chambers, 1985).

The failure to recognize or incorporate the expertise of local people is among the
most commonly cited causes for the failure of large-scale development projects
(Thompson, 1991; Welsh Brown, 1988). This unfamiliarity with local conditions results,
in part, from development practitioners’ preference for technological, positivistic and
empirical approaches over those based on indigenous knowledge. As Hatch (cited in

Chambers, 1983) noted,

 

The development profession suffers from an entrenched

superiority complex with respect to the small farmer. We

believe our modern technology is infinitely superior to his.

We conduct our research and assistance efforts as if we

knew everything and our clients nothing.
Local residents are seldom involved in planning and decision making activities. Instead,
public participation is typically constrained to non-binding input and perhaps in the
involvement physical work of proj ect implementation while development professionals
and practitioners make important decisions regarding the design and objectives of
development programming. In addition to the unintended negative consequences that
sometimes arise as a result of the failure to include the insights of those most intimately

acquainted with the local culture and environment, such reliance on technical expertise

has been critiqued as being at odds with democratic principles (Press, 1994).

 

15

 

 

Expanding '
While or
development p11
broader range 0‘
awareness of th-
resources (\7 atil
policies to inclt
have a voice in
institutions sue
necessity of in:
The Bank now
safeguards for
in Africa (Lew
Progtatns shot
instinrtional. a
avoid social u
0me PeOple
appropriate a]
“lied
to Wider am

Suggesm that

 

ffi

Expanding The Development Agenda
While economic development remains central to modernization driven

development practice, practitioners have begun to realize the relationship between a
broader range of social issues and development concerns. For example there is growing
awareness of the inherent connection between poverty and misuse of local land and
resources (Vatikiotis, 1992). Some development agencies have begun to expand their
policies to include these related social factors as a result, although residents still seldom
have a voice in determining which social factors are included in program agendas.
Institutions such as the World Bank, for example, have begun to acknowledge the
necessity of incorporating a wider range of issues in its efforts to address global poverty.

The Bank now cites improving political stability and human capital, and ensuring

 

safeguards for the poor during reform implementation as important to economic growth
in Africa (Lewis, 1994). Robinson and Schmitz (1989) propose that international lending
programs should further incorporate an understanding of a country's cultural,
institutional, and political dynamics to minimize economic impact on the poor and to

avoid social upheaval. It is believed that increasing familiarity with the cultures and lives

 

of the people of recipient nations could lead to development and implementation of more
appropriate and, hence, more successful development efforts (Clements, 1993).

Whether this familiarity will lead to more locally-appropriate solutions or simply
to wider acceptance of standardized approaches is contested, however. Giddens (1990)

suggests that, through globalization, modernity

 

displaces... localised influences... with an expression of
distant events... ‘placed into’ the local environment rather
than forming an organic development within it. . .. A
feature of displacement is our insertion into globalized

l6

 

 

 

*Mfi.t""\n

Other observers
expanding glob
participaton "r
authors, new st
cultures and to
recipient natior
and sustainablt
Structures (Sal
incorporating
control among

their broader :

Increasin
DCSpi
resistance ‘0 .
by the grown
the 553881301
Retiem‘ng 11
plmng toq
implememe

Whining at

 

 

cultural and information settings, which means that
familiarity and place are much less consistently connected
than hitherto. This is less a phenomenon of estrangement
from the local than one of integration within globalized
‘communities’ of shared experience.

Other observers suggest, however, that the challenges and economic limitations of the
expanding global economy will inherently prevent continued development of non-
participatory "mega-projects" (Roeloffs, 1998; Sandstrom, 1994). According to these
authors, new strategies will include increased adaptability of programs to specific
cultures and to political, social and economic conditions. Additionally, guidelines for
recipient nations will be focused on investment in "basic social services" and "efficient
and sustainable growth" rather than strict alignment with externally-imposed economic
structures (Salop, 1992). While many authors applaud these shifts, others note that
incorporating a broader agenda has not necessarily led to increased involvement or
control among communities affected by the resulting development efforts which, given

their broader agendas, may have an even greater impact on their lives.

Increasing Participation in Development

Despite, or perhaps because of, the prevalence of technocratic decision making,
resistance to top—down development programs has been growing globally, as illustrated
by the growing environmental justice movement in the United States (Bullard, 1994) and
the grassroots movements around issues of environment and development in the South.
Reviewing much of the literature on participation in development and natural resource
planning to-date, however, Lane (1997) observes that participation has typically been
implemented in an "enlightened top-down" approach which “can be very effective in

achieving agency objectives” without challenging the underlying principles of

17

 

 

 

modernization
participation (N
goals of the sp0
and efficiency,
communities. ’
projects and re:
may attract prc
development p
Consis

among people
Stokes, 1993)
Bank program
McCracken. l
Palhctpants' t
Efficiency an.
M lh this pol:
including en]
tnoderumm'c
Purpose of (1
abilities. uh
medians
Plujecr Can‘

 

 

modernization. Those designing such programs are typically interested in how functional
participation (Nelson & Wright, 1995) can be utilized to facilitate achievement of the
goals of the sponsoring organizations and agencies such as improving cost effectiveness
and efficiency, reducing labor for staff and minimizing resistance among impacted
communities. These are seen as crucial factors in generating support for development
projects and recruiting participants to those efforts. Awareness of such practical benefits
may attract professionals to include greater fiinctional public participation in
development planning.

Consistent with these predictions, a shift toward incorporating participation
among people directly affected by the programs is building (Serageldin & Noel, 1990;
Stokes, 1993). Social Dimensions of Adjustment (SDA), for example, is a formal World
Bank program for increasing community participation (CP) (Adams and Rietbergen-
McCracken, 1994). According to Bank policy, CP serves four goals: strengthening
participants‘ organizational abilities; improving project effectiveness; enhancing
efficiency and cost-sharing; and guiding participants toward independence. On the face
of it, this policy seems to address a much broader social agenda for development
including enhancing independence over facilitating economic integration, contrary to
modernization's proscriptions. Yet, the policy only requires CP in cases where the
purpose of the project is to empower participants and develop their organizational
abilities, where participants will identify their own needs, where the interactions between
participants and project leaders are frequent, and where Bank personnel believe the
project can be better managed by participants (Paul, 1987). It does not require that Bank-

funded projects incorporate any of these conditions. As a result, argue Adams and

18

 

 

 

Rietbergen-MC(
participation thl
although its ins
using communi
making process
criticized for it
Develo
professionalize
involvement 51
may be cultur:
international)
stratifications
(Hoskins. 198
leadership mg
(Chambers. 1
or may fail 1c
rePresent the
lm’OlVemem
Who “ill be
Professional.
”News“
motions in

 

 

Rietbergen-McCracken (1994,) the Bank has not sought the required level of
participation through the SDA program to achieve sustained poverty reduction. Thus,
although its institutionalization is an important step in recognizing the importance of
using community participation to incorporate local knowledge and values in decision
making processes and to facilitate community empowerment, the SDA program has been
criticized for failing to politically empower the poor (Gibbon, 1992).

Development workers in the United States, and other countries with similarly
professionalized approaches to natural resource planning often rely on public
involvement strategies, such as official public meetings to similar result. These methods
may be culturally inappropriate for many communities, both domestically and
internationally (see, for example, Knowlton, 1976). Furthermore gender or other power
stratifications may systematically inhibit participation by some members of a community
(Hoskins, 1980; Thomas, 1991; WIN, 1994). Moreover, in many communities, formal
leadership may be more a reflection of wealth and power than of popular support
(Chambers, 1983). When seeking public input, development practitioners may not realize
or may fail to address the fact that self-identified community leaders may not actually
represent the interests of local people. Similarly, the most vocal groups demanding
involvement in planning activities may also fail to reflect the full range of values of those
who will be affected by management decisions. Still, many natural resource
professionals will tend to work most closely with these groups because their
representatives seem knowledgeable about the issues due to their ability to present their
positions in a manner the manager finds valid and easily understandable. They may also

hold values similar to the manager's and they often share common language and .

19

 

 

communication

have been more

A manager i gm
baffled as to W
the informatior

1994).

Assessing Pal
Severe
involvement r
lmosri and er.
(1969) “Ladd
the implemer
Beginning at
PaItieipation'
Placation. an
COlltrol. are <
lhat only the
particil‘fitior
Plfltrenge f

Grgall-1231101

 

 

communication patterns (McDonough, 1992). Thus, while opportunities for public input

have been increasing, few citizens have decision-making power. As Naples (1998) noted,

Because community involvement is solicited, it does not

necessarily follow that national and local governments will

divide authority and decision-making powers with those

whose input is sought.
A manager ignorant of these dynamics who attempts to utilize these forums may be left
baffled as to why no one shows up, they show up but do not participate as s/he expects or

the information provided turns out to be invalid (Cerneaz, 1985; McDonough, et al,

1994)

Assessing Participation in Practice

Several studies have been conducted to determine and codify the forms of
involvement typically utilized by development professionals. One of the most well
known and enduring models of participation derived from such a study is Arnstein’s
(1969) “Ladder of Citizen Participation” designed for use in practitioner training during
the implementation of the Model Cities programs in the United States in the early 19705.
Beginning at the bottom, the eight ‘rungs’ on this ladder fall into three subsets. The ‘non-
participation’ subset includes manipulation and therapy while informing, consultation and
placation, are all labeled ‘degrees of tokenism.’ Partnership, delegated power and citizen
control, are considered ‘degrees of citizen power’. The assumption of the framework is
that only those forms falling in the ‘degrees of citizen power’ subset constitute “true”
participation. Like many of the frameworks of participation, Amstein’s indicates a
preference for citizen-initiated approaches based on the assumption that local people and

organizations should have the power to initiate and carry out programs on their own

20

 

 

behalf (e.g. LED
citizen initiative
responding 0an
their request dc
authors warn t1
assistance unle
They thus advt
broader range
(1997) and W:
seldom achiet‘
Based
States at that 1
those efforts:
ObleCtS. He r
make the maj
dESpite regul
frt:quently 01
hate the Opp
the Choice 0‘;
‘fhdback‘ 1.
Professional

lbs ‘self-pta

ll“ [be appr

 

 

behalf (e. g. Lane, 1995 ; Minkler & Pics, 1997). While agreeing that responsiveness to
citizen initiative is vital, others (6. g. Curtis, 1997; McDonough, et al, 1994) counter that
responding only to those groups already aware of resources and expertise available upon
their request does nothing to challenge the existing structure of privileged access. These
authors warn that many communities will never become aware of available resources and
assistance unless professionals reach out beyond the groups initiating contact with them.
They thus advocate a partnership approach through which the needs and interests of a
broader range of communities might be met. As illustrated by the reviews by Peiris
(1997) and Wandersman (1981), however, technocratic approaches to development
seldom achieve even this standard of shared power.

Based on a review of community development programs active in the United
States at that time, Wandersman (1981) described four forms of participation utilized in
those efforts: no participation, feedback, self-planning and creation of parameters and
objects. He reported that professionals and government representatives continued to
make the majority of decisions that would affect communities with little or no input,
despite regulatory requirements to the contrary. Thus, ‘no participation’ was the most
frequently observed “form of participation.” The author referred to cases where ‘users’
have the opportunity to provide their ideas or opinions, which the professional then has
the choice of whether or not to incorporate in planning and implementation as the
‘feedback’ level. At the next level, users are offered a ‘choice’ between two or more
professionally generated or government condoned options. This process is reversed in
the ‘self-planning’ process where communities generate several alternate plans submitted

for the approval of professional planners. Finally, Wandersman labeled cases where the

21

 

 

’uSCl‘S’ operate V
parameters and l
Similar];
participatory na
participation ut
concurrence. fe
acquiescence. ‘
the generosity
material assisu
famine or natu
note that these
can exacerban
interests shift
‘relief effort.
The 81
these cases, 1
educational;
the needs 10-
be “heated

dOSOCaIlI’C'

 

‘users’ Operate with no preconceived guidelines from professionals as the ‘creation of
parameters and objects.’

Similarly, reviewing World Bank sponsored development projects claiming a
participatory nature or component, Peiris (1987) identified four interpretations of
participation utilized in international development programming: acquiescence,
concurrence, feedback/co-optation and real participation. In the programs relying on
acquiescence, ‘beneficiaries’ are passive recipients who are expected to simply appreciate
the generosity of their ‘benefactors.’ While there are cases where the need for immediate
material assistance is so great that such approaches may be appropriate, including some
famine or natural disaster relief efforts, Peiris and others (6. g. Nelson & Wright, 1995)
note that these programs never challenge the structures creating that need. Instead, they
can exacerbate it by creating further dependence on external agencies. When donor
interests shift, the community is often left in the same situation it faced prior to the
‘relief’ effort.

The second level of participation Peiris identified is labeled ‘Concurrence.” In
these cases, local residents may be allowed the option of receiving a service (such as an
educational program) or not, but with little opportunity to participate in identification of
the needs to be addressed or to suggest modification to the services delivered. They may
be expected to participate in the implementation of the program, however, and failure to
do so can reinforce the development practitioners’ notions of superiority while labeling
resisters as lazy or ignorant of their own needs (Lane, 1997.) In response to such
thinking, Banefield (1967, cited in Bell and Newby, 1971) described a set of commonly

held but simplistic and unsubstantiated explanations for the lack of community

22

 

 

 

participation. P
busy with Stll'l'l
actitities, even
Another is the 1
influencing the
Banefit
researchers rnc
htpothesis tha
US. entironrr
participation 2
definitions of
documented r
those of low t
conventional?
explanations
For example.
uhtlerclass.‘
and T€Sponsc
lllilson‘s tll
CthHit‘ em]
197mm1E
“$311123er

twang: {h E

 

participation. Among these are the notions that people living at subsistence levels are too
busy with survival issues to care about or have time for involvement in planning
activities, even if their lives will be dramatically impacted by the decisions made.
Another is the presumption that the poor are too 'ignorant' of the political forces
influencing their living conditions to take effective action to change them.

Banefield hypothesized that these presumptions reflected the cultural biases of the
researchers more than any actual differences in public participation among the poor; a

hypothesis that was supported by Taylor’s (1990) critical study of participation in the

 

U.S. environmental movement. Taylor contended that the presumption of non-
participation among people of color and the poor might be based on culturally biased
definitions of the kinds of activity used to define political participation. Taylor
documented that when community-based activities are included, people of color and
those of low economic status are at least as active, if not more so, than are those more
conventionally expected to be. Yet, some of these assumptions continue to be accepted
explanations for professionals’ failure to challenge conventional dimensions of power.

For example, they are common sentiments in the literature pathologizing the ‘permanent

 

underclass.’ Examples include the Moynihan Report of 1969, which defined the debate
and response to race-based oppression in the United States in the ensuing years, and
Wilson’s ( 1987) The Truly Disadvantaged which, while examining structural causes of
chronic economic and social disenfranchisement, does so within a victim blaming (Ryan,
1976) fiamework. Based on this thinking, many social scientists and non-govemmental
organizations erroneously presume that the poor are less active in democratic forums

because their economic needs are too pressing to allow such involvement (Cole, 1998;

23

 

r11”?

 

 

l Perkins, Brown
to incorporate )-

At the t
expected to be
but have no mt
Instead they a
labor. In part '
to such actitit'

this form of ’p

Finall
DCOple‘s inrc
Oldecisiong;
ll’orld Bank
Of "true put
“septum
lllt most par

Petr
Obsewed is

o r) ,
“ll ‘20,”

“melted .

 

 

 

 

Perkins, Brown & Taylor, 1996; Wandersman, 1981) and sometimes justify their failure
to incorporate local participation on these bases.

At the third level, which Peiris labeled ‘Feedback’ or ‘Co-optation,’ residents are
expected to be more active participants in the implementation of development projects
but have no more voice in planning or decision making than at the previous levels.
Instead, they are expected to follow instructions and show initiative through physical
labor. In part because of the level of misrepresentation potentially involved in referring
to such activities as 'community participation', Peiris reserves her most biting critique for

this form of ‘participation.’ She observes that

outsiders are seen as 'benevolent despots' by the receiving
communities, while the co-optation of the latter is
euphemistically, but deliberately misnamed and integration
into a predetermined process of development in the
planning of which they have no part passes off as actual
participation.

Finally, according to Peiris, “Real participation... involves three dimensions:
people's involvement in decision making; their voluntary contribution to implementation
of decisions; and the collective sharing of the benefits of their effort." Peiris’ review of
World Bank projects failed to identify any as community-initiated. Thus, her definition
of "true participation“ is less stringent than either Wandersman's or Arnstein’s because it

accepts citizen 'involvement in decision-making' rather than full community control as

the most participatory model.

Peiris further notes that the prevalence of professionally-driven ‘participation’ she

observed is consistent with an earlier study by Brodhead (1988) in which he found that
only 22% of the 51 programs surveyed incorporated participation. Of these, 24%

evidenced low participation, 36% utilized moderate participation and only 18%

24

 

 

incorporated hi;
Bank sponsoret
percent of Bani
13 per cent of j
participation."
Beyont
development p
different ideas

(1995) note th

 

Thus. particir

and the 111165

 

 

 

 

incorporated high levels of participation. Similarly, in reviewing participation in World
Bank sponsored programs, Nelson and Wright (1995) document that in 1991, "...20
percent of Bank staff are responsible for 70 per cent of participatory projects, and only...
13 per cent of projects in the Africa Region portfolio had primary stakeholder
participation.”

Beyond these differences between the efforts to incorporate participation in
development programs, it is possible for those involved in the same effort to have

different ideas about the purpose and meaning of that participation. Nelson and Wright
(1995) note that,

Askew found five different objectives put forward for
community participation by actors in the same project... To
a donor agency, community participation might represent a
mechanism for increasing effectiveness and making the
input more organizationally sustainable; to project
management, it might indicate voluntary (cheap) labour; to
local women it might be the chance to have a voice for the
very first time. While these objectives do not conflict, they
do not completely coincide either.

Thus, participation in development activities is contested both in terms of its purposes

and the types of activities that constitute 'true participation.‘

CONTESTED ISSUES:
DEVELOPMENT, PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY

While there has been increasing focus on community participation in
development, there is little consensus on what that means, both in terms of how
‘community’ should be defined and how involved it must be in order to constitute
‘participation’. Both 'community‘ and ‘participation' are often considered “inherently”

good, as is ‘development' for that matter (The Lumpen Society, 1997). A great deal of

25

 

 

 

 

literature explo:
may be conside
and Barington
words are thos'
conesponding
reference to de
characteristics
respective fiel
participation.
While
debates over .
personal noti.
Barber‘s (l9!
“comrnunjty'
the collective
0n such a \‘is
Participation
members lee

mleICSlS 3m

19971.

 

literature explores the contested definitions of each of these concepts. Thus, the terms
may be considered 'plastic' as they are used in the current debates. As Miller, Garsize
and Bavington, writing collectively as “The Lumpen Society" (1997) explain, "Plastic
words are those concepts which have many connotations but which do not have
corresponding denotations; that is, they do not point to anything 'real."’ Thus, in
reference to development, participation and community, debates regarding the ‘defining’
characteristics of the phenomena to which the terms might refer have dominated their
respective fields. While we may long for community, strive for development and demand
participation, none of these terms are yet well defined or clearly understood.

While eluding definition, each evokes a sense of being what is good, and the
debates over competing definitions often center on the researchers’ philosophical or
personal notions of what that might be (Table 2). For example, Roelofs’ (1998) and
Barber’s (1984) definitions of participatory democracy imply a common understanding of
“community” as a collective of citizens voluntarily contributing to a common vision for
the collective good and “participation” as engagement in dialog through which consensus
on such a vision emerges. This definition simplifies the debates around community and
participation and implies a homogeneity of values and power among community
members leading to the expectation that they share a common notion of the community's
interests and can be expected to work collectively to achieve them (The Lumpen Society,
1997)

Similarly, in the case of competing theories of development, those subscribing to
modernization theory may consider integration into the global economy the ultimate good

for any society and, thus, strive toward that goal through technocratic ‘development’

26

 

 

tier?"—

l

f.-

} Development
l
l
l
Participation

Community

 

 

R

Table 2: The
Programs. For
global class sy
material demm
the goat ofdei'
integration anc‘

‘develOpmem‘

Mo(ll’l'lllltttio

As the
Stitles has bee:
technical €th

Slntilar (sumo:

 

 

Term Contested Overview of debate and its
ehgacterisn'es relationship to the current study
Development modernization or Striving to achieve integrated, capitalist

mass-consumption economy through large-

sustainable self- scale meta-development projects or focused

reliance on development of skills and resources
necessary for self-reliance and to achieve
locally defined goals and visions.

Participation functional or In service to goals of professional, agency,

or government; e.g. improved efficiency, cost—

transfonnational effectiveness, reduced labor and resistance.
OR challenging the existing power structure
and working in service to needs, interests
and vision of participants.

Community location, Definition of community based on

propinquity, belongingness, identity,

relation, and/or function. Debates about the existence
and character of urban communities and

institution implications for response to urbanization and
work in urban settings. j

 

 

 

Table 2: The Plastic Terminology of Participatory Development and Central Concepts and Debates

 

programs. For dependency theorists, however, modernization generates an exploitative
global class system transforming Southern nations into pools of cheap labor to meet the
material demands of the Northern economic elite (So, 1990). Instead, for these authors,
the goal of development should be maximized self-reliance and independence. Economic

integration and the associated loss of self-sufficiency are lamentable and not

‘development’ at all.

Modernization and Urban Development in the United States

As the prototype for modernization-driven development, the process in the United
States has been characterized by large-scale projects implemented under the direction of
technical experts with little participation among those most directly affected, often with
similar outcomes. Urban planning and environmental and natural resource management

27

 

 

 

practices in the
similar to those
Development r
residents are e:
management a
development i
problems. \hl
generated trer
region. at the
economic dec
was strongly
also reveals t
booming eco
independenc.
process. rev:
nature and {p
local 66011011

 

practices in the US. can be particularly technocratic often justified with explanations
similar to those described by Banefield (1967, cited in Bell and Newby, 1971).
Development practitioners and natural resource professionals may presume that urban
residents are especially unprepared to participate in natural resource and environmental
management activities (Cole, 1998). However, modernization driven approaches to
development in these settings have contributed to a host of commonly identified urban
problems. While industrialization, urbanization and more recently suburbanization have
generated tremendous economic growth assessed at the national or even metropolitan
region, at the same time these processes have contributed to the abandonment and
economic decline of urban centers. The history and development of Detroit, for example,
was strongly influenced by these processes. However, closer examination of the City
also reveals the efforts of local residents to reclaim their city in efforts to replace its once-
booming economic system with one based on mutual reliance and economic
independence. This represents a reversal of the theoretically linear modernization
process, revealing the possibility that the development process may instead be cyclical in
nature and that supporting these community organizations in their efforts to reclaim the
local economy and to determine their own development path will be necessary in future

efforts to meet the needs of urban residents.

Participation in Urban Community Development
Although Harrison wrote about the importance of community participation in
urban planning as early as 1925, formal inclusion of that involvement has been

uncommon. As illustrated by the observations of Alexander de Toqueville, community

28

 

 

 

 

development di
sentiment (Phil
ineffective in C
nation’s first a
responsiveness
communities.
Model Cities 1
Fourteen mon
pressure. Al'tl
capacity. the 1
Planning prof
Model Cities
“citizen parti
funding. Ho
r6(illirement
l0 binding ir.
Fear. 1985),
Mon
Fecleral Em]
to memo”
“moment
labor and e]

 

 

development during the early history of the United States was unresponsive to local
sentiment (Phifer, List, & Faulkner, 1980) and legislative solutions have proven
ineffective in changing that situation. For instance, the Model Cities program, one of the
nation’s first and largest “urban revitalization” efforts, was critiqued for its lack of
responsiveness to local concerns and failure to ensure long-term investment in targeted
communities. Amstein (1969) documented that only one of the 75 Federally supported
Model Cities program plans initially included true citizen participation in the planning.
Fourteen more added citizen participation components in response to community
pressure. Although the stated purpose of the Model Cities legislation was to build local
capacity, the balance of the programs remained entirely in the hands of service and
planning professionals. In part as a result of protests to the lack of public involvement in
Model Cities programming, the Community Development Act (CDA) of 1974, mandated
“citizen participation” in the design of public policy in all programs receiving federal
funding. However, due to the lack of formal definitions in the legislation, the
requirement could be met by activities ranging from putting notices in local newspapers
to binding involvement throughout planning and implementation processes (Booth &
Fear, 1985).

More recent federal legislation aimed at revitalizing urban centers, such as the
Federal Empowerment Zone (EZ) and Enterprise Community (BC) programs, have failed
to incorporate the lessons of the experiment with Model Cities. Among other
components, these programs provide federal tax incentives and exemptions from certain
labor and environmental regulations to corporate participants in exchange for locating

facilities one of the targeted communities. However, several authors have observed that

29

 

the use of such
seldom gener at
England upon ‘

Moody (1996 t

These failures

 

(Johnson. Par
decision malt
community a
Sauicki & h!
legislation. p
llh’olvemem
Simi
l\Itterican C
lesnmonp.‘
Pallltipams
Palllcipafio
Slll‘Sltlies ct
desllite the

some mem

 

 

the use of such incentives to foster external investment in inner—city development has
seldom generated the intended benefits for local residents. Reviewing the programs in
England upon which the US. Empowerment Zone initiatives were based, Sawicki &

Moody (1996) observe,

First, there are questions about whether the incentives

actually are successful in attracting jobs to poor areas.

Second, there is substantial evidence that when there are

net new jobs to the enterprise area, they are simply jobs

being transferred from other poor areas. And finally, the

jobs that do get created do not usually go to poor residents

of the zone.
These failures have been attributed to the lack of investment in local entrepreneurship
(Johnson, Farrell & Henderson, 1996) and minimal involvement of local citizens in
decision making processes which would ensure those businesses locating within the
community are supported by and provide benefits to local residents (Naples, 1998;
Sawicki & Moody, 1996; Glover, 1993). Although citizen participation is required by the
legislation, public input is seldom legally binding and the levels of community
involvement are quite uneven across settings and programs.

Similar programming is currently being considered in the form of the proposed
American Community Renewal Act (Federal Document Clearing House Congressional
Testimony, 1998). The Act would effectively extend the incentives for corporate
participants in the federal EZ programs indefinitely with no new provisions for local
participation or control. However, given that the need for such permanent federal
subsidies contributed to the eventual dismantling of the Model Cities programs which,

despite their shortfalls discussed above, did attempt to support local entrepreneurship,

some members of the House Committee on Small Business have questioned this

30

 

 

 

approach (fade
sponsors cont:
experience ma
legislation is 6
development c
utilized a fluid
economic ben
The fa
solely charact
also used the
from sharing
lWandersma
temforced ra
hrpnsing or
“llh influenr
1995). Resc
exclusively-
delllment or
MacDonald
urban leSldt
Conn'lhute r

The

0n the ph“

 

approach (Federal Document Clearing House, 1998). They have further objected to the
sponsors' contentions that it is more efficient to invest in those who already have
experience managing large sums of money on the grounds that the purpose of the
legislation is community recovery and that the federal investment should be in facilitating
development of those skills among local residents. Federal programming has thus
utilized a fluid definition of ‘participation,' ofien denying residents binding input or direct
economic benefit.

The failure to ensure binding public input or direct economic benefits has not
solely characterized Federal development programs. Some municipal governments have
also used the broadest interpretation of the term participation, excluding some residents
from sharing decision making power over policies which will be central in their own lives
(Wandersman, 1981; Arnstein, 1969). Highway and transportation systems which
reinforced racial segregation by connecting suburbs to central business districts,
bypassing or bisecting city neighborhoods were, for example, widely supported by those
with influence over governmental institutions (Zearfoss, 1998; Motavalli, 1997; Benfield,
1995). Resources earmarked for transportation in general were channeled almost
exclusively to massive highway construction programs to the immediate and lasting
detriment of the development of public transportation (Motavalli, 1997; Walters, 1995;
MacDonald, 1994), despite strong support for public transportation development among
urban residents and economists who felt that efficient public transportation could
contribute more effectively to local economic development (Voith, 1994).

There is a great deal of evidence that the highways have had tremendous impact

on the physical and economic health of urban communities (6. g. Kromm, 1998; Benfield,

31

 

 

1995). Y et. f6“
African Ameri
have successft
In one recent c
community in
reasonable eff
earlier in the ]
Neighborhoor
Following [ht
standardized
concentrated
targeted tow;
although lllef
maintenance
US. citi es.
Alth
federally su‘
Comlhunitie
OllO‘V inco:
immam

 

1995). Yet, few court cases seeking to challenge the policies, which consistently impact
Afiican American communities more directly than predominantly white communities,
have successfully met the legal burden of proving that the discrimination was intentional.
In one recent case, the Court found that, while the agencies did not actively seek
community input as required by federal highway fiinding policy, the residents “with
reasonable effort” should have been aware that they were targeted for such development
earlier in the process and, on those grounds, refused to hear the case [Jersey Heights
Neighborhood Association v. Parris Glendening (CIVIL ACTION NO S—97-3127)].
Following their construction, federal fimding available for such purposes should ensure
standardized maintenance. In fact, however, federal highway spending tends to be
concentrated in rural and suburban areas and new highway funding is specifically
targeted toward development of non—urban highway infrastructure (MacDonald, 1994),
although they receive less wear than do urban highways. The resulting lack of
maintenance of this now—crucial urban infrastructure has reached critical levels in many
US. cities.

Although intended to alleviate a critical need in many urban communities,
federally subsidized public housing programs have had similar impacts on low income
communities and communities of color in the urban United States. The chronic shortage
of low income housing (defined, at that time, as affordable to those with earnings in the
lowest at in the country) was recognized at the national level as early as 1917. However,
it was not until 1933 that the federal government took steps toward its alleviation through
establishment of the Home Owners Loan Corporation following the model of the 1916

F arm Loan Act. At that time a cycle of degrading housing stock was documented in

32

 

 

which the poor
the property b6
neighborhood '
multiple farnilj
leasing to low:
housing that n
then - manage
conditions uni
democracy re
the midi 94ft
trickle dorm
0011518111 CODE
gr oundwork '
Inferi
initially desj
needs and ex
housing hay.
Statement tl

housing cris

 

which the poor inherit housing fiom displaced industrial workers when they move on or
the property becomes too degraded to meet the expectations of skilled laborers. Once a
neighborhood begins this transition, single family homes are often converted into
multiple family apartments in order to make up for net rental income otherwise lost by
leasing to lower income renters. Through these processes many of the poor ended up in
housing that was both degraded and overcrowded. “The... result,” observed Olmstead,
then - manager of the Town Planning Division of the US. Housing Corporation, is “slum
conditions unfavorable to that self-respecting family life upon which the security of our
democracy rests” (Warner, 1995). Thus, prior to the widespread urban racial conflict of
the mid—19405 and 19608, frequently used to explain the phenomenon, the processes of
‘trickle down housing’ and degeneration in urban living conditions created through
constant construction for and relocation of the middle classes may have laid the
groundwork for urban sprawl.

Inferior public housing design and construction only exacerbated these problems.
Initially designed as temporary housing for skilled laborers, but failing to meet their
needs and expectations, problematic conditions in the design and maintenance of public
housing have been documented since its initial construction. As illustrated by Bauer’s
statement (1957, cited by Warner, 1995), such approaches to resolving the growing urban

housing crisis instead often contributed to the sense of urban social decay

Public housing projects tend to be very large and highly
standardized in their design. Visually, they may be no
more monotonous than a typical suburban tract, but their
density makes them seem much more institutional, like
veterans’ hospitals or old-fashioned orphan asylums. The
fact that they are usually designed as Islands- ‘community
units’ turning their back to the surrounding neighborhood
which looks entirely different- only adds to this

33

 

 

 

 

Thus. these de
and sense of c
lndeec'
demolition on
Other critical 1
rise and singl
planning proc
rental units it
Analyzing CL‘
that existing
"munderfunc'
a(llttirristratic
homing crisi
0f public pa]
llllSlllllllona'
fad Shell th

altogeihcr (l

[Than ]

Whitfield:

 

 

institutional quality. Any charity stigma that attaches to

subsidized housing is thus reinforced. Each project

proclaims, visually, that it serves the ‘lowest income

group.’
Thus, these developments are seen as antithetical to an integrated neighborhood identity
and sense of community.

Indeed, a number of the largest housing projects have recently been slated for
demolition on these grounds, which are believed to contribute to high crime rates and
other critical problems. These projects are being replaced by rent subsidies and new low-
rise and single family developments, though several authors question the adequacy of the
planning process for the conversion between the systems given the shortage of existing
rental units in the affected areas (Lytle, 1998; Ryan, 1998; Chicago Tribune, 1997).
Analyzing current federal housing policy and programming, Warner (1995) concluded
that existing housing needs could be met with existing resources, but that
“...underfunding, narrowly circumscribed and antisocial goals, and plain bad
administration have prevented this set of tools from relieving our metropolitan-wide
housing crisis.” Among the bases for this failure, he cites racial segregation and the lack
of public participation in design. Thus, this effort to remove the stigma of residence in
‘institutional’ public housing by integrating residents into the broader community may in
fact swell the ranks of the homeless, or force these residents out of their communities

altogether (Lytle, 1998; Ryan, 1998; Chicago Tribune, 1997).

Urban Environmental Policy and Planning
Many of these housing projects are in the same neighborhoods targeted for

brownfields “redevelopment.” The widespread governmental support for the Brownfield

34

 

 

 

 

Remediation a
the Comprehe
(‘CERCLA alt
and environrn
polluters foun
Act’s standan
urban brovmf
Environment
redevelopmer
development
pollutants are
lmInuni'ty frc
conclusively
Whil

highly pollu'
documented
goals. The i
Other less-p(
l'alues arr-en
and Only as
apically-210.
Parallelingr

 

 

Remediation and Environmental Cleanup Act of 1997 in the wake of calls for reform to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA, aka “Superfund,) is illustrative of the host of policy—related social, economic
and environmental concerns these communities face. CERCLA’s high penalties for
polluters found liable for toxic contamination, coupled with the high costs of meeting the
Act’s standards for environmental clean-up have been blamed for the abandonment of
urban brownfield sites and resulting urban sprawl. The Brownfield Remediation and
Environmental Cleanup Act, conversely, limits liability in hopes of stimulating economic
redevelopment (Kibel, 1998; Volokh, 1998). Through this convergence of urban
development and environmental policy, urban lands contaminated with industrial
pollutants are subject to moderated federal environmental Clean-up standards and owner
immunity fiom liability if the parties responsible for the initial contamination cannot be
conclusively determined (Buente & Crough, 1998; Vig & Kraft, 1996).

While the purpose of the legislation is facilitation of economic development in
highly polluted and economically decimated urban communities, Bullard (1990)
documented that the outcomes of such approaches are often contrary to those stated
goals. The introduction or presence of a toxic or hazardous facility tends to discourage
other less-polluting facilities from locating in the same area, even with the lower land
values attending such development. Furthermore, the facilities tend to produce few jobs
and only a small percentage of those tend to go to local residents. Those that do are
typically low-wage and do not generally allow much opportunity for advancement,
paralleling the failure of the Federal Empowerment Zones to provide benefits for local

residents (Sawicki & Moody, 1995). Thus, while the policy will provide federal consent

35

 

 

 

 

for aliasing p
exposed to inc
unlikely to de
period has be:
identifying p2
perspectives (
demographic:
communities
while recipie
siting a facili
April. 1998 t.

donn techno

Man

Man:
allproaeh. A
had increase
rate of incre-
M Dent. .
“will land.
have a Sign
sigm‘fmmt i

“huts. ,

 

 

 

for allowing predominantly low income urban communities of color to be perpetually
exposed to industrial wastes as incentive for ‘economic development,’ residents are
unlikely to derive much benefit in the process. While an extensive public commentary
period has been part of the policy development process, conventional means for
identifying participants were followed. Thus, for example, policy makers sought the
perspectives of the large mainstream Washington, D.C.-based environmental groups, the
demographics of which have been documented by Taylor (1990), while few residents of
communities likely to be affected by the new policy have been included. Furthermore,
while recipients are ‘encouraged to develop mechanisms for public participation’ before
siting a facility, there are no requirements in the policy that they do so (Federal Register,
April, 1998). The Brownfields initiative thus reflects the continued dominance of t0p-

down technocratic approaches in urban environmental planning.

Management of the Urban Forest

Management of the urban forest has followed a similarly professional-driven
approach. According to the 1987 National Resources Inventory (NR1), urban forest cover
had increased to 50.3 million acres from 46.6 million acres since 1982. Based on that
rate of increase, estimates of urban forest cover in 1989 ranged from 55-69 million acres
(U .8. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1989) or nearly thirty percent of
urban land. Any land use representing such a large portion of the urban environment will
have a significant impact on the lives of urban residents. Similarly, urban dwellers have
significant impact on urban trees. Yet, residents in densely populated urban communities

in the US. seldom have a voice in natural resource decision making that will effect them.

36

 

 

 

 

 

Despite the di
forest has twl
Urban
planting, heal
million street
been responsi
community g
tree care and
municipalitie
range of kno‘
international
or skills to p;
interest in la
conviction It
forestry prog
actitiry is of
Sunive. Ho
human dime
heed: 0f nor
inc(“pointer
“beds. 3Ctiv
llllpongm tr

at a an:

 

 

Despite the direct relationship between the urban human and tree communities, the urban
forest has typically remained in the hands of professionals.

Urban forestry professionals have conventionally been responsible for the
planting, health and maintenance of the urban forest. This includes approximately 60
million street trees as well as those in parks and on other municipal lands. They have
been responsible for identifying areas where trees are needed and for organizing
community groups to assist them in tree planting. They have been strong advocates for
tree care and maintenance, especially in difficult financial times when cities and
municipalities were cutting back on urban forestry activities (Kielbaso, 1990). Given this
range of knowledge and activities, forestry professionals in both domestic and
international agencies may assume that community residents do not have the knowledge
or skills to participate in forestry management and planning activities and have little
interest in learning them (Cemeal, 1985; Soerianegara, 1994; Messerschmidt, 1993). This
conviction may result in technocratic, rather than democratic, decision making in urban
forestry programs (McDonough, Vachta, Funkhouser & Geiche, 1994). Hence, human
activity is often blamed when trees planted on "ideal" urban sites are damaged or do not
survive. However, planting "the right tree in the right place" includes considering the
human dimensions of the place as well as biophysical conditions or the behaviors and
needs of non-human species. If the active participation of local residents was
incorporated in the planning stages, decisions could be made with foreknowledge of the
needs, activities and preferences of people in the area. Such information may be as
important to tree health and survival as soil acidity or precipitation. As a result of using

only a fraction of the available information, few programs generate the full range of

37

 

 

 

 

potential bone
with local con
Forth:
unaware of th
that most pro:
surrounding t
McDonough
in biological
development
are already a
1985). Many
uill face vb:
till demand
Given the ra:
the use of ma
from fOTCSU':
honing ex;
Follc

local Culture
exlllosive cc
301% foresu
Change in d.

Stiles ha\'e

 

potential benefits that could be derived if they were designed and managed in partnership
with local communities (Davis-Case, 1989; Cemeal, 1985).

Furthermore, while the professionals may be correct that many urban residents are
unaware of the full range of benefits potentially provided by urban trees, it is also true
that most professionals are unaware of the full range of cultural and personal values
surrounding trees in human communities (Cole, 1998; McDonough, et al, 1994;
McDonough, 1992). Instead, natural resource managers who are given extensive training
in biological and technical concerns, but little background in the social sciences or the
development of multidisciplinary workgroups may leave their programs believing they
are already armed with the tools of their trade: that they have the answers (Cemea‘,
1985). Many of these new professionals are unprepared for the diversity of values they
will face when applying their skills and the determination with which some local citizens
will demand a voice in the decisions they make (Lovelace, 1984; McDonough, 1992).
Given the range of cultural and personal values surrounding nature, the environment and
the use of natural resources and the potential benefits and problems which can be derived
from forestry projects (McDonough, 1992), no single professional can be an expert in
knowing exactly what solution is most appropriate for every setting and situation.

Following the failure of some natural resource programs to adequately address the
local cultures for which they were developed (e. g. Knowlton, 1976) and the sometimes
explosive conflicts over logging in the Pacific Northwest among other resource conflicts,
some forestry professionals in the United States have begun to recognize the need for
change in decision making processes, though their success has varied greatly. Many

states have responded by providing additional public hearings, longer response periods

38

 

 

 

and utilizing "
reduce some t
opportunity it
to the entire d
states such as
legal challeng
strategies ens
vandalism of
and govemm
potential ben
As th
increasingly
Similarly beg
lncorporatio
developmm
derived. incl
of “than cor
Flaming prt
aneIfined u
the late 198
the ell‘flim

Ya the Us

 

 

 

and utilizing "more of the same" public involvement strategies. This approach may
reduce some conflict about decisions or allow managers the defense of having provided
opportunity for feedback. However, if they are not implemented in a manner accessible
to the entire diversity of the citizenry, true opportunity has not been provided. Other
states such as Michigan have responded by eliminating public response or the option of
legal challenge to management planning decisions (Engler, J ., 1993). Although these
strategies ensure that the biophysical goals of the managers are met, they may lead to
vandalism of the resulting projects or further breakdown the relationship between citizens

and governmental agencies and are, in any case, unlikely to realize the full range of

 

potential benefits.

As the impact of trees on the health and vitality of urban communities becomes
increasingly apparent, however, management of the urban forest in the United States is
similarly beginning to reflect the shift toward increasing community participation.
Incorporation of participation by people who are directly affected into the planning and
development of urban forestry programs may allow a wider range of benefits to be
derived, including meeting some of the economic and social needs identified by residents
of urban communities. However, early efforts at incorporating public input in forest
planning proved to be quite a challenge. For instance, when the USDA Forest Service
attempted to integrate participatory dimensions into the urban forest planning process in

the late 1980s, all 93 of the supposedly “cooperatively designed” plans that emerged from
the experimental approach were appealed by local community groups (McLarney, 1989).

Yet, the USPS Urban and Community Forestry F ive—Year Plan (1992) recognizes that;

Urban forestry is the planning for and management of a
community's forest resources to enhance the quality of life.

39

 

 

 

 

Comn
management
farmers, ranef
professionals
water system
human dema
partnerships
urban forest
management
Experts in th.
certaimy has
professional
addressed. tl
model of the
definition 01
PerSPGCIiVe

00mm“,
t1994l‘ lher

 

 

[urban forestry] integrates the economic, environmental,
political and social values of the community to develop a
comprehensive management plan for the urban forest.

Community involvement is, therefore, part of the multidisciplinary ecosystem
management of urban forestry. Just as a rural forester must form partnerships with
farmers, ranchers, environmentalists and other natural resource management
professionals to develop a comprehensive understanding of the weather patterns, soils,
water systems, and plant and animal communities that are part of the rural forest and the
human demands on the rural system, it is important for the urban forester to form
partnerships with community residents in order to understand the cultures and values of
urban forest communities. While the forester or arborculturist is an expert in tree
management and the impact of urban conditions on particular tree species, residents are
experts in the values and culture of their community. Thus, while the professional
certainly has a role in developing the project and providing the technical assistance and
professional expertise necessary to ensure that the community's goals are successfully
addressed, the process must incorporate the values and priorities of local residents. This
model of the community-forestry partnership is consistent with Arnstein’s (1969)
definition of the minimal degree of citizen control constituting true participation. This
perspective has been formally acknowledged at the highest levels of urban and
community forestry policy making in this country. According to Frederick J. Deneke
(1994), then-Director of the United States Forest Service State and Private Forestry

Program, Urban and Community Forestry Project,

...the federal role is one of facilitative leadership... vesting
leadership in urban and community forestry with the people
who live and work in our cities and communities. It is not
about forcing urban forestry management on a community.

40

 

 

 

 

Despi
however, the:
ranging from
community-c
bpieally ref:
professionals
labeled "inn
policy or prc
these two ex
relied on by
Community j
plantings. 31
by mail or u
and may be

some Segme
POlitiCiang 6
issue as M
or ‘0 35k cl:
Proiide the

personoel.

 

 

People who view themselves as part of the urban forest and
who are actively involved in its restoration and care
develop a sense of empowerment that translates into
socially, culturally and economically stronger cities,
communities and neighborhoods.

Despite the recognition of the importance and promise of participatory methods,
however, there are many definitions of participation in natural resource management
ranging from bureaucratically controlled public involvement through highly participatory
community-driven approaches. In forestry, for example, "public participation" has
typically referred to public involvement. In this context, any activity through which non-
professionals contribute thoughts or effort to a forest management agency or program are
labeled "involvement," whether or not those contributions are eventually reflected in
policy or program design. Most programs fall somewhere along a continuum between
these two extremes (Figure 1). Among the involvement strategies most commonly
relied on by public foresters in the United States in order of increasing opportunities for
community participation are; policy announcements, public hearings, community tree
plantings, and information mining. Policy announcements, sometimes inviting response
by mail or telephone, are often required for programs utilizing state or federal funding
and may be made in local newspapers where they are not likely to be seen by members of
some segments of the population. At public hearings, citizens listen to professionals or
politicians explain their plans as envisioned by professionals to address a problem or
issue as defined by those professionals; followed, perhaps, by an opportunity to respond
or to ask clarifying questions. Local residents participating in community tree plantings
provide the labor necessary to implement a project typically designed by agency

personnel. Finally, information mining is the practice of extracting knowledge, interests

41

 

/

, .,-
551.

Cruenllas'
local
:onunuun
gardeners

"bonus—u; ‘
i comma
taunted

protessronai

unnroh ed.

Figure 1: Cont
t; Geiche. 199:

or attitudes f
response to t
strategies on
technocratic
their prefere
“ill or will 1
Citizen-innit
Amstem. 19
Others leg.
Professiom]
and resourc.
Dfi'tlopme
PTOfeggima
‘0 {013‘ then

“Ming p

 

 

 

 

"Green Many cooperative Social forestry Many Most
Guen'llas" extension programs, "community“ municipal
local programs and Participatory Rural tree-planting forestry
community "hot-lines" Appraisal (PRA), programs programs
gardeners Collective Reflection

7--l l l l l --------- A
"bottom-up" consultants community-driven "sharecropping" "top-down"
(community (professional Partnerships programs using (professional
initiated, response only (professional or community labor imposed on
professional upon community community initiated, (professional community)
uninvolved) request) shared decision-making) initiated and driven)

 

 

Figure 1: Continuum of Participation in Natural Resource Management (McDonough, Vachta, Funkhouser
& Geiche, 1994)

or attitudes from residents without providing reciprocal services or ensuring any official
response to the concerns raised by respondents (McDonough, et al, 1994). While these
strategies can provide increased opportunities for citizen input, they allow continued
technocratic control of decision-making processes. Communities are "allowed“ to voice
their preferences and concerns, but the professionals retain the power to determine what
will or will not be done in the final analysis. At the opposite end of the spectrum are
citizen-initiated approaches. For many theorists of participation (6. g. Wandersman, 1981;
Arnstein, 1969) such approaches constitute the archetype of participatory development.
Others (e. g. McDonough et al, 1994), however, note the concern that relegating
professionals to solely responding to citizen—initiated efforts denies access to information
and resources to those communities not already informed of the available opportunities.
Development initiatives where expertise and control reside solely with either the
professional or community participants and flow one way, from top to bottom or bottom
to top, therefore often fail to address the fiill range of potential concerns. Indeed,

according to mobilization of support theory, participation within the existing political

42

 

 

 

system “incre
legitimacy of
functioning ir
participating i
the process it
democratic p:

achievement

Form
driven by mt
United State
hpically ch;
improving c.
and market t
scale and tet
knowledge (
“lth little or
attention git
renews 01“
item the pe
the ‘fimcilm

pTOfCSSiOIla

 

system “increases acquiescence to government authority and promotes a sense of
legitimacy of the political system” (F inkel, 1984) whether or not that system is
functioning in one’s own interests. Blake (1998) therefore hypothesized that citizens
participating in change and exercising some control over the pace and costs they incur in
the process would be less resistant to reforms. Thus, by failing to incorporate a focus on
democratic process, these efforts may be undermining their potential success in terms of

achievement of both conventional development objectives and popular support.

SUMMARY

Formal development thought conventionally flows from North to South and is
driven by modernization theory which holds the development paths of Europe and the
United States to be the theoretical ideal. The development practice which follows is
typically characterized by centrally planned highly technical solutions aimed at
improving conditions for economic competition in keeping with the liberal democratic
and market capitalist philosophical roots of modernization. Due to their often immense
scale and technical sophistication, as well as the faith in positivistic and empirical
knowledge over indigenous expertise, these efforts are typically driven by professionals
with little or no participation among local residents. However, there has been increasing
attention given to citizen participation in the planning process. As illustrated by several
reviews of participation in practice, ‘participation’ has conventionally been construed
from the perspective of professionals (Lane, 1997) in what Nelson and Wright (1995) call
the 'functional' sense. That is, participation has been sought in order to achieve the

professionally-determined goals of a program more efficiently, cost effectively or with

43

 

decreased res:
create the apt
empowered ('
The e
United States
technologica'
and rapid dep
suburbanizat
associated w
transportatio
urban develc
Recovery Ar
10 the sense
CorIlInunitie:
Pemetuate e
elm“fonmen‘
effects. Illeil
Professiona]

the Planning

 

 

 

decreased resistance from local citizens (Chambers, 1995). While these approaches may
create the appearance of democratic process, ‘participants’ may feel more co-opted than
empowered (Wright & Nelson, 1995).

The effects of these approaches for the history and evolution of cities in the
United States has been dramatic. While industrialization generated great economic and
technological success, urban centers have experienced disinvestment, deindustrialization
and rapid depopulation as the processes continued through urbanization and
suburbanization. These impacts were greatly facilitated by the large-scale infiastructure
associated with modernization, such as the federal highway system which made rapid
transportation of commercial goods and relocation of industrial workers feasible. Other
urban development efforts such as the Model Cities programs, the American Community
Recovery Act and Federally-funded public housing have generated conditions antithetical
to the sense of collective identity and mutual reliance that help to define healthy
communities. Instead, urban development policy has relied on programs which
perpetuate economic decline and exposure to environmental health threats. While urban
environmental policy and resources could be designed help to ameliorate some of these
effects, their management has been carried out in a similarly technocratic manner with
professionals establishing the agenda rather than integrating local needs and values into

the planning process.

44

 

 

 

N

 

 

CHAPTER 3

THE CURRENT CASE:
MODERNIZATION IN THE "ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY"

 

45

 

 

Once t
technological
evolution of l
forces descril
highly refleC‘
economic int
ensuing proc
linearity cen
efforts of Dr
evidence of

scale econor

A Brief Hi:
Den
COmnterce.
sen-ted as a
northern f0
exl33IlSi0n
i“ C“Item

1.5 millior

mm of

 

 

Once dubbed "The Arsenal of Democracy" as host of some of the world's most
technologically advanced industrial and defense manufacturing plants, the history and
evolution of Detroit epitomizes the functioning of the economic, social and political
forces described in the previous chapter. Like most Northern cities, its development was
highly reflective of Modernization theory; the processes of industrialization and
economic integration epitomized those hypothesized by that model. However, the
ensuing processes of deindustrialization and economic decline belie the presumed
linearity central to modernization theory and development efforts guided by it. The

efforts of Detroit citizens toward reclaiming their city serves as especially compelling
evidence of the need for and promise of alternatives to the continued reliance on large-

scale economically-focused development interventions.

 

THE SETTING: DETROIT
A Brief History
Detroit was first settled by French traders and served as a center for trade and
commerce. The waterfront site provided access to transportation routes for export and
served as a departure point for expeditions further north into Canada and west across the
northern forests. While Detroit grew steadily through the earlier years, its major
expansion took place during the "boon" of industrialization during which the city grew to
its current size of 132 square miles, while the population reached a high of approximately
1.5 million.
As in most Northern cities, industrialization was followed by the advent and

growth of suburbanization in the period between 1940 and 1960 (Darden, Child Hill,

46

 

 

Thomas & TI
from the Soul
in an increase
Detroit was a
City's status ;
by Massey at
of all metrop
include: um
geographic a
racial or cu]1
Very few reg
around the 1
areas. On a
“hllJBTSCgre
hypersegrey
In I
economical
uniomzed 1
company‘s
in antomat
Round De
increasing

Rouge“ ac

 

 

 

Thomas & Thomas, 1987.) During WWII and the post-war industrial boom, immigration

from the South in pursuit of factory jobs coupled with white suburban migration resulted
in an increase in the concentration of Blacks within the City from 9.2% to 63.1%. Yet,
Detroit was among the last cities in this country to prohibit segregation, leading to the
City's status as one of the most racially segregated cities in the country. As documented
by Massey and Denton (1993), the City continues to be among the most hypersegregated
of all metropolitan areas in the nation along all five of their identified dimensions. These
include: unevenness which is a measure of the distribution of a population across the
geographic area; isolation of predominantly black neighborhoods from those of other
racial or cultural groups; clustering of predominantly black neighborhoods in one or a
very few regions within the metropolitan area; centralization of those neighborhoods
around the urban core; and dense concentration of African Americans within very small
areas. On all five dimensions, Detroit’s segregation index was well above the
“hypersegregation cutpoint” and often well above those of the other fifteen identified
hypersegregated regions (Massey and Denton, 1993).

In Detroit, these processes were greatly facilitated by decisions made by the
economically dominant auto industry. For example, in an effort to reduce the power of
unionized labor in the Detroit plants, Ford targeted the Rouge River plant, both the
company’s and the City's largest employer of Black workers, for its largest investments
in automation in 1950, cutting 3000 jobs. Construction of the highway system in and
around Detroit in the late 19505 (Boggs, 1998) greatly facilitated these efforts. With the

increasing ease of transport, the corporation was able to distribute operations from “the

Rouge” across other facilities, many of which were relocated to suburban and rural areas,

47

 

 

to ensure [1131
rates during 1
workers in ll
approximate]
this process.
area by the
in the suburl
white worke
facilities by
economic or
covenants w
1996; Dardr
Des]
corporation
General Mc
OfDetroit.
Auto Work
comma-0
Wound
SChools ant
intcgmgd .
“idfiprear

Pmmism (

 

 

 

to ensure that workers in any given plant would have limited power to impact production
rates during times of conflict. Over time, the plant dropped from a high of 85,000
workers in 1945 to 30,000 in 1960 (Sugrue, 1996). The plant currently employs
approximately 7,000 workers (Detroit Free Press On—Line, 1999). Ford was not alone in
this process. While twenty five new plants were constructed in the Detroit metropolitan
area by the “Big 3" automobile manufacturers between 1947 and 1958, all were located
in the suburbs, most more than fifteen miles from the city center (Sugrue, 1996). While
white workers migrated to the suburbs in pursuit of jobs or were relocated to other
facilities by the companies, African Americans were often lefi behind with little
economic opportunity due, at least in part, to the practices of redlining and restrictive
covenants which limited the opportunities for Black migration across the North (Sugrue,
1996; Darden, Child Hill, Thomas & Thomas, 1987; Vose, 1967).

Despite this history, the City has continued to rely on the same approaches and
corporations for its ongoing economic development efforts. In 1980, for example,
General Motors proposed building one of the largest new Cadillac plants within the city
of Detroit. Desperate for new jobs and economic opportunity within the City, the United
Auto Workers joined Mayor Colman Young in strongly supporting the plant‘s
construction. In return for the company's investment in Detroit, the city took
responsibility for clearing the "1,500 houses, 144 businesses, sixteen churches, two
schools and a hospital" (Boggs, 1998) that made up the Poletown neighborhood, an
integrated community of African Americans and Eastern European immigrants, over the

widespread resistance among community residents. However, notwithstanding early

promises of up to 6,000 jobs, the highly automated plant employed only 2,500 workers

48

 

 

when it open:
as recently as
workers (Hig
lensi
with the histt
the City‘s ex1
Among their
patronized p
311,000 resi
Child Hill. 1
an additions
then-Mayor
clear the "v:
“CW 12 ho
Empowerm
more than (
aWage lot
alJpPOXimat
land area
recent]? Iis
Endgttary
V3931“ lots

lderm'f}s s“

 

 

 

when it opened in 1984. While the two plants it replaced "had employed 15,000 people
as recently as 1979," the Poletown plant has never employed more than its current 4,000
workers (Higgins, 1995; Boggs, 1998).

Tensions fueled by such questionable economic development decisions, coupled
with the historical lack of interaction between racial groups resulting at least in part from
the City's extreme segregation, has had a variety of impacts on the City and its history.
Among them was the 1967 rebellion following a police raid on a popular nightclub
patronized primarily by Blacks. In the decade following the rebellion, the city lost
31 l,000 residents- primarily through continued "white flight" to the suburbs (Darden,
Child Hill, Thomas & Thomas, 1987) and that depopulation continues. With the loss of
an additional 45,000 families between 1980 and 1990 (US. Bureau of the Census, 1990),
then-Mayor Coleman Young ordered a massive demolition program beginning in 1987 to
clear the "vacant and dangerous" buildings left behind. At that time, approximately 1 of
every 12 housing units in the city was classified as 'vacant or abandoned‘ (Detroit
Empowerment Zone Development Corporation, 1997). By 1991 , this program generated
more than 65,000 vacant lots throughout the city (Fitzgerald, 1991). Given that the
average lot in Detroit measures 110' by 70', those lots would, if contiguous, make up
approximately 26 square miles of vacant land which is about one fiflh of Detroit's entire
land area. With renewed efforts to clear abandoned homes, the number of vacant lots has
recently risen to approximately 73,000 (Anon, 1997) or almost 30 square miles of land.
Budgetary constraints often prevent the city from providing adequate maintenance of the
vacant lots which then become illegal waste dumps. Many Detroit neighborhood groups

identify such problems with the vacant as among the most important concerns in their

49

 

 

communities.
communities.

social concer

Social And 1
At rh
below the pc
populations
$18,740 (De
unemploym
Corporation
first at 33%
45% unemp
than that of
21.51000 llV
Ghana (at 2
(Ports. 199
Detroit has
States at 7:
African A]
Greenberg
Li-S- excel

doc“ment

 

communities. But the vacant lots may also present an opportunity for Detroit
communities, which have a long and rich history of organizing to confront economic and

social concerns.

Social And Economic Conditions

At the time of the 1990 recent census, 26% of the population of Detroit was living
below the poverty line. Thus, the City had the highest poverty rate of the 77 cities with
populations above 200,000 in the United States. The average family income in the city is
$18,740 (Detroit Empowerment Zone Development Corporation, 1997). While Detroit’s
unemployment rate is about 15% (Detroit Empowerment Zone Development
Corporation, 1997), unemployment among the City‘s African Americans was also ranked
first at 33% (US. Bureau of the Census, 1990), which more closely approximates the
45% unemployment rate of blacks in South Africa at the end of Apartheid (James, 1992)
than that of New York City at 10% (Johnson, 1997). Detroit's infant mortality rate of
21/ 1000 live births (U .8. Bureau of the Census, 1990), falls between that of Northern
Ghana (at 23.9/ 1000) (Ross, Kirkwood, Binka, & Arthur, 1995) and Chile (at 19.5/ 1000)
(Potts, 1990). Thus, the City epitomizes the concept of “the South in the North.” Finally,
Detroit has the highest concentration of African Americans in any city in the United
States at 75.7% (US. Bureau of the Census, 1990). While this, along with the history of
African American leadership in Detroit, is a source of tremendous pride within the city,
Greenberg (1990) notes that "the morbidity and mortality rates of black people in the
US. exceeds those of any other industrialized nation." Furthermore, Mason (1989)

documents that Black mortality in this country exceeds that of whites at every age even

50

 

 

though Black
in healthcare

in jeopardy.

A Tradition
Cem
Through it a
social justic
nadition is 1
Plain Deale
every sectic
conditions 1
badition of
Urban Lea;
migrating i
for later cc
\l-‘i
resPounce
and °P€rat
“13110 1111
Llulled Ne
Booker T

founded i

 

—__—e-——‘=-~=———W m==-~~v~—— ~~ w —

 

though Blacks only make up 12% of the nation‘s population. Thus, until these disparities
in healthcare and life chances are eliminated, the very survival of Detroit’s population is

in jeopardy.

A Tradition Of Local Organizing

Certainly, Detroit has faced tremendous political and economic challenges.
Through it all, Detroiters have responded with concerted efforts for local control and
social justice, in addition to the well-documented labor movements born in the City. This
tradition is especially strong in the African American community. As early as 1889 the
Plain Dealer was encouraging the young black men of Detroit to join "Afro-Americans in
every section of the country [in] forming leagues and societies in which are discussed the
conditions of their race, and methods for its betterment" (cited in Thomas, 1992). This
tradition of local organizing continued through early industrialization with the help of the
Urban League, among others, which located employment opportunities for Blacks
migrating in large numbers from the South. These early migrants created the foundations
for later community building efforts among Black residents in Detroit.

With the support of progressive local Black churches, residents of the city
responded to segregation by creating the ”self-help" movement, establishing black owned
and operated hospitals, insurance companies, credit unions and newspapers which were
vital to the growing social consciousness in Detroit. By 1912 the Detroit Chapter of the
United Negro Improvement Agency was established by Marcus Garvey followed by the
Booker T. Washington Trade Association and the Housewives League of Detroit, both

founded in 1930. In the late 1930's protest and conflict-oriented strategies came to the

51

 

fore and prov
was realized
throughout t1
Whil
economic op
Empowerme
of local orgt
and neighbc
organizatior
the city alor
Reclaiming
regenerate?
is a coalitic
create 3 ch:
Networkjn

 

fore and provided the seeds for building political power among blacks in Detroit which
was realized through the efforts of the NAACP and the strikes of black workers
throughout the 30‘s and 40's (Thomas, 1992).

While the City has attempted to address more recent concerns about the lack of
economic opportunity in the city by successfully applying for federally designated
Empowerment Zones, with varying degrees of acceptance by local residents, the heritage
of local organizing and self—help lives on in Detroit. In addition to a host of block clubs
and neighborhood associations and a large number of faith-based and community service
organizations, several regional and city-wide citizens' organizations struggle to rebuild
the city along a number of dimensions. Groups such as WE-PROS (WE the People
Reclaiming Our Streets) struggle to take neighborhoods back from drug dealers and
regenerate hope among local youth. In parallel, SOSAD (Save Our Sons and Daughters)
is a coalition of Detroit parents and supporters challenging youth Violence and working to
create a climate of support for the City's young people (Boggs, 1998). United Street
Networking and Planning: Building a Community (U-Snap-Bac) is a non-profit coalition
of community organizations on Detroit's East Side (Mast, 1994).

The efforts of these citizen-initiated efforts are supplemented by several
externally supported organizations. Groups such as the Neighborhood Service
Organization (NSO) a United Way Foundation-sponsored neighborhood organizing
agency, Northern Area Association (NAA) a similar organization sponsored by the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation, and the city-sponsored New Detroit provide organizing training and
resources to local residents. They help to train officers of community-based

organizations and teach the groups strategizing, leadership, and fundraising skills, and

52

 

 

how to establ
for tax exem]
Through thei
association (1
More
intersection
City. Detroi
movement c
color in this
exposure to
information
use the City
enlironmer
efforts at re
the Oppom
energies to
these tisio
rebuild re

Mississipr

 

how to establish 501c(3) (non-profit tax—exempt) status, though some critique the press
for tax exempt status which prevents the groups from taking positions in local elections.
Through their efforts, there are few areas of the city without a well-trained neighborhood
association (Mast, 1994).

More recently, a number of groups have evolved specifically to address the
intersection of environmental and natural resource concerns, and maldevelopment in the
City. Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice (DWEJ) is part of the national
movement challenging the concentration of environmental hazards in communities of
color in this country and the failure of existing legislation to address the inequities in
exposure to such risks. The Gardening Angels and the Detroit Farming Network serve as
information, training and resource exchanges among Detroit residents who have begun to
use the City's vacant land resources to feed their families and communities and to provide
environmental and health education. The Gardening Angels in particular direct their
efforts at rebuilding intergenerational relationships by providing senior urban gardeners
the opportunity to share their skills with Detroit youth who, in turn, contribute their
energies to the gardening projects. Finally, Detroit Summer expands on and consolidates
these visions by building “an intergenerational multicultural youth pro gram/movement to
rebuild, redefine and respirit Detroit from the ground up." The program is based on the
Mississippi Freedom Summer's model of raising awareness by bringing young people
from around the nation to "dramatize the idea that rebuilding our cities is at the heart of a
new movement that is emerging as we come to the end of the twentieth century" (Boggs,

1998). In discussing the need for such programs, Detroit Summer co-founder J immy

53

 

Boggsll986

rrgannrrtru

debate reg
CfifiqUesc
dentedf}
on 81110111;
Pfiaunun

 

 

 

 

Boggs (1986, cited in Boggs, 1998), a long term Chrysler autoworker and grassroots

organizer said,

To rebuild Detroit, we have to think of a new mode of
production based upon serving human needs and the needs
of community and not on any get-rich-quick schemes... If
we are going to create hope especially for our young
people, we are going to have to stop seeing the city as just a
place to which you come for a job or to make a living as
start seeing it as the place where the humanity of people is
enriched because they have the opportunity to live with
people of many different ethnic and social backgrounds...

We have to get rid of the myth that there is something
sacred about large-scale production for the national and
international market... We have to begin thinking of
creating small enterprises which produce food, goods and
services for the local market, that is for our communities
and our city. Instead of destroying the skills of workers,
which is what large-scale industry does, these small
enterprises will combine crafismanship, or the preservation
and enhancement of human skills with the new
technologies which make possible flexible production and
constant readjustment to serve the needs of local
customers. . .

In order to create these new enterprises we need a view of
our city which takes into consideration both the natural
resources of our area and the existing and potential skills
and talents of Detroiters. .. (cited in Boggs, 1998).

In his statement, placing Detroit's development squarely in the middle of the
debate regarding modernization theory, Mr. Boggs identified many of the same core
critiques of modernization raised in the literature including; the scale of interventions
derived from its theoretical tenets, its focus on rapid economic returns, the common focus
on automation and efficiency at the expense of workers and skill development, the

presumption that job creation is of higher priority than community development or local

social or environmental concerns, and its ultimate objective of facilitating integration into

54

 

 

the global ect
promising su
scale comma
objectives, 3
organization
interdependt
Resources 11
Forestry rep

redevelopm

Det
these cornn
Uniformly ;
Of Detroit.
Vacant lam
benefits. I
Organim‘.

C0“1111mm

1mcrest.

 

 

 

the global economy. However, within Mr. Boggs‘ comments are also a number of
promising suggestions for an alternative paradigm. Among them are: reliance on small
scale community-based efforts aimed specifically at addressing locally—identified
objectives, a focus on skill-building at the individual level and capacity- building at the
organizational/community level, and taking a holistic view of community life and of the
interdependence of development and environment within that context. The Urban
Resources Initiative (URI/MSU) program of Michigan State University's Department of
Forestry represents an attempt to apply such a community—driven approach to the

redevelopment of Detroit

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT IN DETROIT:
THE URI/MSU PROGRAM

Detroit is a collective of communities as much as a single urban entity. Each of
these communities is unique. "Top—down" approaches, where a single solution is applied
uniformly across the city, would not address the rich differences that make up the whole
of Detroit. Through URI/MSU, Detroit communities began to reclaim some of the City's
vacant land for use in forestry-based projects with economic, social and environmental
benefits. Participants in the URI/MSU program were members of neighborhood
organizations in Detroit who were already working toward mutually defined goals of
community development. These groups are bound by both geography and common

interest.

55

 

 

 

Gaining Acct
Prior '
personnel spe
personnel wt
office, the Dr
and its Muni
Project Pride
Horticulture
URI’MSU p
most signifi
Thrc
would be th
the mainten
be authorizt
never cum
determined
DPW distn'
managers r
commD
leadership
mus ert
mounts

make Com

Gaining Access And Entré

Prior to introducing the program to neighborhood organizations, URI/MSU
personnel spent approximately one year becoming familiar with the city agencies and
personnel who could influence the program’s success. Among these were the Mayor’s
office, the Department of Public Works (DPW), the Parks and Recreation Department
and its Municipal Forestry office, the city’s Neighborhood Services Organization and
Project Pride and the Wayne County Cooperative Extension service’s Consumer
Horticulture program. Although several would provide referrals and services for the
URI/MSU program and its participants, the Department of Public works proved to be the
most significant “gatekeeper” for the program.

Through these meetings, it was determined that primary oversight of the program
would be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works (DPW) which supervises
the maintenance of all city-owned vacant lands. Initially, each URI/MSU project was to
be authorized by the DPW Associate Director, although the criteria for approval were
never enumerated. However, after several projects were approved, the Associate Director
determined that such centralized authority was no longer necessary and suggested that the
DPW district managers be contacted for future authorization and support. These district
managers determined whether identified sites were, indeed, city owned and available for
community-based projects and negotiated cooperative maintenance agreements with the
leadership of participant organizations. These agreements give the community-based
groups effective land tenure over the sites for as long as the projects continue to be
maintained by the members. Despite several requests, however, the managers failed to

make copies of the signed agreements available.

56

 

 

Developing I
Once
program pert
governmeuta
unanticipatet
organization
proved inval
organizing i
associations
for a numbc
block clubs.
Was deveIOj
Follow up 1
attended ne
neighborho
and invited
needs of th
commumt)
gvm'elllnter
from a log
program. 5

COiiGCfipel

Developing Partnerships

Once the necessary formal relationships were established to ensure that the
program personnel were sufficiently familiar with the pertinent governmental and non-
governmental structures and that participant organizations would face as few
unanticipated barriers as possible, attention turned to gaining entré to Detroit community
organizations. The staff of Project Pride and of the Neighborhood Services Organization
proved invaluable in understanding the neighborhood association structure of local
organizing in the City and providing contact information for the neighborhood
associations. Most neighborhood associations in Detroit serve as umbrella organizations
for a number of block clubs, although some are as active collectively as are their member
block clubs. A brochure which introduced the program and its purposes and activities
was developed and sent to the leadership of each neighborhood association in the City.
Follow up phone calls were made to each President and the URI/MSU Program Manager
attended neighborhood association meetings when invited. Through presentations at
neighborhood association meetings, block club leaders were introduced to the program
and invited to contact the URI/MSU program if they felt the program could serve the
needs of their organizations. In this manner, the program was made available to each
community without appearing too closely aligned with any governmental or other non-
governmental organization or imposing its presence on any group without an invitation
from a local resident. In addition to the block clubs which showed interest in the
program, several neighborhood associations chose to participate in the program

collectively as a result of these informational meetings.

57

 

 

Collaborativ
Thmt
needs, intere:
projects that
projects wert
with and wit
professional
"creation of
capacity cert
own collecti
netghborhor
greatest con
Support fror
requested.
conditions.
hOPSd to de
aPPFOpriate
Climate am
provided a
of SPocics
lathllit‘al 2

things the:

S

Collaborative Planning

Through the Urban Resources Initiative, these community groups identified local
needs, interests, skills, existing resources and fitture goals and designed forestry-based
projects that were appropriate for the individual community. Thus, goals for URI/MSU
projects were determined by each individual community organization in collaboration
with and with technical assistance from URI/MSU personnel and their network of
professional contacts and resources in a process reflective of Wandersman's (1981)
"creation of parameters and obj ects". Consistent with McKnight and Kretzman's (1990)
capacity centered approach, groups designed projects through this process based on their
own collective assessments of their interests, abilities, resources and visions for their own
neighborhoods and the areas in which capacity—building activities would make the
greatest contribution toward achieving those visions, with as much or as little technical
support from URI personnel and their professional networks and resources as they
requested. These efforts were constrained only by funding and biological/environmental
conditions. For example, once groups identified their objectives and the benefits they
hoped to derive from the projects, URI personnel would often be asked to suggest
appropriate species which could be successfully grown in the Southeastern Michigan
Climate and conditions which could be expected to provide those benefits. Groups were
provided a W314 (Vachta & Buncic, 1994) which included lists
0f Species suitable for various types of projects as well as directories of resources and
technical assistance to ensure that they were aware of the forms of assistance available.

For example, many block clubs have trouble raising enough money to do all the

things they would like to in their community. Through participation in the URI/MSU

58

 

 

program. these gr

could be used for
orchards, commu
have a large nurn
nutritious vegeta'
temperate agrofc
fixing trees and 2
while reducing t'
inputs. Several .
range of potenti:
trees in urban se
temperature in t

butterflies and c

Organization

In addit.
needs, many U]
primary PUIpos
have a 5111811 CC
lounge, reside
solutions ,0 art

midi Partici

 

 

program, these groups tried to design and implement community forestry projects that
could be used for long— or short—term economic benefits. Among these were community
orchards, community tree nurseries, and Christmas tree plantations. Other communities
have a large number of people interested in community gardening in order to make fresh,
nutritious vegetables more accessible to their families. In these cases, URI offers
temperate agroforestry solutions which combine fruit trees, berry bushes and nitrogen
fixing trees and shrubs with garden plots to maximize food production from the sites
while reducing the expense and potential environmental contamination of chemical
inputs. Several communities have used a combination of these models. There is also a
range of potential environmental benefits from planting trees on these sites. Planting
trees in urban settings can help reduce air pollution, increase shade and decrease the
temperature in the surrounding areas in the summer and they can attract birds and

butterflies and other desirable wildlife (Lipkis, 1990).

Organizational Development Through Community Forestry

In addition to addressing economic, environmental, educational, and subsistence
needs, many URI/MSU participant groups cite local organizing objectives as among their
primary purpose for developing a community forestry project. Many community groups
have a small core of people who do most of the work and have great difficulty getting
younger residents to participate in their activities. These groups are often seeking
solutions to attract teens and young adults who do not, traditionally, participate in block
clubs and neighborhood groups. Since the projects require regular maintenance and

provide participants with a constant reminder of the contribution they are making to the

59

community: E’O'
remain involved
Through

among their pun
length beloW- T
implications Of‘
capacity and me

although other (

from traditional

(1986) who ide?

in social scient
groups across t

Assessr
would suggest
and resistance
to whether one
this much bro:
rnodemizatior

therefore. has

organizations

 

 

 

 

community, group members hoped that those involved in planting the projects would
remain involved over the long-term (McDonough, & Vachta, 1997).

Through these processes, most of the groups identified important organizing goals
among their purposes for choosing to participate in the program, as will be discussed at
length below. Thus, at the center of the current study is an exploration of the
implications of the program for those organizations in terms of building local organizing
capacity and meeting goals for organizational development and local empowerment
although other community—identified objectives are also assessed. This is a departure
from traditional program evaluation methodology as advocated by Marcus and Fisher

(1986) who identified the need to center

improvement in organizational collaboration, increased

levels of community involvement and action and promotion

of healthier public policies or environmental condition...

characteristics of successful community collaborations

[such as] shared vision, strong leadership, access [and]

process versus task achievement
in social scientific research in order to meet the current crisis of accurately representing
groups across cultures.

Assessment of previous efforts to increase participation in development activities
would suggest that the participatory nature of the URI/MSU program would reduce costs
and resistance to the program as a development effort. However, the question remains as
to whether engagement in the development process can contribute to the achievement of
this much broader range of community building objectives. While use of participation in
modernization-driven development activities has not sought these objectives and,

therefore, has seldom explored the implications for development activities for local

organizations and empowerment, an alternative conceptualization of development might

6O

 

 

 

not only oonsidfi

theory and pract

Like mo
the patterns pos
hansportation h
nation through '
segregation and
today, contribu
Gill, implying t

Conven
Interventions s
Iimmanent
0llllorfuuities V

existing proble
designated Brt
resulting emit
Standards of p.
communities,

HOWei
initiatives Ci

seams ant

 

not only consider, but actually center these considerations. The literature exploring the

theory and practice of participatory development attempts to do just that.

SUMMARY

Like most northern industrial cities, Detroit's history and development epitomized
the patterns postulated by modernization theory. The city evolved from a small fort and
transportation hub to one of the largest and most advanced technological centers in the
nation through the processes of industrialization and urbanization. Eventually, however,
segregation and the processes of suburbanization and depopulation, which continue
today, contributed to a major decline in economic and social opportunity in the central
city, implying that development may not be the linear process presumed by that model.

Conventional responses to these declines have been unsuccessful to-date.
Interventions such as the large Poletown Cadillac plant and the federally subsidized
Empowerment Zone initiatives have yet to generate the promised jobs and economic
opportunities within the city. Instead, many observers feel these efforts have reinforced
existing problems. For example, the coexistence of Empowerment Zones with federally
designated Brownfields may allow for increasingly automated industrial production and
resulting environmental problems which may no longer be subject to Superfund—required
standards of pollution remediation, but with little economic return to the local
communities.

However, the City does have a long history of local organizing and self-help
initiatives. Citizen groups have undertaken extensive efforts to rebuild the City through

grassroots and community—based initiatives aimed at reducing youth Violence and

61

 

 

rebuilding inter E
Boggs (1987, ci‘
environmental c
reality.

In this 0
partnerships bet
local initiatives
true communit)
eutironmental t
undfinaking sm
longer history i
referred to as p
development rt
of the develop;
efforts center h
Prioritize estat;

 

 

rebuilding intergenerational relationships. More recently, the vision proposed by James
Boggs (1987, cited in Boggs 1998) of utilizing the City's land resources to improve
environmental conditions and provide for local subsistence has begun to become a
reality.

In this context, the Urban Resources Initiative evolved as a pilot effort, building
partnerships between professionals and community—based organizations to compliment
local initiatives with collaborative efforts addressing locally-defined objectives. While
true community—professional partnerships have been relatively rare in urban
environmental and natural resource planning in the U.S., collaborative efforts
undertaking small scale, localized and participatory approaches to development have a
longer history in Southern nations. Such locally-driven approaches to development are
referred to as participatory development. The scholarship exploring participatory
development reflects the promise of such approaches to address the concerns at either end
of the development cycle. In contrast with modernization driven development, such
efforts center human, community and organizational development. Such efforts often
prioritize establishing the organizing capacity and political power to determine and

achieve a local vision for the community and control over future paths of development.

62

 

 

 

CHAPTER 4

PARTICIPATORY DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSFORMATIVE PARTICIPATION

63

 

 

While In
genelfllmg infra
for citizens 31 It
economic impr<
improved aCCCS
economically ff
global economi
are not as stride
of World Bank
to other nations
(Thomas. & Cl
to demonstrate
result, even sor

these positions
Assistant to the
proposed one c
international d
hegemony is a
Plan was “the .

ofthe Austin r

 

 

While modernization-driven development has focused on the 'big picture,’
generating infrastructure for national or regional economic development, the implications
for citizens at the community level are seldom considered. The tacit presumption is that
economic improvements at the national level will 'trickle down' to citizens through
improved access to resources and employment opportunities. While such large scale
economically focused approaches have been successful in facilitating integration into the
global economic system, improvements in conditions for citizens within recipient nations
are not as evident. For example, a review of the 15 governments receiving the majority
of World Bank aid revealed that, while the economic position of recipient nations relative
to other nations was improving, economic conditions within the countries were not
(Thomas, & Chhibber, 1989). Thus, such 'top-down' approaches to development have yet
to demonstrate promise for improving actual living conditions for most citizens. As a
result, even some of modernization’s' strongest proponents have begun to reconsider
these positions in recent years. For example, Walt W. Rostow (1997) who, as Special
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs in the Kennedy administration,
proposed one of the most influential models of modernization which guided much of
international development policy, recently wrote that, “the lesson of Vietnam is that
hegemony is a futile policy” (Rostow, 1996). Although he maintains that the Marshall
Plan was “the right plan for the right place,” he now contends, having served as Director

of the Austin Project urban renewal program, that,

Such a plan can not do the same for Africa, inner cities, and
other developing entities, because of the economic factor.
The debt relief is not there. And after years of neglect,
neither is there an already developed economic and
industrial infrastructure waiting to be revitalized (Rostow,
1997).

64

 

 

 

 

 

The W
interests ofloca
inrespo115610 fl
approaches. 111'
centers the 00m
evenfllailb’ mfll
and oppommlr.
activities. C113
paradigm of th

Referrit
construction of
hydroelectric c'

fostering econt
centralized pla
passive reeipie
Conversely, p:
people, their c
conducive to c
encounter less
ecological cot
Celtttalized au

Howe

Objectives to I

 

 

The need for an alternative approach to development where the needs and
interests of local communities are central to the development process has been identified
in response to these implications of the continued reliance on modernization-driven
approaches. Inverting the presumptions of modernization, participatory development
centers the concerns of these citizens, sometimes with the 'bottom-up' intention of
eventually influencing national or regional economic status by increasing the capacity
and opportunity of local citizens to participate in economically and socially productive
activities. Chambers thus describes participatory development as a shift from the
'paradigm of things' to a 'paradigm of people' (Table 3).

Referring to modernization theory, the paradigm of things presumes that
construction of the right facilities and infrastructure (such as highway systems,
hydroelectric dams or shopping malls) will facilitate commercial and industrial activity
fostering economic competition and development. Thus, this paradigm relies on
centralized planning of standardized technological solutions of which beneficiaries are
passive recipients, consistent with the model Peiris identified as 'acquiescence‘.
Conversely, participatory development is centrally concerned with the development of
people, their communities and community-based organizations to establish a climate
conducive to collective self-reliance. The resulting approaches would be expected to
encounter less resistance, be more specifically appropriate to the social, cultural and
ecological conditions of the local area and would require less ongoing support from any
centralized authority (Lane, 1997; Adams, 1994).

However, the shift in intent from meeting such professionally-identified

 

objectives to identifying and addressing concerns of local citizens implies an even deeper

65

 

 

 

 

l

 

i Point of departul
'- reference

' Mode

i Ker-word

1 Goals

i Decision-mam;
‘ Analytical assur
‘

2 Methods.
l Rules

Technology

 

i Professionals
( interactions nitl

i Clients seen as

Force flow

 

‘ Outputs

l

planfling and A

Table 3; From an
challenge to Ct
development a
justifies hem
CO“ective self
mdePEDdEnce
Comm \tirh '
local dEVelop]

 

 

 

Decision-making
Analytical assumptions

Methods,
Rules

Technology
Professionals’
interactions with clients
Clients seen as

Force flow

Outputs

Planning and Action

 

Centralized
Reductionist

Standardized
Universal

Fixed package
(table d’héte)

Motivating
Controlling

Beneficiaries
Supply- push

Uniform
Infrastructure

Top-down

fi
Point of departure and Things People
reference
Mode Blueprint Process
Keyword Planning Participation
Goals Pre-set, closed Evolving, open

Decentralized
Systems, holistic

Diverse
Local

Varied basket
(B la carte)

Enabling
Empowering

Actors, partners
Demand- pull

Diverse
Capabilities

Bottom-up

 

Table 3: From the ‘Paradigm Of Things‘ to the ‘Paradigm Of People’ (Chambers, 1995)

challenge to conventional development thought. Rather than holding economic

development and integration into the global economy as the ultimate objectives which

justifies heavy reliance on technical and scientific expertise, the focus is on increased

collective self-reliance (which may or may not be defined in economic terms),

independence and empowerment which precludes such technocratic decision making. In

contrast with decentralization, through which government delegates responsibility for

local development to citizens in the name of 'local control', participatory development

recognizes that effective development activities evolve in a manner directed by and

66

 

consistent with
residents witho:
constituencies.
development is
the purpose of j
an ‘input,’ but ;
prioritize devel
govemance. T
participation, t
transfonnative
facilitates the c
Communities (
one's own "ch;
in its more ex;
any discussion
As illu
deVelopment I
will GaVema‘
”115% power i
resources as 3
element in net
to utilize its p

 

 

consistent with local needs and values, investing decision making power in local
residents without denying the accountability of government and public agencies to these
constituencies. This shift in perspective has tremendous implications for the way
development is defined and assessed. Meeting the needs and interests of participants is
the purpose of people-centered development, not a secondary goal; participation is not
an ‘input,’ but an end (Lane, 1997). Such a development model would be expected to
prioritize development of the necessary skills for active participation in local self-
governance. Thus, consistent with Arnstein's, Wandersman's, and Peiris' models of
participation, truly participatory development replaces functional participation with
transformative participation. That is, it strives to redistribute power in a manner which
facilitates the efforts of local peoples to meet the collective needs and interests of their
communities (Nelson & Wright, 1995). Power implies agency; the ability to influence
one's own "chances, abilities and capacities for action" or those of one's social group or,
in its more exploitative forms, those of other peoples and groups. Thus, power underlies
any discussion of development and participation.

As illustrated by the preceding discussion, decision-making power in most
development projects is often retained by professional development personnel, consistent
with Gaventa’s (1980) framework of the manifestation of organizational power. In this
sense, power is reflected in an organization’s ability to use its superior access to
resources as a bargaining tool which, according to Gaventa, can lead to a coercive
element in negotiations, whether or not the more powerful party or organization intends
to utilize its power in that manner. Examples of this might include an employer’s ability

to set levels of compensation and benefits in order to reward or punish workers for

67

 

responsiveness
services to area
element of orge
development 01
information an:
governmental 2
demanding ‘pe
welfare reform
The fin
obn'ous rclatic
participation t1
Preceding disc
Objectives of n
and to what er
iInpiCIIlentatio
Often limited 1
rEESidents may
Participation s
necessarily [h
In con
paImitation.
rontert‘ Cmpc

agenciie 0! Qt]

 

 

responsiveness to management’s interests or a municipality’s ability to withhold or delay
services to areas with a history of protesting the administration’s policies. Another
element of organizational power Gaventa identifies is the ability to control the
development of shared beliefs and ideologies through defining public debate, access to
information and the messages expressed through media. The shift from calls for greater
governmental accountability to the more victim—blaming (Ryan, 1970) fashion of
demanding ‘personal responsibility’ embodied, for example, by the rhetoric preceding
welfare reform illustrates the expression of this form of power.

The final element in Gaventa’s framework, which may have the most direct and
obvious relationship to development practice, is the ability to construct barriers to
participation through agenda setting and defining the issues. As illustrated by the
preceding discussion, professionals and governmental agencies fiequently determine the
objectives of many development projects. These groups also often determine whether
and to what extent public participation might be incorporated in the planning and
implementation processes. When it is included at all, participation in such programs is
often limited to ‘instrumental’ or 'functional‘ forms (Wright & Nelson, 1995). Local
residents may participate in the implementation or maintenance of a project, but their
participation serves the goals of the planning body or sponsoring agency and not
necessarily those of the community itself.

In contrast, participatory development is concerned with transformative
participation, often discussed in terms of empowerment (Wright & Nelson, 1995). In this
context, empowerment refers to the transfer of power from government, professional

agency, or other typical decision—makers to those most directly impacted by its

68

 

expression. lbr
participation tor
participants ratl
label ‘participat
‘degrees of citi;
term according
typically conno
development p2
contributors to
responsibilities

McDonough. e

Participatory

While I
from it, have 5:
despite the 000
development e
Thus, as the fa
Wide soluric
exliming alter
1998i. it may‘
Men] and 5

‘development 1

 

 

 

expression. Thus, participatory development strives to channel the energy of community
participation toward the generation and realization of a collective vision among
participants rather than that of the professional or agency. Hence, programs claiming the
label ‘participatory development’ tend to fall within the range of what Amstein labels
‘degrees of citizen power.’ While many use the term 'partnership,' the definition of that
term according to Arnstein‘s model suggests a less equitable relationship than that
typically connoted in the context of participatory development. In participatory
development partnerships cooperating participants and professionals are equal
contributors to the process; both groups share planning and implementation
responsibilities including shared authority in all decision-making processes (Lane, 1997;

McDonough, et a1, 1994).

Participatory Development: Learning from the South

While modernization theory, and the international development efforts derived
from it, have sought to implement northern development patterns in southern nations
despite the economic and social disparities between the settings, participatory
development efforts have been most systematically implemented and tested in the South.
Thus, as the failure of modernization to explain post-industrial development patterns or to
provide solutions for the resulting social and economic crises generates calls to begin
exploring alternative paths, such as that issued by Jimmy Boggs (1986, cited in Boggs
1998), it may be time to turn to the South for lessons. While the disparities between
Northern and Southern settings continue to pose challenges when transferring

'development technologies,' the literature regarding participation-in—community and

69

 

empowerment S
communities by
con needs and
Just as 2

arising from de
formed in a “it
down" develop
pith ecological
need for local t
paths taken to :
Movement in 1
technical assisr
professionals a
“an the cate
Participation i1
Where
Planning has 1.
al’llroaches m
PIOfessionals]
Often means g
knowledge at

dtt‘elopmem .

 

 

 

empowerment suggests that participatory approaches may hold promise for Northern
communities by building the opportunity and capacity for local communities to meet their
own needs and interests.

Just as a variety of citizens' groups have formed in Detroit to address problems
arising from deindustrialization and economic decline there, parallel organizations have
formed in a wide variety of locations globally to address the failure of large—scale "top
down" development efforts and highly centralized funding structures to meet local needs
with ecologically and culturally appropriate solutions. Underlying these efforts is the
need for local control and definition of what "development" means and the choice of
paths taken to achieve it. Among these are the Chipko movement in India, the Greenbelt
Movement in Africa, the Rubber Tappers’ unions in Brazil. While these groups may seek
technical assistance from professionals on occasion, the effort is community-based and
professionals are involved only at the request of these citizens. Thus, these efforts fall
within the category of 'bottom up‘ initiatives in McDonough, et al's (1995) Continuum of
Participation in Natural Resource Management (Figure 1).

Where professionals do remain involved, the shift to localized natural resource
planning has led to the innovation of highly participatory and localized approaches. Such
approaches require a close and equitable relationship between community members and
professionals based on realistic expectations among all parties. For professionals, this
often means giving up the notions of the appropriate place of technical and empirical
knowledge at the root of conventional development thought. Such partnership-oriented
approaches to development share a common trend toward highly participatory

development of small-scale community—driven solutions to local problems. Instead of

70

 

 

gathering empit
issues at hand. '
community me
make fully infc
the actirities th
facilitate devell
dependence on

Partici}:
community) to
community DC!
facilitate local
peeple analyze
solutions are sj
through local t
empowerment
311d ecological
”gar ding the i
apllmaches (A
through Which
action 311d sha
imorpmating

 

 

 

gathering empirical data and determining the most 'rational' solution to the development
issues at hand, the professional is responsible for providing information and resources
community members may not otherwise have access to so that local participants can
make fully informed decisions regarding the development path they choose to take and
the activities that will, or will not, be included in that effort. The professionals may also
facilitate development of the necessary skills among residents to minimize future
dependence on professional assistance.

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA), collective reflection and social (or
community) forestry are examples of such approaches that have been utilized to meet
community needs in non-industrialized countries. The goal of these approaches is to
facilitate local access to and control of development. Through PRA, for example, local
people analyze their own lives and situations. The resulting innovative approaches and
solutions are shared (for example, between farmers in different locations) and modified
through local experience. This approach can lead to increased participation by and
empowerment of local people and development of more solutions that are more culturally
and ecologically appropriate to the local setting. However, there is some concern
regarding the impact of applying non-indigenous or "fashionable," but ineffective,
approaches (Akula, 1993; Chambers, 1994). Collective reflection, a Freirean method
through which participants engage in continual cycles of collective problem solving,
action and shared reflection (Goodman, et al, 1998,) can also serve as a tool for
incorporating non-traditional perspectives into sustainable development, social change

and network development efforts (Brown, 1993). Similar "participatory management"

71

 

 

systems are wit

development st

Social F on
On6 an
northern applic
driven partners
between extem
861mm partne
1994). First dc
utilize commm
of which accru
identify the ne.
enrironrnental
Conditions. the
throughout the
Tmb'r
mannerisms
convenfiOna] p
projeqs are Go
shared bem'ee:
Wmtably acm

foresu-y PTOjcc

 

 

—7—7 -..___.

systems are widely recognized as necessary in the design and implementation of new

development strategies (Raby, 1991).

Social Forestry as Participatory Development

One approach to participatory development that may be particularly promising for
northern applications is social forestry. Consistent with McDonough et al‘s 'community—
driven partnerships,’ social (or community) forestry programs attempt to find a balance
between externally imposed programs and professional unresponsiveness by establishing
genuine partnerships with community residents and organizations (McDonough, et al,
1994). First developed in rural villages of the non-industrialized world, these programs
utilize community-professional partnerships to develop small-scale projects, the benefits
of which accrue to the local community. Social foresters work with local residents to
identify the needs and concerns of the community, and to identify culturally, socially, and
environmentally appropriate forestry-based solution. By centering local values and
conditions, the resulting projects can directly address the concerns of each community
throughout the process (Cemeaz, 1985; Ismawan, et al, 1994).

Truly participatory community forestry projects share several important
characteristics that differentiate them fiom those implemented according to a more
conventional paradigm. As defined by McDonough, et al. (1994), community forestry
projects are community-centered, the process is community-driven, decision-making is
shared between the professionals and community members, and power is distributed
equitably across those groups. By applying these principles, community and social

forestry projects have utilized participatory approaches to meet the full range of forest

72

 

management gr
characteristics
(1969,) Wanda
1995 and Mini
may have large
erosion or prov
concerns are a
manner similar
(1994). Thus,
primary over t‘
implementatio-

1994). As sun

The. successf
6C0Domic and
Messersehmid

Howey
Problems F or
deVelOPment p
Slandards oili-

hbfled ‘socia1

—7—*

management goals through optimally democratic and holistic processes. These
characteristics are consistent with definitions of true participation provided by Amstein
(1969,) Wandersman (1981,) and Peiris (1997) among others (e.g. Nelson and Wright,
1995 and Minkler and Pics, 1997). Although social and community forestry programs
may have larger-scale cumulative goals (such as reforestation of a watershed to prevent
erosion or provision of fuelwood for an entire region), these landscape~level management
concerns are addressed through the blending of multiple autonomous local efforts in a
manner similar to the idealized landscape management approach proposed by Woiwode
(1994). Thus, the needs and interests of local residents in each community are held
primary over the objectives of management professionals throughout the development,
implementation and maintenance of the resulting projects (Cerneaz, 1985; Ismawan, et al,

1994). As summarized by Rebugio (1985),

While social forestry is concerned with the development of
forestry areas, this is just a means toward the development
of human communities. In this sense, the people and the
community, not the forest, are the final indicators of
success of a social forestry program.

Thus, successful programs result in improved local conditions and abatement of
economic and environmental constrictions on self—determination (Davis-Case, 1989;
Messerschmidt, 1993).

However, implementation of these approaches have not been entirely without
problems. For example, Shiva (1989) noted that, given the belief among many
development practitioners that participation in the global market will result in improved
standards of living for those previously engaged in subsistence agriculture, some projects

labeled ‘social forestry’ have actively encouraged production of cash crops. Many of

73

 

these program
The ensuing fl
As a result, me
either commer
to meet the ide
programs. thor
fail to meet 10:
accordance wi
forestry may b
(1994) and the
approach that

common" a
translates into

neighborhoods

Power, Pa
As im‘

and equitable 1
balanced betti-
especially imp
parfiCipants (s
dcStriped by (

more by meml

 

 

—7—*

these programs relied on relatively few commercial crops such as coffee and bananas.
The ensuing flood of these products to the market resulted in decreased wholesale prices.
As a result, many of the communities were no longer able to provide for their own needs
either commercially or agriculturally (Shiva, 1989). In the long run, these programs failed
to meet the ideals of either the professionals or residents. Thus, even social forestry
programs, though based on principles of participation and community development, can
fail to meet local needs or exacerbate existing problems if not implemented carefully in
accordance with those principles. However, where implemented appropriately, social
forestry may be a means to achieving the visions of urban forestry proposed by Deneke
(1994) and the USDA Forest Service forest service 5-year plan (1994) by offering an
approach that “integrates the economic, environmental, political and social values of the
community" (USDA Forest Service, 1992) to "develop a sense of empowerment that
translates into socially, culturally and economically stronger cities, communities and

neighborhoods" (Deneke, 1994).

Power, Partnership and Community in Participatory Development
As implied by the term 'transformative participation,‘ in order to ensure effective
and equitable partnerships, decision-making and other dimensions of power must be
balanced between the entities involved in participatory development efforts. It is
especially important to consciously develop processes to equalize power among
participants (Schrijvers, 1995) in those cases where structural dimensions of power, as
described by Gaventa (1980), Green (1997) and Polsby (1995,) tend to be represented

more by members of one of the partner groups. This may be particularly pertinent in

74

 

relationships b
professionals tr
universities or
such dimensio:
address throng
impediment to
lies squarely 0
community (F .
impede their e

Martyr
leaders’ or oth
development 1:
comfortable at
They may be 2
seems. to the l

 

 

—7—r

relationships between low-income communities or communities of color and
professionals with connections to traditional power bases such as government agencies,
universities or non-govemmental organizations. The professional must acknowledge that
such dimensions of power have often contributed to the very problems they are hoping to
address through the partnership and that their social location may be, itself, an
impediment to full and honest partnership. The burden of overcoming such impressions
lies squarely on the shoulders of the professional hoping to gain entrS to such a
community (Fairweather & Davidson, 1985), although convention and convenience may
impede their efforts.

Many professionals, for example, tend to rely on local NGO experts, ‘opinion
leaders’ or other self-appointed representatives to serve as the voice for the community in
development planning, perhaps because they are more able to participate in a manner
comfortable and familiar to the professionals (McDonough, 1992, Woiwode, 1994).
They may be able to provide insight on the community perspective in a manner that
seems, to the professional, to be appropriate to the project at hand. Further, as described

by The Lumpen Society (1997),

Communities, especially with reference to resource use, are

assumed to be incapable of deliberately choosing options

which would be harmful to their members, since, under a

definition of community which is tied to place,

communities are supposed to consist of people who must

live with the results of their actions.
This impression may be rooted in presumptions about the meaning and character of
community. As described by Sarason (1982), a sense of community is the perception of
similarity to others, an acknowledged interdependence with others, a willingness to

maintain interdependence by giving to or doing for others what one expects from them-

75

 

 

 

the feeling thfl
that members I
and desire to d
can derive a se
caution that th
differences the
1995). Percei‘
elite to protect
Peiris, 1997).
development p
Power and dis
negative result
Thus. 1
Consideration r
PalTlCipants an
its meaning fo
the best of imf
frequently inn
explicit P111110:
considered ext
intend to me]
alternatives? ]

SePirated by t

the feeling that one is part of a larger dependable and stable structure. The implication is
that members of a community are homogenous in that they share common basic values
and desire to do the same things and to be treated in the same ways, and that members
can derive a sense of stability from belonging to such a collective. Several authors
caution that this aspect of the community idyll masks the true heterogeneity and power
differences that exist among any group of people (The Lumpen Society, 1997; Young,
1995). Perceived stability may, in fact, simply reflect the preference and power of the
élite to protect the status quo (Pretty & Scoones, 1995; The Lumpen Society, 1997;
Peiris, 1997). Just as professionals responsible for failed technocratically imposed
development programs are protected from ‘unintended consequences’ by their relative
power and distance, powerful community representatives may be insulated from any
negative results of their actions and, instead, may benefit at the expense of others.

Thus, participatory development efforts must be undertaken with careful
consideration of the power dynamics among community members as well as between
participants and professionals. However, unexamined interpretations of community and
its meaning for residents affected by 'community-driven' development may undermine
the best of intentions. While discussions of community-driven participatory development
frequently invoke popular conceptions of ‘community,’ efforts undertaken with the
eXplicit purpose of relying upon or building ‘community participation’ require a more
considered exploration of the concept. Just what is it we hope to build and who is it we
intend to involve when we turn to ‘community-based’ or ‘community building’
alternatives? Reviews of the sociological literature exploring the concept of community,

Sf‘3l3atrated by twenty years, have identified scores of ‘definitions.’ Hillery (1953, cited in

76

 

 

 

 

 

Bell and Newt
dlSllu that. W62

community, 0‘

Defining (
As ear}
community in
of their own at
branches of cc
classified as $1
(1974) an arch
settlement ver.
relationship. .
deterministic <
context within
and Newby, 1
relationships.
branches. hou
Consciousness
0f institutions
1197M derive

endeamflllfl lt

Bell and Newby, 1971), Bell and Newby (1971) and Effrat (1974), have each helped to
distill that wealth of material down to some essential concepts which may define

community, or at least help to frame the debate.

Defining Community

As early as 1953, Hillery was able to identify 94 different definitions of
community in the literature (Bell and N ewby, 1971). Interpreting this work in the context
of their own analysis of the literature, Bell and Newby (1971) identify two major
branches of community studies; those exploring "Generic Community" and those
classified as studies of "Rural Community". As such, their system shares with Effrat's
(1974) an acknowledgment of the dichotomy of definitions between community as rural
settlement versus community as locality-based complex of personal and/or institutional
relationship. At the core of this debate are disagreements over locality as itself
deterministic of community (e. g. Hillery, 1953, cited in Bell and Newby, 1971) or as
context within which community, as a complex of social (e. g. Hawley, 1950, cited in Bell
and Newby, 1971) and institutional (e. g. Stacey, 1969, cited in Bell and Newby, 1971)
relationships, occurs. Several themes are consistently explored within both of these
branches, however, including the role of self-sufficiency; common life and kinship;
consciousness of kind; possession of common ends, norms and means; and the collection
of institutions, locality groups and individuality. Based on this work, Bell and Newby
(1971) derive three elements almost universally considered in the classic works

endeavoring to define community: area, common ties and socral interaction.

77

 

 

 

 

 

Buildir
on what she 52
of ‘community
number of fun
to a territorial]
by aclmowledg
bound groupin
studies identifr
within cornmur
Liability, Com
the degree to w
defining "comr
particular inter:
tensions heme,
the anthors‘ per
metutions and

Authors
mum] C0mmur
embodlmg the
for the basic r1 er
meant an

million are 0ft:

 

Building on similarly descriptive work, Effrat (1974) developed a typology based
on what she saw as the two dichotomous dimensions along which the operationalization
of ‘community’ differed across the research. These dimensions included the range and
number of functions provided by the community and whether or not "community" refers
to a territorially defined entity, thus expanding on Bell and Newby’s (1971) framework
by acknowledging a tradition within the literature which identified some non—locality
bound groupings as a form of community. Expanding on the two branches of community
studies identified by Bell and Newby (1971), Effrat's typology identifies four traditions
within community research; the Compleat Community, Communities of Limited
Liability, Community as Society, and Personal Communities. Each is characterized by
the degree to which each of the two dimensions is considered to be of importance in
defining "community" and associated with particular theoretical underpinnings. Of
particular interest in the effort to apply participatory approaches to urban forestry are the
tensions between the first two traditions, both grounded in territoriality, but differing in
the authors’ perceptions of the necessary functioning of social relationships and
institutions and, thus, in their conception and treatment of urban settings.

Authors working within the first tradition, similar to Bell and Newby’s (1971)
“Rural Communities” branch, assume that "true communities" are microcosms of society,
embodying the fiill range of necessary social and institutional relationships and providing
for the basic needs of their members. Their research frequently takes the form of holistic
ethIIOgraphic analyses or case studies of small towns or villages. Theorists within this

tradition are often concerned with the rural-urban continuum and the community-eroding

78

 

 

 

 

force of "11135

Ionmes conce.

These authors I
autonomy; urbz
(Redfield as ci

Accordi
community are
Durkheim. As
alienating proct
Which are repla.
concern with "a

(1971) point on

f—._ e-f'n n ('5 H

 

force of "mass society." ‘Community,’ as typified by this tradition, is often equated with

Tonnies conception of Gemeinschaft. As described by Bell and Newby (1971),

In Gemeinschafl, human relationships are intimate,
enduring and based on a clear understanding of where each
person stands in society... roles are specific and consonant
with one another... Members of a community are relatively
immobile in a physical and social way... There will be
community sentiments involving close and enduring
loyalties to the place and people. Community makes for
traditionalistic ways and at the very core of the community
concept is the sentimental attachment to the conventions
and mores of a beloved place... This results in a
personalizing of issues, events and explanations, because
familiar names and characters inevitably become associated
with everything that happens...

These authors typically equate urban settings with alienation, loss of cohesion and
autonomy; urbanization is held responsible, at least in part, for the demise of community
(Redfield, as cited in Effrat, 1974; Vidich and Bensman, 1958; Stein, 1960).

According to Bell and Newby (1971), the roots of these perspectives on the urban
community are in the writings of such influential thinkers as Marx, Weber, and
Durkheim. As they explain, Marx and Weber describe urbanization as an ultimately
alienating process and the city as devoid of emotionally rewarding intimate relationships
which are replaced by economically driven contractual relationships. Despite Durkheim's
concern with "anomie" resulting from social disintegration, however, Bell and Newby

(1971) point out that

what he perceived in contemporary society was not so

much the breakdown of community as the transition from
community based on one kind of social relations to
community based on another, from mechanical solidarity to
organic solidarity- solidarity based upon the
interdependence of specialized parts, on diversity rather
than similarity.

79

 

 

 

 

 

 

This nt
identified by E
contend that u
of community
is, according t
with neighbor
interests and 3
relationships t
relationships 2
segmental,”

In an t
“social disorg
Liability (Effi
life meanjngf
For example,
“lib their ur’o
tended 10 has
Thus. While n
People “lthir.

Within media:
Gammon,

llllponam de]

 

 

This notion forms one of the theoretical foundations for the second tradition
identified by Effrat (1974). Those concerned with "Communities of Limited Liability"
contend that urban neighborhoods simply constitute a different, and not an inferior, form
of community (Martindale, 1990). The possibility of anonymity and isolation in the city

is, according to these theorists, balanced by increased freedom, the opportunity to interact
with neighbors and to identify social groups voluntarily, based on common needs,
interests and activities versus simple proximity. It is this sense of voluntaristic
relationships which leads authors within Effrat’s (1974) first tradition to consider
relationships among urban dwellers to be “impersonal, superficial, transitory and
segmental.”

In an effort to dispel the notion of the city as embodiment of “anomie” and

“social disorganization,” however, researchers exploring Communities of Limited
Liability (Effrat, 1974) have described the institutions and landmarks which make urban
life meaningful for residents and explored the role of neighboring in urban communities.
For example, Ahlbrant & Cunningham (1979) found that those who were most satisfied
with their urban neighborhood viewed it as a small community within the larger city and
tended to have a stronger sense of loyalty to that neighborhood than to the rest of the city.
Thus, while the city may appear to be an alienated and isolated mass from the outside,
people within them do not interact with “the city.” Instead, they interact with one another

within mediating structures such as neighborhoods, churches, and community

organizations. This tension around the character of the ‘urban community’ has been an

important debate within the sociological study of community.

80

 

 

 

 

 

Further
globalization c
Community" 1
community w]
picture of cor:
suburban 1951
class structure
note. “those 04
which does or

lndeec

with Tonnies
enSting know
and stability 1
limjting econ
011 data from
determined tl
ALm911621118 a:

fulfillment. ]

“Characterize

are Pfrsonal,

udillaj'ian.“ 1

 

 

Furthermore, with the world’s growing urban population and the impact of
globalization on even the smallest village, authors within Effrat’s “Compleat
Community” tradition are sometimes accused by their detractors of clinging to an ideal of
community which no longer exists, if indeed it ever did. "We might say that this idyllic
picture of community is playing on white, North American nostalgia for the clean, safe,

suburban 19505” note the Lumpen Society (1997). Raising the racism, sexism and rigid
class structure that can be masked by such romanticized images, the authors go on to
note, “those communities were not quite the places we like to imagine... This is an image
which does not relate to any real community past or present...”

Indeed, while the relative social immobility in intimate rural settings (associated
with Tonnies gemeinschaft) where social location may be determined by neighbors’ pre-
existing knowledge of family history, occupation and prospects is perceived as security
and stability by whites, for people of color it may instead represent yet another structure
limiting economic and social opportunity (Bell & Newby, 1971; Hummon, 1978). Based
on data from the Housing and Urban Development study of 1978, Hummon further
determined that while rural America represents an idyllic lifestyle for whites, Afiican
Americans are more likely to identify the city as a source of emotional and social

fulfillment. In fact, Rivera and Erlich (1995) suggest that urban communities of color are
“characterized by neogemeinschaft... strong social support systems and relationships that
are personal, informal and sentiment based rather than formal, specialized, and

utilitarian.” Thus, as described by Green (1997,)

At its heart, the black community building process has been
driven by the oldest and deepest felt vision of black people
in America- the struggle for freedom and equality... It

81

 

 

 

 

 

As norod by l»
neogemeinsch
nithin a cause
face of SU'LICIL'
characterize a
community [h
identification.
Commumu’ 0
dimensions 0:
serve myriad

power among

Wandersmar

Participa
The p
similarly 111m
Political pow
mediating str
neighborhom
C0fisolidate p
1994: Adams

Willem): Se

 

 

exhibits a consciousness of kind and struggle for
competition for economic and political benefits.

As noted by Minkler and Wallerstein (1997), however, the designation ‘neo’ in
neogemeinschafl “refers to the fact that 'these communities life experience takes place
within a causal, deterministic reality, based on racism and exploitation.”’ Thus, in the
face of structural barriers, collectivist identification among urban people of color may
characterize a different form of community than those commonly identified by early
community theorists where territorial boundaries constituted the basis for mutual
identification, yet fulfills the same roles and functions in the lives of its members.
Community organizations rooted in such collectivist identity in addition to conventional
dimensions of community such as shared locality and reliance on common institutions
serve myriad functions within such communities, not the least of which is to consolidate
power among residents in protecting or promoting their collective interests

(Wandersman, 1 98 1).

Participation in Community: Community-Based Organizations

The poor and disenfranchised in every society, however ‘democratic,’ may face

 

similarly limited access to political benefits, such as public services, because of limited
political power and access (Lineberry, 1989). One common response is the formation of

mediating structures such as farmer's cooperatives, women's organizations and

 

neighborhood associations, through which traditionally disempowered peoples
consolidate political and social power in the effort to ensure local needs are met (Fischer,
1994; Adams & Rietbergen-McKracken, 1994; Wandersman, 1981). These groups are

frequently selected to be participants in cooperative development and other participatory

82

 

 

 

 

efiorts based c
concerns. In I
block clubs at
to a group of u
in their imme
planning and/
term neighbo:
themselves a:
hung or worl
along and va
block clubs a
have prolifen
and comrmm
black power ;

What
“[th What I
belief that a 1

Coming;

 

efforts based on the presumption that they are able to represent local interests and
concerns. In urban centers these may take the forms of community organizations such as
block clubs and neighborhood associations. The term, ‘community organization’ refers
to a group of concerned citizens engaged in self-help efforts to improve the quality of life
in their immediate residential vicinity (Mott, 1977) through locality development, social
planning and/or social action (Rothman, 1968). “In general,” writes Fischer (1984,) “the
term neighborhood organization refers to an institution in which pe0p1e who identify
themselves as part of a neighborhood promote shared interests based primarily on their
living or working in the same residential area.” While this organizational form does have
a long and varied history (Minkler & Wallerstein, 1997; Fisher, 1995; McKenzie, 1994),
block clubs and neighborhood associations working toward progressive social change
have proliferated throughout the United States, especially in low-income communities
and communities of color, building locally on the work of the national civil rights and
black power movements (Minkler & Wallerstein, 1997).

What these organizations have in common is their struggle for a greater voice

within what they hope will be an increasingly participatory democracy; often sharing the

 

belief that a locally-defined agenda will be more responsive to the interests of their
community. These expectations are supported by empirical explorations of the efficacy,

equity and efficiency of decentralized neighborhood-level municipal governance

 

(Hallman; 1984;Yates' (1973) Such local control would ideally create improved
governmental responsibility and a stronger sense of efficacy among local residents

(Haeberle, 1987).

83

 

 

 

 

 

in his
"quest for con
which individ
the neighborh
may serve as
political erupt
urban dweller
(Lineberry, 1'

In ord
including 11m
community p
Participation
comma. S.
and cominun
interrelations
three levels.

Accoi

undersnmdm

 

In his interpretation of Nisbet (1962), Wandersman (1981) hypothesized that the
"quest for community" arises from the need for such an intermediate structure through
which individuals feel meaningfully connected to the larger society. In urban settings,
the neighborhood in general or a neighborhood association or block club in particular
may serve as this mediating structure. Through an enhanced sense of community and
political empowerment among their members, they provide a channel through which
urban dwellers can collectively have greater influence over the larger municipality
(Lineberry, 1989; Florin & Wandersman, 1992; Chekki, 1997; Green, 1997).

In order to illustrate the role and functioning of participation in the community,
including through these organizational forms, Wandersman (1981) proposed a model of
community participation which integrates the scholarship concerned with the study of
participation across disciplines, including community/ecological psychology and
community sociology, addressing multiple levels of analysis; individual, organizational,
and community. Through this integration, the model offers insights on the
interrelationships between participation and its antecedents and outcomes at each of these
three levels.

According to Wandersman's framework, there are five main elements to

understanding community participation. Briefly, the major elements included are:

I. Environmental, Ecological and Social Characteristics of the
Community;

II. Individual Differences in Participation, which includes
demographic, personality, relationship, resources and interaction
between the person and the situation (‘person x situation’)

considerations;
III. Parameters of Participation such as the setting and scale, the stage

of organization, the organizational characteristics of the community

84

 

 

 

 

 

BIHL

Wand
regarding the
the purposes
conditions fo
for successfu
second elem:
situational v;
Partitipate. n
levels. Thus
level Conside
itself explore
Organization
POT the pum

pmipation

groups, the type of participants and participation and the techniques of
participation;

IV. The Efi'ects of Participation at the individual, organizational and
community levels and questions regarding who evaluates those

outcomes;

V. Mediators (W andersman, 1981 ).

BUILDING COMMUNITY THROUGH LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS

Wandersman's framework consolidates and compliments a great deal of literature
regarding the role and function of community organizations exploring aspects such as:
the purposes of such organizations within disempowered communities; the necessary pre-
conditions for effective organizing; and the characteristics, skills and resources necessary
for successful organizations. Wandersman's own work has focused primarily on the
second element, at the individual level and the interactions between personal and
situational variables (person x situation) that influence the individual choice to
participate, making important contributions to our understanding of participation at those
levels. Thus, though he presents a thorough analysis of organizational and community
level considerations and relationships in his explanation of the framework, the framework
itself explores the individual level antecedents to participation in far more depth than
organizational or community characteristics or effects of participation on those levels.

For the purposes of the current research, however, his consideration of organizational

participation is of particular interest.

85

 

 

 

 

 

Communityl
While

(it. indiiidua
organizationai
may influence
the group's 5k
where they cc
new goals the
increasing int
may proude .
residents. Of
organizers. c<
(Sarason, 192
development
underreprese:
Therefore, pr
eStablish "ne
SChmidt. Mir
Com]
human
(“limb Sci
delemlinedt

“0 land is a,

 

 

Community Cohesion, Organizational Capacity And Local Empowerment

While participation at one level may have no effects on some of these parameters
(i.e. individual demographic characteristics do not often change as a function of
organizational participation) others may (6. g. outcomes of organizational participation
may influence individual perceptions of the potential impact of future involvement). As
the group's skills evolve, for instance, potential participants may see new opportunities
where they could make unique contributions. Others may feel more sympathetic with
new goals the group takes on as it is able to address a wider array of concerns. The
increasing interaction among residents through the growing organization and its activities
may provide an opportunity for building cohesion and a "sense of community" among
residents. Often considered the first step in engendering political power by community
organizers, cohesion fosters a sense of shared values and visions for the neighborhood
(Sarason, 1982). Once established, community cohesion may be important in the
development of a successful community organization, especially among traditionally
underrepresented groups (J anowitz & Street, 1978; Hirsch, 1986; Fisher, 1987).
Therefore, prior to formng an organization and a collective voice, residents begin to
establish "neighboring" relationships and recognize their mutual interest (Weeni g,
Schmidt, Midden, & Cees, 1990; Unger & Wandersman, 1983).

Community cohesion is influenced by a wide range of factors. Some, including
the availability of gathering areas such as porches, courtyards or other green spaces
(Weenig, Schmidt, Midden, & Cees, 1990; Bady & Lurz, 1993; Louv, 1995) may be pre-
determined by the physical structure of the community. If they do not currently exist and

no land is available for them, the community may need to create alternatives. One way to

86

 

 

 

 

 

do this may b-
the event itsel
mutually plea
lcuv, 1995 ).
build cohesio
Opportunity tr
resources exi:
protect and Cl
development
When there is
interests rem;
remain accou
Programs two
1997). This .
arnong local
can facilitate
based organj
Pretn
for commum-
mltgraied \i
the Problems

solutions‘ in

c("Sequence

 

 

do this may be by holding community events. In addition to creating a common space at
the event itself, the planning effort may provide an opportunity to work together for a
mutually pleasurable and socially or economically constructive activity (Aronoff, 1993;
Louv, 1995). Participation in community forestry may provide yet another opportunity to
build cohesion among local residents. Through the process, residents have the
opportunity to identify collective interests and concerns as well as the strengths and
resources existing within the community. In parallel, such organizations may help to
protect and center community interests and power within the relationship with
development professionals. As Amstein observes, ‘partnership can work most effectively
when there is an organized power-base in the community...’ to ensure shared local
interests remain central on program agendas and that those representing their interests
remain accountable to the community. For this reason, many participatory development
programs work in partnership with established community-based organizations (Lane,
1997). This approach respects the organic forms of participation in community arising
among local residents and, consistent with the principles of participatory development,
can facilitate community building and organizational capacity initiated by community—
based organizations in addition to more conventional development concerns.

Pretty and Scoones (1995) recognize that in addition to providing a power base
for community residents, community-based organizations are often “good at having an
integrated view of problems.” For example, because they are intimately acquainted with
the problems and directly impacted by the costs and benefits of the various potential
solutions, they may be able to provide insights that could prevent ‘unintended

consequences’ not anticipated by the professionals. Pretty and Scoones (1995) note

87

 

 

 

 

further that, v
limited man)
opportunity tr
A nur
organizatiorn
(Vogel & Sw
and a large ar
ability to add
which contril
empowermei
factor in the
that “empow
mastery over
concept has 7
is illustrated

exPlantation

This
We“ Validat.

Sense of the

 

further that, while their ability to influence political structures independently may be
limited, many local organizations have a network of relationships, providing a potential
opportunity to broaden the impact of participatory development programs.

A number of factors contribute to the potential success of community
organizations once formed. These may include knowledge of strategy development
(V ogel & Swanson, 1989; Bobo, Max & Kendall, 1991), presence of skilled leadership
and a large and active membership (Oropesa, 1989), cultural diversity and willingness or
ability to address and maintain it constructively (Saltman, 1990; Lichterrnan, 1995) all of
which contribute to organizational capacity (McKnight & Kretzman, 1990). Political
empowerment (sometimes referred to as PE) is also frequently identified as a critical
factor in the success of local organizations. Although Rappaport’s multi-level definition
that “empowerment is a process by which people, organizations, and communities gain
mastery over issues of concern to them” (Rappaport, 1987) is frequently cited, the
concept has most often been assessed as an individual psychological characteristic. This
is illustrated by Zimmerman’s synthesis of earlier definitions generating the following

explanation of the theoretical construct,

These three components of PE merge to form a picture of a
person who believes that he or she has the capability to
influence a given context (intrapersonal component)
understands how the system works in that context
(interactional component), and engages in behaviors to
exert control in the context (behavioral component)
(Zimmerman, 1995).

This tendency is reflected in and reinforced by Zimmerman and Zahniser’s (1991)
well validated and widely used measure of empowerment. Its scales assess respondents’

sense of the receptivity of political structures and actors to constituent interests, referred

88

..u a. 3.3.. 15.: ,.

 

 

 

 

to as political
of whether th
Research util
on how PE is
personal exp:

initially raise

deSpite the c:
empowcrmer

Two
more fully re
(1995) and 5
the implicati
Processes by
co'clracteristi
nature of the
cones abOUi
“Diorama

Resc
”umber 0i

“och illuSt

 

to as political empowerment (PE), and political capacity (PC) which refers to their sense
of whether they personally have the skills and ability to exercise such influence.
Research utilizing Zimmerman and Zahniser's measure has contributed important insights
on how PE is developed in individuals and how it can be influenced through a range of
personal experiences. As noted by Saegert and Winkel, (1996, discussing critiques

initially raised by Riger, 1993), however, there are

two shortcomings of the empowerment literature: (a) an

overemphasis on feelings of efficacy coupled with a neglect

of the achievement of real power; and (b) an emphasis on

autonomy at the expense of a recognition of the importance

of community. ..
despite the critical role of collective identification and local organizations in facilitating
empowerment in many communities.

Two recent studies have helped to expand the conception of empowerment to
more fiilly reflect Rappaport's (1987) original multi-level definition. Speer and Hughey
(1995) and Saegert and Winkel (1996) have each generated models which look beyond
the implications of participation for an individual’s ‘sense of empowerment to explore the
processes by which organizations and communities become empowered and the
characteristics by which they may be identified as such. Reinforcing the ecological
nature of the empowerment concept, Saegert and Winkel (1996) state, "[e]mpowerment
comes about through intertwined changes in behavior, self-concept and actual

improvements in the conditions of the individual, the group and the community."
Resolving many of the conflicts within the empowerment literature by integrating

a number of common conceptualizations, Speer and Hughey (1995) developed a model

which illustrates empowerment at each of the three levels of analysis; individual,

89

 

 

 

 

 

organizational
either a proce
politically act
and functioni
decreased ser
empowermen-
understandin-
example may
authors cauti
facilitate em}
Organization
organization;
For exarnp1e
bureaucratic
unlikely to b
Porsonally d
How
Competitive
looiprocauy
the organiza
ramormem

3.16 peT’C-ElVe

 

 

 

 

organizational and community (Table 4). At each level, empowerment may each be
either a process or an outcome variable. For example, through participation in a
politically active organization (process) an individual may gain knowledge about the role
and functioning of power within their community (outcome) and, in turn, an increased or
decreased sense of political empowerment (outcome). Such individuals may gain
empowerment through the experience of organizational membership or the resulting
understanding of power and its influence in their communities gained. While this
example may imply a reciprocal relationship between the levels of empowerment, the
authors caution that empowerment at the different levels may not always work to
facilitate empowerment at the others. It is possible, for instance, for an empowered
organization to work in coalition with other groups in effective pursuit of its
organizational mission at the expense of the empowerment of members or participants.
For example, participants may have little opportunity to influence the agendas of highly
bureaucratic organizations. As a result, they may feel that their own concerns are
unlikely to be addressed although the group may be quite successful and, thus, feel
personally disempowered even as they contribute to successful change efforts.

However, empowerment for these authors is not necessarily an individualistic and
competitive characteristic as it is commonly constructed (Riger, 1987). Instead, it is built
reciprocally with social and political power, especially among marginalized groups. At
the organizational level, for instance, participation of individuals may aid in membership
recruitment because groups that have already successfully recruited a core membership

are perceived to have the "critical mass" necessary to be successful will attract new

90

 

 

 

participants. 7

members and

 

 

Table 4: Speer

Saeg
ll empo“terml
thart the can:

oCimowledg.

 

mobilizing c
manifesting
active Portic
emoirical st
hooSing det.
fohttion of
on Create c
Conmimics

 

 

 

participants. Thus, successful community organizations are both empowering to their

members and empowered in their pursuit of change (Speer & Hughey, 1995).

 

 

Process Outcome
organizational membership knowledge of power
Individual relationship building emotional connectedness
action / reflection organizational participation
participatory niches reward and punishment
Organizational inter-organizational relationships define topics & extent of debate
organizational actions shaping community ideologies
multisector development multiple empowered organizations
Community institutional linkages cross-sector collaborative efforts
target community issues

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4: Speer & Hughey’s (1995) Conceptualization of empowerment applied to the organizing domain

Saegert and Winkel carry this hypothesis a bit further arguing that,
"empowerment as reflected in individual attitudes and actions is the consequence rather
than the cause of collective action at the [community] level." While these authors do
acknowledge that a certain level of personal empowerment may be important in
mobilizing community or organizational involvement, they contend that individuals
manifesting a strong sense of individualized or personal of power are less likely to be
active participants in collective activities except, perhaps, in leadership roles. Their
empirical study of community participation among residents in low-income co-op
housing determined that for most participants individual empowerment changes as a
firnction of community organizational successes. That is, individuals' beliefs that they
can create change is based on the outcomes of collective efforts. Thus, their study also
contributes an essential component to the empirical testing of empowerment theory;

consideration of the role of action in actual empowerment, measured by positive changes

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

in fixing cond
between the r
that the reseai
residents. In:

of empowern

The Model

As illustrated
and of CmPOl
or ability of l
influencing e
characterizec‘
do so (Wrigl
palticipatogi
PTOVide dim
minimumV (
CoHeCtiVe ab
Smdl’ posits

recipI’OCEti p1
and by bUild
alien] to [h

19833 Hired

& Zaimiser,

 

 

in living conditions. These observations were the result of a long-term relationship
between the researchers and those living in co—op housing, though there is no indication
that the researchers took an active role in facilitating empowerment among local
residents. Instead, Saegert and Winkel (1996) sought to observe and record the processes

of empowerment among participants in the collective efforts.

The Model

As illustrated by the preceding discussion, the concepts of transformative participation
and of empowerment are quite complimentary. While empowerment refers to the sense
or ability of people to determine the conditions of their communities and lives, ofien by
influencing existing political structures and actors, transformative participation is
characterized by the shift as those in conventional positions of power respect their right to
do so (Wright & Nelson, 1995). It follows then that participation in successful
participatory development activities which embody transformative participation and
provide direct experience with opportunities to define and implement a shared vision for
community development would contribute to a growing sense and experience of a
collective ability to realize such visions. The model (Figure 2) examined by the current
study posits that building such organizational empowerment would take place through
reciprocal processes influencing participants’ sense of cohesion or community attachment
and by building the organizing capacity of participant community-based groups, both
critical to the success of community—based organizations (e. g. Unger & Wandersman,
1983; Hirsch, 1986; Fisher, 1987; Weenig, Schmidt, Midden, & Cees, 1990; Zimmerman

& Zahniser, 1991; Speer & Hughey, 1995). While the primary relationships observed are

92

 

 

 

 

 

expected to f
contributing '
reciprocal rel
those expect:

organization:

Figurt

Com
effective cor
ll’andersma]
1990i A se
neightmn'ng
Comma int
“151ng org;
relationship;
eSlablishme.
that \iSiOn,

demoDiner.

 

expected to follow the model in a linear fashion, with improved community cohesion
contributing to organizing capacity which facilitates organizational empowerment,
reciprocal relationships between the components are also expected. The logic supporting
those expectations will be reviewed in brief as it applies to the developing model of
organizational empowerment.

Organizational
4 Empowerment

  
 

  
   

Participatory Development/
Transformative Participation

Community Organizational
Cohesion = Capacity
Figure 2: The Conceptual Model

 

 

Community cohesion and attachment are necessary precursors to establishing
effective community—based organizations (J anowitz & Street, 1978; Unger &
Wandersman, 1983; Hirsch, 1986; Fisher, 1987; Weenig, Schmidt, Midden, & Cees,
1990). A sense of cohesion and community attachment reflects a level of reciprocity and
neighboring relationships among residents which provide the opportunity to identify
common interests and concerns often catalyzing local organizing or participation in
existing organizations. Participatory development offers opportunities to build such
relationships through collective exploration and definition of local needs and interests,

establishment of a common vision for the community and the opportunity to implement
that vision. Furthermore, once implemented, the outcomes of the participatory

development project may include additional public gathering spaces as well as places for

93

 

 

collective cell
with the corn]
provide “neui
organizationa
among new n
generate the i
work togethe
to participant
among group
less attracted
ldeall
communityl
Partidpate ir
SUCh potentiz
COInponent c
Participatory
active memt
orgallllation
important is:
[hell agenda
manner}
OPPOITllnjw

residents “i

 

 

 

collective celebration through which new members may be drawn into such a relationship
with the community and organizational participants. These public spaces can also
provide “neutral” meeting grounds as alternatives to the common practice of holding
organizational meetings in private homes which may prove to be a barrier to participation
among new residents. Finally, engagement in the participatory development process may
generate the sense that people are mutually concerned, watch out for one another and
work together to improve conditions, creating a climate within the community conducive
to participation. However, if the sense of cohesion is too strong or exists too exclusively
among group members, others may feel like “outsiders” in their own community and feel
less attracted to the organization or to the neighborhood.

Ideally, through their involvement with participatory development activities,
community—based organizations will increase the opportunities for non-members to
participate in expanding and implementing a shared vision for the community to offset
such potential difficulties. Establishment of new niches within the organization is a
component of the organizational capacity building that may take place through successful
participatory development efforts. As discussed by Haeberle (1987,) While a large and
active membership will help to attract new members to an existing community
organization because of the impression that the group is able to successfully take on
important issues, it is also critical for groups seeking growth in membership to expand
their agendas and offer new opportunities to draw new membership. Involvement with
participatory development activities can, for many organizations, provide just such an

Opportunity. For example, projects may be designed specifically to attract non-member

residents with particular underrepresented skills and interests. Identified by Florin and

94

 

 

 

 

Wandersman
residents ma)
identify a mic
expanded op]
groups such :
organizations
ofthe full dll
above, total C
1990; Lichte
objectives to
and impleme
leadership sh
Which are alt
Final
improvemen
arnong Other
Additional e
developmen.
increased Co
influence 1h:
collmive \i

The:

FBI CXample

 

 

 

Wandersman (1984) as a critical dimension in the decision to participate, non—member
residents may perceive that they can influence the agenda of the organization as well as
identify a niche within which they can make a unique contribution through these
expanded opportunities. The approach can also help to attract particular demographic
groups such as younger residents who are frequently underrepresented in community
organizations. Increasing the diversity of skills and interests as well as the representation
of the full diversity of demographic groups present in the community are, as discussed
above, vital components to improving organizational capacity (Oropesa, 1989; Saltrnan,
1990; Lichterrnan, 1995). F urtherrnore, the process of determining these organizational
objectives for a participatory development program as well as the process of designing
and implementing the project itself may contribute to improved strategic planning and
leadership skills (Oropesa, 1989; Vogel & Swanson, 1989; Bobo, Max & Kendall, 1991),
which are also important components of organizational capacity.

Finally, organizational empowerment may be realized through these
improvements in organizational capacity, including increased strategic planning skills
among others, as well as direct experience with a community-driven development effort.
Additional experiences which are likely to be encountered through the participatory
development effort and which can also influence political empowerment include
increased contact and familiarity with the political structures and actors who can
influence the group’s access to the resources and opportunities necessary to realize their
collective vision (Speer & Hughey, 1995; Saegert & Winkel, 1996).

The model further posits reciprocal relationships between the three components.

For example, while it is discussed as the final step in the process, organizational

95

 

 

 

empowermen
perceive the z
Empowermer
change can b
and to the grt
and concerns
new resident:
cohesion and
those recruit:
direct relatio
one another ‘
the reciprocz
Pemetuate it

The]

order to asse

Participaton

Primary res:

athities co

involvemen.

orgallllador

 

 

empowerment may lead to increased attachment and cohesion as more neighbors
perceive the ability to create the neighborhood in which they would wish to remain.
Empowerment also contributes to organizational capacity building in that the sense that
change can be made may contribute both to increased participation in the organization
and to the group’s willingness and ability to take on “bigger,” more challenging issues
and concerns. Similarly, increasing organizational capacity includes the ability to attract
new residents which would logically contribute to an increased sense of community
cohesion and may contribute to an improved sense of attachment to community among
those recruited to participate. Thus, while the solid lines in Figure 2 denote the most
direct relationships among the concepts as they are expected to relate to and build upon
one another through involvement with participatory development, the dashed lines denote
the reciprocal relationships through which the process is expected to reinforce and
perpetuate itself in successful organizational empowerment efforts.

The preceding discussion suggests several questions which must be answered in
order to assess the validity of this model as well as, by extension, the utility of
participatory development in facilitating organizational empowerment. The three
primary research questions are: 1) Does involvement in participatory development
activities contribute to increased community cohesion and attachment, 2) Does
involvement in participatory development activities contribute to improved
organizational capacity, and 3) Can organizational empowerment be enhanced through

involvement in participatory development?

96

 

 

Each «
discussion of
participants i

Ql) Does int
commun

la. P:
re

lb. P.
re

lc. P.
C

Q2) Does in‘
organize

 

 

Each question suggests a number of hypotheses derived from the preceding
discussion of the literature and supported by the priorities established by organizational
participants in the URI/MSU program. These include:

Q1) Does involvement in participatory development activities contribute to increased
community cohesion and attachment?

la. Participants will report an increasing attachment to neighborhood among local
residents.

1b. Participants will report an increasing attachment to the City among local
residents.

lc. Participants will report greater attachment to the neighborhood than to the
City among local residents.

Q2) Does involvement in participatory development activities contribute to improved
organizational capacity?

2a. Organizations will report an increased number of participants over time.

2b. Organizations will report increased level of diversity (age and gender) among
participants.

20. Participants will report an increased average length of membership.
2d. Participants will report an increased average number of hours contributed.

2e. Participants will report greater development of leadership skills among a
wider percentage of members.

2ei. Participants will report holding a greater number of leadership
positions.

2eii. More participants will report having held such positions.

2f. Is there evidence of improvements in strategic planning and consensus
building skills?

2fi. There will be evidence of increased consensus around the group
mission statement or shared vision.

2fii. Participants will report increased consensus with the group‘s choice of
activities.

97

 

 

Q3) Can org:
developme

3a 0
or

3b. T
er

3c. T

Gite
emanating fr
authors argu
embody den
COMuniry-
equitable pa
alidl't‘.SS loca
and 0rgarriz.
Consequenc
and when
Comm“.

Des
example. it

definllitm.

 

 

2fiii. Participants will report increased success of activities and
campaigns.

Q3) Can organizational empowerment be enhanced through involvement in participatory
development?

3a. Organizations will report increased networking with other similar situated
organizations?

3b. There will be evidence of increased individual and organizational sense of
empowerment?

3c. There will be evidence of increased actual empowerment through changes in
local conditions consistent with collective objectives?

SUMMARY

Given the unintended social, environmental and economic consequences
emanating from the lack of real citizen power in the development process, a number of
authors argue that transformative participation is necessary for development to begin to
embody democratic ideals and to truly address the needs of most citizens. Rooted in
community-initiated approaches from the South, participatory development utilizes an
equitable partnership approach to design small scale community—driven projects that
address locally-identified needs and interests which strengthen indigenous communities
and organizations. Such an approach may be useful in addressing the negative
consequences of the development cycle, such as deindustrialization, urban degeneration
and economic decline in the North as well. However, defining appropriate partners for
community-driven partnerships can be a challenge especially in urban settings.

Despite shared feelings of warmth and nostalgia in reference to ‘community,’ for
example, it is actually quite difficult to establish a theoretically sound and acceptable

definition. In fact, the effort to do so has dominated the sociological study of community

98

 

 

as illustrated
and Newby,
summarize a
emerge inclt
One .

urban comm
embodiment
document th
color which
concept (Hu
different bu‘
1995). It is
Communjty
and romanti
0rganizatior
as ideal par
Dumber 0ft
orgallilatio
generate a t
Strategic pl
“Match;

as illustrated by the summaries of the literature carried out by Hillery (1953 cited in Bell
and Newby, 1971), Bell and Newby (1971) and Effrat (1974), all of which attempted to
summarize and systematize the understanding of the concept. Several common themes
emerge including the debates over the primacy of location, relation and institutions.

One core debate, which is central to the current study, is over the character of the
urban community. While several researchers characterize urban centers as the
embodiment of anomie and alienation (Vidich and Bensman, 1958; Stein, 1960), others
document the existence of close relationships and mutual reliance among urban people of
color which match those of the rural communities proffered as the prototype of the
concept (Hummon, 1978). They, thus, argue that the urban community constitutes a
different but not an inferior form of community (Martindale, 1990; Rivera & Erlich,
1995). It is argued that the community building process and level of participation in
community among urban people of color rivals that of communities fitting the nostalgic
and romanticized rural ‘ideal’ (Taylor, 1995; Green, 1997). In fact, because local
organizations are often so active in these communities, it is suggested that they may serve
as ideal partners in urban participatory development efforts in this country. There are a
number of characteristics and conditions which influence the effectiveness of such
organizations including factors such as: their success in bringing neighbors together to
generate a collective vision for their community, their ability to develop and implement a
Strategic plan and to mobilize the necessary resources for achieving that vision and,
ultimately, their ability to exercise social power either directly or through increased

influence over decision makers.

99

 

 

The r
participatory
critical tutor
and decision
model of the
in these liter

organization

The review of literature regarding urban community organizations and
participatory development demonstrates parallel concerns and lessons including the
critical nature of transformational participation and local control in development planning
and decision making that affects the living conditions and lives of citizens. The emerging
model of the organizational empowerment process promises to fill several important gaps
in these literatures; to test the implications of participatory development for participant

organizations and to explore the process of empowerment at the organizational level.

100

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 5

METHODOLOGY

 

101

 

 

 

 

 

To reflect 11
such paITDCTShipse i
community organi:
participatory devel
objectives as outcc
evaluation (Fetterr
participatory resea
research process is
disempowering to
centered developn
in empowerment r
organizational lev
noted (Riger, 1991
organizational em
organization and 1
(Speer & Hughey
Processes through
iIIVOll’ement of ex
Participatory dew
cllirent study use
atdlities might c
in Order it

research Process,

 

 

To reflect the principles of transformational participation in any assessment of
such partnerships, it is important to explore their success in terms of their impact on the
community organizations and in achieving their goals and objectives for taking part in the
participatory development process rather than using typically professionally-identified
objectives as outcome criteria. Such an approach is consistent with empowerment
evaluation (F etterman, Kafiarian, & Wandersman, 1996; Small, 1995) as well as other
participatory research strategies. These participant-centered methodologies posit that the
research process is often an intervention itself which can be either empowering or
disempowering to research participants. In this case, the combination of community-
centered development and research provides an ideal opportunity to fill an important gap
in empowerment research; to explore the processes of empowerment at the community
organizational level. While this limitation of empowerment research has been previously
noted (Riger, 1993) and several authors have attempted to develop models of
organizational empowerment which explicate the characteristics of the empowered
organization and the relationship between individual and organizational empowerment
(Speer & Hughey, 1995; Saegert & Winkel, 1996), these models have not addressed the
processes through which organizational empowerment develops independently from the
involvement of empowered individuals. Thus, in addition to exploring the utility of
participatory development to address the concerns of urban community residents the
current study used that effort as a test of a model of the mechanisms through which such
activities might contribute to organizational empowerment.

In order to carry the participatory nature of the URI/MSU program through the

research process, collaborative methods were employed represented by activities such as:

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

local identification
current research; 5
assessment; and a
participants. Thor
forestry, this asses
building goals cite
theoretical literaru
especially address
and citizen and co
professionals rege
Methods v
relationship betvw
collaborative part
develoPIrrent. Th
research process 1'
and Strategic dew
empowemlem CV
pmipatol'i' rese
pmipaton dev
local Calpaci'ty bu
Pursuit of ”311an
It mUSt be

the development.

 

 

local identification of project objectives which then served as outcome criteria for the
current research; shared decision making at all phases of design, implementation and
assessment; and a long-term and ongoing relationship between the researcher and the
participants. Though, in keeping with the community-centered approach of social
forestry, this assessment is based directly on those organizational and community
building goals cited by the groups, their project goals are well-supported by the
theoretical literatures in urban and community sociology and ecological psychology,
especially addressing concerns such as community-cohesion, -organization, and -building
and citizen and community participation, further challenging the assumptions of some
professionals regarding the limitations of indigenous knowledge.

Methods were selected, in part, on the basis of their potential to equalize the
relationship between researchers and community participants and to facilitate a
collaborative partnership characteristic of both participatory research and participatory
development. The approach was capacity-building rather than deficit focused and the

research process itself, in addition to the program activities, contributed to organizational

 

and strategic development among participant groups, consistent with action research and
empowerment evaluation methodologies. Thus, in addition to reflecting the principles of
participatory research, the methods employed were consistent with the tenets of
participatory development such as meeting locally—identified needs and goals, facilitating
local capacity building and empowerment, and employing participatory methodology in
pursuit of transformative objectives.

It must be noted, however, that while participants exercised great influence over

the development of research methodology and criteria, their involvement in that process,

103

 

 

 

 

was indirect. Fori
evaluation process
block club who p0
objectives but ass:
participants were 1
and questionnaire
organizations. As
action research ml
empowennent ev:
For exam;

an Opportunity to
the academic liter
PalTiCipatory dev:
the program's suc
assessment of 'ac
emllowerment at

Procedures
During rt

Purposes ofthe 1

and its Slams as i

P - .
amclimits Wen

 

 

was indirect. For instance, the multi-level, multi-method blend of individual and group
evaluation processes evolved, in part, on the basis of suggestions by the president of one
block club who pointed out the inconsistency of working toward community-building
objectives but assessing the success of that effort individually (Anon, 1996). Similarly
participants were not actively engaged in measurement development, though interview
and questionnaire items specifically reflected the objectives identified by participant
organizations. As result, the study does not constitute a true application of participatory
action research methodology, although it is consistent with action research and
empowerment evaluation as defined by Small (1995).

For example, consistent with action research principles, the current study provides
an opportunity to explore the relationship between community-identified objectives and
the academic literature in community theory and participation most pertinent to
participatory development. Thus, in addition to the community—centered evaluation of
the program's success in meeting locally-defined objectives (which constitute an
assessment of ’actual' empowerment), the current study explores those aspects of

empowerment at the organizational level which may be of concern for local groups trying

to build community participation.

Procedures

During the introductory meetings, the community forestry approach and the
purposes of the URI/MSU program, including both its community-centered objectives
and its status as a research project of Michigan State University, were explained.

Participants were introduced to the research process and informed of the related activities

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

that would be ask:
Resources Initiati‘
taking place in se1
determination of j
multi-level, multi
two parallel procc
improvements in
as a measure of a
conditions consis
process was com-

development and

Collaboratit
The deter

the URI process.
011 the existing n
ideal vision of rt
necessary in 0rd
is provided in A
objectives for p;
pmlWlS Which I
The plar

alctillties. Thcs

 

 

that would be asked of participant groups. For participant organizations, the Urban
Resources Initiative program, including its evaluatory components, can be described as
taking place in several chronologically overlapping phases. These include: collective
determination of project objectives and assessment criteria; planning and design; and a
multi-level, multi-method evaluation approach. The evaluation component consisted of
two parallel processes, quarterly assessments of immediate objectives (such as
improvements in aesthetic, economic and social conditions) achievement of which serves
as a measure of actual empowerment; achievement of changes in neighborhood living
conditions consistent with the collective vision of the group. This quarterly evaluation
process was complimented by more in-depth biannual assessments of organizational

development and capacity building outcomes.

Collaborative Planning and Design

The determination of proj ect objectives and assessment criteria took place early in
the URI process. During this phase, members of the organization were asked to reflect
on the existing resources and skills available to the group within the community, their
ideal Vision of the community and the types of activities and resources that might be
necessary in order to achieve this vision. The instrument used to guide these discussions
is provided in Appendix A. Based on this assessment, groups identified their goals and
objectives for participating in the URI program and began to identify forestry—based
projects which might facilitate achievement of those objectives.

The planning and design phase built on this work through more detail-oriented

activities. These included: determining the specific project type to be implemented,

105

 

 

 

selecting aPPTOPTi‘
could be helpful ( 5
might be willing t
contribute refresh

necessary arrange

Evaluation
The multi
both quarterly an:
regularly schedul
They were condu
describing the rig
Participate. Barr.
signed the form r
the measures see
group discussion
group Was asked
assess how Well
whether or not g
negative Whethe
nem'orking “in.
observed Snob at

leSldems. All Of

 

 

 

selecting appropriate tree and shrub species, identifying and contacting supporters who
could be helpful (such as church groups, neighboring block clubs and other groups that
might be willing to participate in “plantng day” activities or local businesses that might
contribute refreshments or tools), scheduling the planting day event, making the

necessary arrangements with DPW and other pertinent agencies.

Evaluation

The multi-level, multi-method approach to the evaluation of the program included
both quarterly and biannual assessments. The quarterly evaluations took place during
regularly scheduled group meetings every three months following the initial planting.
They were conducted as group interviews and opened with statement of informed consent
describing the rights and responsibilities of participants, including the right not to
participate. Barring objection by any member, a representative of the group leadership
signed the form on behalf of the organization. A copy of the form is described further in
the measures section and included in Appendix A, as is the instrument used to guide the
group discussion, which is also described more fully below. During these meetings, the
group was asked to recall its initial objectives for the community forestry project and to
assess how well each objective had been achieved to—date. Additional items explored
whether or not groups encountered any unintended consequences either positive or
negative, whether they were gaining increased access to technical assistance through
networking with related agencies and organizations, and any organizational changes they
observed such as increased or decreased participation of men, women, older or younger

residents. All of the participant groups took part in this process, although local events

106

 

 

 

occasionally precl
collection point.
The proce:
building objective
these assessment j
process at the six
assessment was it
community forest
follow up meetin
purposes and pro
scheduled organi
volunteer their p:
IIon-attendees wl
implementation t
their informed cc
Were sent maten'
gTOtlp Was no 101
bpicauy Provide
pmleCl was inlpl
indicated interes
mappendix A at
explaining the r;

Sign and mail at

 

 

 

occasionally precluded a group from completing the procedures for a particular data
collection point.

The process of the assessment of organizational development and community
building objectives was somewhat more complex. For the neighborhood associations
these assessment procedures were simply integrated into the ongoing quarterly evaluation
process at the six and twelve month data collection points. However, because this
assessment was instituted several years following the planting of the block clubs’
community forestry projects, members were asked to participate in one “long term”
follow up meeting, four or five years following the initial project implementation. The
purposes and processes of the additional assessment were explained during a regularly
scheduled organizational meeting where possible and interested members were invited to
volunteer their participation. Though most participants were recruited at these meetings,
non—attendees who had been highly involved in the project development and/or
implementation were contacted directly if they were not present. Also, consistent with
their informed consent materials, all participants in the first round of focus group meeting
were sent materials for the second round of data collection. In those cases where the
group was no longer meeting, contact was made through the group President who
typically provided contact information for those members who had been active when the
project was implemented and initially evaluated. In any case, those members who
indicated interest in participating were mailed copies of a written questionnaire (included
in appendix A and described in detail below). The mailed packet also included a postcard
explaining the rights and responsibilities of participants which recipients were asked to

Sign and mail at the same time, but separately from, their questionnaire responses to

107

 

 

 

indicate their info:
and to indicate the
described these pr
focus group meet
made to ensure re
meeting, the respt
for the focus gror
Focus gro

held in the same 1
those members a
community fores
members. Howe
his group repres
interest in planm
Organization. A5
lntluded in the n
Participating in t
hthOIrses from I
hCihtating these
issues of import
agendas remain:
raised h‘ the ind

commWQrdfi\.

 

 

 

indicate their informed consent without sacrificing the confidentiality of their responses
and to indicate their interest in attending the focus group meeting. Finally, a cover letter
described these procedures and provided information regarding the time and place for the
focus group meeting to follow. Approximately two weeks later, follow up calls were
made to ensure return of mail surveys and to remind participants of the scheduled
meeting, the responses of which were compiled to provide a respondent-driven agenda
for the focus group meetings.

Focus group meetings, which were videotaped for later coding, were typically
held in the same place where regular meetings took place. Most often, participants were
those members who had been most active in the planning and implementation of the
community forestry project. In smaller groups, this typically included most if not all
members. However, in some of the larger groups, such as the neighborhood associations,
this group represented either a core membership or a group that had indicated particular
interest in planting and beautification efforts, constituting a sub-committee of the
organization. As indicated above, the meeting agenda followed similar topics as those
included in the mail surveys. Discussions, leading to consensus about the implications of
participating in the URI program, were initiated through presentation of the aggregated
responses from the individual mail surveys. A copy of the guidelines for introducing and
facilitating these meetings is included in appendix A. These guidelines ensured that
issues of importance were consistently covered in each focus group evaluation while the
agendas remained flexible to ensure an opportunity for discussion of issues or concerns
raised in the individual questionnaires or during the group meeting, as required by a

community-driven approach.

108

 

 

 

 

Measures

In order to
addressed issues t'
relationship betvvt
organizational our

goals of the panic

/

The ques
(Table 5)_ The fi
the City in gener
dimer iIlCludes
organizing Capa

CahaCliy (PC) a]

 

 

Measures

 

In order to achieve the objectives described above, measures (Appendix A)

addressed issues that reflect both a) the theoretically appropriate concerns to examine the

relationship between involvement in participatory development activities and

organizational empowerment as outlined by the conceptual model and b) the identified

goals of the participant organizations such as:

I

participants sense of community and attachment to
key aspects of their neighborhoods and the City
(COM)

whether participation in the URI/MSU program
contributes to organizational capacity building
(OCB) including: increased membership number
and involvement in group activities, diversity across
age and gender; development of leadership skills,
and a common organizational vision

whether political empowerment (PE) and political
capacity (PC) change following participation in the
URI/MSU program.

how well the URI/MSU program adhered to the
principles of participatory development including
transformative participation, community-driven
partnership and local identification of objectives
and assessment criteria (URIP).

The questionnaire items pertinent to the current study fell into three clusters

(Table 5). The first cluster explores participants’ "sense of community" and attachment to

the city in general and specifically to their own neighborhood (COM). The second

cluster includes those items assessing the outcome of the URI/MSU program on the

organizing capacity of the local organizations (OCB). Finally, items reflecting political

capacity (PC) and political empowerment (PE) are included in cluster three. Items from

109

 

 

 

the “DRIP” scale '
analyzed in terms
identified goals in
component of the
program and its p
reliability and val
capacity (PC). T.
(1985) and Zimrr

Questionr

l

AS discussed ab
successful 001m

goal by Patticip

 

 

the “URIP” scale were cross—referenced with either the “COM” or “OCB” scale and
analyzed in terms of whether the program successfully contributed to achieving group
identified goals in those areas as well as contributing to the process evaluation
component of the study. While many survey items were specific to the URI/MSU
program and its participant organizations, standardized measures with well-established
reliability and validity were used to assess political empowerment (PE) and political
capacity (PC). These were derived from scales developed by Florin and Wandersman
(1985) and Zimmerman and Zahniser (1991).

Questionnaire items specifically requested information such as:

J the pre-existing availability of skills and leadership
experience within the organization,

I the perception of the community and the
community organization's efficacy and its history of
success in addressing local issues,

I the existence of a widely accepted "organizational
mission" or shared vision,

I the ability to build consensus and to resolve
conflicts among members,

I the pre—existing sense of responsibility toward the
organization and the community, and

I participant's sense of political empowerment and
the efficacy of community-based change efforts.

As discussed above, each of these has been identified to be a major component in
successful community organization development. Each is also consistent with the aim of
increasing the number and diversity of organizational members often identified as a key

goal by participant organizations through the URI/MSU needs assessment.

110

 

at

 

 

C1 . 1: I
How strong is the SCI

In the blank next to 6
moved out of Detroit
neighborhood 5
: my neighbors
__ my neighborho

__ other: (please 11

In the blank next to e
moved out of Detroit
_ museums. thea‘
venues (DL
_ city wide holid
annual events (re
parade, 4th of Jul
the auto show).
_ tradition of org
community orgar
_ other: (please i

All things considere

live?

Ah? you currently at
neighborhood organ

lfyes, what positior
Have you ever held
Ifyes. what positior
For how long have ‘

About how. many ht
month? '

in C'ohhlhaftson “1th
)0“ say more peop]

“mid you 5“ mot
meetings?

“mild You Say [no

Table 5: Questiorm

Cluster 1: Items Assessing Sense Of Community / Community Attachment (CQM )

How strong is the sense of community in your neighborhood?

In the blank next to each item, please indicate how much you would miss each of the following if you
moved out of Detroit

neighborhood schools my church
my neighbors my block club
my neighborhood association neighborhood events (block parties,

picnics, garage sales, cabarets, etc)
other: (please list below)

In the blank next to each item, please indicate how much you would miss each of the following if you
moved out of Detroit.

_ museums, theaters and other artistic _ African American leadership
venues (DIA, the Fox Theater, etc)
_ city wide holiday celebrations and _ sporting events (i.e. Tigers and
annual events (i.e. Thanksgiving Red Wings games)

parade, 4th of July, children's day
the auto show).
_ tradition of organizing (labor unions, _ special places/areas of the city (Greek
community organizing, etc) Town, Mexican Village, Belle Isle, etc)
_ other: (please list below) '
All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this block (or neighborhood) as a place to
live?

Cluster 2: Items Assessin (‘ ' ' 'Canacitv Building (OCB!

Are you currently an officer (i.e. President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, etc) of your block club or
neighborhood organization?

If yes, what position(s) do you currently hold?

Have you ever held any other positions in the block club or neighborhood organization?
If yes, what positions have you held and during what years did you serve in them?

For how long have you been a member of your block club or neighborhood organization?

About how many hours per month do you spend on block club or neighborhood organization work per
month?

In comparison with before your group participated in the URI/MSU community forestry program, wo7uld
you say more people, about the same number of people or fewer people attend your group 5 meetings.

I
Would you say more women, fewer women or about the same number of women attend your group s
meetings?

Would you say more men, fewer men or about the same number of men attend your group s meetings

Table 5: Questionnaire Items Sorted by Scale Clusters

111

 

 

Cluster 2:
Would you say more. ft

Would you say more. f:
your group's meetings?

Would you say more. i
What are your group's '
Do you agree with tho:
11 not what changes w

How often does your (
parties, etc)?

What do you feel are 1

Have there been any a
lfyesr What Were the).

Wh) do You Think yo}
Has 3'01“ group ever]

“hurt are the 3 most :
organization?

H” We“ did the ski
the URLMSU pmgr;

How We“ does the 5‘.

How well did the 51;:
he W‘MSL' IJrogr

How well does the 5

How Well did th
t‘ 51;
the [RINSE Frog1

How well does the ,

“at are Your tron

\\ .
hm Skills 9‘ Ire-sol

Table 5; Question,

 

Cluster 2: Items " "M“‘M C ' ‘ ‘ Canacitv Building (OCB) LCnnt'dl
Would you say more, fewer or about the same number of people under 30 attend your group's meetings?

Would you say more, fewer or about the same number of people between 25 and 50 years of age attend
your group's meetings?

Would you say more, fewer or about the same number of people over 50 attend your group's meetings?
What are your group's primary goals?

Do you agree with those goals?

If not, what changes would you like to see?

How often does your organization hold special events or celebrations (such as holiday celebrations, block
parties, etc)?

What do you feel are your block clubs major successes since you‘ve been a member?

Have there been any activities or programs your group attempted that didn't work out so well?
if yes, what were they?

Why do you think your group wasn't able to succeed in that effort?
Has your group ever had trouble getting things done because of a conflict between members?
How did your group address that situation?

What are the 3 most important skills or characteristics of a successful block club or community
organization?

How well did the skill or characteristic you listed as #1 above describe your group prior to participating in
the URI/MSU program?

How well does the skill or characteristic you listed as #1 above describe your group at this time?

How well did the skill or characteristic you listed as #2 above describe your group prior to participating in
the URI/MSU program?

How well does the skill or characteristic you listed as #2 above describe your group at this time?

How well did the skill or characteristic you listed as #3 above describe your group prior to participating in
the URI/MSU program?

How well does the skill or characteristic you listed as #3 above describe your group now?
What are your group's greatest strengths?

What skills or resources do you think your group would need to be more effective?

Table 5: Questionnaire Items Sorted by Scale Clusters (cont’d)

112

 

 

Cluster 1: l 1
Why did you tom the

lfthere was a problCIl
the problem solved?

How Strong is the sen
ldon‘t think public 01
The way people vote
People like me don't
Money is the most in
Political leaders can

It doesn‘t matter whit

Political leaders usuz
common needs of all

it isn't important to g
A good many local c

30 many other pe0p
lparticipate or not.

Ila person doesn‘t c

Participation in neio

Table 53 Question:

 

 

Cluster 3; Items Assessing Political Empowerment (Pg)
Why did you join the group initially?

If there was a problem in receiving some service from the city, do you think people on the block could get
the problem solved?

How strong is the sense of community in your neighborhood?

I don't think public officials in this city care much about what people like me think.

The way people vote decides how things are run in this city.

People like me don't have any say about what the local government does.

Money is the most important factor influencing public policies and decisions.

Political leaders can generally be trusted to serve the interests of the citizens.

It doesn't matter which party wins the election; the interests of the little person don't count

Political leaders usually represent the special interests of a few powerful groups and rarely serve the
common needs of all citizens.

It isn‘t important to get involved in local issues when you know your side doesn't have a chance to win.
A good many local elections aren't important enough to bother with

So many other people are active in local issues and organizations that it doesn't matter much to me whether
I participate or not.

If a person doesn't care how a local issue is decided, s/he shouldn't participate in the decision.

Participation in neighborhood organizations is important no matter how much or how little is accomplished.

Table 5: Questionnaire Items Sorted by Scale Clusters (cont’d)

113

 

.illldii‘Ww‘ r

 

Data Analyses
First, an a
the program refle
validly be consid
proposed concep
applying particip
consequences ob
failed to adhere 1
Second, :
determine whetl
empowerment, 2
empowerment"
reflects particip;
and/or that they
resPurses. To 2
involvement wi

'he'I COllective

Qllantimj,
Recalls.

t0 l‘lBSts and or
“1310mm 1hr

“’Ol‘ded items 1

 

 

 

Data Analyses

First, an analysis of the URI/MSU process was undertaken to determine whether
the program reflects the principles of participatory development and can, therefore,
validly be considered an application of such an approach for the purposes of testing the
proposed conceptual model. Such an analysis is critical given the exploratory nature of
applying participatory development in the urban U.S. and the unintended negative
consequences observed in previous social forestry efforts in which the professionals
failed to adhere to the principles of participatory development (Shiva, 1989).

Second, responses to both quantitative and qualitative measures were analyzed to
determine whether they support or refirte that model of the process of organizational

’H

empowerment, assessed both in terms of participants sense of organizational
empowerment" (SOE) and reported "actual organizational empowerment" (AOE). SOE
reflects participants‘ belief that the group could successfully address issues of concern
and] or that they have increased access to and influence over decision makers as well as
responses. To assess AOE, responses were analyzed to determine whether, through

involvement with participatory development activities, participants were able to realize

their collective visions for their communities.

Quantitative Analyses
Because of the limited number of respondents, quantitative analyses were limited
to t-tests and correlational analyses conducted to suggest themes for more in-depth
exploration through qualitative analysis and future directions for study. Negatively

worded items were reverse coded to provide consistency in the analysis. Statistical

114

 

 

significance of th
tests given the lit
revealed by thosr
questionnaire, re
between the data
correlations Whit
based on quantit
the purposes of t
the support of th
group discussior

for future resear

Qualitative
Given tl.
majority of the :
group discussio
aBarns ofthe r
Although Want
in 00dng the tr
discussing Orga
'hemBS- Consi:
lilose lilEmes u

identifmg imr

 

 

 

significance of the correlations were not computed as they would not have been valid

tests given the limited N's. However, it is interesting to consider some of the trends
revealed by those correlations. Thus, for each core conceptual theme included in the
questionnaire, results of t-tests indicating significant differences between the groups or
between the data collection points will be presented followed by discussions of
correlations which indicate further trends within the data. Naturally, any conclusions
based on quantitative analyses with such a small sample must be suspect. However, for
the purposes of the current study, they are reported in order to provide an indication of
the support of these data for the questions explored in more depth through the focus
group discussions and open-ended questionnaire responses as well as to provide guidance

for future research in this area.

Qualitative Analyses
Given the limited utility of the quantitative data gathered as part of this study, the

majority/of the results reported are based on a synthesis of responses from the focus
group discussions conducted using The Ethnograph v. 4.0 in combination with content
analysis of the open-ended responses to the individually-completed mail questionnaire.
Although Wandersman’s framework of participation-in-community was used as a guide
in coding the transcripts of the focus group discussions, the limitations of that model in
discussing organizational characteristics necessitated the identification of additional
themes. Consistent with the purpose of this study and the literature reviewed previously,

those themes were defined based on consistencies among discussion participants in

identifying important concerns and issues. To a large extent, the success of the URI/MSU

115

 

 

program as an 3‘?
assessed in terms
envisioned by m:
group responses.
Results ar
evaluation, deter.
participants embr
necessary in ord:
purposes of testir
participatory dev
and the utility of
Second, 1
Changes in com
sense of politicai
pertaining to org
fir“ €Xplores pay
the focus gl‘OUp '
eIllpowermem (

COmImmmL Spec

 

 

 

program as an application of participatory development to the urban United States is
assessed in terms of facilitating a closer approximation to the ‘ideal’ organization
envisioned by members of the participant groups as generated by questionnaire and focus
group responses.

Results are presented according to two stages of analyses. The first, a process
evaluation, determines whether the URI/MSU program as experienced by program
participants embodies the principles of participatory development. This assessment is
necessary in order to determine the validity of defining the program as such for the
purposes of testing ability of the conceptual framework to explain the role of
participatory development in participation and empowerment at the organizational level
and the utility of participatory development in addressing urban deveIOpment concerns.

Second, the results pertaining specifically to the conceptual framework including
changes in community cohesion and attachment, organizational capacity building and
sense of political capacity and empowerment are presented in chapter 8. Results
pertaining to organizational empowerment (OE) are presented in two sub-sections. The
first explores participants’ sense of organizational empowerment (SOE) as discussed in
the focus group discussions. The second examines the evidence of actual organizational
empowerment (AOE) based on the results of the assessments of achievement of

community-specific objectives.

116

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 6

RESULTS OF THE PROCESS EVALUATION

 

 

117

 

 

 

The 05““
sufficiently ICfle'
validity 0f defini
principles includ
driven Pmmh'
made to refleCI t]
evaluation, in “'1
developIIlem (Fe
assessment of 111'
research process
Presentation off

participants in th

Participants
Individual i
While mi
group interview-‘5
Approximately t
reSpective organ
Ofiicers with the
0fparticipating r
unnamu

0Illumination for

 

 

The central question of the process evaluation is whether or not URI/MSU
sufficiently reflected the principles of participatory development in order to assess the
validity of defining the program as such for the purposes of the current study. These
principles include: relying on transformative participation, establishing community-
driven partnerships and local identification of goals and objectives. A similar effort was
made to reflect the principles of participatory research approaches, such as empowerment
evaluation, in which the research process itself is designed to facilitate organizational
development (F etterrnan, Kaftarian, & Wandersman, 1996; Small, 1995). Thus the
assessment of the effective utilization of participatory processes reflects responses to the
research process itself and its implications for participant organizations as well.
Presentation of the results of the process evaluation follows a brief description of the

participants in the research process.

Participants
Individual Respondents

While most of the data were collected at the group level through focus groups and
group interviews, individual members completed pre-focus group mail surveys.
Approximately two thirds of those responding to the questionnaire were officers of their
respective organizations. Of the remaining nine, two had previously held positions as
officers with their organization. Thus, the majority of respondents were "core members“
of participating organizations. This is reflected by the respondents’ average of 23 hours
contributed to the organizations per month. Participants had been members of the

organization for an average of 5.74 years, indicating a fairly long-term commitment to

118

 

 

the local Organize
level of involVCII
groups with men:
participation in [1
block club, gr 0“?

neighborhood 855

Mea
8.00 s

6.00 —
4.00 -

From the:
nithin their conr
concerns regardit
average citizen."
committed residc
interests be prore
Pretty and Scoor
issues. There is.

“1113’ representin

 

 

the local organizations. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate differences among the groups in the
level of involvement of assessment participants, including information only from those
groups with members responding to the individual mail questionnaires as part of their
participation in the bi-annual assessments. In those figures, group 1 is the Star Magnolia
block club, group 2 is the Quince neighborhood association, group 3 is the F orsythia

neighborhood association and Group 4 is the OK. Maple neighborhood association.

 

l

2 Mean Total Years Active in Group 1

 

i i Mean Hours per
i Month

1 8.00 .
‘ 6.00

. t

; 400 I r 4000 f

I 2.00 .. I I J 30.00 i
1 2 3 4 . i

Figure 3: Mean Years of Membership by Group Figure 4: Mean Hours Contributed per
Month by Group

 

 

From these data, it is apparent that the majority of participants were very active
within their communities and core members of the local organizations. This raises some
concerns regarding whether respondents represent the interests and concerns of "the
average citizen." However, working in collaborative efforts with highly engaged and
committed residents is consistent with Arnstein's (1969) suggestion that community
interests be protected through partnership with existing citizen power bases which, as
Pretty and Scoones (1995) observe, ofien have a well—integrated view of community
issues. There is, therefore, a bit of a paradox between the concerns of protecting and

fully representing community interests.

119

 

 

 

Organizaflt
Over the

clubs, 5 neighbi
and 3 other age
Extension Serv:
shelter. Fourb
implemented Ct
resolve leaders
these internal i-
associations re
rebuild the SUI
terminated wh.
continued to r:
‘0 implement 1
Changing the r
implementatjc
have been 1110
the URI/MSU
Clubs and all t
eValuation prt
quarterly eya]

Personnel. all

 

Organizations

Over the course of the program, introductory meetings were held with 5 block
clubs, 5 neighborhood associations considering cooperative neighborhood-wide projects
and 3 other agencies and organizations including the Wayne County Cooperative
Extension Service (CES) 4—H program, the Boysville school, and a Detroit homeless
shelter. Four block clubs, 3 neighborhood associations and the CES 4-H group ultimately
implemented community forestry projects. The remaining block club was unable to
resolve leadership conflicts and ceased their involvement with the program to focus on
these internal issues. A fire destroyed the church where one of the neighborhood
associations regularly met and the group chose to focus its energies on raising money to
rebuild the structure. The relationship with the remaining neighborhood association was
terminated when, after several months of discussion and planning, the group leader
continued to refuse to involve or even contact the residents of the block where she hoped
to implement the project, to provide contact information for those residents or to consider
changing the project site to an area with active members. It was determined that
implementation of the project without the approval or participation of those who would
have been most directly affected was contradictory to the basic values and purposes of
the URI/MSU program. Of those implementing community forestry projects, two block
clubs and all three neighborhood associations participated in the full research and
evaluation process, while the two additional block clubs participated solely in the
quarterly evaluation process. Because the CES project was primarily driven by agency

personnel, albeit with the intention of establishing closer relationships with neighborhood

120

 

 

g=iii32§¥taw> "

 

 

 

residents and org
identified obj octi
A change
relationship betv
founded suspicic
1979; Anon, 19!
several long con“
purposes of the c
group leaders, tt
by other group r
president's to In:
the principle tha
not to participat
members and th
forced to decide
block clubs did
the president pa
comPlete a urit
outcome meetir

soCit] forest“, 1

 

 

 

residents and organizations, it was not included in the current assessment of community-
identified objectives.

A change in the leadership in one group required the development of a new
relationship between the project staff and the new block club president. Due to a well-
founded suspicion of the political and social agenda of outside researchers (Baca Zinn,
1979; Anon, 1996), the new leader decided that the group would not participate, despite
several long conversations about the underlying issues and the community-centered
purposes of the current study. Having had a positive relationship with the two prior
group leaders, the project manager did contact both to ensure the decision was supported
by other group members. When they agreed the decision was the current block club
president's to make, efforts to schedule a meeting with the group ceased, consistent with
the principle that organizations involved in participatory development reserve the right
not to participate in related research activities. Following the deaths of two core
members and the prolonged illness of the block club president, another group was also
forced to decide against participating in the final evaluation process. The remaining two
block clubs did each participate in a final evaluation meeting, though in one case, only
the president participated and, while she agreed to a videotaped interview, she did not
complete a written questionnaire. For both of the participating block clubs this long-term
outcome meeting took place approximately four years following implementation of their

social forestry projects.

121

 

 

 

Organizatie
Through the
interests which '
program. A bri
an overview of
efforts and the l
and their intent
objectives will
ability to realiz
empowerment
explored in the
Throug
deve10ped ore
had to be" incl
Ofeonfidentiaf
questionnaire
discussion. T

thow these 1

W Apple 5
The C
ngram into

[nesting- Th1

 

 

Organizational Profiles

Through the project planning phase, each organization identified core concerns and
interests which they hoped to address through their participation in the URI/MSU
program. A brief introduction to each group and its history with the program will provide
an overview of the community-identified objectives for the participatory development
efforts and the reasons they were chosen. In addition to introducing the organizations
and their intentions for participation in the URI/MSU program, achievement of these
objectives will serve as an assessment of the program's utility in facilitating group's
ability to realize collective visions for the community or actual organizational
empowerment (AOE). Cumulatively, the profiles provide a sense of the common themes
explored in the current assessment.

Throughout the URI/MSU program, each group, or a core member of each group
developed or expressed a special affinity for a particular tree or shrub species which "just
had to be" included in the community forestry project. In order to observe the principles
of confidentiality in the focus group reports and anonymity of the individual
questionnaire responses, these species will serve as group labels in the ensuing
discussion. Therefore, in addition to identifying the groups by a key species, the stories

of how these labels came to be chosen will be included in each organization's profile.

Crab Apple Block Club
The Crab Apple Block Club was the first organization to invite the URI/MSU
program into their community following a presentation at their neighborhood association

meeting. The block has quite a few vacant lots, many of which were being used as illegal

122

 

 

 

 

dumpsitBS, r5130“
1992). Yet the 2.
Because the may
the physical labc
requires all large
physical limitati
many of the UK
participation in 1
concern for sevc
primary care git
the intersection
Althoug
needs of teenag
0n the block an.
meetings, The)
Participation an
residents they 6
Shortage of ava
Offered to gm“.
Works (DPW

group taking re

 

dumpsites, reportedly by suburban waste haulers avoiding landfill tipping fees (Anon,
1992). Yet the group was having great difficulty getting the City to clean them up.
Because the majority of members are senior citizens, they had been unable to carry out
the physical labor necessary to participate in the City's bulk pick up program which
requires all large items to be carried to the end of the abandoned alleys. The perceived
physical limitations of a predominantly senior membership became a common theme for
many of the URI/MSU participant organizations, which often catalyzed their
participation in the program as part of an effort to recruit younger residents. A related
concern for several of the organizations is the prevalence of grandparents taking on
primary care giver roles for grandchildren after their own children have left home. It was
the intersection of these two issues that brought the Crab Apple Block Club to URI.
Although there are several playgrounds and City parks nearby which serve the
needs of teenagers, the members wanted to create a safe space for smaller children to play
on the block and in which the community could hold special celebrations and block club
meetings. They hoped that meeting in a central and public location would increase
participation among those who had not yet been willing to attend meetings in the homes
residents they did not yet know. Given the prevalence of vacant lots, there was no
shortage of available spaces and, through the "cooperative maintenance agreements"
offered to groups participating in the URI/MSU program, the City Department of Public
Works (DPW) was able provide one thorough cleaning of the lot in exchange for the
group taking responsibility for its maintenance thereafter.
In designing the project, the women of the block club had several main goals

including: ecological (the creation of behavioral spaces), environmental, and educational

123

 

 

 

 

goals. The ecolor
neighborhood evr
that would also (1
environmental gt
providing garden
included two g0;
birds and buttert
children in the o
The labe

goals. Many of
backgrounds in

to the children.
aSiting one of tt
When what look
catalyzed the gr
Spaces in the pr
because of they:
Who Could ther.
The grc
facilitated their
S0111c Concern .

to be °01111uun

 

 

goals. The ecological goals included providing a meeting/ gathering space for
neighborhood events and creating a play space for the children with pleasant sitting areas
that would also draw adults who could supervise the children. The group’s
environmental goals included cleaning up the lots and preventing future dumping and
providing gardening space which would also attract adults to the site. Finally the group
included two goals which intersected environmental and educational purposes; to attract
birds and butterflies to the neighborhood and to grow fruit because they felt that few
children in the community had ever seen food growing.

The label, "Crab Apple" was generated by program activities around the last two
goals. Many of the older residents migrated to industrial jobs in Detroit from agricultural
backgrounds in the rural south and wanted to pass at least some of that knowledge along
to the children. One of the members, who was an avid gardener, related a story about
asking one of the children to uproot a carrot and the look of shock on the child's face
when what looked like a weed turned out to be the familiar vegetable. This experience
catalyzed the group's interest in ensuring that there would be fruit trees and gardening
spaces in the project. Crab apples were selected, in addition to pear and cherry trees,
because of their beautiful and fragrant flowers which might help to attract adults to the lot
who could then supervise the children using the area as a play space.

The group chose to name the site after the URI/MSU project manager who
facilitated their work on the site. Although this was a deeply moving tribute, there is

some concern that the name reflects a lack of a "sense of ownership;" that despite efforts
to be community-centered and community-driven, the perception of the project as an

achievement of the researcher rather than of the community persists. This may have been

124

 

 

 

facilitated in this
planting the tree
and designed thr
physical implerr
maintained, the
vandalism. Ho‘
two core memb
experienced. se‘
schedule 3 met

focus group in1

The Burning .
The 131
were introduc
groups, whicl
club has a lay:
Storage facilit
residences be
Since much 0
look the lIlltl
Mount of g;

neighbor to .

 

 

facilitated in this case by the use of undergraduate assistants to carry out the labor of
planting the trees and shrubs for the project. Thus, while block club members planned
and designed the project and continue to provide for its upkeep, few were involved in its
physical implementation. The group was quite successful in keeping the project
maintained, though they did experience some minor incidents with graffiti and
vandalism. However, the past couple of years have been quite difficult for the group as
two core members recently passed away and the President of the block club has
experienced several lengthy hospitalizations. Therefore, despite several attempts to
schedule a meeting, the group withdrew from the current study before completing a final

focus group interview.

The Burning Bush Block Club

The Burning Bush block club members are the neighbors of the Crab Apples and
were introduced to the URI/MSU program through that relationship. Unlike most of the
groups, which have vacant lots scattered throughout their areas, the Buming Bush block
club has a large concentrated area of vacant land across the street from a wooden palette
storage facility which caught on fire in the mid-1980s. The fire burned down seven
residences before it was extinguished. The land had been left vacant ever since and,
since much of the land was not yet city—owned, was only maintained when local residents
took the initiative to cut the grass or pick up illegally dumped garbage. Several times the
amount of garbage tipped into the lot exceeded the abilities of even the most dedicated

neighbor to clean up. Neighbors reported that the area was frequently used for drug sales

125

 

 

 

 

and other illicit e
otherwise 0011““
Though l
with the URI/Mi
contiguous neigl
potential damag
As a compromis
months of plant
however, it was
plan was restrur
exercise facility
use the area for
gathering and s
the abandoned
planed utilizir
traditions. Giv
members.

Once tl
problem. Alrh
frequently djd
because the 10'
integral part 0

meetings, Ar

 

 

and other illicit exchanges, thus keeping away most of those residents who would
otherwise contribute to keeping it clean.

Though the President of the block club at the time the group became involved
with the URI/MSU program was quite interested in providing youth activities, the lot’s
contiguous neighbor was concerned about turning the area into a playground because of
potential damage to her home from stray baseballs and children running through her yard.
As a compromise, the group decided to plant a "nature park" on the lot. After several
months of planning and consultation with the Director of the Belle Isle Nature Center,
however, it was determined that the group did not want to go quite “that natural” and the
plan was restructured to include a tree-lined walking path around the perimeter as an
exercise facility for the older residents who could then supervise any children who did
use the area for a play lot. Several benches were installed by the City to provide
gathering and sitting spaces. Finally, in order to discourage children from playing near
the abandoned train tracks that run across the far end of the site, a rock garden was
planned utilizing burning bush and other trees which have significance in several spiritual
traditions. Given these plans, the rock garden became a pet project of several core
members.

Once the project was implemented, however, maintenance was consistently a
problem. Although one member who is a landscaper and the son of another member
frequently did mow the area, neither were able to commit to doing so on a regular basis
because the lot was so large and time consuming. Thus, at times the project has been an
integral part of the community's life, hosting frequent community events and block club

meetings. At other times it has fallen into disrepair and members have reported concern

126

 

 

 

that the drug (16
and be comfort
declined to part
program, this ti

researchers, as

The Georgia P
Like lhr
their communi'
belong. The rr.
City services it
be resolved by
The blr
creating a safe
additional site:
Precedence. I
Program virh
the first of wh
the block club
majority of ac
Whom were u,
him the inhor

local children

 

 

 

that the drug dealers were returning to the area and "now they have benches to hang out
and be comfortable" (Anon, 1994)! Like the Crab Apples, the Burning Bush block club
declined to participate in the long—term assessment of their participation in the URI
program, this time as a result of shifting leadership and distrust of university-based

researchers, as discussed in more detail below.

The Georgia Peach Block Club

Like the Crab Apples, the Georgia Peach block club invited the URI program into
their community following a presentation to the neighborhood association to which they
belong. The main concerns of the organization were beautification and gaining access to
city services in addition to a range of social and economic goals the group believed could
be resolved by achieving those objectives.

The block has several large vacant areas and was initially primarily interested in
creating a safe play space for local children. However, as plans evolved, cleaning up
additional sites and providing an opportunity for intergenerational cooperation took
precedence. Through the URI/MSU program and the cooperative agreements of the
program with the DPW district manager's office, three abandoned and dangerous homes,
the first of which had burned down seven years previously, were cleared to make way for
the block club's community orchard. As is the case with several of the groups, the
majority of active block club members are seniors who migrated from the South, many of
whom were nostalgic for fruit trees and homemade bakery and jams. The group came up

with the innovative idea of planting a community orchard and using the produce to teach

local children traditional baking and preserving methods. The products could then be

127

 

 

 

sold at the Basie?
community obie
Unfortur
produced at van
for high levels 0
extenuating circ
term illness of a
but is no longer
pruning. The P
was being repai
neighborhood v
homes or to the

activity for son

The Star Magi

The UF
dlSlrlCt manag‘
maintenance a
vith the group
Was at one ofj
Attending mee

Would Particip

 

 

sold at the Eastern Market or within the community and the proceeds used for other
community objectives, including developing the play lot project.

Unfortunately, many of these plans have yet to be realized. While the trees have
produced at various levels over the years, the group has not been able to maintain them
for high levels of production. The group's level of activity has been inconsistent due to
extenuating circumstances. Foremost was the death of two core members and the long-
term illness of a third, who continues to be quite active in basic maintenance activities,
but is no longer able to carry out more physically challenging labor such as heavy
pruning. The President was also forced to relocate for several months while her home
was being repaired following extensive fire damage. Shortly thereafter, the
neighborhood was hit by a tornado. Though there was no major damage to either any
homes or to the trees, the clean up effort took precedence over any other community

activity for some time thereafter.

The Star Magnolia Block Club

The URI program was introduced to the Star Magnolia Block Club by the DPW
district manager who had been working closely with the program on cooperative
maintenance agreements and other arrangements for some time and who was acquainted
with the group's President, who is also a city employee. When planning began, the group
was at one of its high points, membership-wise, with as many as 10—15 core members
attending meetings and participating in organizing events regularly. Additional residents

would participate in special events such as a community flower planting to beautify the

128

 

 

 

neighborhood. T
additional ‘ green
The grouj
project. They be
agroforestry gart
anumber of chi}
activities includ‘
remained active
of the last Ule.
broadest range t
participant orga
The gro
Which they beli
eIlsuring somer
Went through 3
maintenance, t
attemuting to r
broadening its
adlills to Super
serve as a con
Passed away a
daughter of a

nation} atten

neighborhood. The success of that effort in particular generated widespread support for
additional ‘greening’ opportunities.

The group originally had extensive plans for their URI/MSU community forestry
project. They hoped to develop a community tree nursery as well as a community
agroforestry garden and play lot for the children. Unlike many community organizations,
a number of children, including the President’s family, were active participants in group
activities including the planning and implementation of the community nursery. They
remained active throughout the evaluation process, though two were in college by the end

of the last URI/MSU evaluation meeting. For that reason, this organization provides the

 

broadest range of intergenerational perspectives over the longest evaluation term of any
participant organization.

The group chose a large open space across the street from the President’s house,
which they believed would help to keep the space free from vandalism as well as
ensuring someone was nearby who would water and look after the trees. The project
went through several cycles paralleling those of the organization. After a lapse in project
maintenance, the group reported at the final quarterly evaluation meeting that it was
attempting to reorganize and considered renewing their commitment to the project;
broadening its appeal through the inclusion of barbecue pits and benches to draw out
adults to supervise the youth. It was hoped that creating a gathering space might also
serve as a community-building tool to bolster the renewal efforts. Two older members
passed away and several others moved out of the neighborhood. Most distressing, the
daughter of a core member was murdered on the Belle Isle bridge in a case that received

national attention. Over the next two years, the membership would fall and plans for the

 

 

 

garden and play 10‘
can)" out that work
early in the site part
and old fences, 61C

many U665 as p055

The F orsythia Ne
The Forsy
side. Many of thi
consolidating the
They, therefore, 1
block club meml
cooperates. The
home revoked it
have been target
careful to note t'
c01111111111ity,but
Natural
There is a fairly
association is \r
keeping a volu
fill governing-

their current or

garden and play lot were dropped. Unfortunately, the remaining members were unable to
carry out that work, in part because the City failed to provide all of the services agreed to
early in the site preparation phase (leveling the area, clearing out several large dead trees
and old fences, etc.). At last contact, the members’ were making plans to salvage as

many trees as possible for use in local landscaping.

The F orsythia Neighborhood Association

The F orsythia Neighborhood Association is a small group on Detroit’s near west
side. Many of the members live in areas with active block clubs, but they believe that
consolidating the power of many blocks will be necessary to bring about any real change.
They, therefore, meet monthly and try to create projects which they hope will show other
block club members and neighborhood residents what can be done when a broader group
cooperates. They have had several big wins, most notably getting the permit for a group
home revoked when the sponsoring agency was clearly mismanaging the site. While they
have been targeted for an unusually high number of such facilities, the President is
careful to note that they do not seek to eliminate the remaining group homes from the
community, but that this particular home was ‘not a very good neighbor.’

Natural resource-based projects are an important part of the group’s strategic plan.
There is a fairly high concentration of vacant lots in the community and the neighborhood
association is working to turn them into opportunities instead of liabilities. In addition to
keeping a volunteer position staffed to keep the lots out, they have actively lobbied the
City government for an official contract to maintain lots in their vicinity. Unfortunately,

their current equipment is insufficient to maintain the number of lots typically included in

 

 

 

a city contract 50
maintenance con
By the tii
already convene
community gard
natural fence alc
traffic from the
from the nurse:
to establish thei
the community.
Despite
suburban churc
association in t
office as well a
Master Garden
those contacts,
miSdemeanor i
Was able to rm
There was init
abtllll the tree:
macro are
use the city“

 

 

 

a city contract so they are hoping to collaborate with neighboring organizations on a
maintenance contract or to raise the funds necessary to purchase a larger tractor.

By the time the group began working with the URI/MSU program, they had
already converted a large open space into a community park with a play area and
community gardening space. For their community forestry project, they wanted to add a
natural fence along the back of the park to prevent illegal dumping and discourage foot
traffic from the alley as well as planting a community nursery on another site. Trees
from the nursery were to be used to reclaim additional lots throughout the neighborhood
to establish their presence and to demonstrate the difference such efforts could make in
the community.

Despite their own limited membership, the group has established ties with several
suburban churches, a W.K. Kellogg Foundation-funded neighborhood development
association in the area and the Wayne County Cooperative Extension Service (CES)
office as well as other nearby community-based organizations. The current President is a
Master Gardener who has worked extensively with the CES program. Drawing on all of
those contacts, as well as the Wayne County Alternative Workforce (made up of
misdemeanor violators doing ‘community service’ as part of their sentences,) the group
was able to mobilize more than 50 people to participate in their initial URI tree planting.
There was initially some conflict with a neighbor of the nursery site, who was concerned
about the trees blocking the view through to the alley and leaves blowing over onto her
property. Although it was not legally necessary as the group had the City’s permission to
use the city-owned land, the President was able to negotiate with her to continue the

Planting as long as the trees were transplanted within one year. This course of action

131

 

 

provides further
neighborhood re

The nurs
enough voluntec
their maintenani
pith the Quince

sell some of the

The Quince Ne

Member
URI/MSU prog
for the introduc
historical conm
Projects with at
trees planted th
OfyearS, allowi
group was espe
has“? mice

The grc
holly to be use
du‘mg the holi
given some co:

their sale and t

 

 

provides further evidence of the group’s interest in maintaining cooperative
neighborhood relationships and bringing about positive change for the entire community.
The nursery project has been fairly successful, though the group had not identified
enough volunteers to transplant all of the trees onto sites with neighbors committed to
their maintenance within the year. As of the final evaluation meeting, they were working
with the Quince neighborhood association, another URI/MSU participant organization, to

sell some of the trees or transplant them to the Quince group’s nursery.

The Quince Neighborhood Association

Members of the Quince neighborhood association were introduced to the
URI/MSU program through the same community development organization responsible
for the introduction of the Forsythia group. The Quince association had a similar
historical commitment to ‘greening’ programs and had organized several tree planting
projects with another program. Because that organization required a commitment that the
trees planted through their program be maintained, unmoved and unharmed, for a period
of years, allowing for the development of extensive shading and beautification plans, the
group was especially interested in the opportunity to utilize their URI/MSU community
forestry project for ‘working trees.’

The group’s initial plan was to plant Christmas trees, possibly intercropped with
holly to be used with trimmings from the conifers to make wreaths that could be sold
during the holidays until the trees were old enough to be sold themselves. However,
given some concerns about protecting the trees from theft during holiday seasons prior to

their sale and the necessity of providing supervision to prevent children from coming into

 

 

 

 

 

contact with the
shrub nursery Pl
planting activitii
nursery stock to
program, which

Theirs is
group chose to 1
organization thr
extensive nursei
interest and lore
inclusion of Qu

Althoug
and labor, the u
President feels 5
activities given
necessary skills
OPPOTUmity to 1
members of the
DIOpei-ty to flirt
because the pm
Project has gen
Wm. Severn] 3

around their ho

 

 

 

contact with the toxic holly berries, the group decided to develop a community tree and
shrub nursery project instead. The nursery would allow them to expand on their current
planting activities with their own stock or to utilize proceeds from the sale of their
nursery stock toward their acquisition of more mature shade trees through the other
program, which requires a 50% contribution from participating organizations.

Theirs is the only URI/MSU project not planted on city-owned land. Instead, the
group chose to utilize the property of the new President, recruited to participate in the
organization through their involvement with the URI/MSU program because of her
extensive nursery management and master gardener skills. She also has a great deal of
interest and knowledge about medicinal uses of plants and specifically requested the
inclusion of Quince, one of her daughter’s favorites, for such applications.

Although the group acknowledges the generosity of the contribution of her land
and labor, the use of her lot has led to some conflict in the organization. In short, the
President feels she has been held responsible for the majority of the maintenance
activities given that the trees are on her property and because she already had the
necessary skills. In contrast, she had envisioned using the project as an educational
opportunity to facilitate the development of such skills among her neighbors. Other
members of the group have indicated feeling uncomfortable about going on her private
property to trim the shrubs or carry out other maintenance tasks without her supervision
because the project has been so meticulously maintained. Despite this conflict, the
project has generated some economic benefits for the group which has held two tree
sales. Several group members have utilized the resources to upgrade the landscaping

around their homes, contributing to the beautification of the neighborhood.

133

 

 

 

 

The Crimson Ki
The Cut

most well know
ago when the Pi
block clubs thrc
the leadership 0
their efforts wh
number of corn
all working on
such as an after
program, and a
planting pro gr:
‘nature park’ ii
Given 1
deliberate in p
requested a to]
Crimson ang
deftttitely incl
the Star Magn
“We more
Particular inte
a‘ld flower 3]

 

 

The Crimson King Maple (CK. Maple) Neighborhood Association

The Crimson King Maple neighborhood association is one of Detroit’s largest and
most well known community organizations. The group was founded almost twenty years
ago when the President began talking to her neighbors and initiating the establishment of
block clubs throughout the area. Eventually, when enough block clubs were functioning,
the leadership of those groups began meeting regularly to coordinate and consolidate
their efforts where possible. The group has grown tremendously and now includes a
number of committees such as a core members group, a men’s group and a seniors group
all working on specific issues within the community. They also run several programs
such as an after school program for neighborhood children, a drug abuse prevention
program, and a program for single mothers. They had participated in several tree-
planting programs prior to their involvement with URI/MSU and had established a
‘nature park’ in the neighborhood.

Given their history and range of organizing experience, the group was quite
deliberate in planning their community forestry project. Among their efforts, they
requested a tour of already established projects. One core member was quite attracted to
Crimson King maples and pointed them out at each site until everyone agreed it would be
definitely included in the group’s project. The members ended up taking inspiration from
the Star Magnolia’s original plans by developing an integrated agroforestry/community
nursery project. Two of the association members have a catering business and expressed
particular interest in incorporating an herb garden into the project, while another is an
avid flower and vegetable gardener. Given their extensive programming in the

community, there was discussion of whether the garden should serve a ‘social service’

134

 

 

 

function or as a
neighborhood n
project activitie
to local seniors
The gro
commitment oi
away and, with
as it might hav
to be the one L
the trees and sl
fence died alm
Many of the re
site. The grou
inconvenient 1
relocating the
trees or by gel

Up Where they

Summarl
Table
Participant 0r.
Paint. Girem

We“ as 1he di

 

 

function or as a fundraising tool. Ideas included running the project as a co-op for
neighborhood residents who could receive vegetables in exchange for participating in
project activities or selling the vegetables at the Eastern Market and donating any extras
to local seniors and families with children.

The group chose a site central to the most involved members, with the
commitment of a neighbor to water the site regularly. However, that neighbor moved
away and, with no core members on the immediate block, it was not as closely supervised
as it might have been otherwise. Perhaps as a result, this project unfortunately turned out
to be the one URI/MSU site to experience significant vandalism. While quite a few of
the trees and shrubs survive, some of the arborvitae planted along the back as a natural
fence died almost immediately, apparently due to adverse environmental conditions.
Many of the remaining arborvitae were uprooted and stolen or left scattered around the
site. The group never got the vegetable/herb garden under way, partially due to the site’s
inconvenient location. At the last evaluation meeting the group was considering
relocating the nursery to a site across from a core member, either by transplanting the
trees or by selling them and using the proceeds toward new plant materials, and picking

up where they left off.

Summary Of Organizational Participation
Table 6 documents the number of individual participants from each of the seven
participant organizations involved in program evaluation activities at each data collection
point. Given the small size and pilot nature of the URI/MSU program to begin with, as

well as the difficulties encountered in arranging assessment meetings with several of the

135

 

 

 

#

610“?
Nickmm
#

 

Crab Appl

 

Burning B

Georgia
Peaches

 

 

' Magnolia

 

Forsythia

 

Quince

 

‘ Crimson l
'Eium—n
Sub-Total
[10331 m
Table 6:

 

gToups, discus:
cluits small. \l
may CSpecialb
from anonymc
data generated
several years 2
analysis of the
quantitative d;
indisidual q“:
Public focus g

him] to em;

Group (T1) Focus (T2) Focus
Nickname Mail Group Mail

Group
Crab X X X X
Bush
Georgia
Peaches

X X X

Crimson

Sub-Total

 

Organization
groups, discussed below, the number of individuals participating in the current study was
quite small. When aggregated by group or data collection point, this small sample size
may especially problematic for statistical analyses. However, these quantitative data
from anonymous individual respondents are presented in conjunction with the qualitative
data generated through the in-depth focus group discussions carried out over a period of
several years as well as quarterly group interviews to provide a multi-method, multi-level
analysis of the programs' functioning within participant communities. Thus, while the
quantitative data are insufficient to stand alone, in this case as anonymous responses to
individual questionnaires they serve to corroborate the validity of comments made in

public focus groups. They further suggest relationships within the data which may be

fruitful to explore in future research in this area.

136

 

 

 

Transformati"
The firs
program and its
the participants
within the com
(URIP), explor
initial impressi
objectives thro
changes in this
positive impre
Tl was 3.08 a
Was 2.95, for 1
3.01 and fort]
Issues
transfonnativ
Project and er
indicated in 1
the focus 380
Ihis discussic

m

Evaluation of

Table 7; Focus

 

 

PROCESS EVALUATION
T ransformative Participation

The first factor assessed in determining whether or not participation in the
program and its evaluation was experienced as transformative rather than functional, was
the participants’ perceptions of the role of the researcher and of the URI/MSU program
within the community. A scale fiom the individual mail surveys, Perception of URI
(URIP), explored participants’ perceptions of the URI/MSU program including their
initial impression of the program and their perception of the likelihood of achieving local
objectives through community forestry activities. While there were no significant
changes in this scale either over time or between groups, means revealed a generally
positive impression. For example, the mean score on the 4—point scale across groups at
T1 was 3.08 and at T2 was 2.99. The mean score for the members of the Star Magnolias
was 2.95, for the members of the Quince association were 3.21, for the F orsythias was
3.01 and for the C.K. Maples was 2.98.

Issues discussed by focus groups pertaining to the program's utility of
transformative participation included the sense of community ownership of the URI
project and evaluative comments about the programs role in the community. As
indicated in Table 7, these topics accounted for .42% of the 1443 coded statements from
the focus group transcripts. The sense of community ownership accounts for about 2/3 of

this discussion.

 

Discussion Topic Item % of Category °/o of
category discussion
Sense of community ownership 66.67 0.42
Evaluation of URI/MSU 33-33
Table 7: Focus Group Assessment of Transformative Participation

  
   

 

 

  

 

 

 

137

 

One p31
to help urban C
to work within

with functiona

 

In contrast, th
While the prc
believing that
meeting local

Where the pn

 

 

 

 

One participant contrasted the URI/MSU program with others that, while hoping
to help urban communities, constrain access to resources based on applicants' willingness
to work within a pre—determined agenda in an approach that was clearly more consistent

with fimctional definitions of participation.

what you need and what you should do, like rehabbing this
year and last year, the year of the rehab, just like in China
it's the year of the rabbit? Well, in America its the year of
the rehab. All the foundations have decided that in the
inner cities should be rehabbed and guess who's gonna do it
for them? We will give you some money, well we won't
actually give it to you, we'll loan it to you, if you will do
this work for us so we can tell ourselves that we have done
this great thing and my attitude toward that is BS... And
from my point of view, what use is a foundation to me if it
will not consider what I need?... And, uh, this is something
I do and I really appreciate about your program is that it
seems geared toward solving the kinds of problems that we
have that nobody else will.

In contrast, the same speaker appreciated the partnership aspects of the URI approach.
While the program was perceived as having specific objectives, the speaker reported
believing that it demonstrated equal concern for community interests and constraints;
meeting local effort with parallel contribution of material and informational resources

where the program has greater access.

I liked the idea that the trees were free... I view your
program as in the same vein as uh, the oh, the old land, uh,
land acts, when they set it— like the Oklahoma territory,
when people could go in and claim land. Basically, the
government was giving away land for free... and, they had
a choice, they could either do that or they could ask folk to
pay for this and the question was, whether they wanted the
land filled or not. The question for groups that are trying to
work with inner city neighborhood groups is what's more
important? Selling the trees to recoup some of the cost,
which is a valid thing. Or does it make more sense to have
a group that has the financial ability to contribute that part,
the cost of the actual trees and bushes, in order to keep the

138

 

 

 

 

Thus, this spea
reliance on par

One ga
participation 1

participant wh

Demonstratin
important insi
that would en

needs within -

Power Ar
Perha
succeeded in
their assessrr
Wins need:
forestry proj.
Pohhcal eml

Issues as out

 

 

 

cost minimal in order to get the job done? That's the
hardest part of it, getting the job done

Thus, this speaker's comments reflect the formation of equitable partnerships and the
reliance on participation in the transformative sense.

One gap in the program‘s efforts to fully reflect principles transformative
participation, however, was the professional control of funding resources as noted by one

participant who suggested,

...if the funds were divided up by phases, so some could

have gone to paying someone to cut the lot. If we had a

budget that had to be spent by a certain time, we could have

implemented it in phases- the upkeep... which would have

produced more participation... even if it was just getting

some little boys to go cut it each Saturday- some kind of

grant structure...
Demonstrating a strong sense of ownership over the program, this participant brought
important insights regarding the importance of finding procedures for funding allocation

that would ensure greater community control and better address organizational resource

needs within the constraints on funds provided through grants to university personnel.

Power And Resources
Perhaps the most practical criteria for assessment of whether the program
succeeded in shifting the balance of power in favor of local organizations comes from
their assessment of Whether they were able access to the information and resources the
groups needed to be successful in achieving their objectives, both for their community
forestry project and beyond, either through the program or through their own expanded
political empowerment and organizational capacity. While a general discussion of these

issues as outcomes of participation in the program will be discussed in ensuing sections,

139

 

 

 

 

assessments of
orgamations a

As illu:
group discussi
and whether 0:
discussion. In
frequently disr

lDiscussion Top

'Discussion/des
Availability of n
Attitude toward
Table 8: Focus (

 

Again, the par
this context. .
ensure access

d0Initiating ti

One reported

necessary i0 ‘

idea] Deeds.

 

assessments of them as characteristics of the partnership between the community
organizations and the URI/MSU program are appropriate to the current discussion.

As illustrated in Table 8, discussion of these issues comprised 17.19 % of focus
group discussions. By far the discussions of resources needed for successful organizing
and whether or not the program facilitated access to those resources dominated this
discussion. In fact, with 236 coded statements referring to this topic, it was the most

frequently discussed issue throughout the focus group discussions.

 

 

Discussion Topic [ Item % of J Category % of
category discussion
Discussion/description of other NGOs 2.02 I 17.19
95.16 F

   
  

 

 

Availability of necessary resources 7 ]
Attitude toward conventional power holders 1 2.82 7 1
Table 8: Focus Group Assessment of Power and Resources

 

Again, the partnership aspects of the URI program was recognized as empowering within
this context. As recognized by one speaker, program personnel were involved enough to

ensure access to necessary resources and assistance to meet local needs without
dominating the process.

when we first started with the program, there was always
information as to who to call, we had numbers as to if we
had problems with the trees or whatever, we had numbers
to call. It wasn't like we were just "hey, here's a project,
you go for it" there were numbers, there were other outlets

for us to reach out to
One reported benefit of the program was development of the skills and information
necessary to allow for entrepreneurial use of the plant resources while meeting important
local needs.

[the program] has increased our knowledge about trees and

shrubs, about different types of plants and a greater
sensitivity toward our environment. An awareness of what

140

 

 

 

Such informal

and issues the

The following
professionalit
empowermen'
facilitate acce
appreciation c
would not be
involvemem 1

orgittlizationa

on, this ,pg.

pOSiiiOIl the C

 

 

kinds of shrubs do people like and use, what has economic
potential in our neighborhood

Such information was seen as critical for community organizations facing the concerns
and issues the participant groups focus on.

You need to have knowledge and control over vacant

properties and buildings... knowledge of land use, what's

around you, use of land in and around the neighborhood

and of other information that affects the area...
The following speaker's comment indicates that URI fulfilled an appropriate role for a
professional/university-based program working in partnership for community
empowerment as defined by F awcett et al (1995) by helping to reduce barriers and
facilitate access to governmental structures and decision-makers. While indicating
appreciation of this role, the comment also reveals a continued perception that the group

would not be able to access these offices and support without the program's continued

involvement raising questions about whether participation in the program did facilitate
organizational empowerment in this case.

I don't know if we could have done better communicating
directly- It seemed politically best to have you as a contact-
URI had some kind of sanction with the city government,
forestry department...

Still, this speaker indicates an expectation that their successful URI project will better
position the organization for future efforts.
...clout. When we submit other plans for projects- if one

thing is successful people would recognize that we were
trying and had successfully completed a project...

141

 

 

 

CornmlmitY'I

Partici]
gathered prim:
comments mat

of the program

the extent to n
agendas. The:
might be typic
expanding the
meeting subsi
agencies are n

m

R.
W
Comments abc
x
Evaluation of c
K
Sooal concern
W
ECOiogica| com
Goals to clean
Environmental!
Misc. Goals for
SUbSiSience g<
Organizing 902
Environmental
W
Dr anizat'

W

 

Appreciation
expressing m

 

 

Community-Driven Partnership

Participants' responses to the program's community-driven approach were
gathered primarily through the focus group discussions and represented almost 10% of
comments made during those discussions. Comments specifically evaluating this aspect
of the program accounted for about 5.5% of this conversation. Other comments reveal
the extent to which the effort was successfiil through community-definition of the project
agendas. They reveal a much broader range of intentions and expected outcomes than
might be typical of professional-driven developments. For example, issues such as
expanding the representation of different age groups in community organizations,
meeting subsistence goals and improving networking with other organizations and

agencies are not typical objectives for urban forestry.

Discussion Topic
Evaluation of URIs community-driven approach

 

 

 

 

Item % of Category % of
category discussion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii 5.56 T 9.98

@distribution of community residents [ 0.69 i

Bmments about trees- role in community, etc I 25.69 |

Evaluation of community I 0.69 T ‘7
Social concerns and goals at community level i 0.69 J ‘l
@graphic goals or concerns at community level L 2.78 I

Ecological concerns and goals for vacant lots L 2.08 l j
Goals to clean up neighborhood/community l 2.78 L
Environmentally-related concerns and goals for lots 1 8.33 I

Misc. Goals for "improving lots" through URI/MSU l 2.08 I a
Subsistence goals for URI project I 4.86 l

Organizing goals for URI/MSU project I 6.94 j

Environmental goals for URI project I 13.19 [

Networking and affiliational goals for URI project I 22.92 I i
Organizational goals for URI/MSU participation 0.69 |

 

Table 9: Focus Group Discussion of Community-Driven Partnership

Appreciation for the community driven approach came from one participant who, after
expressing frustration at the loss of several trees, realized that addressing community

building objectives is central to the program in contrast with other community tree

142

 

 

 

planting progr

survival.

In some areas
responsive roT

(1995) contin

In some case:
dIiVen proees
organizing p1

the end of fur

AIS a [‘65qu i:

 

planting programs which prioritize more typical professional concerns such as tree

survival.

One thing I like about your program is that you heard me
be critical about the loss of some of your trees. It's not that
they're expendable, it's just that you take the attitude that,
well, this happens. The pay off will be if a group such as
ours learns from those mistakes and looses less trees in the
future and less bushes in the fiiture because we've learned.
That would seem to me to mean that eventually there will
be an attrition in regards to losses and a better use of

resources.

In some areas, however, the program may have erred in overly limiting itself to a

responsive role more typical of the 'community initiated' end of McDonough ct. al's

(1995) continuum.

...the contact. There should have been more contact. That
wasn't your fault, like I say, it's ours because we didn't keep
in contact, or keep ourselves open enough to you to come
in and discuss, well, "Kerry, this and what do you think
about that? Could you give us feedback or get some people
to come out and look at it?” each time, you know, like that.
Now that's our fault, but that would have helped more.

In some cases constraints imposed on the program led to constraints on community-

driven processes. For example, some groups were unable to utilize their established

organizing processes to expand involvement in the project planning due to time limits at

the end of funding cycles.

[we] had to prepare quickly, didn't have time to evaluate
other potential sites... [there was] not enough planning time
ahead to develop total picture and different aspects of a
total plan. There was not enough time, there was not
enough in-depth planning. If you fail to plan, you plan to
fail.

As a result, participation in the planning phase for this group was limited to core

members rather than serving as a tool to recruit new or peripheral members to more

143

 

 

 

central roles. ‘
activities after

planning iIan

Gener:
to the principl
participation,
objectives. T.
program in ac‘
suggestions ft
for shortfalls
sense of com
and Participai
not achieved
irrlportam cor
deVEIOPment
Warming acti

irritability it
generally rep

avoid domin

 

central roles. While the group hoped to make up for that during maintenance and other
activities after the fact, the reduced sense of ownership among those not involved in the
planning impeded that effort.

The bottom line is that there should have been more people
involved in the total process, in the planning prior to the
project.

SUMMARY

Generally, participants' responses reflected positively on the program's adherence
to the principles of participatory development including; reliance on transformative
participation, community-driven partnerships and local identification of goals and
objectives. There is, for example, evidence of a strong sense of ownership over the
program in addition to the projects completed by participant organizations, reflected in
suggestions for ways to improve on its approaches and the sense of shared responsibility
for shortfalls in achievement of proj ect objectives. Respondents also evidenced a strong
sense of community control over the projects including the identification of objectives
and participation in design and other related activities. One area where this principle was
not achieved was in control of financial resources, which one participant offered
important constructive suggestions for future efforts to implement participatory
development programs. Similarly, there were constraints on the time available for
planning activities imposed by grant cycles which impeded some groups' outreach efforts
and ability to recruit greater participation in planning activities. Still, participants
generally reported a sense of equity in the partnership. In fact, in some cases efforts to

avoid dominating community partners paradoxically resulted in the failure to ensure the

144

 

 

 

groups were a]
was often citel
through the Cl
ensure that thr
room for impr
development ]

principles of r

 

 

groups were able to access information and resources effectively. For example, while it
was often cited as a valuable resource, provision of contact names and telephone numbers
through the C- "v Resources Manual (V achta & Buncic, 1994) was insufficient to
ensure that those resources were accessible to URI/MSU participants. While there is
room for improvement and important lessons for future efforts to implement participatory

development programs, it appears that the URI/MSU program sufficiently reflected the

principles of participatory development to serve the purposes of the current study.

145

 

CHAPTER 7

RESULTS OF THE CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

146

 

 

 

Havin,
principles of I
explore whetl
empowermen
process takes
sense of share
constitute cor:
membership 2
writing thos
hypothesized
organizationa
achievement 1
vision. Engaj
provide come
process of Org
Concerns and
greater aware
Current COHdi'
Process won}.
relationships

Conditions in

 

Having determined that the Urban Resources Initiative did sufficiently reflect the
principles of participatory development, the purpose of the conceptual evaluation is to
explore whether participatory development can contribute to organizational
empowerment and to test the conceptual model of the mechanisms through which that
process takes place. As illustrated by that model, the initial presumptions were that the
sense of shared identification, neighborliness, mutual concern and interest which
constitute community cohesion contributes to organizational capacity through increased
membership and the attendant increases in available skills and resources. By successfiilly
applying those skills and resources to collectively identified community concerns, it was
hypothesized that increasing organizational capacity would contribute to both a sense of
organizational empowerment as well as actual organizational empowerment; the
achievement of objectives contributing to the realization of the collective community
vision. Engagement in participatory development activities, it was proposed, would
provide context for and contribute to each of these components in the model of the
process of organizational empowerment. It would create opportunities to identify shared
concerns and interests, context and opportunities to build skills and strategic planning and
greater awareness of and experience with social and political forces generating the
current conditions within the communities. Finally, the participatory development
process would provide experience with and opportunities to bring these resources,
relationships and understandings to bear on an effort to collectively improve local

conditions in a manner consistent with that shared vision.

147

 

 

 

Attachment,

As dis
neighbors, di:
considered as
organizing. I
the levels of r
URI/MSU pr
collection p0:
c00peration p
(Figure 5). I

the 9th montl

Disco

rCSlClem llll'n

 

Attachment, Cohesion And Neighborliness

As discussed previously, a sense of mutual responsibility and cooperation among
neighbors, discussed in terms of ‘neighborliness’ or ‘community cohesion,’ is oflen
considered an important aspect of community-building and a precursor to effective local
organizing. Through the quarterly group interviews, the groups were asked to compare
the levels of cooperation among neighbors prior to and following their participation in the
URI/MSU program. They reported improved cooperation among neighbors at each data
collection point relative to before planting the projects, yet also report higher levels of
cooperation prior to planting almost consistently throughout the evaluation process

(Figure 5). The exception is a drop in the assessments of pre-participation cooperation in

the 9th month of the evaluation.

 

 

 

...i Pre-URI — Cunerfl

Figure 5: Assessment of Cooperation Among
Neighbors Before and After URI

Discussion of issues relating to neighborhood stability and community cohesion
comprised 4.57% of focus group discussions with cooperation among neighbors and

resident turn over constituting the most common topics of this discussion.

148

 

 

 

+———-—-r—'
lCommunity f

impact of ho
[impact of rer
[Stability of re

I

[Cooperation

.—_—-—-—-

TdflelO:Fo

ll

While reco

demonstrat

“nukiflns

SUIprised '

The fact t
C0rldition
to be affe

SUUngrr

important

C-Ommlln

 

 

discussion

 

While recognizing the challenges posed by the depopulation of the city, one participant

demonstrated the ability to see this commonly cited problem as a resource.

Half of the people in the city of Detroit have moved out-

it's lost half of the population. You're going to have vacant
buildings. It doesn't have to do with what people do to
destroy the City or anything, it's just simply a case of if you
don't have folk in a house, if they die, the older folks die off
their kids have moved, the kids aren't interested in the
house, at that point, or five ten years later the City finally
tears it down, and then you've got a vacant lot. We can
treat that as a disaster or we can landscape and fill in and
give the City a park effect...

While this group's efforts typically center around use of this resource, even they were

surprised by the extent to which the process is continuing to affect their neighborhood.

I mean and like in this neighborhood, we did a survey of

vacant lots and empty homes last year I think it was and we

were surprised that we were still losing people, we didn't

realize that.
The fact that neighborhood association members, typically very informed about local
conditions and issues, were surprised by the extent to which the neighborhood continues
to be affected by the depopulation of the City reflects the groups identified need to build
stronger cohesion and attachment in that community.

As a participant from another group noted, this rate of resident turn over has

important implications for local organizing efforts creating a perpetual need for
community—building efforts.

149

 

 

In light of th

residents tog

The collectir

concerns he

Whi
the groups I
events or er
the URI/Mt
Were signif
Magnolia b
1.80, p < .0
Magrloliat

Wore the m

 

it's just like family, but then people move and people come
in and everybody's skeptical and they have to get to know
you and you have to know them... and you have to start the
whole block over again... If you look at changing
neighborhoods, the neighborhood organizations that exist
fall apart when the population changes and it takes a good
number of years for the new neighborhood to establish its
organizations.

In light of these challenges, most groups saw the URI program as an opportunity to bring

residents together to begin identifying common concerns.

if we got together that would be a start— at least we should
be able to work on a few problems— at least people would
be able to talk to each other... It would be an opportunity
for members to get to know each other better.

The collective effort of participating in community forestry activities to address shared

concerns helped at least one group maintain cohesion in the face of other challenges.

My honest opinion is that this program has helped keep our
organization together, we have undergone a transition in
leadership and leadership styles... but the focus on the lot
and the nursery has created an issue around which we can
focus or really to stay focused on our objectives and goals.

While the project sites became community gathering spaces to varying degrees,

the groups report significantly different changes over time in the number of special

events or celebrations organized following, in comparison with prior to, participation in

the URI/MSU program. The C.K. Maple neighborhood association (0 = 2.67) members

were significantly more likely to report holding more such events than either the Star

Magnolia block club (0 = 2.00, p < .05) or the Forsythia neighborhood association (0 =

1.80, p < .05) in the time since their introduction to URI/MSU. The members of the Star

Magnolia block club were also less likely to report holding events more frequently than

were the members of the Quince neighborhood association (0 = 3.00, p < .05). Overall,

 

150

 

 

the groups If3i
per year" and
unsuccessful
local organiz

climate for CI

Commur
The sens-
improving Ct
community a
the current 5
scale compo
annual asses
how much u
the City res;
explored in .
strong the ‘5
“iii their or
community
reported in '
items relied
on a 3‘P0ln'

difiProves

 

 

the groups reported holding special events or celebrations between "two to three times
per year" and "more than 4 times per year" (0 = 2.54,) but few reported any history of
unsuccessful activities or programs. This observation is important because the history of
local organizing and community—building efforts can be important in establishing a

climate for cooperative relationships among local residents.

Community Attachment

The sense of collective identity built through local organizing, community events and
improving community cohesion, may all contribute to the sense of attachment to
community as place so critical to the debates around community and neogemez'nschaft. In
the current study, community attachment was assessed through a community attachment
scale composed of two sub-scales on the individual surveys completed as part of the bi—
annual assessments as well as through focus group discussions. The sub—scales explored
how much respondents felt they would miss certain features of their neighborhood and of
the City respectively, were they to move away from the area. These issues were further
explored in correlation with individual items assessing participants’ responses to how
strong the ‘sense of community’ was in their neighborhood and how satisfied they were
with their community overall. Means for the scales and items assessing sense of
community and community attachment across groups and data collection points are
reported in Table 11. It is important to note that, while the majority of questionnaire
items relied on a 4-point Likert scale, responses to the community attachment scale fell
on a 3-p0int scale. T-tests were conducted to determine whether there were significant

differences between groups or over the two data collection points on these questions.

151

,

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:” # cod and no...” 3am 3%. :0 n _
Amofi—C Amonfi: AWDHSS ECG
Ame—50am Amen—55.1w awry—Um: AmUFCC Amvrfl: mmCLU—wv man—UOLW
manor—96v mmOhU—uv O—Gfiz mmC-.U:v awning—NV GZCCWS—Z mmOhUfiv
N? ..r .V_.U 005:0 e::\nm.5.._ earn .50-..

 

 

 

 

 

 

2852.390 :80: mo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2m bmm Hmm. Sm . 23.802 waofi< Enigma/w 3.255500 :5 EEDEEoO mo omnom mammommzm 255 no: 2802 u: 2an
«mm :mm «mm mm. om.m mm.m wom 838 3.8 :28 :oofionfimmon mo 2:89:00
. m vm m am m 0mm A256 2:: E 9528 26% 2:05 >20 8 “Scam was: we 28m
ao.m hmm \tmm wag Sm M: .m cm; p.88 2:: S manic 26% 2:85 :oonconnwflon 9 2.30on 88: mo 28m
mmim 5m 0mm mm.m ovm oo.m 3 .m :oofionnmg :2: E b22228 mo 8:8 2: mo E25334
$.m $.m owm m>.m owm mmm Sm >20 2: :2 >2: .2 2883 38%.. PEG 2: man 2303 >2: £228 30:
Sum wmm 09m mom o¢.m mmm. mwm >20 2: :2 >2: a 23:8,: E2550 9.25 2:03 >2: :22: Be:
as 2:
om; oom mu; we; omm ow; on; :2 >2: : 25>“: 23.6% :28 2:8: 28% >20 8:: 2:03 >2: :38 302
be as :2 as
rme com com hmm mmm. oo.m com. a 25532 523mg GEE/x me 28:22": 2: 3:2 2:03 >2: :35 Bow
8
mm; mm; ow.“ m H .m com mp; mo; 2: :2 >2: i: wENEamS :82 :0 >222: 2: W28 2:95 >2: 5:5 sown
Sm mmm. com mmm com ohm m H .m >20 2: :2 >2: h 823528 22:/>20 Q28 2:03 >2: 5:8 26m
Sam 2m 3 .m :m oom m>.m Sam >20 2: :2 >2: :2 255 €253 :3 mta 3:: 2:03 >2: :22: Bo:
3m 2m 2m. 8m 02 2m 2m ass as as. as a mega 8282»? Eons an: 283 as 52: so:
Term om; 3m Em ow; com mfim ~on 2: :2 >2: .2: :20 2003 :2: 3:: Ego? >2: 5:8 30m
mm; omm mo; mmm mmm mmm 0mm 83 2: :2 >2: b 5250 :oofionnwflo: :2: 3:: 3:03 >2: :22: 303
3m mmm mum 0mm 9mm on mmm «one. 2: :2 >2: 5 5:208? 80:52:20: 3.2: 2:03 >2: :35 Bow
8m 8m 2m 8m MS. 85 Nam was as can he a confine was 283 as :88 >52
mm; mm; mm; meg mm; co; mm; «one. 2: :2 >2: a 28:8 :oofionawwo: 2:2 2:03 >2: :38 Bow
mwm oo.m amm mega. cvm nm.m com 2,: 8 82m a 3 3:55:28 2:23 nogmfiumm
>38: >88: €22: :5
Ammaocw Amazem 3893 >85: $08: $823 33%
$823 $053 2ng 8803 $823 .23:me 2808
m H E. .MO 82:0 «3320": 28m :33.

152

 

 

 

They were fi
scales to furtl
The CK Ma
hequently. l
they would n
block club (I
neighborhoo
only organiz
and qualitati
how much u
miss the his
Star Magoo
lot,‘ (01 = 3.
orgarlizatior
Were most 1
P < .05). B.
on average.
the former r
‘a lot‘, Was
< .05),
The
compared t

are you “it

 

 

They were frequently followed by assessments of the correlations between items and
scales to firrther explore statistically non-significant trends within the data.
The C.K. Maple neighborhood association differed from the other groups most
frequently. Members of that organization were significantly more likely to report that
they would miss their neighborhood schools than were the members of the Star Magnolia
block club (01 = 1.00, 02 = 1.75, p < .05). In light of these results pertaining to
neighborhood schools, it is interesting to note that the Star Magnolia block club was the
only organization to include responses from their youth members in both the quantitative
and qualitative procedures. The same two groups showed significant differences both in
how much members thought they would miss their neighbors and how much they would
miss the history of African American leadership in the City. While the members of the
Star Magnolia block club unanimously reported that they would miss their neighbors 'a
lot,‘ (01 = 3.00), the mean on a 3-point scale for the OK. Maple neighborhood
organization was 2.20, (p < .05). The members of the Quince neighborhood association
were most likely to report that they would only miss their neighbors 'slightly' (02 = 2.00,
p < .05). Both the Star Magnolia and CK. Maple organizations reported that they would,
on average, miss the tradition of African American leadership. However, the mean for
the former organization, reflecting a unanimous sense that they would miss this tradition
‘a lot’, was statistically significantly higher than that of the latter (01 = 3.00, 02 = 2.60, p
< .05).

The items relating to neighborhood and community attachment were also
compared to those asking directly "[a]ll things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied

are you with this block or neighborhood as a place to live?" and "[h]ow strong is the

153

 

 

sense of com
groups and a
members of '
to report gre
Forsythia ne
association l
significantly
the Forsythi
Over
neighborhor
most likely
history of A
and "Specia'.
lot." The re
neighbors, <
organizing.
Percentage
included in
90mm“.
regarding t]
no noticeal
respondent

ell)? CelEbr;

 

sense of community in your neighborhood?" T-tests exploring the differences between
groups and among groups over time were conducted for these items as well. The
members of the Quince neighborhood association (0 = 3.63) were statistically more likely
to report greater satisfaction with their community than were the members of either the
Forsythia neighborhood association (0 = 2.40, p < .05), or the C.K. Maple neighborhood
association (0 = 2.39, p < .05). Meanwhile, the C.K. Maple members reported a
significantly stronger sense of community in their neighborhood than did the members of
the Forsythia neighborhood association (01 = 3.39, 02 = 2.40, p < .05).

Overall, respondents were moderately positive in their satisfaction with their
neighborhoods as a place to live (0 = 2.90 on a 4-point scale). They were, on average,
most likely to report that they would miss their neighborhood associations (0 = 2.56), the
history of African American Leadership (0 = 2.60), the City's cultural festivals (0 = 2.52)
and "special places" such as Greek Town, Mexican Village and Belle Isle (0 = 2.67) "a
lot." The responses to other aspects of their neighborhood and city such as schools,
neighbors, church, block clubs, local events, city celebrations, tradition of local
organizing, and sporting events were more neutral (1.5 < 0 < 2.5). Figure 6 illustrates the
percentage of respondents who said they would miss each element of their neighborhood
included in the scale. Figure 7 similarly illustrates responses to the items on the
community attachment scale. Each of these items were correlated with the question
regarding the respondents‘ satisfaction with the community as a place to live. There was
no noticeable relationship between this measure of community attachment and how much
respondents would miss their neighbors, their neighborhood association, their church,

city celebrations, the history of African American Leadership and special places

154

 

 

in the City .
Satisfaction
allllrociable
Would miss
10°“ orgarr

SM 33 [he

 

 

school

 
    

events

17% 12%
neighbors
0
block club 18 /°
1 7% '

church I association

16% 20%

Figure 6: Attachment to Neighborhood Features

artistic/cultural

special places

4

  
  
 

17%

city celebrations
13%

 

organizing trad.
12%

cultural festivals
16% ,

sporting events
1 1%

AA leadership
16%

Figure 7: Attachment to City Features

in the City (r < .20). There was a slight negative correlation between community
satisfaction and how much local schools would be missed (r = .24). However, there were
appreciable correlations between community satisfaction and how much respondents
would miss their block clubs, local events, artistic and cultural venues and the history of
local organizing (r > .30). Interestingly, the likelihood of missing local sporting events
such as the Detroit Tigers and Red Wings games was negatively correlated with

155

 

 

 

community
satisfaction
positive cor.
The other in
sense of cor
would miss
variables wt
satisfaction

The
following i:
to form the
attachment
correlation:
community
enough to \
negative cc

.17).

organizin

ulcreasing
decision

fm‘lllently

 

community satisfaction (r = —.27)! Despite the positive correlation between community
satisfaction and reported sense of community (I = .31), the latter has an equally strong
positive correlation with how much the respondent would miss sporting events (r = .25).
The other important difference between correlations with community satisfaction and
sense of community is the correlation between the latter and whether the respondent
would miss the history of African American Leadership (r = .28). Otherwise, the same
variables were correlated with approximately the same strength with community
satisfaction and sense of community.

The questionnaire items asking how much the respondent "would miss each of the
following if they moved out of your neighborhood," or "...out of Detroit“ were combined
to form the Community Attachment Composite Scale with subscales assessing
attachment to neighborhood and to the City respectively. There were fairly strong
correlations between sense of community and the City sub-scale (r = .31) and sense of
community and the composite scale (r = .40). The other correlations were not strong
enough to warrant further exploration (r < .20), though it was interesting to note a slight
negative correlation between community satisfaction and the neighborhood scale (r = -

.17).

Organizing Capacity

Among the defining characteristics of participatory development is its focus on
increasing local capacity to address local needs and shifting the locus of power in
decision-making in the favor of local residents. One tool urban residents in the U.S.

frequently rely on to consolidate such local power is the establishment of community-

156

 

 

 

based organ:
the organizir
developmen
of participat

questionnair

Organir
Discuss:
related issur
organizing,
importance
discussion.

'87—“
Drscussron ‘l

x
Tradition of <
K
Commitment
W
C0mmunica1
Spirituality 0-

 

One Pal’ticij

based organizations such as block clubs and neighborhood associations. Thus, increasing
the organizing capacity of these groups in accordance with their own organizational
development goals is critical to the assessment of the URI/MSU program as an example
of participatory urban development. Table 13 provides an overview of the means for

questionnaire items relating to organizing capacity.

Organizational History, Mission, And Collective Vision

Discussion of organizing climate including the history and tradition of organizing and
related issues comprised 4.30% of the focus group discussions. The tradition of
organizing, generating a common expectation and acceptance of local organizing, and the
importance of commitment and follow through were the most frequent topics within this

discussion.

discussion

 

One participant discussed the role of such a history of local organizing in establishing a

conducive climate for ongoing community organizing efforts.

I remember block clubs from when I was small, so this is
something that has been around a long time you know...
they don't do as much as they did when we were younger,
but its been around a long time so these folks have always
had it and they were used to it...

157

 

— 5.!

I

(I: I.

 

Amp—55.5w
mac-— 9.3
550;.
w: G..—

 

nwasouw Amour: « Anne: Among:
amp—95v macho—3 765.: 35:. .5 mmOhqu Una mn—SOuw
5:0,”. 03:52 mmOuoflv mmO.~Umv E—On—wfiz mmOuowv
trey—mu .Vufv ova—«:0 Euthanauh ..Gam 230-...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bwoammo @225ch mammommxx mEBH new 882 ”m2 2an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ow.“ 054 mm; mm; ow; mm; on; ED 2 :etmfiofimm Sew madame mEoSeE anew
v: m: o3 N3 o3 oo.~ SN 88-8 SE 83 32 8380.26 833 8 688
Om.m med 09v oo.m ooh mm.m wvfi 883E DMD new $388.30 $28an we @095er eofismea
gem mod 0:” wm.m ova m5». NNM ED 2 553893 8 £3? 95% S. woman? we acreage.
8.». end om.m oo.m $.m OWN Oman. ED “can eeumfludwue L82: an we oumtouognno BE“ we “dogwopfio
E w _ .m 3mm $.N mmgm mud vod ED Bowen neunNEwwS L82: SN we unmiowomafio 325 we “8.23288
Dem mmfi mm.m :.m ON». mN.N 8M DMD 8cm eeumfiqmwce L82: an we 0:38.835 2808 we “826.3%—
wwd SM 3mm oa.m OWN ohm oo.m ED 80.89. :euaNquce L82: an we 05283330 2808 we EBEUOQE
ooh NY». 34m ONM 8.». mNN Ed ED 8t.“ :etaficmwue L82: am we 05288985 «mum .«e “dogwoomfi—
mm.m 00m ohm wmd owd cmgm 3mm ED 8&8. qeueNEmee L82: we we oumnogofimnu “we.“ we “cogweE
mm; mm; 31 :4 mm.“ cm; 72 men—EB: macaw 3:28 we beg—
mm; m: mm; o: o: 2.; em; 88% 58835 we ESE
mod mmd nod oo.m ow; cod Lewd 388 .«e >826on
3: Na; cod mm; cod ow; ow; “smegma "82me we 2.8m 9.20% 6;» “8888mm
nod wfim Ema mm; ONN cod ~_.N DmSSMD 8 seven—Emma own 2 mownmao we message
oo.~ ma; ow; aw.“ oo.~ mmd we; om Hu>e : :
ow; No.2 ow; :.~ ow; om.“ mm; ow - cm : :
9am wmd NNN omd 9mm cox.” wed cm 825 838a we 89.52“ 2 8985
om.m Sm 02 m3 2% 8+ 3m 3255 8 8&8 been» 3 sweep do confines
QNN mNN cod OWN CNN OWN wNN nofimo : :
we; ooN ow; 3 .N ow; co; on; 8803 we : :
M: .N cod o3 o~.~ of o3 o: 283% 59:55 5 888°
7.95% Amuse» 308: €er Goat
380$ 380$ 808$ $08.5 $an 3808 can 358w
Such 58L. 0332 $0.88 mmecoav encamflz 3983
wee: team .MO 85:0 «Bimcem Sum 18°F

 

 

158

 

 

Having su
community, an in
conducive to loca
community. In 81
statement can alsr
concern. Only at
topic, but it inclur
There was also a
under other sub-t

Discussion Topic

Agreement of men
“..K
W
Table 14: Focus Gr:

 

The mission state
to Identlfy uniVe]

cOlllfllitment to f

 

Having successfully identified common concerns and shared visions for the
community, an important organization-generated factor in establishing a climate
conducive to local organizing is establishing a mission statement or vision for the
community. In addition to providing focus and unity among members, a mission
statement can also demonstrate to potential members the commitment to issues of shared
concern. Only about 1.79% of the focus group discussion was devoted explicitly to this
topic, but it included important discussions of shared vision and consensus building.

There was also a great deal of related discussion during planning activities and reported

 

under other sub-topics such as establishment of a community-driven agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Topic Item % of F Category % of I
category discussion

Existence of mission statement, shared goals, vision 28.00 1.73 j

Agreement of members with mission and goals 36.00

Descriptions of ideal community organization 36.00 L j

 

 

Table 14: Focus Group Discussion of Collective Vision
The mission statement of the C.K. Maple association, for example, illustrates their effort
to identify universal concerns in a very inclusive and positive community vision and their

commitment to finding a place for everyone interested in contributing to the effort.

 

to revitalize the community spiritually, economically,
physically and socially so that everyone would have a safe
and clean environment in which to live and grow. To
encourage residents to contribute their time, talents and
resources to the betterment of their community so that all
residents and visitors can feel welcome and comfortable in
[the C.K. Maple neighborhood].

Even without formal mission statements, most of the groups recognized the

importance of a shared vision in building participation and organizational commitment.

There may be differences among us, but we share a
common desire to improve our neighborhood. Many
pBOple like and work well together... camaraderie... we

159

 

 

 

Member:

Clearly, t
a commitment to
that such objecti‘
community resid
it is not surprisin
among their prin
gTOUps spent a g

Through
Participation rep

evaluations (F i g

altIrost full satis

circulated as par

 

have some die-bards that have seen a community
organization that works well and how valuable that is, so
we keep stumbling along trying to recreate this entity that
we have experienced at some point in our lives.

Membership

Clearly, the missions and vision of the URI/MSU participant organizations reflect
a commitment to improving conditions for all community residents and an understanding
that such objectives can only be achieved with the broadest possible participation of

community residents in defining those objectives and the efforts to carry them out. Thus,

 

it is not surprising that more than half of the groups identify increasing participation
among their principle objectives for participating in the program or that most of the
groups spent a great deal of time discussing related issues in their focus groups.
Through the quarterly group interviews those seeking improvements in
participation reported decreasing achievement of that goal between their 3 and 6 month

evaluations (Figure 8). However, by their 9 and 12 month evaluations, they reported

 

 

 

 

3 6 9 12
Figure 8: Achievement of Participation Objectives

ahnost full satisfaction with the increases they observed in participation in their
organizations. On average, however, respondents to the individual mail surveys
circulated as part of the bi-annual assessment noted no differences in the number of

160

 

 

 

people participati
URIMSU progra
demographic char

Although
Magnolia block c
community at the
difference was st
the Forsythia nei;

The need
and efforts those
core members ac
especially comm
group discussion

N
Discussron Topic

m
Number of membe
Availability of men
NeceSSity/availabi

 

    

The relationship

prom, membr

who noted,

’——'
4

ft

 

 

 

people participating in their organizations before and following participation in the
URI/MSU program than before doing so. However, some groups reported changes in the
demographic characteristics of participants, as will be discussed in an ensuing section.
Although they were no longer meeting formally, the members of the Star
Magnolia block club were more likely to report having more people active in the
community at the time of their long-term evaluation than any of the other groups. The

difference was statistically significant between the Star Magnolia group (0 = 2.50) and

the Forsythia neighborhood association (0 = 1.60, p < .05).

The need to build membership goes beyond mere numbers to include the skills
and efforts those new members bring with them and the opportunity to delegate tasks of
core members across a broader pool of active participants. This was apparently an
especially common concern, accounting for 14.41% of coded statements from the focus

group discussions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion T0pic 1 item % of Category % of ]
category discussion

Presence and contributions of committed core membership 12.50 14.41 1
Number of members 21.15 _]
Availability of members with key/necessary skills 21.15 3
Necessity/availability of labor 20.19 T
Necessity/availability of time 12.50 j
Organizational level of participation 5.77 7
Organizational growth 5.29 i
No functioning community organization at the present time 1.44 L j

 

 

 

 

Table 15: Focus Group Discussion of Membership Building
The relationship between innovative efforts, such as participation in the URI/MSU
program, member recruitment and neighborhood relations was illustrated by a participant

who noted,

[we need to] incorporate more people, and strategies to
keep them interested and not only strategies but programs
for the neighborhood, because we do need something

161

 

 

 

 

l
l

The program W

previously peri'

Increa:

An imp
among many g
among men, y.
With their inter
a Plintatily ser
fulfilling their

Data fr
indicate that t1
likely to repor
(0 = 2. r o, p <
latter livo 0ft]
men in the as:

to “31300 sligt

 

 

 

positive going for the neighborhood. Just to keep the
people interested, really.

The program was cited as important in both building and maintaining involvement among

previously peripheral members.

some of them were coming, you know, here and there, but
to see this type of program coming in, cause this was a
program that came into our community and uh, I think this
encouraged a lot of them that probably would have stopped
long ago to hang in here, cause we do have the original
ones that were with us when we started.

Increasing Diversity

An important reason for this interest in “expanding the base” is a perception
among many groups that their activities are limited by the lack of participation, especially
among men, younger adults and youth, in group activities. For these groups in particular,
with their interest in planting and beautification efforts, the perceived limited abilities of
a primarily senior and frequently majority-female membership poses important barriers to
fulfilling their objectives.

Data from the quantitative component of the bi-annual assessment process
indicate that the members of the Star Magnolia (0 = 1.00) group were significantly less
likely to report having more women involved than were the members of either the Quince
(0 = 2.10, p < .05) or C.K. Maple (0 = 1.80, p < .05) neighborhood associations. The
latter two of these groups differed significantly in the reported effects on participation of
men in the associations (01 = 2.5, 02 = 2.00, p < .05). In general, participants were likely

to report slightly fewer women (0 = 1.79) and slightly more men (0 = 2.28) were

162

 

 

 

attending meeting
"somewhat" (0 =
While the
= 2.48), they repr
older than (0 = l
to participation i
between groups :
Magnolia group
age of 30 than di
C.K. Maple neig
While in:
discussions, buil
devoted to iInprr

\
Drscussron TOpic

Youth participatio
Age diversity amc
Table 16: Focus G

 

One Participant

 

 

 

attending meetings. They attributed these changes to their participation in the program
"somewhat" (0 = 3.64).

While the respondents reported higher participation among residents under 30 (0
= 2.48), they reported few changes in participation among groups up to (0 = 1.85), or
older than (0 = 1.96), age 50. These changes were reported to be "somewhat" attributable
to participation in the program (0 = 2.12). There were few significant differences
between groups in terms of changes in the age distributions of participants. The Star
Magnolia group (0 = 3.00, p < .05) reported significantly more new participants under the
age of 30 than did either the Quince neighborhood association (0 = 2.56, p < .05) or the
C.K. Maple neighborhood association (0 = 2.22, p < .05).

While increasing both gender and age diversity were commonly cited in planning
discussions, building youth participation dominated the 4.92% of focus group discussions

devoted to improving representation and diversity among active members.

discussion

 

One participant observed that the challenge of recruiting younger participants arises,

because they don't think they're going to be here for very
long. It's not until they get to be my age that they decide
maybe they should get involved in the community and then
they can‘t do anything!

163

 

 

Leadership:
While del
discussion withir
these issues typir

Discussion Topic

Delegation of lead
Leadership develc
Organizational lea
W

 

Many of the fact
organizational le
entrenched that t

the Forsythia ne

(fit—"OWKJ

In well-r
group 0f membr
members can re

this Concern in 1

noted,

 

 

 

——i—fii ‘ _.,, I '7 i iii—~i‘“~

Leadership: Expanding The Core
While delegation and development of new leaders were frequent topics of
discussion within the 2.49% of focus group comments devoted to the subject, attention to

these issues typically focused on those already in leadership roles.

discussion

 

Many of the factors discussed previously in this section are strongly influenced by
organizational leadership. On some occasions, previously strong leaders become so
entrenched that their presence precludes involvement of new members as in the case of

the Forsythia neighborhood association who had to start organizing from scratch because,

[laughs] the little old lady who used to live across the
street, she's dead now, but she was President of this block
club and she had her little deal with the City or something,
I forget what it was, something that she was able to get
service or something, so she wouldn‘t give up that job, but
in the mean time, she'd look at anything... anyone who
organized in the area as a threat.

In well-established organizations, leadership tasks are often shared across a core
group of members. On some occasions, over-dependence on these highly reliable
members can result in resentment and reluctance to take on new activities. Discussing
this concern in relation to the decision to participate in the URI program, one speaker

noted,

It's always a certain group of people, it's always that group,
look right now, it's a certain group of people, you've got
half the block that really does all the work while the other
half just sit back. ..

164

 

 

However, some I
willing to devote
community force

by the group's pr

The activities of
groups to contin
can inspire a ser
becomes critical
well as to ensure

that involvemen

Power, ]
One imp
among Others, i:
them thIOugh 111
internal democr

 

 

 

However, some members seem to have no limits on the time and commitment they are
willing to devote to the organization and its efforts, including maintaining their
community forestry project as evidenced by a member of the Georgia Peaches, described

by the group's president.

Mr. B., who was just... he was just a go getter, but he had

a heart attack... The doctor has limited his activities, which

you can understand, especially the things that he was doing,

you know he'd trim and he'd cut and he still goes down

there... and I see him often with his weed whacker and

doing as much as he can do to keep it trimmed down, as far

as the entire area...
The activities of such committed members often becomes critical to the ability of the
groups to continue their activities. In addition to the amount of work they carry out, they
can inspire a sense of duty to participate among other neighbors. Expanding the group
becomes critical in order to avoid bum-out or over dependence on these core members as

well as to ensure new issues can be successfully addressed. Several groups did report

that involvement in the program did contribute to the size of their pool of core members.

There were 4 members who were previously not involved
or only superficially involved who became highly active
through the project.

Power, Empowerment and Internal Democracy

One important factor in community participation, cited by Wandersman (1981)
among others, is the sense that individuals will be able to address issues of concern to
them through the organization. As Speer & Hughey (1995) note, without this element of
internal democracy, participation itself can be a disempowering experience regardless of

how successful the organization is. Furthermore, inequities among group members can

165

 

 

strongly influenc

those in leadershi
and to build skill.
organization is at
effectively work
Sr

re

Several groups a
organizational str
equalize power t]
T]

he

at

cl

ag

at

br

di

W

V

of

m

Organizing i
The majority
Pingram connibr
“lit" (0 = 3.22
Perceptions of he

chamCteristics or

 

 

 

 

strongly influence the experience of participation for many members. The extent to which
those in leadership or core roles work to bring members into the decision-making process
and to build skills among other members may influence the sense of whether the
organization is amenable to new interests or the sense that members are being recruited to

effectively work for someone else. As one participant noted,

Some groups have leaders that are dominant and don't
realize that no one is really following them.

Several groups addressed this concern both in their URI planing processes and their
organizational structure, such as the Star Magnolia group who made overt efforts to

equalize power throughout the organization.

The thing about participation... Well, you know, you don't
have to agree with everything. You're not ever going to
agree on everything, and you realize that... And our block
club, it was pretty united and the reason being that we
agreed to disagree on things and if there was a question
about an idea... We explored it, everybody was free to do,
but... we just made it majority rule so there would be no
dissension... If you have an idea, you could work on it.
We didn't have a hierarchy or anything, of the President,
Vice-President, and uh... Secretary or Treasurer. We had
officers, but nobody ruled anything, you know what I
mean?

Organizing Skills

The majority of respondents did report a belief that participation in the URI/MSU
program contributed to positive changes in their groups' skills "somewhat" or "very
muc " (0 = 3.22). However, there are also very high correlations between respondents’
perceptions of how well their organization embodies the "3 most important skills or

characteristics of a successful block club or community organization" before and after

166

 

 

participation in t
members report ‘
average (01 = 3.!
03 = 3.04 before
characteristics is
rl = -.l4, r2 = .2
participation int
whether the gror
participants. Th
development, th
organizational 5

One imp
organization to .
maybe an impo
SlIlICtures and n
for successful 0
group Statement

m
Problem solving

nflict resolutio
eSponsivenegg
Table 18; ch

 

In build

 

participation in the program with r's ranging from .65 to .78 respectively. Thus, while
members report that their groups already have these characteristics "somewhat" on
average (01 = 3.41 before URI/MSU and 01 = 3.18 after, 02 = 3.00 before and 3.07 after,
03 = 3.04 before and 3.20 after), neither growth or degradation of those skills and
characteristics is seen as changing as a function of participation in the program (0 = 3.22,
r1 = -. 14, r2 = .20, r3 = .17). In fact, the item assessing attribution of improved skills to
participation in the program is slightly negatively correlated with the perception of
whether the group possesses the first "important skill or characteristic" listed by the
participants. Thus, while the program is seen as contributing positively to skill
development, those impacts are not necessarily in the areas identified as most critical to
organizational success.

One important component of organizing skills is the adaptability of the
organization to changing community conditions. While over-burdening of core members
may be an important constraining factor, the ability to take on new issues, establish new
structures and resolve problems including conflict among members are important skills

for successful community organizations, though discussed in only about 1% of the focus

 

group statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Tepic Item % of Category % of
category discussion

Taking on new issues as necessary 18.75 1.11

Problem solving among membership 6.25

Creation of new structures, committees, etc 12.50

Conflict resolution among group members 25.00

Responsiveness to changing environment 37.50

 

 

 

 

Table 18: Focus Group Discussion of Organization Adaptability
In building organizing skills, the leader of the Forsythia association cites the

evaluation process and demonstration of strategic planning as one of the most valuable

167

 

 

 

 

components of ti

evaluation proce

T.
th
m
01
01

g

Sense Of Empo
For man;
effectiveness of
that the group is
Empowerment (
across groups ar
showed no sign
individual empc
term data collec
(1996) findings
collective effort
The two

part of the orga
P01itica1 leaders
Common needs

 

components of the URI/MSU program, indicating positive outcomes of the empowerment

evaluation process.

This discussion and the last one has helped us to think
through- it's almost like that, in the long term, may be of
more help than the trees themselves. I don't know of any
other organization that goes to local groups and, over the
course of a year or two, helps them to think through their
growth and difficulties- I appreciate that.

Sense Of Empowerment (SOE) And Capacity

For many groups, education and skill building activities are seen as critical to the
effectiveness of their efforts to bring about intended changes. The resulting perception
that the group is ready and able to make such changes is the Sense of Organizational
Empowerment (SOE). Table 19 provides a summary of means for items assessing SOE
across groups and data collection points. While the collective empowerment scale
showed no significant changes over time, participants did report significantly higher
individual empowerment at the long term assessment point (0 = 2.40) than at the short
term data collection point (0 = 2.07, p < .05). This may affirm Saegert and Winkel's

(1996) findings that individual SOE changes as a function of involvement with successful

 

collective efforts.

The two questionnaire items that showed significant change over time were both
part of the organizational empowerment cluster. These items assessed the belief that
political leaders tend to represent the special interests of the powerful, rather than the
common needs of all citizens (01 = 2.42, 02 = 2.85, p < .05) and the perceived likelihood

of the community organization being able to get the problem solved if the City was not

168

 

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

£55 2:
# DNN OO.N CON mN.N CNN mmN c _ .N 02.: UEOUQ 3:3 “Donn Soar: oumo 5.5 2:. E.— EEUCLO 0:3:Q «2.2.2 H.203 ~
AmDSOuw Ana—Scam 308$ nave: $05: flaw
mwrguav mach—05v mmOuoav Anny—CS Ame-h: mmOuoav mung—m
$50.? arr—0H. 01—62 mmOuUwv mmOhUav Garner—ma: machoav
MSG; :Or—W .V~.U OUCCaO G_£u%m..0n— 53m. :wuorn.
llllllllllll.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EcficheQEm we 38m mfimmcwm< as: new 382 “2 big
efimiaooe a as: so; a 5:8
wmg 32 mm; 2N $4 mm.“ Be: 853.: on Batons: m2 Eeflwflaamue eeefiefimfie E new—259nm
SA | .
528% Eu 2 33693
. oN 2 .N me CNN $4 2 .N $2.85. 06m .8202. m2 852 282 a Ben came “Emcee common a b
“N N m eon we Bumwogm D 8522, be 9 £058 cctmE rumcee
. . ca; om; ONN no; 52 2 35 mneUmNEmwS can 882 ~82 3 038m one Enoch Bfie >58 em
3 D me D mo; ooN ooN mm: ~23 858. 9 nwseuo Eczema: #85 32820 D82 >55 meow <
co N mu D co N i .53 8 3920 a 023 “.5620
. . S; cm: ooN ww; 02m use» 322 so.» 855 882 H82 2 8292 8w 8 “antenna “.82 z
ooN mm D A: N .3320 :e me 288 neEEeo 05 038 >208 2.8 330%
. mN. N 09m voN ~€o§em Bow m we 388:: 20ch ca “8832 >295: $028— Hannah
- u i}!
mwN Ne N on N we N :58 race nemucm
. .N mmN mNN 23: 05 L0 888:: 85 Bowen? «.5 m5? Ema 8.33 House rumcew :
mNN EN ovN Q N cc .3320
. SN emN 2: we $8832 cfi 03% 2 USES on Lzflcecw e8 2822 Robson
omN me ovN Q N co N 882823
. mmN EN 28 88:3 233 wfioecsmfi 882 «antenna “88 one 2 852
nmN moan. owN mN m ow.N 8N 3 .N 8% EcEficSw ~82 05 “23 Beam m8 LEW 95w: reec ca 82 oieom
“mmli mNN ONN mNN ON.N . wwN .38 26 2 S: 8m mwfifi Be: 8286 80> caecm >95 2:.
EN cam and oz 9. N S N gas as
. mmN m: .N 82 018m .33 Sons 8:8 9.8 56 m3“ 2 22ch 233 225 race H
—N N mo N Amount Among wan
uw anew @ch woken anew
Amaze M882 8583 €ch 9ch m m v «.883
822% 282 380$ 8988 use: «2 a 0
much “WNW .MU 83:0 «minnow 5m L e L.
seq

 

 

 

169

 

 

 

 

 

providing a 13096
were more like]!
the powerful, 0V
group could moi
Contrary
the groups. It is
For example, thr
other responden
were statistical];
than members 0
3.33, p < .05) n
to report feeling
Wins an electior
= 2.00, 02 = 2.4
to also believe t
doesn't matter r
“cighborhood a
ForsB’thia neigh
is iImportant no
Organization. 1
Significant (01
Across

Slightly more 1]

 

providing a necessary service (01 = 2.60, 02 = 3.63, p < .05). Thus, while respondents
were more likely to believe that government representatives were preferentially serving
the powerful, over time they were also significantly more likely to believe that their
group could mobilize city services on their own behalf.

Contrary to expectations, there were quite a few significant differences between
the groups. It is instructive to explore the patterns in which those differences occurred.
For example, the Forsythia neighborhood association consistently stood apart from the
other respondents on the items assessing political empowerment. Members of that group
were statistically less likely to believe that they could acquire a necessary city service
than members of both the Quince (01 = 2.40, 02 = 3.38, p < .05) and C.K. Maple (0 =
3.33, p < .05) neighborhood associations. The Forsythia members were also more likely
to report feeling that "the interests of little person don't count" no matter which party
wins an election than were the members of the C.K. Maple neighborhood association (01
= 2.00, 02 = 2.40, p < .05). Perhaps consistent with that sentiment, they were more likely
to also believe that "[s]o many other people are active in local issues and organizations, it
doesn't matter much to me whether I participate or not" than the members of the Quince
neighborhood association (01 = 2.20, 02 = 1.90, p < .05). However, the members of the
Forsythia neighborhood association were also the most likely to report that "participation
is important no matter how much or how little is accomplished" than any other
organization. The difference between that group and the C.K. Maple association was
significant (01 = 2.10, 02 = 1.45, p < .05).

Across all of the groups, the respondents indicated believing that there was

slightly more than a "50/50 chance“ of being able to access a city service in the face of

170

 

 

 

 

problems in (1011
scales ranging fi
empowerment I
agree with the 5
people like me 1
with the statemc
decisions," and
does." These it
political empow
Four of

those the respor
individual empt
were the statem
Your side doesr.
enough to both:

0rgallizations tl

"Participation i

little is accomp

Prevalence of c

The Stu

those resPonde

more likely to .

'42l' Modem

 

problems in doing 50. With few exceptions, the remaining items, all using 4-point Likert
scales ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree," assessing political
empowerment reflect a similarly median trend. Respondents were slightly less likely to
agree with the statement "I don't think public officials in this city care much about what
people like me think" than to disagree. On the other hand, they were more likely to agree
with the statements "[m]oney is the most important factor influencing public policies and
decisions," and "People like me don't have any say about what the local government

does." These items were all part of the scale measuring respondents’ sense of group
political empowerment.

Four of the five items measuring individual political empowerment were among
those the respondents were least likely to agree with, reflecting a higher sense of
individual empowerment, on average, than sense of group empowerment. Among these
were the statements; "It isn't important to get involved in local issues when you know
your side doesn't have a chance to win," "A good many local elections aren't important
enough to bother with," "So many other people are active in local issues and
organizations that it doesn't matter much to me whether I participate or not," and
"Participation in neighborhood organizations is important no matter how much or how
little is accomplished." Responses to the last two of these are consistent with the
prevalence of core members in the respondent groups.

The strongest correlation among items assessing empowerment revealed that
those respondents who felt they had "no say in what the government does" were also
more likely to feel their organization could not gain access to a necessary city service (r =

.42). Moderate negative correlations were noted between perceived ability to access city

 

 

 

 

services and the
policies and deci
Interestingly, tht
city services and
interests of the c
decides how thr
services (r = .2C
While ft

and beliefs infli
13.03% of focu
were not atnact

3*.
Discussnn Topir

W
\
Shared concern:
\

 

 

Sllceesses in e

including his .

 

 

services and the belief that "[m]oney is the most important factor in influencing public
policies and decision," and that the interests of the "little people" don't count (r > .20).
Interestingly, there was also a negative correlation between perceived ability to access
city services and belief that "[p]olitical leaders can generally be trusted to serve the
interests of the citizens" (r = -.26). Conversely, the belief that "[t]he way people vote
decides how things are run..." was positively correlated with perceived access to city
services (r = .20).

While focus group discussions centered around group issues, individual attitudes
and beliefs influencing participation related to the sense of empowerment took up
13.03% of focus group conversations, typically in relation to why other residents were or

were not attracted to participation in the organization.

discussion

concerns

group uses

 

Lack of empowerment and a related sense of hopelessness presents an important barrier
to participation as recognized by one participant who felt that the URI project and other

activities were beginning to change those perceptions.

for a long time in this particular setting, everybody had the
idea that, well, nothing's gonna change nothing's gonna you
know... and it's hard to sell someone on the idea that you
make the change. I think we've started to do that. . ..

Successes in environmental and natural resource-based, aesthetically oriented efforts,
including his group's URI community forestry project, were reported by one participant

172

 

 

 

as important in 5

community.

Hh‘OQ.

Resources

Discussi
dominated focu
needed or mobi
focus group cor
under the 'Powr
29.04% of thos
and building 00
humn resourcr
practical conce
Order to fully rr
PIOgram in faci

Contra;

as a primary re

 

 

 

as important in shifting perceptions of neighbors by creating visible changes in the

community.

We have basically... we maintained our park, we put
together the nursery, and the other main thing that we've
done is eliminated one problem lot a year, we didn't think
of it in those terms previously, but basically that's what we
have done, each year we have ended up cleaning up one
major problem lot

Resources

Discussion of the need for, access to, and efforts to mobilize of resources
dominated focus group discussions. While discussion of specific material resources
needed or mobilized through participation in the URI program took up only 12.68% of
focus group conversations, were the more general comments about resources considered
under the 'Power and Resources' subsection above included, the topic would account for
29.04% of those discussions. Furthermore, conversations about increasing membership
and building community networking could also be considered here in the context of
human resources, as illustrated in Figure 9. Thus, the majority of the focus was on highly
practical concerns about the specific resources participants felt their groups needed in
order to fully realize their community vision and the effects of participation in the URI
program in facilitating access to those resources.

Contrary to common expectations limited financial resources were seldom cited

as a primary resource concern. While groups did consider recruitment of

donations such as equipment, paper, money, machinery and
tools...

173

 

 

 

to be critical to :
educational opp

URI/MSU proje

resources to en

commonly cite

This SlalEmem

pOSlllVe relafic

needs.

 

 

 

7 - . “Wm” ”mm. A

to be critical to achieving their goals within their means, the majority focused on
educational opportunities and the need for informational resources. In relation to their

URI/MSU projects, constrained access to and the need to recruit donations or financial

Contributions Equipment

  
   

Information \__ Core Members
22% 7%
Time
/ 7%
Money
Physcial 9%
13%

Labor
12%

Skills
12% # of Members
12%

Figure 9: Percentage of discussion of resources devoted to each form
resources to ensure sufficient access to water to maintain the plants was the most

commonly cited resource-related concern.

we were able to use the neighbors water across the street,
we had hoses together and we brought them across the
street to the lot and tried to irrigate, as much as we could
that way, but again, you're talking about using a person's
water and that didn't last, so they were willing, but you
know that stuff can happen. We were able to do that for a
while and we were able to get the City, because it had a
plug right across from it and they helped us out a couple of
times by opening it up and flooding the area.

This statement illustrates the role of successful inter—organizational networking and
positive relationships with non-member neighbors and city agencies in meeting resource

needs.

174

 

 

Interorgani
An impo
1997; Gaventa,
agencies. Data
focus group disc
organizations tc
introductions in
also reported er
URI/MSU part
None 0:
Nurserymen‘s,
inquiries durin
contact with “c
that there mig}
about which n.
With the Wayp
Contact with a
Detroit Depart
The in
the City Was a
disulSSiOII C01

municipal lev

 

Interorganizational Networking

An important characteristic of “empowered organizations” (Speer & Hughey,
1997; Gaventa, 1980) is a high level of connectivity with other organizations and
agencies. Data from both the quarterly group interviews as well as commentary from the
focus group discussions did indicate greater interaction with several of the agencies and
organizations to which the URI/MSU program provided contact information, as well as
introductions in some cases, as part of its technical assistance activities. Several groups
also reported expanding networking with other community-based groups, including other
URI/MSU participant organizations.

None of the groups reported developing relationships with the Michigan
Nurserymen's, Timber or Christmas Tree Grower's Associations in their responses to
inquiries during the quarterly group interviews. Four groups did report developing some
contact with “other” professional organizations, although ensuing conversation indicated
that there might have been some confusion between this term and the remaining agencies
about which the researcher inquired. Of these, three groups reported developing contacts
with the Wayne County Cooperative Extension Service, three reported having had
contact with the Detroit Department of Public Works, four reported contact with the
Detroit Department of Forestry and three reported contact with other Detroit agencies.

The importance of positive relationships with other agencies and organizations in
the City was a common discussion topic, accounting for 7.21% of coded focus group
discussion comments. Relationships with government agencies, typically at the

municipal level, and with other community organizations were most frequently discussed.

 

W

‘

Networking or aff
Networking or aff

Networks or affilia

 

Table 21: Focus C

Some gr
immediate com
be enticed to ta

relationships be

 

Groups able to
relationships w

mCIllel'Shipg

 

 

 

 

 

discussion

 

Some groups hoped that their URI/MSU efforts would transcend impacts on their
immediate community through such relationships; that neighboring communities might
be enticed to take on similar efforts at community improvement, contributing to building

relationships between these groups as well as meeting the immediate concerns of each.

Plus we thought like it would encourage others, you know,
coming through seeing what we've done with vacant lots,
because we have so many vacant lots in our neighborhood,
that that would impress them or entice them to do the same
and even enticing them, that it would encourage the
program itself to continue. So, it was developing in
something positive.

Groups able to rely on support from a broad network of such inter-organizational
relationships were frequently able to take on large tasks despite relatively small official

memberships.

...we're trying to set up a tree moving day and we're
planning on calling on the Wayne county alternative
workforce, our own membership of course, and uh, we're
planning on requesting help from some of the
neighborhood churches and, uh, I am planning on also, I
think, requesting help from the [Quince] group, one of their
officers suggested that we send them a letter asking, and
that's especially good from our point of view because they
have experience and... oh yes, Mr. Bricault [Wayne
county CES Consumer Horticulturist] told me to send in a
letter requesting help from the master gardeners so if we
can get that diverse a group out there it may work.
(Bracketed text added for clarification)

176

 

 

 

Relationships u
urban gardener.

created greater

Although acce:
between the gr
critical resourc
obligations to

illustrating the

Similarly, the
no longer resr
accordance w

Challenges fo-

 

Relationships with other community-based organizations, such as those established with
urban gardeners in Chicago through URIs relationship with the USDA Forest Service,

created greater understanding of shared challenges and opportunities to share ideas.

I got a boost of energy from the group that came from
Chicago- the opportunity to interact with other groups
working on similar projects... It gave us insight... because
some of the things that we were going through they were
going through too...

Although access to city-owned land provided through inter-organizational relationships
between the groups, the Department of Public Works and the URI/MSU program was a
critical resource for participant groups, on some occasions, the City failed to fulfill their
obligations to prepare the lots prior to the groups' taking over responsibility for the sites,

illustrating the potential dangers of relying on other organizations in some cases.

I think the biggest problem is that the City didn't do their
part, cause if the City hadda did their part clearing the lots
better and giving everybody a helping hand here, it would
probably have went further... Sometimes it takes a good
running start.

Similarly, the failure of DPW district managers to inform contract mowers that they were
no longer responsible for maintenance of the sites after the projects were planted, in
accordance with the cooperative maintenance agreements, proved to raise important

challenges for several groups.

...the City's mowing. Uh, there is no control over the
people who mow for the City, they're contractors and the
contractors themselves of course hire people to do the work
and the ones that are doing the work are playing urban
cowboy with lawnmowers, very large lawnmowers...

 

 

 

 

Actual Organi
Beyond
group interviev
organizational
their communi'
the organizatio
during the Col
participant org
their project cc
are collapsed i
organizations.

discussed in te

Sllmnm-y
As illu
00mm conc
Projects. Figu
or their Comm
368thetic and *
among their p
to improv e thr

 

 

Actual Organizational Empowerment (AOE)

Beyond assessing changes in participants' sense of empowerment, the quarterly
group interviews and focus group comments provide an opportunity to assess actual
organizational empowerment; whether groups were able to actually effect change within
their communities through involvement in community forestry activities consistent with
the organizational vision. This assessment was based on the objectives determined
during the Collaborative Planning phase of the URI/MSU process, through which
participant organizations established outcome criteria according to which the success of
their project could be determined. For the purposes of the current study, those objectives
are collapsed into several general categories typically shared by several participant
organizations. The participants’ assessments of the projects and their outcomes will be

discussed in terms of these major categories.

Summary of Organizational Objectives
As illustrated by the organizational profiles, the groups shared a number of

common concerns which they hoped to address through their community forestry
projects. Figure 10 illustrates the number of groups citing each major goal area
or their community forestry project; subsistence, safety, participation, economic, social,
aesthetic and “other”. Three of the participant organizations chose subsistence goals
among their purposes for participating in the URI/MSU program. Three groups wished
to improve the safety of the vacant lots and of their neighborhoods through their project

while four sought to increase participation. Five groups reported an interest in economic,

178

 

 

 

 

 

 

social and "otl
they were wor

Data fr
felt their grou]
$1ereys provir
annual survey
3-60) and CK
achieving thei
Very high con
the same gror
3.50, 02 = 3.3
members ster
groups had or

the QUince ((

 

 

 

 

 

economic susbsist- safety aesthetic social partici- other
5 .

ence patron

Figure 10: Group Goals for URI/MSU Community Forestry Projects

social and "other" benefits. Finally, all seven hoped to improve the appearance of the lots
they were working to reclaim.

Data fiom all three collection procedures offer insight on how well participants
felt their group’s objectives were met. The quantitative data from the individual mail
surveys provide an overview of participants’ responses. The t—tests on data from the bi-
annual survey indicated that there were significant differences between the F orsythia (0 =
3.60) and C.K. Maple (0 = 4.00) associations members’ assessments of the likelihood of
achieving their groups’ community forestry objectives (p < .05), although both indicated
very high confidence in this area. There was a similarly significant difference between
the same groups’ assessments of how well the objectives had been “met so far” (01 =
3.50, 02 = 3.30, p < .05). Perhaps the lower sense of success among the C.K. Maple
members stems in part from their higher initial expectations. Again, however, both
groups had very positive assessments. There were also significant differences between

the Quince (0 = 2.22, p < .05) and C.K. Maple associations.

 

 

 

 

Additio
insights on the
subsistence, sa:
participant gro
frequency with
although the d
discussions. F
consideration 1
objectives, sur
intergeneratio:
creating play 1
group discuss
collection pro

focus group d
As indicated i
ecological on

We“,

Environmental

W

Table 22 Four

 

Subsistei

The t
ijects saw

achieyemem

 

Additional data fiom the other collection procedures provide more in-depth
insights on the success of the urban community forestry projects in addressing the
subsistence, safety, participation, economic, social, other, and aesthetic objectives of
participant groups. Each of these areas will be discussed below in reverse order of the
frequency with which each category was identified among the groups’ objectives,
although the discussion of some will necessarily overlap in reflection of the group
discussions. For example, discussions of safety and aesthetic objectives overlapped in
consideration of preventing illegal dumping. Similarly, the achievement of social
objectives, such as increasing meeting and gathering spaces and improving
intergenerational cooperation, and ‘other’ concerns, which included factors such as
creating play spaces for children and adult exercise or sitting areas, also overlapped in the
group discussions. Thus, for some topics, reports will be limited to data from only one
collection procedure, such as the quarterly assessments, while related comments from the
focus group discussions are presented under another heading where such overlap occurs.
As indicated in Table 22, discussions of the environmental, economic and social

ecological outcomes represented about 4% of the focus group discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Topic Item % of Category % 0f
category discussion

@cial-ecological effects at community level 19.30 3.95

Environmental effects at community level 35.09

Economic effects at community level 45.61

 

 

 

 

Table 22: Focus Group Discussion of Project Outcomes

Subsistence
The three groups identifying subsistence goals for their community forestry
projects saw no difference between the three and sixth month evaluations and only minor

achievement of their objectives between the sixth and ninth month. At the twelfth month

180

 

 

there was somi

achievements i

However, gro

the productior

 

limited as illu

 

Safety
There
safety 0fthe
Projects (Fig
dangemus at

“Ole. howev.

 

 

 

 

there was some decline in their assessments, although participants reported slight

achievements in addressing subsistence objectives at that time (Figure 11).

 

l 7
l
“.3
l
i

L /\ i

1 3 6 9 12

 

 

 

 

5
4
3
2

Figure 11: Achievement of Subsistence Goals over Time

However, groups working to address subsistence goals had strong positive reactions to
the production they had seen and seemed strongly inspired by these successes however

limited as illustrated by a participant who said,

the tree that I have, I'll tell you girl, I had such beautiful

fruit last year... and plenty of mu coming this year
coming, but I don't know if you know that we had a tornado
this year... tornado just came and just wiped the peaches...
I think I have two... two left. But it didn't destroy the tree.
So I'm hopefiil that next year, I can prune it and dig around
and it will be, but it was just, and I'm thinking that the same
thing could apply down the street. The peaches down
there. . .there were peaches, it was really... oh, they were

good.

Safety

There was a fairly consistent difference between the groups' assessments of the
safety of the vacant lots prior to and following the planting of their community forestry
projects (Figure 12). Similarly, the groups consistently report that the lots were less
dangerous afterwards than they had been prior to planting (Figure 13). It is interesting to

note, however, that the groups' reports of the conditions prior to planting drop in parallel

 

 

 

 

with their asse

thought that th

\

Figure 1

project was p
the previous (
months.
Despi
see the projec

dumping and

 

 

 

with their assessment of the conditions after planting. Thus, participants consistently

thought that the conditions were better at the time of the assessment than before the

 

 

5

 

it? \'

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 6 9 12 9 12
.._,_ Pre-URI _ Current LM__ Pre- URI _Current
Figure 12: Assessments of Lot Safety Figure 13: Changing Assessments of
Before and After URI Dangerousness of Vacant Lots

project was planted, but report conditions at both times as being worse than they had at
the previous data collection point with the exception of a strong improvement at 9
months.

Despite these apparently declining perceived returns, most groups continued to
see the projects and their maintenance as important in their efforts to prevent illegal

dumping and related hazards on the sites.

we'll get into that in September, because we have three,
one, two, three vacant lots now that have been cleared that
we are going to work with, that we're going to try to get
some plants for those lots because leaving them vacant
you're just asking for dumpsites, you see, and that's what
we were afraid of, thank god, it really didn't happen that

way.

 

 

 

Participan'
Becaus
number of met
of quantitative
building sectic
comments abc
projects. The

actual implen:

Another repo:

effects for the

AS €Xpected,

attract memb

H0Wever. an
1HV01Ved ill]

the sense of

Participation
Because changes in general organizational participation (such as changes in the
number of members and level of involvement in group activities) along with the majority
of quantitative data pertaining to the issue were considered in the organizational capacity
building section, the current discussion is limited to consideration of the focus group
comments about participation specifically as a function of the community forestry
projects. The report of one block club President makes it clear that participation in the

actual implementation of their community forestry project was quite satisfactory.

Well, the way you helped us become more like that is that
you had everybody participating, like I say, you had like
90% participation rate, when we did this, it brought
everybody out... I was real proud of them.

Another reports that efforts at maintaining the project have continued to have positive

effects for their membership.

People have cooperated more in our park since doing this
program- I've been really pleased with the results. Even
though it was a small group that was involved it united
them and gave them pride in their accomplishment.

As expected, the projects gave several groups a common focus and an opportunity to

attract members with new skills to contribute.

provided a common goal, it increased interest and

participation... got more people involved and found out

what their skills were
However, another group reports that while the project did increase the numbers of people
involved in planting and maintenance activities, it does not seem to have contributed to

the sense of unity among participants.

183

 

 

 

Maintaining t1

proved to be a

Economi
Bcom
Although SCV
over the eval
to increased .
economic m2
trees or their

indirect, but

 

It did bring them in, but otherwise, it didn't have the effects
of building overall unity, etc., as we’d originally hoped.

Maintaining the level of participation necessary for ongoing maintenance activities

proved to be a challenge for a number of organizations.

if we'da had just about five people to cut those lots, just
five, it would be a breeze, there wouldn't be nothing to it,
but we didn't have five people that would help out... But
that's no excuse because I know that if we had had full
participation with everybody, it really doesn't take that
much energy to maintain that kind of thing, it really
doesn't.

Economic
Economic benefits were commonly identified among the groups' objectives.
Although several of the groups experienced dramatically changing financial conditions
over the evaluation period, participation in the project was not perceived as contributing
to increased economic resources (Figure 14). While many projects had not yet reached
economic maturity by the time of the final evaluation or the groups had not harvested the
trees or their products for economic benefits, one group noted the role of the project in

indirect, but quite positive economic improvements 1n the commumty.

 

 

 

 

 

5 I
it 1
ft /\i

F igure 14: Assessment or AcnrevemenMgbconomic
Objectives Over Time

184

 

 

 

 

Social
Thong
and other soci
final evaluatit
month meetin
following the

year.

111 addition tc
Participant 11.

reelamation t

 

 

 

 

...With the trees, with the painting of the trees and the
curbs and even with our fruit trees, in this neighborhood,
the property values have just about doubled, I found that
out today, the house next door here, two years ago it was on
the market for $10,000. It's for $32,000 now...

Social

Though none of the groups who cited an interest in increasing social interaction
and other social goals continued to see them as important goals for their project by the
final evaluation, they did report improved conditions in those areas between their 3 and 6
month meetings (Figure 15). This achievement was maintained through nine months
following the planting of those community forestry projects with a slight drop at one

year.

 

3 6 9 12

Figure 15: Assessments ot'achrevement of
Social Objectives Over Time

In addition to providing gathering spaces and other intended social objectives, one
participant noted an unexpected social benefit of the project and the group's other lot

reclamation efforts.

I think we're getting that with regards to people mowing
and we're doing a lot of mowing, the vacant lots, uh, once a
lot looks mowed rather than six foot high grass then people
feel better about it and that's my intent... I think that once
people see that a lot really looks better with something on

185

 

 

 

 

 

Other
Figure
play spaces fr
graph, a sligt
sense of achi
9 and 12 mor
improved fol
before. Tho
through 9 m
following pl
Mea
followed by

children's at

 

 

 

 

it, not just vacant then I think that we'll get more people
beginning to feel better about the neighborhood.

Other

Figure 16 portrays the pattern in the achievement of "other" goals such as creating
play spaces for children and adult exercise or gathering areas. As illustrated in that
graph, a slight drop between the 3 and 6 month evaluations is followed by an increasing
sense of achievement of these goals, such as creating play spaces for local children, over
9 and 12 months. The availability of children's activities is consistently perceived as
improved following the planning of community forestry projects in comparison with
before. Though there is some increase in the perceived availability of children's activities
through 9 months, there is a decrease in the group's assessments of this area at 1 year
following planting (Figure 17).

Meanwhile, the evaluation of this aspect prior to planting improves at 6 months
followed by a dramatic decrease. This may reflect an inconsistent use of the projects for

children's activities as several of the groups use the projects for educational and outdoor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 6 9 12 -— e” — cm
Figure 16: Assessment of Achievement of Figure 17: Availability of Children’s
‘Other’ Objectives Activities Before and After URI

186

 

 

 

 

 

 

activities duri
groups believ

which would

It also provid

in the rural s<

Aestheti
All 0
Participate i1
PIOjects wer
example, pa
three month
at the six in.
imPrOVemer
dramatic in
Planting the

conditions I

 

 

activities during some seasons, but not consistently throughout the year. Still, some
groups believed that the projects provided an opportunity for environmental education

which would build a sense of responsibility and awareness among neighborhood children.

Education, just those kids that we do come across, educate
them on what the real usefulness of trees are. If they learn
this, they'll never break another branch in their life.
It also provided an opportunity for community elders to share the skills learned as youth

in the rural south with those neighbors committed to rebuilding the City.

he's from the south, but he has done, you know, a lot of that
type of thing we've all been up in this house since almost as
long as I can remember and asides from a small garden, I
don't know much about forestry, planning, land or any of
that stuff

Aesthetic
All of the organizations cited aesthetic goals as critical in their decision to

participate in the URI/MSU program. Fortunately, this was also the area in which the
projects were almost universally judged to be successful, at least to some extent. For
example, participants indicated a great perceived improvement in the lots' appearances
three months following planting (Figure 18). Though there was a slight drop on average
at the six month evaluation, by nine and twelve months following planting, the
improvements were regained and surpassed. Conversely, although the groups report a
dramatic improvement in whether the lots are an "eyesore" at three months following
planting their project, these gains erode consistently over time. The groups' reports of the

conditions of the lots prior to planting improve again at the 12th month (Figure 19).

187

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 181Asse
of AI

For St

was disappoi

While recogr
that the pro jt

light ofthe c

One 0fthe r
ProjeCtS can

Community

 

 

 

 

 

l?

 

 

 

3 6 9 12
Figure 18: Assessments of Achievement of Figure 19: Pre- and Post-URI Assessments
of Aesthetic Objectives of Lots as an Eyesore

For some groups, the visible change in the community immediately after planting

was disappointing given the amount of effort that went in to the projects.

I expected a bigger impact- at the end it didn't seem like as
much of a change as planting so many trees should have
done

While recognizing the amount of work that was necessary, however, other groups felt
that the projects made an enormous difference in the appearance of their communities in

light of the condition of the sites prior to planting.

There was a hell of a lot of work, there were about 4 lots
together that were vacant. No six, I'm sorry, six together
that were vacant over there and when we did that and uh
there was a transformation from being overgrown full of
junk and everything to clean, we got it cleaned, we got it
cut, and it looked nice, it really did, and we planted the
trees and that looked nice.

One of the most dramatic descriptions of the aesthetic impacts of the community forestry
projects came from the President of the Georgia peaches describing her groups'

community orchard.

It was beautiful... It looked just like a lawn with fruit trees
on it. It was really beautiful, it really was and this was

188

 

 

 

 

 

SUMl)
Table
presented ab

illustrated in

Community
Community
influenced h
Signs of con
increased se
community
URI/MSU ;
Shared conc
prodded an

The
neighborho
111081 strong
his'on’ of 1

Such as Grt

 

 

what we were working at... I'm so glad that it happened we
saw the value of it and we saw it produce so we know it
wasn't a complete failure because all those trees were
blooming and it was a beautiful sight so um, even though it
wasn’t completed the way we really wanted it to, I think
that in the near future, it might...

SUMMARY OF RESULTS ASSESSING THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Table 23 provides an overview of the results pertaining to the conceptual analysis
presented above in light of the hypothesis originally presented at the end of chapter 4. As

illustrated in that table, implications of the data for the conceptual model are mixed.

Community Cohesion

Community cohesion was commonly identified as a concern among program participants,
influenced by political, economic and social factors as the municipal level. There were
signs of consistent improvement throughout the program, illustrated through the
increased sense of cooperation among neighbors and evidence of increasing frequency of
community events among some participant organizations who frequently used their
URI/MSU project site as a collective gathering area. Additionally, the identification of
shared concerns through the community forestry activities and improved local land use
provided an opportunity to create and demonstrate cohesion among neighbors.

The sense of attachment to the community, measured through attachment to
neighborhood and city features, was also fairly positive. The factors which contributed
most strongly to the sense of community attachment were; neighborhood associations, the
history of African American leadership in the city, cultural festivals and "special places"

such as Greek Town and Belle Isle. Responses regarding the importance of schools,

189

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q1) Does inv
001111111111

M

1 la. P:
ar

lb. P
a

lc. P
tl

02) Does in
organin

2a. (
c

2b. .

2c. '

2d.

2e.

# - .
Jr‘posr

Table 23 C

 

Rse ch i

Q1) Does involvement in participatory development activities contribute to increased
community cohesion and attachment?

Emiliesis Qut9__ome*

1a. Participants will report an increasing attachment to neighborhood 0
among local residents.

1b. Participants will report an increasing attachment to the City 0
among local residents.

lc. Participants will report greater attachment to the neighborhood 0
than to the City among local residents.

Q2) Does involvement in participatory development activities contribute to improved
organizational capacity?

2a. Organizations will report an increased number of participants +
over time. (in planting

and short term)

0
(long term)

2b. Organizations will report increased level of diversity (age +
and gender) among participants.

2c. Participants will report an increased average length of membership. 0

2d. Participants will report an increased average number of hours 0
contributed.
2e. Participants will report greater development of leadership skills 0

among a wider percentage of members.

2ei. Participants will report holding a greater number of 0
leadership positions.

2eii. More participants will report having held such positions. 0

* + = positive results, - = negative results, 0 = mixed or neutral results

Table 23: Overview of Results of Conceptual Analysis

190

 

 

 

 

meantime

2f. 1st
1 bill

 

w

Q3) Can the
participat

3a I
site

3b.
set

3c.

Table 23;

 

Rs ch ti

2f. Is there evidence of improvements in strategic planning and consensus

building skills?
H esi Qutcome
2fi. There will be evidence of increased consensus around the +

group mission statement or shared vision.

2fii. Participants will report increased consensus with the group's +
choice of activities.

2fiii. Participants will report increased success of activities and +
campaigns.

Q3) Can the sense of organizational empowerment be enhanced through involvement in
participatory development?

3a. Organizations will report increased networking with other similar

+
situated organizations.
3b. There will be evidence of increased individual and organizational +
sense of empowerment. (individual)
0
(organizational)
3c. There will be evidence of increased actual empowerment through 0
changes in local conditions consistent with collective objectives.
Outcomes for specific organizationally-identified +
objective categories (Aesthetic and
Safety)
0
(Participation and
Social/Other)

(Subsistence and
Economic)
Table 23: Overview of Results of Conceptual Analysis (cont'd)

191

 

 

 

 

 

neighbors, 1c
and varied g1
function of p
Resp

and with the
over time, tt
correlations
their attachr
local organi
organizatior
those who a
satisfied wi
community
African An
their neighl
The
organizatio
Participant
0f Patticip;
Participate
Promising.
errpected a

be that pat

 

neighbors, local and city events, local organizing and sporting events were more mixed
and varied greatly across groups. However, none varied significantly over time as a
function of participation in the URI/MSU program.

Respondents were generally satisfied with their neighborhood as a place to live
and with the sense of community there. While these factors did not change significantly
over time, there were differences between the groups. There were also positive
correlations between participants' satisfaction with the community as a place to live and
their attachment to block clubs, local events, artistic and cultural venues and history of
local organizing. This finding may support Wandersman's (1981) hypothesis that local
organizations mediate the relationship between individuals and the broader community as
those who are most engaged in local activities and organizations appear to be most
satisfied with the local community. Furthermore, those who reported a stronger sense of
community among their neighbors also reported a greater appreciation for the history of
African American leadership, stronger attachment to the city and greater satisfaction with
their neighborhood as a place to live.

These results are promising in terms of their implications for the participant
organizations. Most evidence a general and growing sense of cohesion among
participants. However, because few of these indicators changed over time as a function
of participation in the URI/MSU program as expected, their implication for the utility of
participatory development in contributing to improved community cohesion is less
promising. The opportunity to explore explanations for this discrepancy between
expected and observed results is, unfortunately, limited by the small sample size. It may

be that participatory development does not influence that particular component of the

192

 

 

 

 

 

model. HOWE
community 0
that there are
attachment 0
explore whe‘
cohesion by
members, p
and core mt
opportunitit
whereas otl
and perceir
current stu

sample to

Organiza

Cl
as the exi
members
Organiza‘
discussir
and the I

Process.

 

 

model. However, given the range of correlations between participant's sense of
community or community satisfaction and the indicators of attachment, it is also possible
that there are differences in perceived cohesion among participants based on their level of
attachment or cohesion and level of engagement in the community. A larger study could
explore whether participatory development is perceived as having differential impacts on
cohesion by members at varying stages of involvement with local organizations (e. g. non-
members, peripheral members, core members and leaders). For example, perhaps leaders
and core members think more strategically in terms of organization building and see
opportunities to identify collective concerns as positive opportunities to build cohesion
whereas others become more aware of dissatisfactions and problems through that process
and perceive less cohesion as a result. However, while the evidence provided by the
current study gives rise to these questions, it is beyond the statistical utility of the current

sample to respond to them.

Organizational Capacity

Changes in organizational capacity were measured by several characteristics such
as the existence of and consensus around an organizational mission, changes in
membership and in leadership, strategic planning and organizing skills. Discussion of an
organizational mission was not collectively well represented in the focus group
discussions. However, there is general recognition of the importance of a shared Vision

and the opportunity to establish one through participation in the URI/MSU planning

process.

 

 

 

 

Then
membership
diversity, W
the URI/MS
membership
the face of 6
their memb
purpose at 1

Cor
groups, altl
member st:
strong sens

deveIOpme

Organizat
Sense
Th
conflict be
Hughey (j
and the ct
teIlns of l
e“deuce

influence

 

There was much greater discussion of the influence of the program on
membership. Participation objectives, most notably in terms of increased age and gender
diversity, were reportedly achieved over time and generally attributed to participation in
the URI/MSU program. While few groups reported great increases in their overall
membership numbers, some reported that their participation rates remained constant in
the face of external events or internal conflicts which they felt would have threatened
their membership were the program not providing a sense of continuity and collective
purpose at that time.

Concerns about overburdening core members were substantiated for several
groups, although others reported success in moving some peripheral members to core
member status, offsetting such inequities for those organizations. There was also a fairly
strong sense that the program contributed to improved organizational and strategic

development skills.

Organizational Empowerment

Sense of Empowerment

The sense of internal democracy among some members, related to the potential

conflict between individual and organizational empowerment raised by Speer and
Hughey (1995), was reflected in discussions regarding the sense of shared agenda setting
and the chilling effect of overly dominant leadership. While participants differed in
terms of how democratic they felt their organizations were generally, there was some
evidence that the URI/MSU process ensured an opportunity for all participants to

influence the development and design of the community forestry projects equally.

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, 501
use the proje
contributed t
effect might
the groups 1:
The
empowennr
Zimmerma
(PE) and pr
(1996) hyp
positively
terms of ti
lIlt
discussior
was a gen
Would ev.
inlprover
Efforts. S
statemen
were als.

senices

results i

However, some groups reported that time and funding constraints impeded their ability to
use the projects to expand on this positive effect. Thus, while the program may have
contributed to greater parity between individual and organizational empowerment, this
effect might have been better generalized to non-members and peripheral participants if
the groups had greater opportunity to use the program as a community building tool.

The results indicate that there was a significant change in individual's sense of
empowerment but no change in their sense of organizational empowerment based on
Zimmerman and Zahniser's (1991) quantitative scales assessing political empowerment
(PE) and political capacity (PC). These results are consistent with Saegert and Winkel's
(1996) hypothesis that involvement with collective community change efforts will
positively impact individual sense of empowerment. However, they are troubling in
terms of the organizational impacts of the URI/MSU program.

Individual scale items and responses during focus group and group interview
discussions were more promising. For example, group discussions indicated that there
was a general sense of disempowerrnent among local residents who felt that 'nothing
would ever change' in their communities which was positively influenced by the visible
improvements created through community forestry and other neighborhood beautification
efforts. Similarly, while individuals were more likely over time to agree with the
statement that political leaders reflected the interests of the wealthy and powerful, they
were also more likely to believe that their could successfully mobilize necessary city
services.

The great majority of the discussions centered around access to resources. The

results indicated a generally positive impact on the availability of human resources,

 

 

 

 

 

eiidenced by
improved org
to material re
land values i
with other e1
most groups
projects, the
the City ant
were no sig
assistance r
offered prc
lronically,
WaS, howe
organizati

organizati

Actu:

POSitive's
saccessf
Particip:

the UR]

 

evidenced by the improved diversity and increased core memberships as well as
improved organizational and leadership skills reported by some groups. Results related
to material resources were more mixed. One group reported a significant improvement in
land values in the neighborhood as a result of their community forestry project coupled
with other efforts to improve the appearance and safety of the community. However,
most groups reported difficulties in getting sufficient access to water to maintain their
projects, though some used that shortfall as an organizing tool to mobilize the support of
the City and of non-member neighbors building their network of contributors. There
were no significant changes in inter-organizational networking with sources of technical
assistance with the exception of the Wayne County Cooperative Extension Service which
offered project maintenance and composting workshops for participant organizations.
Ironically, this was the only outcome criteria established by the program staff. There
was, however, positive inter-community networking both among URI/MSU participant
organizations and between those groups and other supportive community-based

organizations.

Actual Organizational Empowerment
Results of the assessment of actual organizational empowerment were fairly
positive, although there were strong differences between the groups in terms of how
successful the projects were in meeting community—identified objectives. For example,
participants consistently reported that the lots were safer and less dangerous after planting

the URI community forestry project than they had been before. However, there were

196

 

 

 

 

 

changes in p
evaluation p
Shor
of members
core memb:
especially i
additional 2
equitably a
community
report that
members 1
Su
forestry p]
and were
redistribu
most dire
was not p
grom'ng
benefits .
take our
1
Sites, 68}

iInPacts

 

changes in perceptions of how great the improvement was over the course of the
evaluation process.

Short-term participation goals were met, as were efforts to increase the diversity
of membership. However, the number of active members did not increase as desired and
core members continued to feel overburdened as a result. These results may be
especially important because some core members reported a reluctance to take on
additional activities because they already felt over committed. Thus, distributing tasks
equitably across the membership and mobilizing new core membership from the broader
community will be critical for these groups to continue their work. Several groups did
report that the URI/MSU program did facilitate the process through which peripheral
members became active participants.

Subsistence and economic objectives were not achieved through the community
forestry projects within the evaluation period. However, two groups did hold plant sales
and were able to recoup their maintenance-related expenses while others chose to
redistribute the plants to beautify additional vacant lots. Furthermore, while the project
most directly focused at subsistence objectives, the Georgia Peaches' community orchard,
was not producing sufficiently to meet commercial objectives, community response fruit
growing in the local community was enthusiastic. In addition to the indirect economic
benefits of improved land values, reports included that local children were beginning to
take ownership in preventing vandalism of the site.

The groups universally reported improvements in the appearance of their project
sites, especially immediately following the planting. Some reported that the positive

impacts on the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood improved the sense of efficacy and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

potential for
also evidenc
community 1

participatior

Implication

The
implication
participato:
Although t
and organi
relationshi

are beyon.

Figure 20

 

potential for ongoing and future community improvement among residents. There was
also evidence that the projects did contribute to the development of safe shared
community space which provided the opportunity for increased contact with and

participation of non-member residents in community events.

Implications for the Conceptual Model

The reconfigured conceptual model, presented in Figure 20, illustrates the
implications of the results for the conceptual model's propositions regarding the role of
participatory development in facilitating the process of organizational empowerment.
Although the direct relationships among community cohesion, organizational capacity
and organizational empowerment can be derived from the literature, testing those
relationships would require structural equation modeling or path analysis, both of which

are beyond the capabilities of the current data to support.

Organizational
Empowerment
A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
Participatory Development/
Transformative Participation
/7
a/
Community Organizational
Cohesion Capacity

Figure 20: Evidence of conceptual relationships

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the
relationships
between par
dotted line 2
Burning Bu
possible to
gathering 81.
whether co
However, 1

non-orgarr'
beyond the
neighborh
arrows, th
contributi
participat
diversity.
I

by the Cl:
Significa

Pmpowe

the face

facilitat

influent

 

In the reconfigured model, darker or more solid arrows indicates stronger
relationships. For example, there was weak but positive evidence of a relationship
between participatory development and community cohesion, indicated by the light
dotted line and hollow arrowheads designating that relationship. Had the Crabapple and
Buming Bush block clubs participated in the evaluation process, it might have been
possible to draw a comparison between groups seeking specifically to create community
gathering spaces as a cohesion-building and recruitment tool and others to determine
whether cohesion could be intentionally engendered through participatory development.
However, the organizations participating in the full evaluation process seldom included
non-organizational cohesion among their primary objectives and reported little change
beyond the increased sense of cooperation among residents and more frequent
neighborhood events in some cases. Conversely, as indicated by the solid line and bold
arrows, there is strong evidence of the utility of participatory development activities in
contributing to organizational capacity including factors such as strategic planning,
participation in certain kinds of events and activities and increasing age and gender
diversity.

There were generally positive results for organizational empowerment, indicated
by the dashed line and semi-bold arrowheads. For example, while SOB was not
significantly changed over time, participants reported a greater sense of individual
empowerment and of the ability of their groups to organize on the community's behalf in
the face of inadequate provision of city services. There were also quite positive effects in
facilitating actual organizational empowerment reflected through the ability to directly

influence community/living conditions. The strongest evidence for this outcome was

199

 

 

 

reflected by
safety. The

such as sub!

 

 

 

 

 

 

reflected by reports of improved neighborhood and project site aesthetic quality and
safety. There were, however, more mixed results for outcomes relating to forest products

such as subsistence and direct economic benefits.

200

 

CHAPTER 8

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

201

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arno:
identified wi
participatior
(Lane, 1997
(Lineberry,
themes have
Urban Resc
organizatio
land resour

focus grout
principles .
indicated a
communit
and Cham
deve10pm
In

a11d the re
that the p:

Partnersh

identifier

Participa

Datable e

Unable t(

 

Among the critical concerns for participatory community forestry partnerships
identified within the literature were whether they upheld the values of transformative
participation (Nelson and Wright, 1995; Gaventa, 1980), community-driven partnerships
(Lane, 1997; Arnstein, 1969; Wandersman, 1987; Peiris, 1997) and local control
(Lineberry, 1989; Cemea, 1985; Rebugio, 1985). Throughout the current study, these
themes have underlain all aspects of the evaluation, exploring the extent to which the
Urban Resources Initiative program and its partnerships with community-based
organizations in Detroit were able to embody these principles while using local vacant
land resources to address the concerns of local organizations. The content analysis of
focus group responses generally indicates that the URI/MSU program did reflect the
principles of participatory development. For example, comments from participants
indicated a general sense of the researcher as accessible and accountable to the
community. These characteristics address the concerns of Amstein (1969), Peiris (1997)
and Chambers (1995) based on their observations of community participation in
development efforts based on a more conventionally technocratic approach.

In fact, the level of confidence a number of participants expressed in the program
and the related influence of the University’s presence on participation raises a concern
that the program and the researcher’ presence may have carried undue weight in the
partnership, challenging the ideal of developing community-driven solutions to locally-
identified problems. However, there were no indications from that commentary that
participants felt the imposition of external control by the researcher or the program. One
notable exception was the sense of members of the C.K. Maple association that they were

unable to utilize their customary organizing strategies or to bring all of their members

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

into the p181
also affecter
contrast to 1
between 00‘
Sim
appropriate
their comrr
some cons
funds eithe
the allocat
costs shou
improve 0
participatt
communi
resources
Partnersh
C
Franciscr
responsit
negative
Star Mat
member

the balm

 

into the planning process because of grant-related time constraints. These limitations
also affected the opportunity for the group to build widespread support for the project in
contrast to many of the other organizations, potentially reinforcing power distinctions
between core members and less active members or non—member residents.

Similarly, while most participants felt their groups were able exercise an
appropriate level of control over their participation in the program and decisions about
their community forestry project, a member of the C.K. Maple association identified
some constraints arising from the allocation of financial resources. His suggestion that
funds either be distributed as mini-grants or disbursed over time so groups could control
the allocation of the funds to cover plant materials as well as maintenance and related
costs should be considered by future efforts in this area. Following this suggestion could
improve on the sense of control and self-determination, both central to the concept of
participatory democracy (Roelofs, 1998,) participants derive from participation in future
community forestry efforts, whereas maintaining professional control over economic
resources raises important concerns regarding the dimensions of power within the
partnership.

Characteristic of a true partnership (Arnstein, 1969; F awcett, Paine-Andrews,
Francisco and Schultz, 1995; Small, 1995,) most leaders did indicate a sense of shared
responsibility for the program and its related activities, including both positive and
negative aspects of the planning and implementation. For example, the President of the
Star Magnolia block club clearly felt responsible for the waning participation among their
membership, whereas the President of the Forsythia neighborhood association credited

the balance between the group’s commitment and labor and the program’s provision of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

materials ar
participant:
commqu
On
most suppr
organizatir
communit
Wright, 15
programs :
reinforcin;
approache
for the eff
or financi
that did p.
provided
Mantel a
the pro gr
member (
coInpone
likelihoo
PYOposal:
meessic

intarmat

 

 

materials and assistance for their project’s successes. Throughout the discussion,
participants evidenced a sense of control over the decision-making regarding their
community forestry projects and their participation in program-related activities.

One aspect of the program the President of the F orsythia association found to be
most supportive was the provision of plant materials at no cost to the participant
organizations. By so doing, the program avoided reinforcing the inequities between
community—based organizations reflected in differential access to resources (Nelson &
Wright, 1995; Pretty and Scoones, 1995; Minkler and Pies, 1997) in contrast with those
programs requiring financial contributions of participant groups which he cited as
reinforcing those differences. Through his comments about the barriers cost sharing
approaches pose for smaller organizations, the F orsythia President indicated appreciation
for the efforts to ensure equal opportunity for groups to participate regardless of their size
or financial resources as well as to ensure access to necessary resources for the groups
that did participate. Several of the other groups also indicated a sense that the program
provided access to the necessary resources. Many cited the Community Resources
Manual and other technical assistance efforts as skill—building benefits of participation in
the program. Others, including a student member of the Star Magnolia block club and a
member of the C.K. Maple association, felt that the addition of a more formal educational
component focusing on urban environmental education might be beneficial both to the
likelihood of achieving project objectives and in recruiting additional participants. These
proposals are consistent with the responsibility of researchers and development
professionals to utilize their privileged position and resulting access to resources and

information to the benefit of community participants (F awcett, Paine-Andrews, Francisco

204

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and Schultz
sought to fL‘
resisting cc
of Taylor’s
environmer
area where
identify an
0w
than were 1
For examp
over the 10
Increasing
range of at
membersh
These part
phase. It 1'
men who
make by }
forestry p
and Florii
Participat
an organi

Where the

 

and Schultz, 1995; Pretty & Scoones, 1995; Fischer, 1997). The URI/MSU program
sought to fulfill this responsibility through its technical assistance and other provisions,
resisting common assumptions that urban residents lack environmental awareness in light
of Taylor’s (1990) work. However, these participants have suggested that offering
environmental education programs specifically geared to urban settings may well be an
area where community forestry has a valid contribution to make for those groups who
identify an interest in further developing that expertise or recruiting youth participation.
Overall, the levels of achievement of project-specific objectives were more mixed
than were the assessments of the program’s adherence to participatory methodologies.
For example, while group membership numbers were generally reported to be unchanged
over the long term, there were demographic shifts consistent with group objectives.
Increasing participation among men and younger residents in order to expand on the
range of activities they could undertake and the perspectives represented among their
membership were widely identified objectives for the community forestry projects.
These participation-related objectives were reportedly met during the implementation
phase. It is possible that, just as the program participants intended, younger residents and
men who participated in implementation activities perceived the contribution they could
make by helping the groups meet the need for physical labor in the new community
forestry projects. These presumptions would be consistent with both Haeberle’s (1987)
and Florin and Wandersman’s (1987) theoretical assumptions that residents will
participate when they feel their contributions and skills are necessary for the success of
an organization’s activities. Once involved, some apparently perceived additional areas

where they could further contribute to the organizations and were drawn into regular

205

 

 

 

 

meetingatt1
and the stat
pmfidpann
environmer
community
report inert
channels tl
Un
cooperatio
block club
were only
involvemt
beacnnc
conventio
Upkeep,fl
the cultur
Vanuatu
central to
events 31]
SCVera] g
necessarj

to utilize

 

 

 

 

meeting attendance. Consistent with the presumptions of the members of several groups
and the statements of the student participants in the Star Magnolia block club, youth
participants were particularly drawn in by the opportunity to participate in the
environmentally-related projects which may have altered their perceptions of the
community groups willingness to take on issues of importance to them. The groups also
report increasing child and youth oriented activities, which may also have provided new
channels through which younger residents could become involved.

Unfortunately, other project objectives geared at increasing intergenerational
cooperation, such as the community bakery plan initially proposed by the Georgia Peach
block club, have yet to be achieved. This and the other subsistence-oriented projects
were only partially implemented due, at least in part, to the higher levels of ongoing
involvement required by gardening and other subsistence-oriented activities. This may
be a critical area where urban and rural community forestry efforts differ. In contrast with
conventional technocratic approaches or those seeking to contractually mandate tree
upkeep, the participatory development approach strives to address local objectives within
the cultural, social and economic reality of the communities involved and the settings
within which they live. Unlike rural areas where subsistence-based activities are often
central to community life, they are perceived as peripheral for these groups. When major
events such as the Detroit tornado or the death of core members intervene, as they did for
several groups over the course of their involvement in the program, the organizations
necessarily take hiatus from project maintenance. Accepting this reality and attempting

to utilize species and design projects that can withstand such periods of neglect may be

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

critical to tl
these objec
In c
community
setting Wht
important «
Unfortuna'
President t
property v
certainly t
improverr
reclamatir
related rer
associatic
maintena
PTOject or
existing (

benefits.

maintenz
Pblective
t0 Vacan

intended

 

 

critical to the utility of forestry-based participatory development approaches to address
these objectives in urban settings.

In contrast to subsistence goals, which sometimes took a back seat to other
community priorities, economic objectives which may meet similar concerns in the urban
setting where most subsistence needs are met through market exchanges, remained
important outcome criteria for many groups initially hoping to address such objectives.
Unfortunately, few groups met this objective to the extent they were hoping. The
President of the Georgia Peach block club did report a surprisingly significant increase in
property values following the implementation of their community orchard. While
certainly the URI/MSU program cannot take primary credit for this dramatic
improvement, the President does attribute it to their focus on beautification and land
reclamation projects, including, but not limited to, their community orchard and the
related removal of several abandoned homes. Some groups, most notably the Quince
association, were able to hold plant sales and raise enough money to offset most of their
maintenance costs. For the remaining groups, however, the economic requirements of
project maintenance necessitated personal contributions or diversion of resources from
existing organizational budgets given the failure of the projects to generate economic
benefits.

Given the failure to derive sufficient economic benefits fiom the projects to offset
maintenance costs, the C.K. Maple association and the Star Magnolias shifted their
objectives to maximizing the aesthetic impacts of the projects by transplanting the trees
to vacant lots throughout their communities, as the Forsythia association initially

intended. While these plans were being developed at the time of the final interviews, so

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no report 0
that the prt
the organi:
given the r
objectives
dangers pr
eliminater
economic
benefits 5
activities.
successes
lv
their farm
member
Commun
core grey
to an org
& Kend
Particip:
Forsyth
throngh
refiance

recruin

 

 

no report on the success of those efforts is available, evaluations up to that point indicated
that the projects were almost universally successful in meeting the aesthetic objectives of
the organizations. While these may seem like superficial benefits at first, especially
given the range of issues faced by participant groups, they were identified as primary
objectives by all seven participant organizations, in part because of the prevalence and
dangers posed by illegal dumping which has decreased on all of the project sites and been
eliminated altogether on many. Aesthetic improvements are also central to the improving
economic conditions reported by the Georgia Peach block club as well as to social
benefits such as the increased availability of community gathering spaces and children’s
activities. As a result, many of the groups consider these improvements to be critical
successes in their ongoing neighborhood-improvement and community building efforts.
Most participants credited this success to the efforts of their core members and
their families. In the case of the Forsythia association where the family of one core
member took on the majority of responsibility for watering and maintaining the
community nursery site until it was well established. The availability of such a reliable
core group of members is vital to the success of most community groups and contributes
to an organization’s ability to recruit new members (Speer & Hughey, 1995; Bobo, Max
& Kendall, 1991; Haeberle, 1987). Many groups hoped to expand this core through their
participation in community forestry activities. Several, including the Quince and
Forsythia associations and Star Magnolia block club, reported that this objective was met
through their group’s participation in the program. However, some reported an over
reliance on their core members, both in planning activities and to take up the slack when

recruitment efforts failed to keep pace with the maintenance requirements of the projects.

208

 

 

 

 

 

Some men
already ove
They later:
For
combinatie
who, as a 1
natural res
majority c
decision t
afford inc
the negat
technical
maintena
those tas
1
by a nut
associat
establisl
the ricer
membe
0116 Wa
efforts

directs

 

Some members of the C.K. Maple association, for instance, expressed concern that their
already over-burdened core would end up having to take responsibility for the project.
They later reported that their concern was born out.

For the Quince association, these difficulties were exacerbated by an unusual
combination of factors. The project was planted on land belonging to the new President
who, as a core member and the participant with the most formal training in gardening and
natural resource management, reportedly ended up with almost sole responsibility for the
majority of maintenance activities. While the group, including the President, made this
decision because it would ensure access to water and other necessary resources and
afford increased security for the project, the program could have taken steps to prevent
the negative outcomes. For example, provision of formal environmental education and
technical assistance workshops earlier in the process may have helped to disseminate
maintenance skills and reduced the dependence of the group on this leader to carry out
those tasks.

These concerns are directly related to the organizational development goals cited
by a number of the participant groups. For example, the President of the Quince
association noted the necessity of defining more formal leadership positions and
establishing committees responsible for each of the group's principle programs to provide
the necessary structure to ensure critical tasks were accomplished. While finding
members to fulfill each of these roles might pose a challenge, this proposal might also be
one way to ensure that each participant is able to become deeply involved with those
efforts of greatest interest. Furthermore, this structure might help to ensure that the group

directs its energy and resources toward the efforts with the greatest support among

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

members.
members t
consistent
and with I
among otl
efforts cor
ld-
challenge
associatic
dominant
presence
ccmmurr
the Star I
reliance .
as critics
MfiBm
t0 mobil
to build
has had
Shatred \
with the

illustm

 

members. As the President of the Georgia Peaches recognizes, those efforts which the
members truly support are likely to be the most successful. These presumptions are
consistent both with the tenets of participatory democracy (Roelofs, 1998; Barber, 1984)
and with Wandersman’s (1987) ecological model of participation in community which,
among other factors, presumes members will make the strongest contributions to those
efforts consistent with their own values and visions.

Identification of the activities and programs that meet these criteria can be a
challenge for some leaders, however. As noted by a member of the C.K. Maple
association, there is always a danger that strong leadership can become a form of
dominance, eventually leading to an erosion of community support. In some cases, the
presence of entrenched leadership invested in maintaining their position within the
community can be a powerfiil barrier to building participation. Conversely, members of
the Star Magnolia block club and the C.K. Maple and Forsythia associations all identify
reliance on democratic process and an opportunity to influence the organizational agenda
as critical to building such investment among the broader membership, in accordance
with Barber’s (1984) description of the democratic community. Furthermore, according
to mobilization of support theory (Blake, 1998; Finkel, 1984), such approaches may help
to build a shared vision or mission among organization members because each participant
has had a role in determining the group’s objectives and goals. The resulting widely
shared vision may further contribute to additional membership recruitment, consistent

with the reciprocal effects of a number of the organizational development factors as

illustrated in Wandersman’s (1987) model.

 

 

 

":Jiimtherev

 

 

As 2
positions, I:
an importer
contributes
ongoing St
on a share:
sentiments
clubs as u

same gror
increased
limited pl
process.
reestablis
neighbor
I
one imp.
mediatir
collectit
Wander
Stronge;
connibt
results

exatnp'

As acknowledged by a number of participants, particularly those in leadership
positions, building consensus around organizational objectives is frequently perceived as
an important objective for any group activity. The resulting sense of unity and cohesion
contributes not only to increased membership, but to the sense of commitment and
ongoing support of existing members who build a sense of mutual respect based largely
on a shared commitment to the community, regardless of individual differences. These
sentiments were reported by the leaders of the Georgia Peach and Star Magnolia block
clubs as well as the Forsythia and C.K. Maple neighborhood associations. However, the
same groups evidence concern that ongoing demographic changes in Detroit, leading to
increased representation of seniors who are often dedicated members, but with sometimes
limited physical abilities, and the high rate of resident turnover will interfere with this
process. For example, a member of the Star Magnolia block club discussed the need to
reestablish trust with new residents in order to build their commitment to the
neighborhood and then to the block club.

Establishing a sense of mutual dependability and shared vision may, however, be
one important mechanism through which such community—based organizations become
mediating institutions which foster a sense of empowerment through the benefits of
collective effort (Green, 1997; Speer & Hughey, 1995; Florin & Wandersman, 1984
Wandersman, 1981). Indeed, members of the same organizations frequently reported the
strongest sense of mutual responsibility and duty to participate in regardless of the
contributions of other residents or likelihood of success. As these trends indicate, the
results regarding political empowerment were, in general, quite encouraging. For

example, while respondents were more likely to believe that government representatives

 

 

 

 

 

were prefe
likely to bt
responses '
associatior
Su
participan
instance, <
cooperatir
never alle
the other
communi
mobilize
Quince a
close relz
an extent
(1995), t‘
orgam'Za
participa

levels of

research
reveal it

While th

 

were preferentially serving the powerfill, over time they were also significantly more
likely to believe that their group could mobilize city services on their own behalf. These
responses were especially prevalent among members of the Quince and C.K. Maple
associations.

Such access to city services proved to be a critical issue for the URI/MSU
participant organizations. The limitations faced by the Star Magnolia block club, for
instance, originated with the failure of the Department of Public Works to fulfill its
cooperative maintenance agreement. As a result, the problematic initial conditions were
never alleviated which made working in that site a much greater challenge than many of
the other groups had to face. Groups that were able to draw on more extensive
community, governmental and external networks reported that they were better able to
mobilize city services as well as to find alternatives where necessary. For example, the
Quince and Forsythia associations were able to turn to one another as well as to draw on
close relationships with Wayne County CES. Similarly, the C.K. Maple Association has
an extensive network of external supporters. Thus, as proposed by Speer and Hughey
(1995), the so-called ‘empowered organization,’ with extensive community and
organizational networks, may well be better situated to achieve the shared vision of its
participants. It is evident throughout the group commentary, for instance, that varying
levels of city support has important implications for programmatic outcomes.

Furthermore, the responsiveness of some city departments to appeals from the
researcher versus their resistance to requests for services from community residents may
reveal the City’s entrenchment in conventional technocratic priorities. For example,

while the Georgia Peach block club had tried for seven years to have the vacant and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dangerous
for their or
completed
and Fawor
firlfilled it
their beha
local initi
governmr
willingne
responsit
which m:
T
commun
For exam
their ow
well. T}
seem to
Rivera z
neighbc
results <
Americ
38 Gree

the coll

 

dangerous houses removed from their community, it was not until the sites were chosen
for their community orchard through the URI/MSU program that the work was
completed. Thus, while this may be an instance where, consistent with Haeberle’s ( l 98 7)
and Fawcett, Paine—Andrews, Francisco and Schultz (1995) admonitions, the program
fulfilled its obligations to the communities to use its privileged position with the City on
their behalf, it is critical that the municipal authorities refocus their efforts in support of
local initiatives. Creating a sense that residents can count on the support of their own
government officials to act in support of their efforts would facilitate an increased
willingness among such highly committed community organizations to take on
responsibility for improving local conditions, in contrast with the current situation in
which many report the City as one of the most consistent barriers to their efforts.

These results are especially intriguing in light of the results of the assessment of
community building aspects of the URI/MSU program, such as community attachment.
For example, the participants consistently report stronger attachment to the city than to
their own neighborhoods, although attachment to neighborhood is consistently positive as
well. This trend that holds true both across groups and across time. This finding would
seem to conflict with the assumptions of Hummon’s (1978) work as well as that of
Rivera and Erlich (1995) that ‘community’ for urban residents is represented by the
neighborhood which mediates their relationship with the city at-large. However, the
results do reflect strong attachment to neighborhood associations, the history of Afiican
American leadership, to the City’s arts and cultural festivals and to ‘special places’ such
as Greek Town and Belle Isle (all of which are widely recognized as important factors in

the collective identity of Detroiters) as opposed to the municipal agencies with whom the

 

 

 

 

 

 

participants
features sur
moderate lr
perception
uith both t
attachment
perceived :
as a place

Th
neighborh
communit
their share
challenge:
improve 1
communi
were no 5
involvem
inlprovin
measure

I
demOgr-a
for relate

benefim

 

 

participants frequently expressed some frustration. In comparison, neighborhood-based
features such as block clubs, schools, churches and neighbors were associated with more
moderate levels of reported attachment. Interestingly, the item assessing participants’
perception of the sense of community in their neighborhood was more strongly correlated
with both the composite and citywide attachment scales than with the scale measuring
attachment to the neighborhoods. In fact, there was a negative relationship between
perceived sense of community and respondents’ general satisfaction with the community
as a place to live!

This relationship makes more sense if one considers that members of these active
neighborhood improvement organizations might be quite apt to have a strong sense of
community while being well aware of the challenges they face in their effort to realize
their shared vision for their community. Similarly, given their awareness of those
challenges and of the number of residents choosing not to participate in efforts to
improve local conditions, participants might perceive an especially low sense of
community among non-member residents in their neighborhoods. In any event, there
were no significant changes in attachment to community at either level as a function of
involvement in the URI/MSU program, though participants did report consistently
improving levels of cooperation among local residents, another potentially important
measure of community-building.

The overall success in addressing important aesthetic, short term participation and
demographic diversity—oriented objectives seem to have generated conditions favorable
for related longer-term social, organizational development and community building

benefits. Most groups only attribute these changes to the program ‘somewhat,’ however,

214

 

 

 

featuring“, .

 

 

 

with the en

organizatio

Research
Th

As discuss
well as in
processes
groups al'
qualitativ
empower
F
required
Participe
aPPIOpri
result or
this aSp
aspects
determ:
in deci:
direct]:

the res

with the exception of the F orsythia association which did credit many of these positive

organizational outcomes to their participation in the program.

Research Limitations

The most immediate concern for the validity of this study is the small sample size.
As discussed above, this resulted from the pilot nature of the URI/MSU program itself as
well as from the necessity for some of the groups to drop out of the longer term research
processes because of extenuating concerns that arose locally. While the small number of
groups allowed for the establishment of close partnerships and the collection of in-depth
qualitative data, the implications of the outcomes for the understanding of organizational
empowerment must, as a result, be considered exploratory.

Furthermore, some groups reported difficulties arising from the time commitment
required to complete the entire research process. It is, therefore, possible that
participatory development without the participatory research component is more
appropriate to this type of program in this setting. Conversely, this response could be the
result of gaps in the participatory process, despite the generally positive assessment of
this aspect of the research effort. For example, while the groups were involved in all
aspects of proj ect design, implementation and assessment including those which
determined the outcome criteria for the current research, they were not directly involved
in decisions regarding research design or in identifying research products that could be

directly beneficial for their objectives. As a result, they had no cause to be invested in

the research process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...in Thee
Th
at best. I
indicate a
would be
through t
participa
among n
the City
to expla
that the:
certain '
On the
the loc:
(1981)
urban 1
find th
efforts
connn
ascert
Such

Ofon

CONCLUSIONS: LESSONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY

...in Theory

The results of the assessment as they pertain to the conceptual model were mixed
at best. The initial presumption, that participants in community-organizations would
indicate a strong sense of attachment to their neighborhoods and that such cohesion
would become stronger, both within the groups and across the broader community,
through their involvement in participatory development activities was not born out by
participants in the URI/MSU program. In fact, while groups did report involvement
among new members, respondents consistently reported a stronger sense of attachment to
the City than to their immediate neighborhoods. While the preceding discussion attempts
to explain that unexpected result, it is difficult to presume the validity of the model given
that these residents, most of whom are core members in the local organizations, exhibit a
certain level of disillusionment with the sense of community within their neighborhoods.
On the other hand, their assessments of the sense of community and of their attachment to
the local organizations are consistently quite high, perhaps validating Wandersman's
(1981) presumption that community organizations mediate the relationship between
urban residents and the larger community. In this case, it is possible that these residents
find the cohesion they feel is missing in their neighborhoods through their collective
efforts as members of the community groups. Given the lack of assessment of
community cohesion among residents outside of the organizations, it is difficult to
ascertain whether cohesion within the group increased as a function of participation.

Such an analysis might be an important contribution for future studies in the mechanisms

of organizational empowerment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

De:
the ooncep
URI/MSU
indicated f
the numbr
and choic
their invc
response:

contribut
mixed re
ftmction
maturity
protect 1
element
over tin
t0 impr
statistic
items 3
Thus, i
broade
Proces

Partici

Despite that limitation, the results indicate more support for the other elements of
the conceptual model. While there were some mixed results in the assessment of the
URI/MSU program's influence on organizational capacity, the majority of factors
indicated some improvement as a function of participation. Groups reported increases in
the numbers and diversity of participants, greater consensus around the group mission

and choice of activities and improved networking with other organizations as a result of

 

their involvement in participatory development activities. Furthermore, through
responses to the focus group discussions, there is evidence that the evaluation process
contributed to strategic planning and leadership development. Finally, while there were
mixed results in assessments of actual organizational empowerment (AOE), largely as a
function of biological limitations of the projects (6. g. not yet achieving economic
maturity) and challenges posed by external forces (e. g. the failure of city agencies to
protect the communities' land tenure) there were positive outcomes on several critical
elements of ACE which may serve as the foundation for increasing positive outcomes
over time (for example, improvements in aesthetic and social conditions may contribute
to improved economic conditions and organizational participation.) There were also
statistically significant improvements in individual sense of empowerment and on key
items assessing respondents' sense of organizational empowerment (SOB) over time.
Thus, while the model requires further corroboration in both larger samples and across a
broader range of settings, it does seem to contribute to a growing understanding of the
processes of organizational empowerment and the positive role of involvement in

participatory development activities in that process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...in Pract
Th1

of the torn
primers 3]
practitionr
firmly est
participar
opportuni
individua

expertise

for comn

to a bettc

commun

participz

<

t0 suppr
Minkler
practitir
tftchnic
00mm
aPlDroa
could r

\ision

 

...in Practice

The lessons of the current study should contribute to an improved understanding
of the forms of support that are most necessary from community and governmental
partners and those areas best served by professional community-forestry development
practitioners. In these areas, future professional partners should be more proactive in
firmly establishing relationships for technical assistance. Furthermore, several
participants suggested that some components, such as the education and training
opportunities and funding allocation processes, could have been more tailored to the
individual communities in accordance with their organizing strategies and areas of
expertise. Future efforts might be more successful if such options were made available
for community participants to choose among as needed. This suggestion thus contributes
to a better sense of the balance between concerns about technocratic domination of
community partners and fulfillment of the professionals’ obligations to community
participants.

Similarly, consistent with discussions of the need for professionals to be willing
to support the political agendas of participant community organizations (Fischer, 1997;
Minkler and Pics, 1997; Rivera and Erlich, 1995), it is critical for development
practitioners to ensure that municipal authorities and other power holders provide the
technical assistance appropriate to their positions and establish accountability to
community participants. Were local government supportive of a more participatory
approach, municipal government 'teams' could be utilized through which communities
could define their own goals and work with the appropriate personnel to realize that

vision rather than being constrained to activity within a particular department. For

 

 

 

 

i‘i;i§i1ih?;gtfq
. H, “r, .7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

example, V
(such as P:
interested
foresters i
partnershi
communi
exchange
street tree
favor of r
local yor
ensure a
skills ne
PRA an:
nations.
and the
approar
altemat
Act in -
C-Orpop,
leave t
OPPOU

Silppo

incree

example, within Detroit, teams could consist of personnel from several city agencies
(such as Parks and Recreation, Forestry and Public Works) available to work with groups
interested in vacant land reclamation using a range of options and strategies. City
foresters in particular could facilitate more participatory management by participating in
partnership with community groups on the development and implementation of
community nurseries; perhaps donating trees and training to community groups in
exchange for return of a percentage of the trees at maturity for transplant to parks and as
street trees. Such an approach would eliminate cost of management of city nursery in
favor of community empowerment and, furthermore, could provide opportunities for
local youth and/or master gardeners among others to develop skills within the nursery to
ensure a cadre of skilled nursery managers across the city available to disseminate those
skills neighborhood-to-neighborhood. This would represent an approach more similar to
PRA and other local—to-local participatory development strategies used in Southern
nations. It would provide communities a cost-free opportunity to develop such a program
and the necessary skills and technical assistance to realize their visions. Such an
approach to environmental and natural resource management may be a more viable
alternative for community empowerment than, say, the American Community Renewal
Act in that it does not support the efforts of already polluting and exploitive external
corporations. Nor does it run the risk of funding people to improve their skills just to
leave the community, as was the concern with the Model Cities program, because the
opportunity for the application of those skills is within that community. Instead, this
support for local initiative toward self-reliance and local development will become

increasingly important as globalization persists and resources to address highly localized

 

 

 

 

firifiitflnggn
., ,r'.” ' '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conditions
Boggs, 19

0‘
areas whr
most exp
developn
would be

number .

conditions become ever more scarce (Roeloffs, 1998; Sandstrom, 1994; Salop, 1992;
Boggs, 1987, cited in Boggs, 1998).

Overall, a review of the results indicates that, while there were certainly important
areas where the URI/MSU program failed to fulfill the hopes of participant organizations,
most experienced moderately positive changes in their proj ect-specific and organizational
development objectives. Ultimately, none of the difficulties identified by participants
would be impossible to overcome and the projects do show promise of addressing a

number of major concerns shared among community members.

220

 

 

 

 

 

.7
A.
.1.
.J.
.).
7.
.g
g -
.IIU
..Ilr
.Iulr
..l.
.4 .
f' n

 

 

 

REFERENCES

221

 

i‘ezrtiimtfierei ‘
._I!,I:Ir:"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abbott,

Adams,

Adams,

Ahlbrai

Anony
Anony
Anon)
Anon)

Arnstr

Aronc

Baca

Bady

Barb.

 

Abbott, J. (1996). Sharing the City: Community participation in urban management.
San F rancisco: Island Press.

Adams, P. (1994). A Financial House of Cards. Multinational Monitor, L50), 21-26.

Adams, J. & Rietbergen-McCracken, J. (1994). Participatory Development: Getting
the key players involved. Finance & Development, i1 (3), 36-38.

Ahlbrant, R. S. Jr. & Cunningham, J. V. (1979). A New Publio Policy for Neighborhood
Proservation. New York: Henry Holt & Company, Inc.

Akula, V. (1993). Voices from the Village. World Watoh, o(2), 811.
Altman, I. and Wandersman A. (eds.). (1987). Neiahbnrhood and (‘. "v

Environments. Series: Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in theory
and research volume 9. New York: Plenum Press.

 

Amanor, K. S. (1994). The New Frontier: Farmers' res nse o 1 d d ati n. A
West African study. Geneva: UNRISD; London: Zed Press.

Anonymous (1997). Personal Communication.

Anonymous (1996). Personal Communication.

Anonymous (1994). Personal Communication.

Anonymous (1992). Personal Communication.

Arnstein, S. R. (1977). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. In P. Marshall, (ed.). Citizen

artici ati n ertifica i n for mmuni D velo ment: A re r n the citiz n

participation process. Washington, DC: National Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials.

Aronoff, M. (1993). Collective Celebration as a Vehicle for Local Economic
Development: A Michigan case. Human Organization, 5_2_(4), 368-380.

Baca Zinn, M. (1979). Field Research in Minority Communities: Ethical,
methodological and political observations by an insider. Social Problems, 2
(2), 209-219.

Bady, S. & Lurz, W. H. (1993). Gathering Places Fulfill the Desire to be Connected.
Professional Builder and Remodolor, 18(5), 108-109.

Barber, B. (1984). Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

222

 

 

' -‘ ‘ - ’ “I I
.‘2',IE,J'”'-7§Jhw
' “If-it'l-

 

 

Bell & h

Benflelc'
Blake, (
Bobo, I
Boggs,
Booth
Browr

Browr

Buent

Cerr

Cen

 

Bell & Newby, (1971). Community Studies: An introduction to the sooiology of the
W. Series: Studies in Sociology Volume 5 George Allen &
London: UNWIN.

Benfreld, J. C.(1995). Cruel to cut energy assistance. Chicago Tribune, 124.

Blake, C. H. (1998). Economic reform and democratization in Argentina and Uruguay:
The tortoise and the hare revisited? ,loumal of Interamerican Studies and World
Affaim, 442(3), 1-27.

Bobo, Kim; Max, S. and Kendall, J. (1991). 01' ' ' for Social Change. Washington,
DC: Seven Locks press.

Boggs, G. L. (1998). Living for Change: An Autobiography. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.

Booth, N. & Fear, F. A. (1985). Community Development: An old idea eomes of age.
Paper Authorized by the Board of Directors, Community Development Society.

Brown, L. D. (1993). Social Change through Collective Reflection with Asian
Nongovernmental Development Organizations. Human Relations, £0), 249-274.

Brown, L. (1989). State of the World: A Worldwatch Institute report on progess toward
a sustainable society. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Buente, D. T. and Crough, M. M. (1998). Significant Environmental Law Developments
The Secored Lender, 3(3), 52—66.

----- (1994). Unequal Protection: Environmental justice and communities of color.
Robert D. Bullard (ed.); San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Bullard R D. 1990 Dnmnino in Dixie: Race. chm. and env' ‘ ‘ quality. Boulder:
Westview Press.

Cemea, M. M. (1994). Population Resettlement and Development. Finance 5%;
Development, 3(3), 46-50.

Cemea, M. M. (1988). Involuntary Resettlement and Development. Finance 53;
Development, 2_5(3), p 44-47.

Cemea, M. M. (1985)1. Knowledge from Social Science for Development Policies and

Projects. In Michael M. Cemea (ed.). P in Pe 1 First: oci l ic l ’abl
in para] development, New York: Oxford University Press.

223

 

.’2-,i§1325¢?§{?er
.A‘!‘J" :

 

 

 

 

Chica

Claytr

Clem

Cole

Colr

Da

Cemea, M. M. (1985)2. The Social Actors of Participatory Afforestation Strategies. In
Michael M. Cemea (ed.). Putti P le F ’rst: ociol ical V ' les in rural
development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chambers, R. (1994). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and
paradigm. World Development, 2_2(10), 1437-1455

Chambers, R. (1985). Shortcut and Participatory Methods for Gaining Social
Information for Projects. In Michael M. Cemea (ed.). Puning People First:
Sociological variables in rural development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development; Putting the last first. New York: Longrnan
Group Ltd.

Chambers, R. (1995). Paradigm shirts and the practice of participatory research and

development. In Power and Participatogg Development: Theory and practice.
Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds.). London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.

----- (1997). Environment and Community Empowerment. Series: Research in
Community Sociology, Volume 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Chekki, D. A. (ed.),
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Chicago Tribune (1997). Voucher-ing Out The CHA? My 14.

Clayton, E. (1983). Agn'culture, Pover_ty and Freedom in Developing Nations. London:
The MacMillan Press, Ltd.

Clements, P. (1993). An approach to poverty alleviation for large international
development agencies. World Development, 2_l(10), 1633-1647.

Colchester, M. (1994). Sustaining the Forests: The community-based approach in south
and south-east Asia. In Dharam Ghai (ed.). Development 52; Environment:
ustainin Peo le and Nature. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers/UNRISD.

Cole, P. (1998). Defining community in our cities: Changing the perception of urban
forestry. American Forests, HEM), 38 & 43.

Curtis, K. A. (1989). Help from Within: Participatory research in a low—income
neighborhood. [lroan Anthropology, _l_8(2), 203-218.

—--- (1995). so Years is Enongh: The case against the world bank and the International
Monetn'y Fund. Kevin Danaher (ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press.

Darden, J. T.; Child Hill, R.; Thomas, J. & Thomas, R. (1987). Detroit, Raoe and
Uneven Development. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

224

 

i“.’tiiifi?‘f?ére~-

 

 

 

 

Davis-C

Deneke

Detroit

Detroit

Effrat,

Englei

Erlich

Fairw

Fawc

Fede]

Fede

Fette

Fink

Fist

 

Davrs-Case, D. (1989). Community Forestry: Participatory assessment momtonng and
evaluation Community Forestry Note 2. Rome: Food and Agriculture

Organization/United Nations.

Deneke, F. J. (1994). What is the Role of the Federal Government in Urban and
Community Forestry? The Public Garden: The joumal of the American
Association of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta., 9(1), 23 & 40.

Detrort Empowerment Zone Development Corporation. http://detez.com/1ndex htrnl

Detroit Free Press On-Line (February 2, 1999). The Rouge Complex
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/qrbonhtrn.

Effrat, M. P (1974). Approaches to Community: Conflicts and Complrmentarrtres In
Marcia Pelly Effrat (ed.). The C v Approaches and applications New
York: The Free Press.

Engler, J. (1993). Executive Order 1991-31.

Erlich, P. R. (1968). The Population Bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.
I V

Fairweather, G. W. &Davidson, W. S. III (1985). Anlntmdm‘tinn to C.
Ex rim ntati n: T eo me hods ra ice. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Fawcett S B Paine-Andrews A.; Francisco, V. T. & Schultz, J. A (1995) Usrng

Empowerment Theory in Collaborative Partnerships for Community Health and
"v Psvchologv. 23(5), 677—698.

Development. American Journal of (‘.

Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony, (Tuesday, May 19 1998)
House Small Business Committee Hearings, Revitalizing Economically
Distressed Communities: The American Community Renewal Act.

Federal Register April, 1998.

Fetterman D M Kaftarian S J & Wandersman, A. (1996). Empowerment Evaluation:
Knowledge and tools for self ‘ and accountability. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.

Frnkel S E (1985) Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Politrcal Efficacy A

panel analysis. Ameriean Journal of Political Soience, 2, 891-913.

Frsher, R. (1995). Improving Health through Community Organization and Communlty
Building A health education perspective. In M. Minkler (ed.). Comunity

Qrganizing and Community Building for Health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

225

 

 

 

 

Fischer, R. (1'
York:

Fitzgerald, M
circul:
liens

Florin, P. and
Court
6393

(1988). t
Press.

Gadgil, M &
in Int
Mm
Gaventa, J. (
Anna

Gibbon, P. (-
M

Giddens, A.

Glover, G. (
an

Goodman, 1:
Ecol
Heal

Green, C, (1
Gree
Univ

Greenberg,

1151

Haeberle, s
defi

Hardy, C. a
Imp

 

Fischer, R. (1987). e the Pe 1e Decide: i hborhood r anizin inAm rica. New
York: Macmillan Library Reference.

Fitzgerald, M. (1991). A Mammoth Task: The F rce Press had a team of reporters and
circulation drivers count every vacant or abandoned building in Detroit. Denoit
News, L22(32), 17-19.

 

Florin, P. and Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive Social Learning and Participation in
Community Development. American Journal of F "v Psychologv. mm).
639—708.

-—-- (1988). Cn’tical Theory of Public Life. J. Forester (ed.) Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.

Gadgil, M & Guha, R, (1994). Ecological Conflicts and the Environmental Movement
in India. In D. Ghai (ed.). Dev ‘ ‘ and Environment “ ‘ ' ' v people and

nature. Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishers/UNRISD.

Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and Powerlessness: Quiescenee and rebellion in an
Appalachian valley. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

Gibbon, P. (1992). The World Bank and African poverty, 197 3-91. The Journal of
Modern African Studies, SW2), 193-221.

Giddens, A. (1990). The (N f of Modemitv. Stanford University Press.

Glover, G. (1993). Enterprise Zones: Incentives are not attracting minority firms. The
Review of Black Political Economy, Q0), 73-100.

Goodman, R. M.; Wandersman, A.; Chinman, M.; 1mm, P.; Morrissey, E. (1996). An
Ecological Assessment of Community-Based Interventions for Prevention and
Health Promotion. American Journal of C "v Psvc‘holOQV. 2_4(l), 33-62.

Green, C. (1997). Introduction: Globalization, challenge and the Black Diaspora. In C.
Green (ed.). lobalization an urviv lin the B1 k Dias ora. New York: State
University of New York Press.

Greenberg, D. S. (1990). Black Health: Grim statistics. (editorial). The Lancet,
fi(8692), 780-782.

Haeberle, S. H. (1988). People or Place: Variations in community leaders' subjective
definitions of neighborhood. Urban Affairs Qnarterly, 23(4). 616-34.

Hardy, C. & Leiba-O’Sullivan, S. (1998). The Power Behind Empowerment:
Implications for research and practice. Hnman Relations, 5_1(4), 451-483.

226

1’,“7:J?" ‘,..,",I;" ‘.

 

 

Harvey, D. (198
numb

Higgins, l. V. i
tested. L

Hirsch, E. L. (1
Organiz

Hoskins, M. W
27-32.

Hummon, D. l
m

Ismawan, B; F
Particii
S. Sab:
Siesta:

of Soc
Forest

James, J. H. (
Equal

Janowitz, M.
D. St]
Bass I

Johnson, J . E
"Con
empc

Kibel, P. S, 1
ll:

Kielbaso, J.

Knowlton, (
Che
M

Kromm, R
Are
Rex

Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodemity: An engniry into the origins of
cultural change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Higgins, J. V. (1995). Cadillac Poletown plant takes bow, but full potential is yet to be
tested. Detroit News.

Hirsch, E. L. (1986). The Creation of Political Solidarity in Social Movement
Organizations. The Sociological Quarterly, 3, 373-87.

Hoskins, M. W. (1980). Community Forestry Depends on Women. llnasylva, _3_2 (130),
27-32.

Hmnmon, D. M. (1990). m n laces: o uni Ideolo andI enti in
Amen'can Culture. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ismawan, B; Folla, Y. D.; Marbyanto, E. & Haryadi, Em. (1994). Rural Community
Participation in Forest Development: A Bina Swadaya experience. In H. Simon,
S. Sabamurdin, S. Hartadi, and H. Iswantoro (eds.). Social Forestry and
“ t ' ‘ ‘ Forest ‘ ‘ W7 " Proceedinos of the ° ' on the Development
of Social F orestrv and “ ‘ ' ‘ Jr Forest ‘ ‘ ‘ Yogyakaarta: Faculty of
Forestry Gadj ah Mada University.

James, J. H. (1992). Haunting Images of South Africa Point to Dismal Prospects for
Equality. The Masthead, 44(3), 36—38.

J anowitz, M. & Street, D. (197 8). Changing Social Order of the Metropolitan Area. In

D. Street (ed.). Handbook of Contemporm Urban Life. San Francisco: Jossey—
Bass Publishers.

Johnson, J. H. Jr.; Farrell W. C. Jr. & Henderson, G. R. (1996). Mr. Porter's
"Competitive Advantage" for Inner-City Revitalization: Exploitation or
empowerment? Review of Black Political Economy, %(2/3), 259-289.

 

Kibel, P. S. (1998). The Urban Nexus: Open space, brownfields, and justice. Boston
College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 25(3), 589-618.

Kielbaso, J. J. (1990). Trends and Issues in City Forests. ,1 onrnal of Arboriculture, m6).
Knowlton, C. S. (1976). Culture conflicts and natural resources. In W.R. Burch, N. H.

Cheek, Jr. & L. Taylor (Eds), Social Behavior, Natural Resources and the
Environment (pp. 109-145). New York: Harper and Row.

Kromm, R. E. (1998). Note: Town Initiative and State Preemption in the Environmental
Arena: A Massachusetts case study. The Harvard Environmental Law Review. 2,
Rev. 241.

 

firiiiaifnfitrh W. i '
‘v ya. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lane , J. (1995)-
oonccpt i
Dcyslflll
Intermec'

Lee, C. (1987).
racist at
mass. F

Lewis, P. (199A

Lichterman, P.
in com:
42(4), 5

Lineberry, W.
Boulde

Lipkis, A. & 1
Jeremy

Louv, R. (I99
their s

Love, A. R. (‘
L71. 4

Lovelace, G.

will

Envir
Lytle, T. (19
Midd

MacDonald,
of Rt

Marcus. G. :
ADA
3521s

Martindale,
198'

Massey, 1),
Mai

Lane , J. (1995). Non-governmental organizations and participatory development: The
concept in theory versus the concept in practice. In Power and Participatogz
Development: Theong and practice. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds). London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.

Lee, C. (1987). Toxic Waste and Race in the llnited States: A national repon on the
racial and socioeconomic characteristics of communities with hazardous
waste. New York, NY: United Church of Christ, Commission for Racial Justice.

Lewis, P. (1994). The Politics of Economics. Africa Report, Q3), 47—50.

Lichterman, P. (1995). Piecing Together Multicultural Community: Cultural differences
in community building among grass—roots environmentalists. Social Problems,
QM), 513.

Lineberry, W. (1989). Ass ssin Partici ato Devel ment' et ric Vers sReali
Boulder: Westview Press.

Lipkis, A. & Lipkis, K. (1990). The Simple Ac: of Planting a Tree. Los Angeles:
Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.

Louv, R. (1995). What Makes a Great Neighborhood? How some families have turned
their streets into true communities. Parents Magazine, E(8), 125-127.

Love, A. R. (1991). Participatory Development and Democracy. The E D server,
13’ 4‘7-

Lovelace, G. W. (1984). Human Ecology: A conceptual framework for research and
development in x . " v and social forestrv. Honolulu: East-West
Environment and Policy Institute.

Lytle, T. (1998). Wider Safety Net Plans for Public Housing Call for Admission of
Middle Class. Chicago Tribune, 7.C.

MacDonald, M. E. (1994). Planned National Highway System to Upgrade 158,700 miles
of Roads. Traffic Management, 3(2), 17-19.

Marcus, G. E. & Fischer, M. M. J. Anthropology as Cultural Critique (1985).
thr lo ultural ri i ue' An Ex erimental Moment in he Human
Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Martindale, C. (1990). Coverage of Black Americans in Four Major Newspaper, 1950-
1989. Newspaper Research Journal. We), 96-112.

Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A. (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation 8;. the
Making of the llnderclass. Boston: Harvard University Press.

228

 

7;.15j1’flngnn. .-
1.5/3w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Masot1,J-O°(19S

W
Mast, R. H. (199-

McDonough. M-
Manager

Dram

McDonough, M
hm

McDonough, 1v
mam
Printing

McKenzie, E. 1
pA19(I

McKnight, J. l
Neighl
Policy

McLamey, \lx
l4.

Meadows, D
nth

Messerschm

Miller, L, E
End
Eng

Soc

Minkler, IV
Co:
5.9

Mason, J. O. (1989). From the Assistant Secretary for Health. The Journal of the
Amen'can Medical Association, 252(16), 2202.

Mast, R. H. (1994). Deficit Lives. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

McDonough, M.H. (1992). Integrating the Diversity of Public Values into Ecosystem
Management. 133-138. In; Lemaster, D. (ed.). Ecosvstm ‘ ‘ ‘ in a
Dynmic Society. Lafayette: Purdue University Press.

McDonough, M. H. and Vachta, K. E. (1997). Urban Resources Initiative: Community
forestgt in Detroit. Final Grant Report to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

McDonough, M. H., Vachta, K. E., Funkhouser, S. L. & Gieche, A. L. (1994). Creating
(‘r 'Lv—Forestrv Partnershins- Afinartivinamrv mmmar‘h U.S. Government
Printing Office.

McKenzie, E. (1994). Welcome home. Do as we say. The New York Times, £3,
pA19(N), pA23(L), col. 1.

McKnight, J. L. and Kretzmann, J. (1990). Manning (‘- "v Canacitv.
Neighborhood Innovations Network. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and
Policy Research, Northwestern University.

McLarney, W. O (1989). Forest Planning: Voices unheard. American Forests, fi(5-6),
14.

Meadows, D. H. (1972). The Limits to Growth: A report for the Club of Rome's project
on the predicament of mankind. New York: New American Library.

Messerschmidt, D. A. (1993). Linking Indigenous Knowledge to Creative Co-
Management in Community Forest Development Policy. In K. Warner &
H. Wood (eds). Policv and I PQislntinn in C- "v Forestry. Bangkok:
RECOFTC.

 

Miller, L. B.; Garsize, N. and Bavington, D.L. as "The Lumpen Society" (1997). "The
End of Community? Forms, Processes and Pattern." In D. A. Chekki (ed.),

Environment and Commanity Empowement. Series: Research in Community
Sociology, Volume 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Minkler, M. & Pies, C (1997). Ethical Issues in Community Organization and
Community Participation. In M. Minkler (ed.). 0. "v Organifino and
(‘- "v Building for Health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

 

 

 

 

 

aquarium... ' -
., ya. 1

 

 

 

 

Minkler, M. & V
Organila
Minkler I
Brunswit

Motavalli, 1. (1E
3(2), 33'

Muller, E. N.; If
Democr

Naples, N. A. (
Social J

(January

Nelson, N. and
Devel;
lnterm

----(1995). a
Wrigh

Nisbet, R. A.
York:

Oropesa, R. S
lrnprc

Paul. s. (198
Ben

Peiris, K. (1'
in;

Perkins, D. '
appl

Perkins, D.
Fret
ilt

Phifer, B, 1

An
Sta

Minkler, M. & Wallerstein, N. (1997). Improving Health through Community
Organization and Community Building: A health education perspective. In M.
Minkler (ed.). C '*v 011 ' 'fifand (‘ j Rnildig for Health. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

 

Motavalli, J. (1997). What's good for General Motors. E: The euv' ‘ ‘
5(2), 38-39.

Muller, E. N.', Bollen, K. A. and J ackman, R. W (1995). Economic determinants of
Democracy. American Sociological Review, oQ(6), 966—983.

Naples, N. A. (1998). From Maximum Feasible Participation to Disenfranchisement.
Social Justice, 3(1), 47-66.

----- , (January 9, 1998). Morning Edition. National Public Radio.

Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (1995). Participation and Power. In Power and Participatory

Development: Theory and practice. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds.). London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.

----(1995). Power and Participatory Development: Theory and practice. Nelson, N. and
Wright, S. (eds.). London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Nisbet, R. A. (1962). Community and Power (forrnerlv Quest for C- 'fv). New
York: Galaxy.

Oropesa, R. S. (1989). The Social and Political Foundations of Effective Neighborhood
Improvement Associations. Social Science Quarterly, M3), 723-744.

Paul, S. (1987). Community Participation in World Bank Projects. Finance &
Development, A4), 20-24.

Peiris, K. (1997). vi Futu e T h r' omen P i i o D velo m nti
Sn' Lanka. Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.

Perkins, D. D. & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and
application. American Journal of C "y Psvchologv. 23(5), 569-580.

Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The Ecology of Empowerment:
Predicting participation in community organizations. J onmal of Social Issues,
2(1), 85-110.

Phifer, B. M., List, E. F., & Faulkner, B. (1980). History of Community Development in
Americas. In J. A. Christenson and J. W. Robinson (eds). CD in America. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, IA.

 

 

’iartzzzsw.» ~-~

 

 

 

Potts, M. 1990)
Items

Polsby, N. W. (l

a
.

Press, D. (1994:
Arnericg

Pretty, J. N. am
Level C

Develol

lnterme

Raby, N. (199‘.
considt

Rappaport, J. l
Holt, F

Rappaport, 1 .
prever

Rappaport, J.
theor)
fl, 1:

Rappaport. 1.
Tolar

33391
Psycl

Rebugio, L.
Soci:
of Ft

Riger, S. (1'.
Bus

---- (1995).
Org

RObinson, j

Em
Roelofs, H

Potts, M. (1990). World Summit on Children: Mere survival or a world worth living in?,
The Lancet, 336(8718), 866-869.

Polsby, N. W. (1995).The Sociology of Community Power: A reassessment. Social
Forces, 12, 232-236.

Press, D. (1994). Democratic Dilemmas in the Age of Ecology: lrees & Toxics in the
American West. Durham: Duke University Press.

Pretty, J. N. and Scoones, I. (1995). Institutionalizing Adaptive Planning and Local
Level Concerns: Looking into the fiiture. In Power and Pmicipatory
Development: Theory apd practice. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds). London:
Intermediate Technology Publications.

Raby, N. (1991). Participatory Management in Large Irrigation Systems: Issues for
consideration. World Development, £02), 1767-1777.

Rappaport, J. (1977). Community Psychology: Values, research and action. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In Praise of Paradox: A social policy of empowerment over
prevention. American Journal of C- "v Psvchologv. 2, 1-25

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of Empowerment/Exemplars of Prevention: Toward a
theory for community psychology. American Journal of C: '*v Psvchologv.
3, 121—148.

Rappaport, J. (1990). Research Methods and the Empowerment Social Agenda. In P.
Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds), Researching Community
Psychology: Integrating theories and methodologies. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

Rebugio, L. L. (1985). Social Forestry as a Development Program. Occasional Papers in
Social Forestry. Los Banos, Philippines: Department of Social Forestry, College
of Forestry, University of the Philippines at Los Banos.

 

Riger, S. (1993). What’s Wrong with Empowerment? American Journal of C- ll
Psychology, QB), 279-291.

----- (1995). A Time of Fear: A time of hope. In Rivera and Erlich (eds). Commonigr
Crganizing in a Diverse Society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Robinson, R. J. & Schmitz, L. (1989). Jamaica: Navigating through a troubled decade.
Finance & Development, 2_6_(4), 30-34.

Roelofs, H. M. (1998). Democratic Dialectics. The Review of Politics, @(1), 5-29.

231

 

 

 

 

 

Ross, D. A-; K
R P.', (
Follow
doses,
1252.

Rostow, W.W
Marsh

Rostow, W. V
Retro:

Rothman, J. (
Welfz

Ryan, N. (19
Obstz

Ryan, W. (15

Saegert, S. 8
110111!

Sandstrom,
&d:

Sarason, S,
Gre

Sawicki, D
red

SChl’llVers,

Serageldh
Al

Ross, D. A.; Kirkwood,. R.; Binka, F. N.; Arthur, P.; Dollimore, N.; Morris, S. S.; Shier,
R. P.; Gyapong, J. O. & Smith, P. G. (1995). Child Morbidity and Mortality
Following Vitamin A Supplementation in Ghana: Time since dosing, number of
doses, and time of year. The American Journal of Public Health, $9), 1246-
1252.

Rostow, W.W. (1997). Lessons of the Plan: Looking forward to the next century. (The
Marshall Plan and Its Legacy: 50 Years Later). Foreign Affairs, _L6(3), 205-213.

Rostow, W. W. (1996). Vietnam and Asia.(A Roundtable Review: McNamara's ‘In
Retrospect'). Diplomatic History, _2_0(3), 467—472.

Rothman, J. (1968). Three models of mmuni anization Practice. National Social
Welfare Forum. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ryan, N. (1998). CHA Hopes To Raze 11,000 Units In 15 Years, But Money Is
Obstacle. Chicago Tribune, 3.

Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the Victim. New York: Vintage Press.

Saegert, S. & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to Community Empowerment: Organizing at
home. American Journal of (‘. "v Psvchologv. 24(4), 517—550.

Salop, J. (1992). Reducing Poverty: Spreading the word. Finance a. Development,
&(4)9 2_5

Saltrnan, J. (1990). Neighborhood Stabilization: A fragile movement. The Sociological
Quarterly, fl (4), 531—550.

Sandstrom, S. (1994). Poverty Reduction: Learning the lessons of experience. Finance

& Development, 31(3), 30-34.

Sarason, S. B. (1982). Psychology & Social Action; Selected papers. Westport:
Greenwood Publishing Group.

 

Sawicki, D. S. & Moody, M. (1996). Deja—vu all over again: Porter's model of inner-city
redevelopment. Review of Black Political Economy, M(2/3), 75-94.

Schn'jvers, J. (1995). Participation and Power: A transformative feminist research

perspective. In Bower and Participatory Development: Theory and practice.
Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds). London: Intermediate Technology
Publications.

Serageldin, I. & Noel, Michel (1990). Tackling the Social Dimensions of Adjustment in
Africa. Einance & Development, 27(3), 18-21.

 

._- - .. ,"l'" 1
”tillfii'fiitlf" .
., ,4. .

 

 

 

 

Shiva, V- (192
Zed B

Singh, K M.
Pasta

Small, 8. A. 1
Mars

So, A. Y. (19
and
Sage

Soerianegan
Indo:
on_tl
Yog

Speer, P. W
emp
729!

Stein, M. R
Stokes, B. .

Sugrue, T.
E

Taylor, D.
am
1 7:

Thomas, I
Q

Thomas, ‘
El

Thompso
in

U.S. Bur

Shiva, V. (1989). ta in Alive: omen ecolo and develo ment. Highlands, N. J.:
Zed Books.

Singh, K. M. (1995). Darkness visible: World Bank pulls the plug on Nepal dam. Ear
Eastern Economic Review, _15_8(35), 62—64.

Small, S. A. (1995). Action-Oriented Research: Models and methods. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, SZ(4), 941-956.

So, A. Y. (1990). Social Change and Development: Modernization, Dependency and
world-system theories. Sage Library of Social Research # 178. Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.

Soerianegara, I. (1994). Ecolabelling and Sustainable Natural Forest Management in
Indonesia. In H. Simon, S. Sabamurdin, S. Hartadi, and H. Iswantoro (eds)
Social Forestry and “ ‘ ' ‘ ‘ Forest ‘ ‘ Pu 1' of the
on the Development of Social Forestrv and ‘ ' ‘ ‘ Forest“ ' ‘
Yogyakaarta: Faculty of Forestry, Gadjah Mada University.

Speer, P. W. and Hughey, J. (1995). Community Organizing: An ecological route to
empowerment and power. American Journal of ("‘1 "v Psvcholngy. 23(5),
729-799.

Stein, M. R. (1960). Eclipse of Community. Princeton University Press: New Jersey.

Stokes, B. (1993). Reinventing the Bank. National Journal, 25(38), 2232-2237.

Sugrue, T. J. (1996). The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race d; inequality in postwar

Detroit. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Taylor, D. (1990). Blacks and the Environment: Toward an explanation of the concern
and action gap between blacks and whites. Environment and Behavior, 21_ (2),
175—204.

Thomas, R. W. (1992). Life for Us Is What We Make it: Building black community in
Dmoit, l915—1945 Indiana University Press, Bloomington IN.

Thomas, V. & Chhibber, A. (1989). Experience with Policy Reforms Under Adjustment.
Finance 53; Development, 26(1), 28-32.

Thompson, C. B. (1991). Harvests llnder Fire: Regional cooperation for food security
' outhem Africa. London: Zed Books.

U.S. Bureau of the Census, (1990).

 

'i23§’3"473‘u‘," _.,.,v. v»;
, H-"‘

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Dermal
nan
Agricul
Laborali

Unger, D. G. a
m

Uquillas, J. E.
Ecuad
13616.1-
16. C:

U.S. Depart!)
Ennis

Vachta, K. E
Univ

Vatikiotis, 1
1m

Vidich & B
Uni

Vig, N. J. 2
Res

Vogel, R. ‘

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, (1989). Summag report:
1987 National Resources Inventory. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service: Iowa State University, Statistical
Laboratory.

Unger, D. G. and Wandersman, A. (1982). Neighboring in an Urban Environment.
American Journal of Community-Psychology, m5), 493-509.

Uquillas, J. E. (1985). Indian Land Rights and National Resource Management in the
Ecuadorian Amazon. In T. MacDonald Jr. Native Peoples and Economic
Develo ment: ix ase udies from Latin America. Occasional Paper Number
16. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival, Inc.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area (1995). llrbap
Forestrv F ive-Year Plan: 1995-1999.

Vachta, K. E. & Buncic, C. (1994). Community Resources Manual. Michigan State
University Department of Forestry.

Vatikiotis, M. (1992). Malaysia’s War: Government hits back at its critics. Fa Eastern
Economic Review, £92), 65

Vidich & Bensman, (1958). Small Town in Mass Society. London: Princeton
University Press.

Vig, N. J. & Kraft, M. E. (1996). Environmen a1 Poli in the 199 : R f rm or
Reaction? Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc.

Vogel, R. K. & Swanson, B. E. (1989). The Growth Machine Versus the Antigrth
Coalition: The battle for our communities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, £0), 63—
86.

Voith, R. (1994). Public Transit: Realizing its potential. Business Review- Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. 15-23.

Volokh, A. (1988). Shades of green. Reason, 3_Q(1), 36~42.

Vose, C. E. (1967). u asians n1 : Th u reme ourt t AA P nd the
restrictive covenant cases. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Walters, J. (1995). The Highway Revolution that Wasn't. Coveming, 3(8), 30-37.

Wandersman, A. (1981). A Framework of Participation in Community Organizations.

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1_Z(1), 27-5 8.

 

 

' .,I H; . ,
72-,ifiJ13t7g139, n '
:g‘yz’. ‘j "

 

Warner, S. B. (.1
Berkeley

Weenig, M. W.
Neighbc
anther

Welsh Brown,

Deena
Washir

Wilson, W. J.
pub 'c

----- (1995). i

----- (1994). ‘

 

Woiwode, A.
Mic:

m", (1995).
Deve

Two
m;
i Publ

 

Yates, D, (1
Boc

Young, 1. 1t
Uni

Zearfoss, (
Q1!

 

ff

Warner, S. B. (1995). The Urban Wilderness: A history of the American city.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weenig, M. W. H.; Schmidt, T. & Midden, C. J. H. (1990). Social Dimensions of
Neighborhoods and the Effectiveness of Information Programs. Environment
and Behavior, 2(1), 27-55

Welsh Brown, J. (1988). U.S. Policy in the 1990s. Poverty and Environmental

Degradation; Basic Concerns for CS. Cooperation with Developing Countries
Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The Truly Disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and
public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

----- (1995). World bank: 50 years is enough. WIN News, QB), 13.
----- (1994). Women Farmers in Africa and Landrights, WIN News, E6), 49.

Woiwode, A. M. (1994). A New Way of Thinking: Biological Diversity and Forestry
Policy in the Northwoods of the Creat Lakes States. San Francisco: Sierra Club.

----- , (1995). The Evolving Role of the World Bank: Helping Meet the Challenge of
Development. K. Sarwar Lateef (ed.). Washington, DC: World Bank.

Wright, S and Nelson, N (1995). Participatory research and participant observation:

Two incompatible approaches. In Power and Participatory Development: Theog
and practice. Nelson, N. and Wright, S. (eds). London: Intermediate Technology

Publications.

Yates, D. (1973). Neighborhood, Democracy, and Health. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.

Young, 1. M. (1990). Justice ad the Politics of Difference. Princeton, N. J .: Princeton
University Press.

Zearfoss, C. (1998). Rebuttal to "GM and the Demise of Streetcars" Transportation
Quaflerly, 5_2(1), 15—24.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological Empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of C- "v Psvchology. 23(5), 581-600.

Zimmerman, M. A., & Zahniser, J. H. (1991). Refinements of Sphere-Specific Measures
of Perceived Control: Development of a socio-political control scale. Journal of

Community Psychology, 12, 189-204.

 

 

APPENDIX A: MEASURES

236

 

'3.7";i,"€7“’" ,:-.91I:‘1 . .
‘i‘l'r' I: "

 

1) What are sor
etc).

2) What are 5:
particir
drugs,

 

3) What are
histor

4) What prr
neig

 

5) What It
clu
Chl

 

6) What

BLOCK CLUB/NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
URI NEEDS ASSESSMENT

1) What are some of the needs you see in this neighborhood? (S, better cohesion, food,
etc).

2) What are some of the problems you see in your neighborhood? (lack of
participation/interest- among particular groups (i.e. youth, parents, etc), gangs,
drugs, renters, etc).

3) What are some of the special interests of your neighbors? (gardening, recreational,
historical, etc).

4) What projects has your block club engaged in before URI? (curb painting,
neighborhood clean-ups, economic-fundraisers, youth programs).

5) What resources does your block club/neighborhood have? (number of active block
club members, folks with specific skills and interests- is resident gardener, etc,
church available for meetings or willing to donate photocoples, etc, drversrty

among residents, etc).

6) What types of projects would your group be interested in? (Subsistence-AF,
Economic— nurseries, x-mas trees, etc).

237

'. . ...¢.-.):‘- .
. ;.1r11"47; 11111 .
.ilhafle"

 

 

 

How did you
(don't read 01
anoth
URI l
throu
DPW
Proje
Cont
other

Why was yo
check all the
you hoping '

economic
to ra
to ra

subsistence
(t0 t

safety
wan

aesthetics
war
war

social
wa

PartiCipatir
W8

other
Plt

\

how Well
Program?

 

QUARTERLY GROUP INTERVIEWS

How did your group first hear about the Urban Resources Initiative?
(don't read options)

another URI group

URI presentation in neighborhood association

through participation in the McIntire-Stennis survey

DPW (i.e. George Lowe, Vanessa Hines)

Project Pride (i.e. Sebastian Wade)

Community Development (i.e. Barbara Washington)

other (specify)

 

Why was your group initially interested in participating in URI? (don't read options,
check all that apply) (prompt: What types of interests in your block/community were
you hoping to meet?)

economic 0 1 2 3 4
to raise money for the block club
to raise money for residents.

subsistence 0 1 2 3 4
(to grow our own vegetables, etc)

safety 0 1 2 3 4
wanted a safe place for children to play.

aesthetics 0 1 2 3 4
wanted to improve aesthetics of the lot(s)
wanted to improve block/community appearance
by improving eyesore lots
by growing plants for transplanting throughout community.

social 0 1 2 3 4
wanted a place for community activities.

participation 0 1 2 3 4 . . _
wanted to increase participation in commumty organlzatron.

other 0 1 2 3 4
Please Specify:

 

 

how well has each of your initial goals been met through your participation in the URI
program? O=not at all, 4=as well as possible

238

iv;:,.;ji,""¢7¥-Iil': 1"...‘i'l'.fli' - r
‘ A 1w ,
., I" ,

 

 

 

 

 

Since plantin
in your neigt

If so,

f..—

_________.._

Have you he

lfsc

 

 

How many

How many

Since plar
ha
pa

l0

Since planting your URI project, have you observed other benefits to having the project
1n your neighborhood? yes no

If so, what other benefits?

 

 

Have you had any problems in your community because of your URI project? yes no

If so, what problems?

 

 

How many of you had ever planted a tree or shrub before URI?
How many of you would like to plant more trees or shrubs in your neighborhood now?

Why or why not? (record any responses given while asking questions above)

 

 

Since planting your URI project have you
had people participate in your community organization who had never
participated before? yes no

told other community organizations about URI? Yes no

been in contact with any professional organizations other than MSU for help with
your URI project? yes no
If yes, what organization(s)

Michigan Nurserymen's association

Michigan Timber Association

Michigan Christmas Tree Grower's Association

Other (specify):

 

been in contact with the Detroit Department of public works? yes no
been in contact with the Detroit City Foresters? yes no
been in contact with Wayne County Cooperative Extension Services? yes no

been in contact with any other Detroit City agencies? yes no
If so, which one(s):

 

239

 

.‘z;i§i-’?"7:J"\ ’,i."||1’:v . u
‘,:l"il;l: .. " '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before plant
Since planlll

Befc
1 2

Before plan
in your neig

Befi
1 2

Before plat
eyesore? S

Bel
1 2

Before pla
dangerous

Be
1 2

Before p1:
together t

B
12

Before pl
activities

B
1 2

Before planting your URI project, how safe did you feel your neighborhood was?
Since planting your URI project? (1 = very unsafe, 5 = very safe)

Before URI Since URI
1 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5

Before planting your URI project, did you feel there were enough activities for children
in your neighborhood? Since URI?

Before URI Since URI
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Before planting your URI project, did you feel the vacant lots in your community were an
eyesore? Since URI?

Before URI Since URI
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Before planting your URI project, did you feel the vacant lots in your community were
dangerous? Since URI?

Before URI Since URI
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Before planting your URI project, did you feel that the neighbors here worked closely
together to improve conditions in your neighborhood? Since URI?

Before URI Since URI
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Before planting your URI project, did your community organization have to limit its
activities because of lack of money? Since URI?

Before URI Since URI
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

240

 

 

 

 

Dear ,

Tha
Resources ‘.
Michigan E
a written q‘
discussion

Ple
addressed,
approxirna
circle the (
space to K
you do so.

Al
understan
participan
would lik
mail your
by [date]
responses

\i
[meeting
inconver
question

SAMPLE PARTICIPANT COVER LETTER

July 31, 1996.
Dear ,

Thank you for volunteering to participate in the evaluation of the Urban
Resources Initiative community forestry program of the Department of Forestry at
Michigan State University (URI/MSU) The evaluation procedure includes completion of
a written questionnaire by individual volunteer participants followed by a group
discussion of how participating in the program has affected your organization.

Please take a moment to fill out and return the enclosed questionnaire in the pre-
addressed, stamped envelope provided at your earliest convenience. Most people take
approximately 30 minutes to complete the questionnaire. For most items, you will simply
circle the correct response, although a few do require written answers. If you need more
space to respond to any questionnaire item(s), please use the reverse side of the page. If
you do so, please be sure to indicate the question number with your response.

Also enclosed is a self-addressed, stamped postcard. In order to ensure that you
understand your rights as a participant in this study and that you have consented to
participate voluntarily while continuing to protect the confidentiality of your responses, I
would like to you sign and mail the postcard separately, mm, that you
mail your questionnaire. Please mail mm the postcard and your completed questionnaire
by [date]. Once I have received postcards from each participant, I will compile the
responses to form the agenda for our group discussion.

We have tentatively scheduled the group discussion for [meeting time] at
[meeting place]. Please call me at [office phone number] if this meeting time is
inconvenient for you or if you have fly questions, comments or concerns about the
questionnaire or the evaluation procedures you are being asked to complete.

Thank you once again for your participation,

Kerry E. Vachta, Project Manager
Urban Resources Initiative

241

 

 

 

 

CON

lconsent to P‘
(URI/MSU) l
Kerry Vachta
of the study I
University. Iv
any item or tt
be kept entiri

Signature

*Sent t

 

CONSENT FORM FOR INDIVIDUAL MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE*

I consent to participate in the evaluation of the Urban Resources Initiative program
(URI/MSU) Information collected will be included in reports on URI/MSU including
Kerry Vachta's doctoral dissertation. I know that I or my organization can request a copy
of the study results by contacting the Department of Forestry at Michigan State
University. My participation in this study is voluntary and I may choose not to respond to
any item or to stop participating at any point in the evaluation process. My responses will

be kept entirely confidential.

 

Signature Date

*Sent to participants on self-addressed stamped postcard

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) Are you c
of your blt

la) 1

_——

2) Have yo'
organizatior
2 J

4

(for examp

3) For hor
organizatii

 

 

 

INDIVIDUAL POST-PLAN TING QUESTIONNAIRE

1) Are you currently an officer (i.e. President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, etc)
of your block club or neighborhood organization? (check one) yes no

la) If yes, what position(s) do you currently hold?

 

2) Have you ever held any other positions in the block club or neighborhood
organization? yes no
2a) If yes, what positions have you held and during what years did you serve in
them? (use back of sheet if additional space is needed)

 

 

 

Position mm
(for example Vice President 1987_—1289 )
19 -19
19 -19

 

3) For how long have you been a member of your block club or neighborhood
organization?
years months

4) Why did you join the group initially?

 

 

 

5) About how many hours per month do you spend on block club or neighborhood
organization work per month? hours per month

6) In comparison with before your group participated in the URI/MSU community
forestry program, would you say more people, about the same number of people or
fewer people attend your group's meetings?

More About the same Fewer

7) Would you say more women, fewer women or about the same number of women
attend your group's meetings?
More About the same Fewer

8) Would you say more men, fewer men or about the same number of men attend your
group's meetings?
More About the same Fewer

9) To What extent do you feel that any change in the participation of men or women in
your group is because of your participation in the URI/MSU program?
Entirely Very much Somewhat Very little not at all

 

 

Jillilfillieere» . ~~

 

9a) H

l

/

f

10) Would:

your gr
Mon

11) Would
years (
M01

12) Would

group
Mo

13) To wl
ages it
Entirely

 

l3
14) M:
l

 

 

 

 

 

15) Ho
hol?

 

16) w

 

93) How did participating in the URI/MSU program affect participation men or
women in your group?

 

 

10) Would you say more, fewer or about the same number of people under 30 attend
your group's meetings?
More About the same Fewer

11) Would you say more, fewer or about the same number of people between 25 and 50
years of age attend your group's meetings?
More About the same Fewer

12) Would you say more, fewer or about the same number of people over 50 attend your
group's meetings?
More About the same Fewer

13) To what extent do you feel that any change in the membership of people of different
ages in your group is because of your participation in the URI/MSU program?
Entirely Very much Somewhat Very little not at all

13a) How did participating in the URI/MSU program affect participation of
people of different age groups in your group?

 

 

14) What are your group's primary goals?

 

 

14a) Do you agree with those goals? yes no
14b) If not, what changes would you like to see?

 

 

15) How often does your organization hold special events or celebrations (such as
holiday celebrations, block parties, etc)?
Never About once 2 to 3 times more than 4
per year per year times per year

16) What do you feel are your block clubs major successes since you've been a member?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.,.;-_21:329na»,. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17) Have th'
well?

17a)

 

l7b

 

18) Has y
mem‘

18

 

 

 

17) Have there been any activities or programs your group tried that didn't work out so
well?
yes no

17a) if yes, what were they?

 

 

l7b) Why do you think your group wasn't able to succeed in that (those)
effort(s)?

 

 

18) Has your group ever had trouble getting things done because of a conflict between
members?
yes no

18a) How did your group address that situation?

 

 

19) What do you believe are the 3 most important skills or characteristics of a successful
block club or community organization?

1)

2)

3)

 

 

20) How well did the skill or characteristic you listed as #1 above describe your group
before participating in the URI/MSU program?
1 2 3

4 5
not at all Very little Somewhat Pretty well Perfectly
21) How well does the skill or characteristic you listed as #1 above describe your group
now?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all Very little Somewhat Pretty well Perfectly

22) How well did the skill or characteristic you listed as #2 above describe your group
before participating in the URI/MSU program?
1 2

3 4 5
not at all Very little Somewhat Pretty well Perfectly
23) How well does the skill or characteristic you listed as #2 above describe your group
now?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all Very little Somewhat Pretty well Perfectly

245

 

 

 

 

 

Upfiizflluhq v.11.” .. t
._ H, ,

 

 

24) HOW we?
before 1):

I
not at 2

25) How Wt
now?
1

not at

26) To wh:
change

I

Ent

26:

 

29) Iftl
on the b

Abs
30) A1
nei

Very l

 

24) How well did the skill or characteristic you listed as #3 above describe your group
before participating in the URI/MSU program?
1 2

3 4 5
not at all Very little Somewhat Pretty well Perfectly
25) How well does the skill or characteristic you listed as #3 above describe your group
now?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all Very little Somewhat Pretty well Perfectly

 

26) To what extent did your participation in the URI/MSU program contribute to any
change in your group's skills?
1 2 3 4 5
Entirely Very much Somewhat Very little Not at all

26a) How did participating in the URI/MSU program affect the skills of people in
your group?

 

 

27) What are your group's greatest strengths?

 

 

28) What skills or resources do you think your group would need to be more effective?

 

 

29) If there was a problem in receiving some service from the city, do you think people
on the block could get the problem solved?
1 2 3 4 5
Absolutely Unlikely About a Probably Absolutely
not 50/50 chance

30) All things considered, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with this block (or
neighborhood) as a place to live?
1 2 3 4 5
Very Unsatisfied Very Satisfied

 

 

 

31) In the blank next to each item, please indicate how much you would miss each of the
following if you moved out of your neighborhood according to the following scale:
l= Would miss a lot 2= Would miss slightly 3: Would not miss at all

_ neighborhood schools _ my church
_ my neighbors _ my block club
__ my neighborhood association _ neighborhood events (block

parties, picnics, garage sales,
cabarets, etc)
_ other: Please list below:

 

32) In the blank next to each item, please indicate how much you would miss each of the
following if you moved out of Detroit according to the following scale:
1= Would miss a lot 2: Would miss slightly 3: Would not miss at all

_ museums, theaters and other artistic __ African American leadership
venues (DIA, the Fox Theater, etc)

_ city wide holiday celebrations and _ sporting events (i.e. Tigers and
annual events (i.e. Thanksgiving Red Wings games)
parade, 4th of July, children's day,
the auto show) _ cultural festivals

_ tradition of organizing (labor
unions, community organizing, etc) __ special places/areas of the city

(Greek Town, Mexican Village,
Belle Isle, etc)
Other: Please list below:

 

33) How strong is the sense of community in your neighborhood?
1 2 4
non-existent Very weak Neutral Somewhat strong Very Strong

34) What was your initial impression of the URI/MSU program?

 

 

35) What impacts did you feel it would have on your group and your community?

 

 

36) What were your group's initial goals for the project?

 

 

247

 

 

3211511792930.
..l'rfl'l:

 

 

 

 

37) How likely did you feel it was that the group would achieve those goals?
1 2 3 4 5
Impossible Very Unlikely Unsure Very Likely Certain

38) How well do you feel those goals have been met so far?
1 2 3 4 5
not at all not very well Somewhat Pretty well Completely

39) What concerns did you have about participating in the program?

 

 

40) Has your group encountered any problems due to your participation in the URI/MSU
program? yes no
40a) if yes, please describe:

 

 

For each of the following please circle the appropriate response:
1 is "strongly disagree," 2 is disagree, 3 is agree and 4 is "strongly agree"

41) I don't think public officials in this city care much about what people like me think.
1 2 3 4

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
42) The way people vote decides how things are run in this city.

Stronglly disagree Diiagree Agree Strongly Agree
43) People like me don't have any say about what the local government does.

Strongly disagree Diiagree Agree Strongly Agree
44) Money is the most important factor influencing public policies and decisions.

Stronglly disagree Diiagree Agree Strongly Agree
45) Political leaders can generally be trusted to serve the interests of the citizens.

Strongly disagree Diiagree Agree Strongly Agree
46) It doesn't matter which party wins the election; the interests of the little person don't

count
2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

248

 

 

47) Political leaders usually represent the special interests of a few powerful groups and
rarely serve the common needs of all citizens
I 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

48) It isn't important to get involved in local issues when you know your side doesn't
have a chance to win.

1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
49) A good many local elections aren't important enough to bother with.
1 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

50) So many other people are active in local issues and organizations that it doesn't
matter much to me whether I participate or not.
1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

51) If a person doesn‘t care how a local issue is decided, s/he shouldn't participate in the
decision.
1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

52) Participation in neighborhood organizations is important no matter how much or
how little is accomplished.
1 2 3 4
Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

249

 

 

 

 

 

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDELINES
Prior to intro-

I will assume that, by attending this meeting, each of you agrees to participate in the
evaluation of the URI/MSU program and is aware of your rights and responsibilities as a
participant as described on the consent card you received with your questionnaire last
month. If anyone needs a reminder of those rights and responsibilities, 1 have brought a
copy of the statement which we can pass around.

-ensure all participants are present and seated,

-ensure those who do not consent to be filmed are seated with their backs to the

camera.

Intro

In traditional urban forestry programs design and management decisions are made
by forestry and natural resource professionals (i.e. what tree species will be planted on
which blocks and in which parks, etc) Some professionals are beginning to recognize the
importance of incorporating local participation. However, in most of these cases the
professionals retain decision-making power and control.

The purpose of the Urban Resources Initiative program is to demonstrate the
potential for small scale community-driven, community-owned forestry projects which
are developed in partnership between local residents and university personnel for the
purpose of directly meeting the interests and needs defined by community members.
While we believe that community-driven approaches have a much greater potential for
directly addressing the concerns of local citizens, no one yet knows what impact
participating in such an effort might have on the community partner organizations
because URI is the first program in the United States to use such a community-driven
partnership approach in the United States. Based on our quarterly evaluations, we believe
the program has been successful in terms of creating projects based on community
interests and the program has received a great deal of attention- for example, we have
been asked to develop the Urban and Community Forestry volunteer coordination
program for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. However, if we are going to
move in the direction of being more community-driven, it is important to understand any
consequences (both positive and negative) the program might have for community
participants and to modify the approach as necessary to ensure the best possible outcomes
for the communities involved. That is the purpose of this study.

During the next two hours we will discuss:

-Your community's original vision for your URI/MSU community forestry project and
evaluation of the project at this point

-Your vision of the ideal community organization and what role, if any, the URI/MSU
program has played in your organization become more or less like that vision.

-What the URI/MSU program could have done better/ how the approach can be improved
in the future.

-Finally, there will be a period for any additional feedback, comments or questions.

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 31...... :

 

.3 :.
5:5...