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 6/01 c:/CIRC/DaIeDue.p65-p.15 VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXPLORATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL CHARACTERISTICS By Melise D. Huggins A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Resource Development 2002 ABSTRACT VOLUNTEER PARTICIPATION IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: AN EXPLORATION OF INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL CHARACTERISTICS By Melise D. Huggins Sense of community as a social relation construct is an important backdrop to understanding the individual and neighborhood characteristics that influence participation in urban neighborhood organizations. Social fabric, whether in the form of order or disorder, is the contextual characteristic that can inform a community’s propensity for or against collective action. In this study, the literature on citizen and volunteer participation in urban neighborhood organizations from a variety of perspectives and disciplines was reviewed. Using data from a community survey construct measures for sense of community and social fabric, the theoretical relationship of these two contextual variables and others were analyzed to individual willingness to participate in neighborhood organizations using a variety of methodological techniques. This study was exploratory in nature. In addition to the theoretical relationships between sense of community, social fabric and willingness to participate, other potential direct determinants to individual participation were considered. The content and validity of construct conceptualization, measurement and theory related to social interaction and neighborhood context were also measured. The ultimate focus of the study was to assess how best the study’s data appropriated a model indicating path direction, causal relationships and explanatory power of willingness to participate. The study began as a practical exercise to determine the determinants of volunteer participation and ended as a study on measurement and theory building. AS a result, the study assessed a sample of 446 individuals collected across three cities and nine neighborhoods. The analysis employed principal component, exploratory, confirmatory and factor analysis, and structural equation modeling. The results of this sample data confirmed that two factors, sense of community and social fabric, predominated as having relationships with the dependent variable, willingness to participate. Sense of community and social fabric Shared significant relationships with other latent and dependent variables that included efficacy and willingness to participate. The results indicate a need for further work in the understanding of constructs, concepts, and theory governing the highly dynamic processes that is volunteer participation. The study ends by advocating for a transactional approach to data, problems and issues that better captures these dynamic and social interactions central to participation processes. Copyright by Melise D. Huggins, (mdhuggins) Ph.D. 2002 DEDICATION This work and Grace is dedicated to: My Brother, Anthony Huggins Jr., My Mother, Marina Joan Baptiste Huggins, My Father, Carl Huggins Sr. and All those who wanted to see me complete this stage of life: Marjorie Baptiste and the Baptiste Clan, Friends and supporters — And all those who helped along the way. This work and Grace is also dedicated to: Those who wanted to, but couldn’t, Those who tried, but were turned away, Those who gave valiant efforts, but were frustrated at every step and turn, Those who left, died, were killed or maimed along this journey, And to those who aren’t given to think this, independence and credentials, for them is possible. So this work and Grace is dedicated also to those who will come after: It can be done It will be done Despite unbelievable odds, institutions and structures, And the treachery of racism in the twenty-first century It shall be done A Portrait of Strength: Light at the End of the Struggle “Those who have to tread the long and weary path of a life that sometimes seems to promise little beyond suffering and yet more suffering need to develop the capacity to draw strength from the hardships that trouble their existence. It is from hardship rather than from ease that we gather wisdom.” Aung San Suu Kyi If they answer not your call, walk alone; If they are afraid and cover mutely facing the wall, 0 thou of evil luck, Open the mind and speak out alone. If they turn away and desert you when crossing the wilderness, O thou of evil luck, Trample the thorns under the tread, And along the blood-lined track, Travel alone If they do not hold up the light when the night is troubled with storm, 0 thou of evil luck, With the thunder-flame of pain, Ignite thine own heart, And let it burn alone. , Rabindrath Tagore “Women who write a lot and women who write in a manner that transgresses traditional boundaries pose a threat precisely because our work stands as a serious challenge to sexist stereotypes ” [sexist stereotypes advocated by both women and men] bell hooks remembered rapture, p 32 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this dissertation is nothing other than an act of power, sheer will and Grace, sourced not of myself, but from none other than The Great Divine. I thank GOD for His and Her Blessings and Anointing that protected and empowered me to bring this degree to completion. Subsequently, I thank all those who were divinely inspired to support and assist the wilderness and journey experience the PhD program has been for me at Michigan State University. I thank Dr. George T. Rowan for being my academic advisor and navigating me at the end. I thank Dr. John Schweitzer for making this dissertation project possible by allowing me access to the Urban Collaborator’s project and use of generated data. Dr. Schweitzer was also instrumental by his assistance, preparation and involvement in the analysis of the data. I thank the Urban Collaborator Project Team for accepting my presence and involvement as it has been enriching. I thank Dr. Rene Rosenbaum and Ralph Levine as members of my dissertation committee who assisted my thinking and evolution to conceptualize my research. Great appreciation goes to Dr. Michael Lambert, however, for the completion of my data analysis as I employed new computer programs and methods of AMOS, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. I also thank Dr. Pam Martin for her support and feedback on the analysis and in preparation for my defense. I thank all the other academic advisors and committee members I ever worked with in the nine years of my doctorate. The lessons I learned of interest, politics and survival could not have been apart from them. This doctorate was part of the journey and vii evolution I came to this earth to live, experience, and transcend. For the roles they played and the advancements they allowed me under their watch, I will.be eternally grateful. The lessons I learned will benefit those who come after me, those whose journey I will be lucky enough to guide and direct. I thank the Office of Diversity in the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources for recruiting and financially supporting my PhD program during the beginning years. I thank the Overbys: Cordell and Lynette, friends and advisors, who assisted my writing and processing through difficult times; and provided the encouragement to continue to the end. I thank the Langs: Marvel and Mozell for welcoming me into their home with great support and friendship, which has made the journey easier in the last year. Finally, my gratitude continues similarly as it began, at another origin, my family. This dissertation and degree represent not only God’s grace, but also my family endowments. The greatest person I have to thank for all I am, will be, and have ever been is my father, Anthony Huggins, Sr. He will never know how proud I am of him, how much I love him, and how much I owe to him for the being of promise he made me. My ambition is a direct legacy of my Daddy. I thank immensely my Godmother, my aunt and mother, Marjorie Baptiste, who has been my mentor and example of womanhood as long as I can remember. I thank the rest of the Baptiste clan for being my biggest fans and Showering me, their first daughter with immense love and embrace. It is what carries me undaunted through life. viii Sadly, many of my family register their pride in the person I am and my academic accomplishments from the other side. They are my Mother, Marina Joan Baptiste Huggins, a woman I will always honor by the woman I am. The love of my life and best friend, also on the other side, but shouting praises, is my Brother, Anthony Huggins, Jr., to whom I dedicate all my life’s work and joy. For him, my whole life and accomplishments are lived. Other ancestors and relatives, from whom many blessings have flowed through various forms of life and existence, and who remain with me through dreams and life images are given praise as well. Those named and unnamed, I thank. ix ~thg——— “‘ “ TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY ....................................................................................... . ............................. xii LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER I— INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 Urban Collaborators Research Project ................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................................ 4 Nature of the Problem ............................................................................................ 5 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 6 Sense of Community .............................................................................................. 9 Research Premise ................................................................................................. 12 Problem Statement and Research Purpose ........................................................... 13 Research Objectives ............................................................................................. 14 Research Hypotheses ............................................................................................. 15 From Hypothesis Testing to Hypothesis Construction ........................................ 15 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 16 Assumptions and Presumptions ........................................................................... 17 New Methods ....................................................................................................... 18 CHAPTER II — LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................... 19 The Study’s Problem and Thesis .......................................................................... 20 The Dimensions of Participation, Voluntary Organizations and Community Development ........................................................................ 20 Citizen Participation ............................................................................................. 21 Neighborhood and Community Organizations .................................................... 22 Community Development .................................................................................... 24 Description of Setting ........................................................................................... 25 The Urban Context ................................................................................... 25 The Social Context: Capacity, Integration, and the Significance of Neighborhood Disorder ....................................................................... 27 Street Blocks as Behavior Settings .......................................................... 29 Integrating these Elements; Adapting Andersen’s Behavioral Model ................. 30 CHAPTER III — METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 36 The Setting: Socio-Economic Demographics ...................................................... 36 Literature Based Methods .................................................................................... 39 Social Fabric, Disintegration and Disorder ............................................... 39 Sense of Community ................................................................................. 39 Awareness ................................................................................................. 4O Perceived Problems and Issues ................................................................. 41 Prior Volunteerism .................................................................................... 42 Perceived Control: Individual and Collective ........................................... 42 Research Design .................................................................................................. 44 The Survey ........................................................................................................... 45 CHAPTER IV — RESULTS ............................................................................................. 47 Orientation ........................................................................................................... 47 Result Overview ................................................................................................... 49 Output ................................................................................................................... 50 Exploratory Factor Analysis .................................................................... 50 Analysis at the Parcel Level ............................................ v ........................ 54 Theoretical Model: CFA and SEM ......................................................... 56 CHAPTER V — DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................. 63 Reflections: Building a Transactional Approach from Interactional Elements of the Study ................................................................ 63 Participation as a Process ..................................................................................... 67 Underlying Assumptions ...................................................................................... 68 The Study’s Contributions ................................................................................... 73 Factor Analysis ........................................................................................ 73 Structural Equation Modeling ................................................................. 73 Appropriate Theory: Andersen’s and others ............................................ 74 Study Constructs ...................................................................................... 75 Use and Applicability of Study Results .............................................................. 77. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 80 Appendix A — Research Survey ........................................................................... 81 Appendix B — Survey Items of Volunteer Participation in Neighborhood Organizations Social Scale (VPNOSS) ........................................ 90 Appendix C — Survey items for Constructs, Parcel Labels and Numbers ........... 93 C1 — Social Fabric ................................................................................. 93 C2 —— Sense of Community .................................................................... 94 Appendix D — Intercorrelation Matrix for VPNOSS Data Set ............................. 95 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................... 107 xi Awareness -— Efficacy — Legitimacy — Sense of Community — Social capital — Social fabric — Social disintegration — VPNOSS — GLOSSARY the “knowledge and cognizance” (Webster’s) an individual has of his or her neighborhood, community and the organization within its border. “the power or capacity to produce a desired effect” (Webster’s) confirmation of an organization’s function in the neighborhood through the involvement of volunteers and participants (Wamsley and Zald, 1976). “a term of community psychology and sociology to conceptualize a person’s belongingness to a group, and their attachment to place, usually of residence, neighborhood, or community” (Cochrun, Steven and Edward, 1994 p92-93). “people’s attitudes towards each other, such as caring, goodwill, loyalty, sense of belonging, sense of community and social closeness that leads to a willingness to act collectively for the mutual aid and benefit of the community” (Robison and Schmid, 1994; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000) “a group level construct and overarching description of the quality of social networks in a community that speaks to shared responsibility and interdependence” (Mackin, 1997) “the eroding of social fabric, relationships, familial norms and community structures of health and well-being” (Emmett, 2000). Voluntary Participation in Neighborhood Organizations Social Scale: the designation given to the combined items of the results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis xii LIST OF TABLES Table 1/ 1A —— Factor Loadings for the Two-Factor Solution on the VPNOSS (N=223) Factor One ................................................................................. 51 Table 1/ 1B - Factor Loadings for the Two-Factor Solution on the VPNOSS (N=223) Factor Two ................................................................................ 52 Table 2 — Total Variance of EPA Factors Explained by Eigenvalues & Sums of Squares ................................................................................... 53 Table 3 — Descriptive Statistics for VPNOSS Indicator Variables on Cross- Validation Sample ....................................................................................... 55 Table 4 — Correlation Matrix for Parcels derived from VPNOSS EFA ...................... 57 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 — Complete Theoretical Model, Post CFA ......................................................... 58 Figure 2 — Standardized Complete Model, First Analysis ............................................... 60 Figure 3 - Standardized Trimmed Model, Final Analysis ............................................... 61 xiv CHAPTER I , INTRODUCTION “Research on recent patterns of urban development and the role of neighborhood organizations in the development of that process [provides information to] older urban neighborhoods, community-based organizations, and in particular, neighborhood associations [in] taking more of a leadership role in self-directed [and] grassroots strategies for neighborhood revitalization.” (Dyer-Ives Foundation 2000 Neighborhood Initiative Baseline Report — West Grand, p2) Social Fabric Communities are groups of people who are connected and interdependent in some way. Residential communities provide geographic communality and have the potential to supply residents with belonging and safety, creating various forms of support, connection and relationships that are the means and mechanism for participation and involvement. Social fabric and integration is what holds societies together, maintains social order and sustains both formal and informal relational and institutional forms. At the local level, a strong social fabric means that people have a commitment to, and feel responsible for each other and the community. Social fabric is widely believed to be an important force in preventing many social problems. Social fabric is a group level construct because it involves relationships between many people. It is a broad overarching description of the quality of social networks in a community. It is a kind of social characteristic that indicates a community’s well being. Among other phrases that describe a community’s well-being or level of social interaction or networking are social capital, social integration and sense of community. All these phrases are composed of distinct components, but used interchangeably in research studies. When people help each other and the larger community, it is prosocial behavior, an important indicator of a healthy community demonstrating that effective social networks are in place to maintain the community. In situations and places where erosion of social fabric has occurred, there is social disintegration and disorder. In these cases, a lack of relationships and interdependence among residents negatively affect community processes of collective action and collaboration. In urban settings, the perception that there is a lack of common resources in terms of communality and interrelationships can be quite costly. Urban communities need to rely on self-help and grassroots activisms to provide for their needs, safety and neighborhood security. AS such, the issue of social fabric or social disintegration becomes a critical issue when community processes such as volunteer participation is the focus. An effective form of a social network on the grassroots community level is the neighborhood organization that exists interdependently between the community and its residents or volunteer participants. With insufficient levels of volunteer participants neighborhood organizations, their effectiveness and longevity are constrained, especially in settings where other options are limited and in communities exhibiting various manifestations of social erosion, disorder or disintegration. A predictor of prosocial behavior is the presence and extent of social relationships as sense of community. It is important to understand the composition of a community’s social fabric or disintegration in order to identify potential for self-help and collective action. This study analyzed sense of community as the driving force among correlated factors posited as influential on individual decisions to participate in urban neighborhood organizations. This project is an inclusion to research on recent patterns of urban development, and the role of neighborhood organizations in that process. As a result, older urban neighborhoods, community-based organizations, and in particular, neighborhood associations are taking more of a leadership role in self-directed grassroots strategies for neighborhood revitalization. From this basis, the dissertation study conceptualized the process of neighborhood development and revitalization through individual volunteer participants as resources and explored associations between sense of community, social fabric, efficacy and individual willingness to participate. The research findings contribute to the theoretical construction and conceptualization of those elements as factors that are II.- positively associated with willingness to participate. The study subsequently advocates for a transactional treatment of the problem for future studies on the topic as a means to capture the dynamic and social interaction that is central to participation processes. A shortcoming of the study is that the findings are not as relevant to the practical aspects of volunteer participation in ways that help to mobilize and motivate volunteers to participate in their community organizations. Urban Collaborators Research This dissertation is part of a Michigan State University (MSU) collaborative project identified as Urban Collaborators Research (UCR). The team consists of MSU faculty from a variety of departments as well as two community development Extension agents. The faculty and research principals are June Thomas of Urban and Regional Flaming and Roger Hamlin of Geography, with Resource Development adjunct professors John Schweitzer of Urban Affairs and Ralph Levine of Community Psychology. The community development agents are Judy Gardi of Lansing and Carol Townsend of Grand Rapids. The research aims of each faculty form the research project Citizen Participation in Urban Communities, the springboard of this dissertation. The UCR project originated with the understanding “that one of the major issues that challenge those who are trying to improve their neighborhood is citizen participation” (UCR Project Paper, 2001). To the project, each researcher presents his or her perspective on the topic of citizen participation in neighborhood organizations. John Schweitzer investigates sense of community. Roger Hamlin investigates asset perception; June Thomas investigates the role of city government to support community development and participation; and Ralph Levine brings a systems approach as a mechanism to integrate the various parts of the project into a whole. The contribution of the dissertation to the UCR project is the expansion of John Schweitzer’s sense of community as an integrated element of varying characteristics that point toward an individual and neighborhood’s potential toward volunteer. The dissertation adds to the body of research by integrating another important element regarding community functioning and collective action and self-help that is social fabric. The premise of the dissertation is that types of individual and neighborhood characteristics influence the level of participation in neighborhood and community organizations. The expected outcome of the Urban Collaborator’s Research project are reports to each of the three cities of Lansing, Grand Rapids and Flint that will include survey results, suggestions and input toward the creation of neighborhood-based change initiatives designed to increase and mobilize volunteer participants. Toward these goals, the dissertation is also a part. Background Decades of research in urban areas have focused on the inherent challenges that cities experience in the face of isolation and in recent years, devolution (Bane, Coffin, and Thiemann, 2000; Berry, Portney and Thomson, 1993). Much of the research focused on the resultant social impacts of a variety of factors, but mainly, how grassroots based efforts can restore community connectedness and rebuild individual responsibility and collective action toward the common good (Goss, 1994). The current research focuses on the idea, process and decisions of participation and collective action despite debilitating social conditions in urban communities. Over the past decade, researchers and theorists have documented the loss of social fabric, network and relationships in communities (Hodgkinson, 1999; Putnam, 1995; Schmid, 2001). Several factors have contributed to this decline including industrialization, urbanization, technology and knowledge, residential mobility, demographic and political changes (Cochrun, 1994; Mackin, 1997; Putnam 1995). The most recent political change has been the federal government’s approach toward problem solving with a shift from centralized decision-making to state and local authority. These societal changes have dramatically affected inner-city communities, which is the study’s locus. Nature of the Problem Putnam (1995) describes the critical impact these shifts have had on the types and frequency of social interactions in the United States and the loss of what he describes as social capital, resulting in decreased social engagement. Over the past generation, participation in a variety of civic and social activities has declined. There have been lower rates of political voting, attending church, volunteering and membership in unions, civic and fraternal organizations. Putnam also documents that neighborliness has decreased since the 19703. Concurrently, membership in organizations that require low levels of interaction and participation, like national and professional organizations, as well as informal support groups have increased. The latter, informal support groups are more likely a way for people to connect that is lacking in other areas of their lives. Putnam describes this lack of social and civic engagement as erosion of trust and reciprocity within community, common measures of social capital and sense of community. Erosion of these social dynamics, such as seen in the US. leaves people less engaged with each other and also unprepared to cooperate in collective action. With the effects of social capital and sense of community or lack thereof, Putnam concludes that investment in relationships and social connectedness at the local level is a necessary means to community strengthening and civic functioning. Gates (1987) describes ten aspects of community life that differentiate the successful from the unsuccessful. Among them is citizen participation, volunteerism and philanthropy, intergroup relations, civic education, community information sharing, capacity for cooperation and consensus building and inter-community cooperation. These items are highlighted as they all relate to the functioning of a neighborhood, its social fabric and a community’s grassroots organization. Conceptual Framework Community organizations strengthen democracy at the neighborhood level, develop leadership and motivate members to assume more responsibility for decisions that affect their personal and collective lives (Berry et al., 1993). The field of community development holds the tenet of participation as particularly compelling for communities relegated to the margins of national and local interests and facing abandonment due to federal government devolution and state and city budget cuts. With this reality, participation in neighborhood organizations may become a viable self-help strategy that lends access to democratic processes, local decision-making and personal agency. This strategy is viable only where a culture, a value and a consistency of participation exist (Schmid, 2001 ). Although participation comes in various forms, volunteerism in particular is a desired and necessary condition for such activities (OSU L-700) hence the term volunteer participation. The present challenge is encouraging individuals, organizations and other stakeholders within urban communities to explore and embark upon a program and process of collective participation in self-help and development activities through neighborhood organizations. There is an intertwining among volunteer participation, neighborhood organizations and “community” defined as a place that frames relationships as collective political power. There exists a process for improving the quality of life as captured by the terms community development, community building and community organization. A central mechanism in this overall development process is individuals’ participation in voluntary organizations that produce collective and individual goods and benefits (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). Although Chavis and Wandersman (1990) list several types of voluntary organizations that can accrue goods and benefits to its membership, this study’s focus is limited to neighborhood organizations and specifically, participation therein. Neighborhood organizations develop processes of participation and involvement aimed at reducing alienation and polarization. This generates a sense of belonging, commitment and pride among its members in building and expanding sense of community and social capital (Schmid, 2001). Moreover, voluntary resident participation within neighborhood organizations is a philosophy that reflects an orientation and a commitment to solving social problems. However, in poor urban communities beset with a milieu of negative conditions, individual residents lacking agency and resources may have considerable difficulty solving personal problems. It may be unattainable for such individuals to consider solving problems on a sphere beyond self, especially when the perception of others mirrors the perception of self, as ineffective. Poor neighborhoods are the most appropriate locations for the development of participation as part of an overall plan for community renewal (Doherty, et al., 2001). In considering resident participation in neighborhood organizations, the critical and prevailing factors of social disintegration and the resistance these conditions pose to self-help and public based strategies are important to note. Although the underclass culture of poverty theory masks disinvestrnents and discrimination in urban neighborhoods as slanderous scapegoating stereotypes (Medoff and Sklar, 1994), some characterizations of the theory may apply to the environments of this study. William Julius Wilson (1987) indicated that the residents of urban communities exist in social and political isolation. Berry et a1. (1993) relates the factor of isolation to matters of socio-economic class and state that it is a more important determinant of participation than race in urban communities. These citations infer that if residents of poor urban neighborhoods are less likely to participate in political processes, then they are less likely to participate in community activities. In a 1999 study, Portney and Berry identified trust built within the community among residents and toward institutionalized structures as a primary benefit resulting from participation in neighborhood organizations. However, Bockmeyer (2000) found a lack of trust when she studied economic enterprise zones in the city of Detroit. Her observation is that ethnic communities of vulnerable, challenged, isolated and/or poor populations lack community trust -- an often-described characteristic trait of urban neighborhoods. Emmett (2000) indicates that a certain degree of trust is necessary for divergent interests to reach consensus or compromise in a group setting. For self-help and community-based strategies to work, dependent as they are on trust and sense of community, it is of primary concern to assess both the condition of social relationships and the collective culture of participation. Emmett (2000) expounds on the processes of social disintegration in poor communities that are prevalent in creating cumulative negative effects that include the destroying of a place’s social fabric, its social capital and its sense of community. Concurrently, high rates of school drop out; unemployment and unemployability affect other socio-economic spheres of life resulting in high occurrences of alcohol and drug use, crime, violence and despair. These factors and manifestations are both a composite definition and measurement indicators with which to assess a community’s level of social order, disorder or disintegration. Sense of community The following quote is a suggested remedy for this lack of trust and agency in the midst of social isolation. “Of interest here is that much of the collaboration within the network occurs subconsciously -- that is, groups tend to come together on a more informal basis that engaging in actual, planned projects” (Dyer-Ives, 2000, p2). This statement indicates that networking and collaboration occurs in informal settings and arrangements, rather than within the formal. It suggests support for a focus on relationship and sense of community building within neighborhoods, communities and among residents and leadership as an enabling factor, condition or characteristic that allows for the organization, mobilization and recruitment of volunteer participants. As a human relationship construct that builds trust and community, sense of community is of critical importance to understanding a community’s social fabric. Linked as it is to social and political participation, it is the central element of the dissertation’s thesis as a catalytic element driving and influencing other factors of participation. These are the conceptual benefits of having sense of community as the central element of this research on human relationships and behavior. As a central element of inquiry, sense of community also has theoretical and empirical benefits. As it is a multilevel construct, sense of community is applicable to both a macro-structural perspective of human interaction as on the level of neighborhoods and communities, as well as it can appropriate the study of human relationships on a micro, individual level. These macro and micro approaches to human dynamics and interactions can integrate to offer an understanding of the dimensions of social spaces that process as networks of interaction. The value of this integration of the macro and micro is in the recognition that both dimensions of life reflect and reinforce each other. Theoretical knowledge concerning the one can contribute to theoretical knowledge concerning the other. This is the benefit of a multilevel research and the value of sense of community as the central construct of this dissertation study. Taking this as guidance, the study’s research on volunteer participation among residents in urban neighborhood organizations focused on sense of community as the 10 pivotal factor of individual and neighborhood characteristics that direct and influence involvement and participation in community organizations. The study posited strong correlation between sense of community to other factors of participation such as resident awareness of the organization, its leadership and activities within the community, individual and collective efficacy and prior volunteerism. The final analysis of the study, however, makes no assessments on many of these hypothesized factors; proving the precariousness of research highlighted by the unexpected course taken and its results. Nevertheless, a Grand Rapids neighborhood initiative study supports a research cue on sense of community, which states the following. “Communities that established a track record of active neighborhood associations and involvement in decision-making through the I960s and 19705 have struggled to sustain the power and resource base necessary to continue that active role in local decision-making”. Associatively, “Creston has begun to experience a certain degree of disengagement on the part of its citizens” (Dyer-Ives, 2000, p2). Apart from the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of this study, these quotes are the practical impetus to the Urban Collaborator’s research project of which this dissertation is a part — how to develop, mobilize and garner volunteer participants as the resource and source of neighborhood and organizational capacity. The dissertation proposed to analyze household survey data on people’s views of their neighbors, communities and community organizations and asked whether individuals are willing to participate in collective action. The framework of the dissertation was an adaptation from Ronald Andersen’s (1968) health service utilization theory. The use of this model applies to the question of why individuals differ in taking the opportunity to volunteer and participate in neighborhood organizations. This 11 framework was useful based on the plan to analyze and compare each study site separately. The theory proposes that utilization as consumption of a service or opportunity can be understood by components that are predisposing, enabling and need- based in terms of deciding to act or respond to stimuli. The adaptation of the Andersen model to the problem of insufficient volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations help us understand the function of sense of community and social fabric as predisposing, enabling and determining factors to participation in urban neighborhood organizations. The adaptation of Anderson’s theory to the issue of volunteer participation in urban neighborhood organizations is expounded further in both Literature and Methods chapters. Research Premise The previous sections forms the conceptual framework of individual and neighborhood characteristics to research volunteer participation in urban neighborhood organizations. The construction of the research premise stems from two frames of thought; the first, sense of community, work as both predisposing and enabling factors that function as social networks and mechanisms by which residents integrate within their neighborhoods. Social fabric, as order in the positive or disintegration in the negative, forms the opposing and second foundational frame of the research premise. The research premise reasons that sense of community allows for an individual’s integration in their communities and neighborhoods. Therefore, integration brings about greater levels of awareness among residents of the neighborhood organization, its programs and leadership; thus by extension, encouraging a culture of participation within the community. This integration and culture of participation exists in the presence and 12 context of societal and social fabric. In an environment marked by various symptoms of social disintegration or erosion, sense of community, social capital and its networks, resident awareness, integration and collective action are all undermined. Relatedly, in such environments, resultant levels of participation and involvement in community organizations are insufficient and erode an organization’s stability within the community. The proposed study wanted to test the validity of these research frames through correlations and significance. Sense of community is the foundation of this study’s thesis and is one of two predisposing and enabling factors. It was posited to correlate with other more individually defined variables of volunteer participation, such as prior volunteerism and community awareness. Social fabric, the issue of social integration or disintegration, order or disorder, was also critical to this study and to the overall understanding of voluntary prosocial behavior. The design of the research premise shows the centrality of relationships to and within a community on both individual and collective levels and fuels the idea that relationship building should be the cornerstone to increasing volunteer participation. Problem Statement and Research Purpose Neighborhood organizations are a valuable resource for mobilizing social change within communities. Through these organizations, neighborhoods initiate, revitalize and renew community conditions. Without sufficient numbers of potential and sustained participants, organizational capacity is negatively affected. Researching explanations for participation under the challenging circumstances that may exist in urban communities improves the possibilities for success of self-help strategies employed in these sites. The 13 1 gal Cit—.3:- &- sung—7W“ at M— " study sought to assess individual willingness to participate through individual and neighborhood characteristics. The study attempted to combine individual factors of awareness, prior volunteerism and the individual’s perception of self into an indicator of individual efficacy. Neighborhood level characteristics of sense of community, individuals’ perceptions of problems and resident characteristics are also combined to form an indicator of neighborhood efficacy. The intended purpose of the proposed dissertation in relation to the UCR project was to highlight the Significance of individual and neighborhood characteristics in explaining outcomes of volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations. Research Objectives Original research objectives under the above goal were to (1) Correlate sense of community to other determinants of volunteer participation that include: (a) Neighborhoods at levels of perceived issues and problems; (b) Neighborhoods at levels of individuals who have prior volunteerism; (c) Neighborhoods at levels of individual and collective efficacy; (d) Neighborhoods at levels of resident and individual awareness; (e) Neighborhoods and communities at various markers and levels of social disorder and disintegration. The research objective was not accomplished as defined. There is an analysis of sense of community but not in correlation to stated individual and collective variables. Research Hypotheses The following were the hypotheses proposed at the onset of the study slated for regression methods of analysis: 1. There is a positive correlation between individuals’ awareness and levels of prior volunteerism and willingness to participate. l4 2. There is a positive correlation between sense of community and a neighborhood’s participation level. 3. There is a positive correlation between the combined levels of individual and neighborhood characteristics and the willingness to participate. From Hypothesis Testing to Hypothesis Construction Several factors in the analysis of the data leads to the change that the study is primarily one that tests to one that constructs relevant hypotheses. The first regards the original variables and their relationships posited to be central determinants to volunteer participation. Positive correlations were expected among the variables - from individual to neighborhood levels — with previous research leading to the belief that there were paths mediating factors to outcomes. Principal component analysis redefined the identification of relevant variables and excluded others. The study assessed the data in one group set and not nested in cross-sections, which disallowed inferences for Specific neighborhoods or communities. Second, the proposed method of analysis, a hierarchical logistical regression, would not confirm or negate proposed paths as conceptualized. Instead, structural equation modeling elicited path associations. As a result, none of the a priori hypotheses remained in their original form. There was a positive correlation between sense of community and a neighborhood’s participation level. However, this too changed, as the study did not access actual participation but only the correlation to a stated intent (willingness to participate). Rewritten hypotheses then conform to new factors as explored and confirmed in the study through principal component analysis. The following are the hypotheses finally analyzed by factor and principal component analysis and structural equation modeling: 15 1. Sense of community has an indirect relationship to an individual’s willingness to participate that is moderated by social fabric. a. Sense of community has a direct relationship to social fabric; b. Social fabric has a direct relationship to an individual’s willingness to participate; . c. Sense of community has a direct relationship to willingness to participate. 2. Sense of community has a direct (predisposing, enabling or determining factor) relationship to an individual’s willingness to participate. 3. Social fabric has a direct relationship to collective efficacy consisting of an individual’s perception of their and their neighbors’ ability to bring about change. 4. An individual’s willingness to participate in neighborhood organizations is related to collective efficacy. These amendments of hypotheses mirror changes in the research objective as well. Initially, sense of community as the sine qua non of the study was correlated to other determinants that included perceived issues and problems within the neighborhood. These include prior volunteerism, individual and collective efficacy, individual awareness and social order and disintegration (social fabric). Study results derived from exploratory, confirmatory and path analyses that culminated in a structural equation model of the individual, collective and neighborhood determinants of volunteer participation in urban neighborhood organizations. Research Questions Changes in research hypotheses and objectives also elicit changes in the study’s defining research questions. In hindsight, the survey data and the methods employed directed results to the following overarching questions. 0 What survey items, by content and construct, adequately and statistically measure sense of community? 16 o What subgroups or parcels of items are identified as aspects of sense of community? 0 What are the direction, magnitude and dynamics of the correlation between sense of community and willingness to participate? Similar questions are asked regarding social fabric. 0 What survey items, by content and construct, adequately and statistically measure social fabric? 0 What subgroups or parcels of items are identified as aspects of social fabric? 0 What are the direction, magnitude and dynamics of the correlation between social fabric and willingness to participate? o What are the direction, magnitude and dynamics of the correlation between social fabric and efficacy? Final questions regard the concept of efficacy. 0 What relationship, if any, is there between efficacy and willingness to participate? The research questions provided less definitive answers about the practical aspects of volunteer participation, and made more contribution and inferences toward the building of theory and the constructing and conceptualizing of future research. Assumptions and Presumptions This study operates under a neo-classical reductionist theory of inquiry that extracts the problem of insufficient levels of volunteer participants in neighborhood organizations away from the milieu of socio-economic-political associations that may impinge on factors of reality; accepting instead the assumption that all things are equal. More is said on the study’s operating assumptions in the Discussion chapter. 17 New Methods Exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses performed made sure the variables are appropriately indicating stated constructs. These methods essentially verify the content and construct of the data, which affirm that the domain or proxies studied are actually covered in items and measurements of the sample. The principal component analyses and the varimax rotation identified the most appropriate factors in the data to explain volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations. CFA assessed the unidimensionality of each scale, such as the internal consistency and parallelism of each measurement. Another purpose of conducting factor analyses in this study was to reduce the number of tested items for compiled, composite or component variables. These EPA and CFA results also create measures of use for subsequent analyses. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed using the statistical package SPSS. The criteria utilized to assess the factor solutions were: 1) a Scree Test; 2) eigenvalues greater than (4.0); 3) factor loadings (>3); 4) review of item total correlations; and 5) theoretical and conceptual considerations as output was generated. 18 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW "Residents, citizens and civic leaders are coming to greater recognition that together they can become a positive force for their neighborhood and only they will have the capacity and commitment to create the best for their community. ” (Dyer-Ives Foundation 2000 Neighborhood Initiative Baseline Report — West Grand, p2) The Study’s Problem and Thesis The fundamental problem considered in this study is the insufficient levels of residents participating in neighborhood organizations within inner city urban settings. The thesis proposed by this study is that participation can best be understood by a model composed of various factors or components, but all related and driven by the shared relationships that is sense of belonging, interconnectedness and interdependence experienced by and among residents and extended to the affinity they feel with the organizations representing and operating in their neighborhoods. In short, this is sense of community conceptualized as a catalyst of individual participation. Further, the import of sense of community as a predisposing, enabling or determining factor of participation will be different depending on each neighborhood and its accompanying social fabric, the extent of order or disorder in the community. This study extends hallmark research into the processes and goals of participation as a strategy of community development conducted in the 19905 by community psychologists (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Florin and Wandersman, 1990; Perkins et al., 1990; Zimmerman and Rappaport, 1988). The study then continues these inquiries focusing on sense of community as a facet of urban social relations (Joranko, 1998; Mackin et al., 1996; Schweitzer, 1996; ibid et al., 1997). These studies on urban social 19 relations and interactions begin to formulate a comprehensive and modern framework for the empirical analysis of organized citizen participation within a community development paradigm. The dissertation contributes to this body of work as it focuses on these processes of participation in urban settings and by its combination of individual and neighborhood characteristics intersecting to create a pull to or push away from participation. The literature review has three main purposes. It summarizes a broad and multidisciplinary range of research on a variety of factors related to the topic of voluntary participation in neighborhood organizations. Literature is presented that informs or supports the thesis of the dissertation that sense of community is a catalytic factor to other determinants of the prosocial behavior of participation in neighborhood organizations. Finally, the literature review discusses aspects of urban society that may impede sense of community and thus render prosocial behavior of participation more a challenge. The purpose in presenting this last point is not as a hindrance, but merely more information to buttress the assertion that relationship building among individuals as a collective must be extended to the community organization in question. This is particularly important as the organization must be receptive to grassroots leadership and membership — new blood and ideas, which will form a critical part of community based strategies focusing on self-help and collective action. The Dimensions of Participation, Voluntary Organizations and Community Development Isolating social problems and assigning the solution to its own bureaucratic institution increasingly results in frustration. Florin and Wandersman (1990) indicate that hope lies in individual and collective self-help/mutual aid efforts that are coordinated 20 with and supported by formal systems of education, justice and employment. The strategies these authors describe focus on collaboration among organizations and institutions, involve collective participation and rest upon a shared belief in the value of building individual and problem-solving capacity. What Florin and Wandersman (1 990) speak of is a long established ideology of self-help within the community development tradition dating back from the 19608. These authors and others (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Perkins et al., 1990; Prestby et al., 1990) agree this all sounds good, but does it work? They state a critical need for careful analysis of the concepts and practice of community-based initiatives and related research, an assertion with particular relevance to urban settings and supported by current research (Emmett, 2000). Citizen Participation Citizen participation is the common and original terminology of individuals taking part in public decision-making, programs, institutions and environments that affect their lives (W andersman and Florin, 2000). Participation takes a variety of forms such as advisors on boards or committees, policy-makers on neighborhood councils, influences to municipal policy and residents in local organizations who develop block and neighborhood activities (Florin and Wandersman, 1990). In this study, the use of the term resident participation and not citizen participation follows from the Florin and Wandersman’s citation. While the original term emerged from the representation, responsibilities and roles of a citizen within a democracy, it is out of step with the reality of international migration and multi-cultural settlement patterns of twenty-first century America. 21 Resident participation has a wide variety of benefits at the individual, interpersonal, community and national levels. For example, evidence suggests that resident participation Spurs neighborhood and community improvements (Hallman, 1984; Perkins et al, 1990). Participation is also associated with stronger relationships and a social fabric oflen referred to as social integration, which consists of the presence, quantity and quality of relationships (Florin and Wandersman, 1990; Golding and Baezconde-Garbanti, 1990; Mackin, 1997; Unger and Wandersman, 1983). Researchers have also identified an association between participation and individual, collective and political efficacy and competence (Bandura, 1986; Florin and Wandersman, 1990). Zimmerman and Rappaport (1988) integrate perceived control as a form of competence to citizen participation in an effort to further the understanding of psychological empowerment. In these precursor studies, individuals reporting greater amount of participation also scored higher on indices of empowerment. This study hoped to replicate this association between participation and efficacy, a person’s perception of their ability and that of others to bring about change in their community. This was not the case. Neighborhood and Community Organizations Community organizations include those organizations operating on a block or neighborhood, such as tenant associations, church or youth groups or merchant associations. They generally have requisite characteristics to be geographically based, emerging as they do from specific places and built on people’s commitment to their own territory thereby solidifying the abstract concept of community. They are volunteer- driven, as their primary resource is membership and the inherent human, social and 22 cultural capital. They are locally initiated: formed by local residents responding to local conditions. Neighbors come together because of mutual concern about their community and the conviction that collectively they can change things for the better. Finally, they consider problem solving as their purpose and address critical problems of communities. Florin and Wandersman (1990) state that voluntary community organizations transform isolated and distrusting individuals into public citizens, providing a human-scale sense of place, purpose and process. Despite distrust and social decay, neighborhood organizations in urban environments may remedy the negative impacts of marginalized environments if the effort is to building long-term connections, relationships, interdependence and commitment on the part of individuals to their environment, other residents and the organization (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). Neighborhood organizations may perform such roles in inner city environments for two main reasons. First, for populations whose needs are regularly ignored, community organizations are an alternative system of service delivery. Second, community organizations also provide a means for protest with an integration and institutionalization of resident involvement and participation in bottom-up rather than top-down processes. (Filner (nd); Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). Neighborhood Organizations are important to this study on two fronts. The first being the obvious relation to resident participation: community organizations are the structures in which such volunteers operate. The second is that neighborhood organizations are the impetus of the Urban Collaborators Research project, based on their support of and collaboration with the principal researchers. The neighborhood organizations have been involved in the direction and approach of the study, in the 23 formulation of the survey instrument and will have input into the structure of community based initiatives to bring about increased volunteer participation based on the results of the survey and according to each organization and their community’s needs. Community Development Community development is the domain of resident participation within a community organizational structure. Community development has traditionally been defined as voluntary cooperation and self-help mutual aid efforts among residents of a particular locale intent on improving physical, social and economic conditions (Christenson et al., 1989). While this study emphasizes a meaning of community that is place bound, the idea of community need not be. People with resources, transportation and communication can form their own communities of interest or networks seen as the formation of social capital. Communities without physical closeness organize around ethnicity, religion, common need or interest as in mutual aid or advocacy groups. These social networks are communities bound by social relations and sense of community, the dominant constructs of the study. This point emphasizes the conceptual and theoretical context of this study within the domain of community development (Florin and Wandersman, 1990; RD870 course pack). Shinn (1988) states that resident participation; voluntary organizations and community development provide excellent arenas for studying the kinds of multilevel person-environment interactions that are main contents and methodological thrusts of community psychology. Volunteer participation involves individual decisions influenced by collective factors, environmental characteristics and organizational conditions as part of an overall setting of participation. Understanding how a place’s environment and its 24 socio-economic-political setting influence individual decisions to volunteer, participate and be involved in self-help and collective action is important in lending support to the work of community organizers, activist and practitioners. Such is the drive of this study. Description of Setting The Urban Context Apart from urban regentrification, American inner city communities continue to decline, both economically and socially, creating the need for locally based renewal and change. Some commentators believe self-help through neighborhood organizations is one means by which this change can take place (Shiffman, 1995). Toward reversing negative outcomes of exclusionary policies the mission of neighborhood organizations includes the creation of community and the empowerment of residents, reinforcing their belief in collective action regarding agreed goals, needs and demands (Schmid, 2001). However, self-help and community-based strategies are critically dependent on volunteer participation. Here lies the challenge to neighborhood organizations: how to garner the volunteers and the consistency of participation over the long term, especially in challenged communities. The urban sites of the study, Lansing, Flint and Grand Rapids are among the largest cities of Michigan. In a rare study assessing the well-being of Michigan cities from 1988 to 1998, Public Sector Consultants (PSC, 1999) state that population continues to shift from the urban core to the surrounding area and farther taking with it job opportunities and economic activity. In general, the urban populations within the state, including that for the study’s three sites continue to drop while state population levels rise. While the nation, the state and cities have just exited an economic boon and across 25 the board drop in unemployment rates, the unemployment rate gap has increased between urban and non-urban areas signaling an inequality of socio-economic standards that the following descriptives support. In 1988, the Michigan 13 city unemployment rate at 13.2 percent was higher than other areas and jumped to a 32 percent difference by 1998. This relative decline in economic activity is borne out by the measure of total employment in that if the 1988 urban to state employment rate had remained the same to 1998 there would have been 164,000 more individuals employed for the thirteen urban areas of the PSC study. Average median income for Michigan’s urban cities rose from $25,140 in 1989 to $33,483 in 1997. Overall, property values grew 4.2 percent in the 13 cities, but much less than the 6.9 percent increase in the counties in which these cities are located. In 1988, all the business property value in the 12 counties in which the 13 cities are located registered that 72 percent of all these businesses were located in the cities, but by 1998 that figure dropped to 54 percent. Homeownership rates for these 13 cities held constant between 1988 and 1998, whereas homeownership rates increased at the 12 counties and the state level as a whole. While tracking environmental conditions are difficult, the report cites that the thirteen cities have a high percentage - 39 percent — of all hazardous waste sites, yet only 21 percent of the population. The PSC study sites Michigan Department of Environmental Quality as stating the combined on-site releases and transfers of toxic materials in the 13 cities rose73 percent from 1990 to 1996 — fi'om 53 million to 92 million pounds per year. This fact alone may be a good indicator of the quality of life, the 26 state of neglect and marginalization withstood by Michigan urban cities and communities. [All data cited from PSC, 1999]. The Social Context: Capacity, Intgration and the Signifignce of Neighborhood Disorder Emmett (2000) states community-based strategies often make unrealistic demands on already depleted resources of poor communities. Urban communities over the past two decades have experienced damaging devolution (Schmid, 2001) that has resulted in political and economic exclusion and variant forms of social disintegration. These negative impacts accumulate to form a reality that makes the phrase ‘depleted resources of poor communities’ more than a theoretical notion. A lack of trust and sense of community, greater crime, exploitation and a harsh individualism together make urban areas inconducive to collective action and societal cooperation (Barro, 1991, La Porta et a1 1997, Wilson, 1987). Ross and Mirowsky (1999) find that theoretically the consequences of neighborhood disorder for individuals are great. Living in a neighborhood characterized by disorder—crime, vandalism, graffiti, loitering, litter, noise, alcohol and drugs—may adversely affect individual well-being and create fear and mistrust, which further social isolation. People who mistrust others are unlikely to form social ties with neighbors, prohibiting a mechanism for asserting social control in the neighborhood. Related to social control is an individual’s belief that they can affect change. Individuals who feel powerless are unlikely to attempt to solve neighborhood problems. This circular and cumulative path has affects beyond the individual and in turn, shape neighborhoods, creating a culture for or against behaviors and ideals; volunteer participation being one such prosocial behaviors (Skogan, 1990). Observations of behavioral paths and societal 27 dynamics can identify a community’s potential for collective behavior such as volunteer participation. Ross and Mirowsky (1999) further define social disorder as signs indicating a lack of social control that involve people that relate to both social and physical factors. Visible signs of social disorder include fights and trouble among neighbors and the presence of people hanging out on the streets, drinking, taking drugs, panhandling and creating a sense of danger. Physical disorder refers to the overall physical appearance of a neighborhood; places with high levels of physical disorder are noisy, dirty and run down, many buildings are in disrepair or abandoned and vandalism and graffiti are common. Lewis and Salem (1986) found that perceived increases in crime are among the clearest indicators of social disorder in an area. Although participation is the key to organizational fimctioning, in the social setting that is commonly the inner-city urban environment, there exist conditions of social disorder and disintegration that present challenges to overcome if in fact a culture of cooperation, organization and collective action is the imperative. Without trust and attitudes of involvement and support, many self-help programs and initiatives will falter and fail. Bockmeyer (2000) documented such cultures of distrust when she studied urban enterprise zones in Detroit city; there she found a lack of trust and involvement that is true for various ethnic communities and groups (Putnam, 1995). While social disintegration is not necessarily associated with all urban environments, previous research on urban volunteer participation does support this is an important issue (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Emmett, 2000). Factors of sense of community, social capital and the overall concern for “communityness” (Fear, 1990) 28 depend on the extent of environmental and social integration. Doherty et al. (2001) indicate that different and contrasting neighborhoods may exhibit variations in their propensity to civic behaviors such as citizen participation. In a research report addressing individual and community capacity building in order to produce desirable social outcomes, Hulme (2000) emphasizes the need to protect, reinforce and strengthen social relationships operationalized as social capital. Instead of social capital, this study measures sense of community as the catalytic determinant of participation in order to identify the effort that is necessary to cultivate and encourage social and community integration. Street Blockias Behavior Settings Ecological psychology views behavior settings as freestanding units of the everyday environment with recurring and standing patterns of behaviors and supporting physical milieus. For instance, within street blocks people get to know each other by observing their behaviors and routines, which serve to develop positive or negative sentiments or perceptions. Routine behaviors are recurring rhythms of activity called standing patterns of behavior. Taylor (1997) advocates the central importance of street blocks to organizing life in residential environments. He places street blocks in an ecological/psychological framework to lend further insight into within-neighborhood behavior differences in general and into responses from social disorder in particular. He and others believe that the functions of street blocks as behavior settings help explain and organize a neighborhood or community’s dynamics along social, organizational, spatial and temporal lines. If these social (organizational and spatial) differences (of community, interaction and architecture) across blocks can result in differences in sentiment and 29 behavior, the same force exists at and across neighborhoods. Questions on the UCR survey assess individual responses to their perceptions of particular blocks within their neighborhoods that are different or distinct from other areas within spatial boundaries. This was done to assess hotspots within communities and neighborhoods that have active organizations, particularly effective leaders or have accomplished notable feats that could be critical to the understanding of sense of community or the mobilizing of resident volunteer participation in that specific location. Integrating these Elements; Adapting Andersen’s Behavioral Model Andersen (1968) developed his human interaction and behavior model from an underlying assumption that the use of services or opportunities is a result of a complex set of interrelated factors. This assumption applies to the reality of volunteer participation. To go beyond simple description of matters — to begin to understand how and why individuals behave and make decisions such as to capitalize on opportunities like participating in a neighborhood organization — requires the development of a theoretical foundation. Utilization of health services like participation in neighborhood organizations are not unitarily explained; in different contexts there are behavioral patterns dependent on such predisposing factors as gender, age, income, residence, value, opportunity and perceptions. Andersen asserts that all of these kinds of factors are important, but some have more bearing on utilization or participation than others; that their relative importance — except for gender and age - varies with circumstances. In this study the urban setting and its predominant social fabric is the context for the describing prevailing circumstances. 30 Andersen built his model from precursors that emphasized economic and social- psychological determinants. The economic model of P. Feldstein 1964 (Andersen, 1968; 1973) hypothesized that the investment to utilize a good — participation in this case — related both to a series of socio-demographic factors reflecting different patterns and probabilities and to economic variables reflecting the ability of individuals. Andersen sites a Michigan study in 1958 (Andersen, 1968; 1973) testing utilization patterns of health services according to fundamental factors that also relate to participation in neighborhood organizations. These factors included physiological need, financial resources, motivation and availability of services. To clearly indicate the adaptation of these factors to the case of participation, consider Andersen’s physiological need as the physical deterioration of communities such as graffiti, abandoned and vandalized buildings, drug houses and lack of infrastructural services. Consider financial resources as the multidimensional issue of security that is required for individuals to volunteer their time and talents. Such security comes in the form of income and childcare for instance. Multidimensional security relate to the absence of survival issues that would diminish leisure time and involvement in activities. In a context of insecurity, leisure time and opportunity costs become luxuries when other pressing concerns and matters of survival exist. Availability of services is also synonymous in the participation case as neighborhood organizations must exist, operating and functioning well within communities to allow individuals to decide to be involved and utilize the opportunity to participate. 31 The social-psychological precursor that informed Andersen’s model was from I. Rosenstock 1966 (Andersen, 1968; 1973) work that assessed required conditions for a decision to be made to utilize services. These conditions also apply to the case of participation in neighborhood organizations and include an individual’s psychological readiness to take action. In the context of participation, this refers to individual capability, efficacy and motivation. Motivations here imply some immediate, personal and pressing push or pull to individual decision-making. There is then the individual’s belief that the action in question (utilization or participation) is both feasible and appropriate for him or her to use based on those motivations. In the case of participation, this relates to the perceptions individuals hold toward others whom they will be involved with in collective action, as well as the organization they will be aligned to and how they cohesively and collectively perceive matters of efficacy to exact change, have agency and exhibit empowerment. Finally, the Andersen precursor indicated the requirement for a cue or stimulus to trigger the response to participate. In the case of participation, stimuli may be a variety of challenges, threats or conditions that exist, particularly in an inner city urban environment. It is a matter of conditions worsening enough to harness individual and collective action. Note that stimuli as a cue for action is often a negative situation or cause to be reversed, not one framed as an asset. Such action also requires precursors of awareness and knowledge that things can be different and that individual, collective and organizational agency exists when it most appears absent. There are various abstract and concrete ways to interpret this idea of a needed stimulus when community development and individual and collective action is 32 considered. From this background, Andersen forms his behavioral model of elements that more concretely adapt to the problem of insufficient participation in neighborhood organizations. In his model, there is the individual as the unit of analysis as in this study. Andersen also includes perceptions of those pursuing services or opportunities and the specification of paths leading to utilization or participation, as does this study. Differences also exist between the Andersen model and the dissertation adaptation. Andersen separates economic factors from those that are social. The dissertation holds no presumption to extricate the economic causes of social conditions found in the study sites. Secondary background data indicating the socio-economic status of the neighborhoods and the cities in which they are located form the basis of the study as well as an indication of the social order or disintegration of the study sites. Another difference is Andersen’s analysis of different types of services. This study did not make any distinctions into different types, levels or outcomes of participation nor does it make distinctions between intended and actual participation, critical differences sure to impact outcomes. Adapting this element to the dissertation would require, in addition, an assessment of the level of function and integration of all the neighborhood organizations within the study as well as their past efforts to increase participation. Neither the UCR project nor the dissertation undertakes any of these matters The explanation of an individual’s participation in neighborhood organizations as the utilization of an opportunity finds its basis on a three-stage model consisting of predisposing, enabling and need components. The model suggests that a sequence of conditions contribute to observed behavior. Here too the dissertation asserts a similar 33 belief: that sense of community is the catalytic effect beginning a process of efficacy and shared empowerment to act as in volunteering and participating that is mediated by other factors and directed by Specific determinants requiring exploration in this and future inquiry. In the model, use or participation is dependent on the predisposition of the individual. For instance, past usage or participation like prior volunteerism is a predisposition. Other predisposing factors to and components of participation are the kind of social fabric the individual comes from that inform sense of belongingness, communality, trust and other social relationship aspects that predisposes an individual to collective action and cooperation with others. Enabling components include an individual’s perception of self as an agent of change and others as co-agents with the inherent power to act, forming then a culture of action and participation. Salient to these components operating in theoretical fashion is the proper functioning of the neighborhood organization as it offers individuals the opportunity to participate. The need component of utilization or participation is the acknowledgement of a stimulus and the individual’s ensuing choice to respond. This last component could also benefit from further nuance and investigation. Identifying need and immediate stimulus to participate would be a greater correlation to outcomes of participation. Here again perceptions are paramount. In the dissertation, this aspect of perception as it relates to need is assessed by individual’s concerns for the environmental and community problems or issues they recognize and register. It is acknowledged, however, that individuals could be so socio-economically depressed in ability and outlook that they may become accustomed to deplorable conditions and even when such conditions are noticed, 34 disempowerment may prevail in people’s lives that there may not be the capability, the motivation nor the agency to act in response. For these reasons, this aspect of Andersen’s model: the need component may be very tricky in its applicability and would require more critical and nuanced approaches. Overall, sense of community, social fabric and efficacy serve as excellent latent variables and constructs that capture the predisposing, enabling and need components of the Andersen model adapted to volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations. However, difficulty arises in how each construct captures multiple aspects of the theory. For instance, sense of community is both predisposing and enabling; and social fabric is all predisposing, need and final stimuli. Likewise, efficacy is both enabling and predisposing. From the principal component analysis, the results show a requirement for construct measurement and content not to intermingle or cross measure with others. If the adaptation of the Andersen model to the problem of citizen and volunteer participation is supported and advanced by other research, the design and differentiation between more critical concept constructions and measurements will be required as the study’s result will later support. 35 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY "Toward advancing methodological approaches to the study and application of a sense of community, these four themes for future research emerge from the literature. T 0 measure and identify individual and group level effects of sense of community; its complicated relationship between the neighborhood as a residential community, contrary to the proliferation of communities that are not based on place; its relationship to an individual ’s history, attachment and identity; and its use as a catalyst for community justice and change in national and local initiatives. ” (Chavis and Pretty, 1999 p635) The Setting: Socio-Economic Demographics The three urban Sites of this study are Lansing, Grand Rapids and Flint, Michigan. The sites of the study were selected as they were represent by neighborhood organizations that responded to a Michigan State University Extension Urban Collaborators Project on volunteer participation in community organizations. The following demographic statistics paint an overall picture of urban well-being for these three sites. Many of the statistics cited below come from the report entitled “Status of Michigan Cities, An Index of Urban Well-being” found at the Michigan Electronic Library website (Public Sector Consultants, 2002). For 2000, Grand Rapids’ population reported at 197,800, Lansing at 119,128 and Flint at 124,943. For the same year 2000, the all-minority population percentages for Grand Rapids were 32.7 percent, for Lansing 34.7 percent and for Flint, 58.6 percent. One way to measure segregation in a community is to look at the percentage of minority population in comparison with its surrounding area: the narrower the difference the less the segregation. Segregation difference for the study’s city sites were 106.1 percent for Grand Rapids, 63.5 percent for Lansing and 131 percent for Flint, respectively. The state 36 segregation average was 36.6 percent representing a 27 percent increase since 1990. For the year 1999, estimated median household income in Grand Rapids was $38,861, in Lansing, $32,874 and in Flint, $23,341. The statewide median household income for the same year was $47,706. Median incomes for counties in which these cities are located registered levels of $48,564 for Grand Rapids, $44,115 for Lansing and $41,918 for Flint. Flint city represented one of the lowest median income levels relative to the county at 55.7 percent. Data is not consistently available across factors and years. Hence, the following poverty rates for the study’s sites are for 1990. Grand Rapids reported poverty rate was at 15.4 percent; Lansing was 19.3 percent and Flint, 30 percent. Poverty statistics is an indicator of economic hardship within an area. For the same year of 1990, the state’s poverty level was 13.0 percent. Another good measure of a community’s well-being is the value of property and the recording of any such change over time. Falling property values indicate a community in decline. Such declines are usually associated and caused by falling demand for homes because public services are deteriorating and/or residents and businesses are moving out of the city. In 1999, Grand Rapids’ average home value was at $107,000, for Lansing it was $70,000 and for Flint, it was $58,000. In 1999, the statewide average home value was $125,000. In 1990, the total occupied housing units for Grand Rapids was 69,029 while the total owner-occupied rate was 41,349. In Lansing, total occupied housing units was 50,635 while the owner-occupied rate was 27,737. In Flint, the total occupied housing units was 53,894, while 31,306 was the rate of owner-occupation for that city. Note the comparable owner-occupation rates for all three cities at 59.9, 54.8 and 5 8. l , 37 respectively. For 2000, occupied, owner-occupied and percent home ownership rates stayed roughly the same for these three sites at 59.7, 57.5 and 58.4, respectively. These homeownership values are a measure of community stability. An indicator of the social fabric of Grand Rapids and Lansing city communities would be crime, education, food programs and infant mortality statistics per population levels. In Grand Rapids, the 2000 total crime numbers per thousand of the population was 66.0 for Lansing, 58.4 for Grand Rapids and for Flint, 89.5. The state’s total crime per thousand was 41.2 percent. For all cities of Michigan, there was a reduction in major crimes. Public Sector Consultants include MEAP results for public school children in their assessment of urban well-being of Michigan cities. For 2000, the composite percentage passing the MEAP test for Grand Rapids, Lansing and Flint were 40.4, 46.7 and 32.6, respectively. Flint had the lowest reported percent passing of all thirteen Michigan cities. Urban schools in Michigan have a much higher percentage of students eligible to participate in the federal free or reduced price lunch program that is the case statewide. Eligibility is based on family income; for a family of four an income of below $21,000 is the qualification for a free lunch and below $30,000 qualifies for a reduced lunch at 1999 measures. Grand Rapids had 65.4 percent of students qualify for both fiee and reduced price lunches. Lansing had 51.7 and Flint, 64.2 percent of its school children to qualify, respectively, for these lunch programs. Finally, the 2000 mortality rates for Grand Rapids, Lansing and Flint were 10.4, 1.0 and 15.1 percent, respectively. Over the last ten years, Flint registered a 3.0 percent increase of infant mortality. 38 Literature Based Methods The following sections cite how previous studies construct methods of analysis using the proposed constructs and concepts. Social Fabric, Disintegration and Disorder Ross and Mirowsky (1999) directly operationalized the concept of social disorder with survey statements such as, “in my neighborhood, people watch out for each other.” They explain that their measure of perceived social disorder includes both social and physical assessments at both ends of the spectrum: order, disorder, and reports of crime in the neighborhood. The study will assess the social fabric or social disorder from secondary socio-economic demographic data as well as from individual responses to survey items of perceived neighborhood problems and issues. Sense of Community (Joranko, 1998) indicates previous research measures sense of community through dimensions of connection, belonging, support, safety, empowerment and participation. “Sense of connection” measures to what degree neighbors believe they know, socialize with and trust each other. “Sense of belonging” measures whether neighbors think of their block as a community, feel committed to the block’s future and whether they belong to the block. “Sense of support” measures whether neighbors help each other in various ways and watch out for each other. “Sense of safety” measures whether neighbors believe that the block is a safe place to live. “Sense of empowerment” and “individual and collective efficacy” measures whether neighbors feel that they are working together to solve problems, are able to get things done on the block, and have a 39 voice regarding important community issues. “Sense of participation” and “prior volunteerism” measures whether neighbors participate in organized block activities or have taken some other form of volunteer action within their communities. Further reduction of the above sub-categorizations result in four domains of investigation relevant to community development that are the perception of the environment, social relations, control and empowerment and participation in local action. In these domains, sense of community is a catalyst for other determinants of change and volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990; Schweitzer, 1996). Based on McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) theoretical definitions of sense of community, neighborhood processes stimulate opportunities for membership, influence and for mutual needs to be met and shared through emotional ties and support. The stronger the sense of community, the more influence the members will feel they have on their immediate environment (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). In this domain, sense of community is a catalyst toward the building of individual and collective efficacy and as a measure build on the traditions and prior research of authors that include Chavis, Wandersman, McMillan, Perkins and Giamartino and Schweitzer. Awareness Awareness may be a novel aspect of this research. To date no literature citation cites this construct as a variable or determinant of volunteerism or participation, moderating, mediating, intervening or otherwise. In this study, awareness is in association with the issue of social fabric, integration or disintegration. Communities with greater levels of social integration indicate a functional social fabric and have greater opportunities for residents to know of upcoming events. Such communities make 40 for residents who are more in tune with the pulse of their environments, other residents and organizations operating within neighborhood boundaries and therefore are more likely to be involved in community activities. In the absence of a research precedent the survey instrument ask respondents what they know of the neighborhood in which they live, the association, its leaders, how organizational information is disseminated within the community and of the participation behaviors of their immediate neighbors. Community awareness as a study variable was deleted from the final analysis. Perceived Problems and Issues The literature shows that problems in the community are the greatest motivator and mobilizer of collective action (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). Literature from the 19805 indicates that most neighborhood organizations form as a response to the threat or reality of physical deterioration (Wandersman et al., 1981) and crime (Lavrakas, 1980; Perkins et al., 1990). Following these examples in the literature that mention crime, vandalism, loitering, housing quality, employment, drugs and pests as examples of disorder, disintegration and deterioration (Perkins et al., 1990), the dissertation seeks to identify if there is the same association of perceived threats and an individual’s move to action in the form of participation. The correlation between perception of issues and willingness to participate may indicate a direction that supports this theory. The methodology of analysis finally employed, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, did not include perceived threats, perceptions of community problems and issues as inclusion as an independent variable. Instead, exploratory factor analysis included the list of these variables as items measuring the construct of social fabric. No analysis in the study identified the level of social fabric as order or disorder. 41 Prior Volunteerism Volunteer participation was described as the dependent variable — the focus and crux of the proposed dissertation research. Previous research advocate for a contextual analysis of volunteer participation that include demographics, built environment, community type and crime (Perkins et al., 1990). One study researched volunteer participation and leadership in the specific context of an urban environment (Crew, et al., 1997). A more recent study indicates the issue of social disintegration as a secondary influence on volunteer participation implying and theorizing how social disorder may hamper community-based strategies (Emmett, 2000). The dissertation study sought to integrate each of these approaches to prior volunteerism. Prior volunteerism was conceptualized to encompass a broader purview beyond the neighborhood organization that included giving blood and volunteering at church and school functions, for instance. The idea was to identify a propensity to volunteer time and talent across a broader spectrum of organizations, thereby identifying a greater cross section of partners who would collectively encourage greater levels of participation within the community. Perceived Control: Individual and Collective Chavis and Wandersman (1990) relate perceived control to the beliefs individuals have about the relationship between their actions (behavior) and outcomes. The expectancy that one’s actions can bring about change may influence both individual and collective behavior such as participation in a neighborhood organization. Chavis and Wandersman (1990) indicate, however, that results of research trying to link locus of control with participation have been inconsistent signaling a need for continued research into the correlation between perceived control, self-efficacy and participation in 42 neighborhood organizations. The usefulness of the perceived control/participation correlation to the proposed study is that previous research identified an additional correlation with sense of community (McMillan and Chavis, 1986; Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). The dissertation attempted to contribute to this discussion by eliciting a relationship between sense of community and an individual’s perception of efficacy throughout their community. The results do indeed reinforce the need for more research. AS will be seen in the following chapter on results, sense of community has a positive relationship with efficacy as a whole but the attempt to link individual and collective efficacy to willingness to participate proved unsuccessful. These results Show the need for more in-depth analysis of this control, efficacy and participation link. In a previous study, Florin (1989) applied a cognitive social learning approach to the phenomenon of perceived control whereby expectancies of individual and collective control predict participation. The dissertation adapts this cognitive social learning approach and considers if prior volunteerism is not a social learning approach to participation; understanding that previous exposure and practice of that behavior is a predilection to future participation, which circles in a feedback mechanism to form individual efficacy. Individual efficacy aggregated is collective efficacy. In this case, individuals evaluate the likelihood that their individual efforts as perceived self-efficacy can solve neighborhood problems (Bandura, 1986). The UCR survey includes questions to the respondents on their perception of control and efficacy on the individual and collective level. The analysis intended to correlate prior volunteerism to items of efficacy 43 as a propensity to future participation. Prior volunteerism as a determining variable was also deleted from the study. These items as intersecting individual and neighborhood characteristics of a community indicate a community’s overall potential and cultural propensity to participate. This information is useful to neighborhood organizations and community practitioners as they attempt to frame self-help strategies, programs or projects at urban sites. The study was constructed to indicate where effort is best given to bring about the desired and long-term outcomes of support, involvement and participation from individuals and the community. The following pages indicate what items of the survey instrument was used for data analysis with a description of the planned analysis. Research Design The mixed method quantitative and qualitative survey emphasizes the benefits of a theory-driven as well as an emergent deductive approach to inquiry and analysis. The dissertation made use of the quantitative survey questions designed to measure respondents’ perceptions in relation to sense of community, individual and collective efficacy and social fabric. With midstream changes in the design and method of inquiry, the dissertation study takes on a research character more akin to grounded theory. In this mode, theory is deducted, hypotheses and research questions emerge from the results and future research is indicated based on the findings that are in some cases, surprising. The data did not support an analysis according to the delineations of nine communities and three cities as planned. Each sample size would be too small. Instead the data was analyzed as one pool of N=446. Furthermore, the proposed method of analysis using a logistical regression model was changed and analysis expanded to forms that included principal component, exploratory and confirmatory factor and path analysis, culminating in a structural equation model. The use of these analyses in the dissertation elevates the work and its overall contribution to theoretical aspects of volunteer participation research. By analyzing the data as one group and not along community, neighborhood or city levels, the study focused more on the consistency of theoretical constructs and measurements and less on final inferences on human behavior as was expected. Employing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis also directed the research to contributions in the theory and measurement of concepts, constructs and their operationalized survey items and less on the building of theory regarding volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations. A structural equation model beyond exploratory and factor analysis also served to identify paths, hypothesized relationships and dynamic interactions that require more investigation, definition and clarification for future research. In essence, the research design became less definitive and more exploratory in nature. The Survey The UCR project survey was co-designed by UCR principals with accepted questions and items from the dissertation researcher for the purposes of this study. The survey was completed the spring of 2001 and administered by local volunteers and community activists the summer of that year. The survey provided the data for the dissertation’s analysis; capturing individual perspectives of community dynamics believed to have an effect on an individual’s interest to participate in their neighborhood organization. In the end, these dynamics included sense of community, social fabric and 45 efficacy in a model indicating the path and relationships of these factors to an individual’s willingness to participate. The survey represented a collaborative effort among the project principals, community leaders and community development extension agents under the supervision of John Schweitzer. Survey questions used for the analysis utilized a five point Likert scale allowing residents to register a “strongly agree” to a “strongly disagree” for each of the major concepts. For other questions, a four-point scale between “great extent” and “no effect” was used. 46 CHAPTER IV RESULTS “Creating a vision begins by building up expectations and stoking a constructive fire inside’. First, the people have to care about the neighborhood in which they live. Second, they have to have the feeling that things are not going to get better unless we get involved. Third, there has to be a sense of confidence that something can come together that will make a difference. ” (Bill Slotnik in Medoff and Sklar, p262) Orientation The study's data was collected from a sample of 450 individuals across nine communities in three Michigan urban centers, which included Lansing, Grand Rapids and Flint. Although the study was originally structured along six individual communities within the three cities, a final sample size of (446) represented one data set. The survey consisted of (65) items according to a variety of subjects, approaches and hypotheses to the problems and issues of citizen participation in urban neighborhood organizations. The items Specifically related to this dissertation study numbered (51). The majority of items included in the analysis were Likert structured questions. The end of this research exercise is far different from its start. The study started out as an a priori hypothesized study, in hindsight, it ends up as an exploratory study approximating a grounded theoretical approach. Final methods of analysis were not those proposed at the beginning. The variables considered of central importance to volunteer, citizen or resident participation in urban settings were not those supported by the data in the manner hypothesized. Although the means (the concepts and the tools of the study) changed mid-stream, the general direction and focus to adequately identify hypotheses 47 and build a useful theoretical orientation remained the same. At its end, what this study does is advance the scholarship of volunteerism and contributes to the generation of credible theory about the behaviors, practices, orientations and approaches to the issue of increasing the quantity and quality of participation in neighborhood and community organizations. This research study was also an exercise in perseverance despite directional and procedural changes throughout a process of academic inquiry. At the study’s end, the methodological approach that accomplished stated goals is grounded theory. As described by Cresswell (1998) and quoted by Strauss and Corbin (1990:24) grounded theory is “a qualitative research method that uses a systematic set of procedures to develop an inductively derived grounded theory about a phenomenon.” Although this study is quantitative in nature and open-ended questions were not used for analysis, the lack of theory regarding this subject likens the exploratory nature of the undertaking to grounded theory. The Andersen theory adapted and analyzed through principal component analysis and a static path model could not be verified according to the predisposing, enabling and need components. A transactional dynamic model showing how various elements connect and interact would prove the conceptual theory that was the basis of the adaptation of the Andersen model. As previously explained, social fabric, sense of community and efficacy all fill more than one, and in some cases, all three of the components of the Andersen model. The adaptation and the model conceptualization was a start, but future theoretical developments are needed on hypothesis measurements on how the components of the model interact. 48 Original hypotheses were revised based on the model generated by the explanatory analyses and quantitative instead of qualitative methods were used. Employing the methods of principal component analysis redesigned the study from an a priori approach with expectations to one that is exploratory in nature. The results identify new approaches to researching the issue of insufficient participation in neighborhood organizations are necessary. The conclusions lead to advocating that a new orientation to the study of volunteer participation utilize a transactional approach that includes interactional variables as inherent in this study, but is not without an understanding of the dynamic and erratic nature of human behaviors and the benefits and the costs of transacting through myriad interests, goals, parties and perspectives. All of these changes point to the possible development and construction of a relevant theory particular to the phenomenon of volunteer participation and not one adapted from different cases of human behavior. Result Overview Despite amendments to the study’s hypotheses and methods, sense of community is in fact the seminal piece of this individual, collective and neighborhood model of volunteer participation. It was correlated to other determinants but not to all the variables originally posited. Sense of community has an effect on efficacy, but there is no correlation between efficacy and willingness to participate. EFA deleted all variables except for the social fabric and sense of community constructs. Social fabric, whether positive as order and integration or negative as disorder and disintegration, is also connected and correlated to willingness to participate. The change in the study’s approach and methods finally employed resulted in a more 49 interesting and challenging study with results that are sure to bring about much discussion and material for future research. As a point of interest, the original method of analysis - the hierarchical logic regression — was completed. The regression analysis did hold to the study’s original individual and composite variables of social fabric, community awareness, prior volunteerism, perceived control-individual, perceived control-collective, sense of community-neighborhood, sense of community-immediate and individual and neighborhood efficacy. The model was set to predict an individual’s propensity to participate along these individual and neighborhood characteristics. More specific exploratory and confirmatory factor and path analysis with a structural equation model are presented instead. The results of which follow. Output Exploratory Fact—or Analysis Principal component analysis using SPSS with a varimax solution was performed resulting in the extraction of two major factors. Table 1A and 1B present the results of the exploratory factor analysis and shows the two-factor solution for the characteristics of volunteer participation according to coefficients and factor loadings for each data item as components for each of the two factors. Eigenvalues for the two major factors were 10.51 and 4.38 for social fabric and sense of community, respectively. Partial variance for Factor 1, social fabric was 22.8 percent and for Factor 2, sense of community was 9.5 percent. Total variance for the two-factor solution was 32.3 percent. Eigenvalues for factors beyond the solution are given as a point of interest in Table 2. 50 SEAS an... .. wees: osécotxc 9m <0 :5: Swag cm... .. a a 28 5.8: E20 as: 8.8 a; me... .. a as was. Sc 3223. m3. <0 as: or. 3m. .. 838:3 m a m <0 so: 8-335 Sm. .. @3553 9 m 2.95 :5: 8.83% Re. .. a a @356 BBQ: :30 .5: mm _ .- web. : a 2a A. . .3239 62:: 88A— : m<0 Eu: mm? Eh. :ESm taxi 3 363668 So» E EoEEQ 23am 8 fiwcobm 38w: a 2m mwBQ E_m<© :8: 0:0 hos—Wm 3565000 5:98on Eu: 538:2 Eu: w? 5: 82255 = _ 25m“— Eoom 6:0 56mm Ammmué mmOZm> 05 :o meets—em Lough—62¢. 05 Sm mwfiwmoq Aegean .<_ 033. 51 can. 5.. Bozo—mac: : : m£<0 80: an. 8-93% - 80836: 8 wEo—E E voofonnwfic E5 E .30 .855 80% So BE 90> m£<0 88— mNm. mm _. demo—o on 8 wEow mm? m: 8 “memo—o 30:8 05 t 00302: How 2:03 80836: >2 Nm<© 88— 5m... 5 _ .- 00>: at“: so» 8an 880 8 80: 383888 Co 883 2: BEEoU >56 88— wcm. ac _. .80: mac—on >2: BE Bong—ms: SEBEE b)— an 80: arm. 3 E. mime. E 265— :9» 00 >88 Bo: .Bonswfiu “memo—o So» CO 50 80: awn. we _. Spams: a 80¢ Eu: How 8 En: ME 80505 a we: Spams: 036088 an 555 omO 80: 5.. 5. Bananas: 35-3% a a E: .20 as: aw... modvmod .mosmE 383888 wEEme 88> m 022— : oEO 80: Se. No-vao.v 2.35338 :88?an 382888 E 83688 8336: 036088 >2 m _ m0 88— mm. mom—VON- .650 none :23 oE—EQS 0008.5sz: E8 E 038; m~<0 80: Eh. wmfi 80836: BEBEE >8 m808m 3E5 EEam 38888 CO wEB£ < Emu 88— 30. mom—£56- 380: E05 8 .38. no» 83% 022 >88 30: 802st: “memo—o m So» do mmO 80: as. mommmn; .550 some E3 “SE—Eon; : me 88— 50. modem—N Eon HES. JEN—m @580 some .8 88 0x8 3 _ .mO 88— Nwe. mom _ No.0- .mosmE E8888 Sons 880 some 8 £8 80836: BEBEE >2 m _ m0 88— BS. 8-8%. _- $83 as a: a e 58% so» as; .. 80 as: 25. moknammé- $885 owe—o 5288 so» 00 .. @mO 88— 3.5. mm _ .- who; 83¢ a 250 so» 08: .. mmO 88— :5. on ~ .. $80: E05 E 0863 so» 96; >88 Bo: 80335: 6320 m .80» CO va 88— 03... 86mm 356580 8088080 80: 528:2 80: .2: 338885 _ 5838800 we omcom 63,—. .88"— AMNNHZV mmOZm> 05 co gown—om hoaommeah of 88 $888..— aouomm .m: 2an 52 Table 2. Total Variance of EFA Factors Explained by Eigenvalues & Sums of Squares Initial Eigenvalues Ext. Sums of Sqd Loadings Rotation Factor . Total % of Cum. Total % Var. Cum % Total Variance % l - SF 10.511 22.850 22.850 9.867 21.451 21.451 8.376 2 - SOC 4.384 9.531 32.381 3.798 8.256 29.707 7.676 3 2.254 4.900 37.280 -- - -- -- 4 1.956 4.252 41.533 -- — -- -- 5 1.634 3.552 6 1.497 3.255 7 1.425 3.097 8 1.384 9 1.276 10 1.107 53 -.—.__ _—.-‘ I. While Table 2 shows eigenvalues for all of the study’s factors, the first two emerged as the most meaningful to this investigation and were used for subsequent analyses. Further clarification on the statistics of individual survey items used for analysis is found in Appendix D, an SPSS generated intercorrelation matrix. Analysis at the Parcel Level As the dissertation analysis focused on groups of indicators and less so on the micro level sub-groups descriptive statistics for the six parcels on the volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations social scale (VPNOSS) are found in Table 3. These are the specific results on the indicators or parcels used to build both the study’s theoretical and observed models. No attempt was made to perform confirmatory factor analyses concerning the internal consistency of each of the parcels, however. Theoretical and conceptual approaches guided the identification of parcels or sub- concepts of factors. Factor one; the social fabric construct consisted of the following parcels. They were community problems (8 items); quality of life (8 items); and environmental quality (2 items). The names given to the parcels on Factor two, sense of community include neighbor interaction (8 items); community involvement (6 items); and socializing (3 items). The Alpha statistic is the fit indice that measure how well items interrelate with one another for a particular construct. The alpha measure for social fabric was (.92) at 18 items with an average correlation between items in this cluster at (.78); for sense of community the alpha was (.83) consisting of 17 items with an average correlation between items in this cluster at (.69). Appendix C outlines the parcels, labels and survey item results for the exploratory factor analysis associated with these alpha results. The items in Table 3 are listed in the order that the EFA selected them for 54 Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Indicator Variables for CFA on Cross-Validation VPNOSS Parcels Parcel Items Means SDs Social Fabric Community Problems 1 GA311, GA31H, GA31B, GA31N, GA31J, GA31K, GA31A, GA31C 2.581E-03 .7324 Quality of Life 2 GA31F, GA31G, GA31Q, GA31P, GA31R, GA310, GA31B, GA31D .3593 .5809 Environmental Quality 3 GA31L, GA31M .3688 .7122 Sense of Community Neighbor Interaction 4 GB3, GBZ, GB4, GB6, GBS, GBl, GBl 1, GA16E 1.9621 .8801 Community Involvement S GB10,GB13,GB14, GBlS, GB7, GA22 3.4186 .6323 Socializing 6 GA23, GA21, GB8 , 3.4250 .7346 55 parcelization from Eigen values high to a low of 3.0. Table 4 shows the correlation matrix for parcels of the two-factor solution. Theoretical Model: CFA and SEM Using AMOS, the SEM technique provides fit indices and a model that fits the researcher’s data. For all latent variables, which are constructs derived from measures used, such as social fabric and sense of community, a confirmatory factor analysis assessed the degree to which multiple indicators reflected single latent constructs. The subtractive approach which includes all paths in the model, hypothesized or not, allows for the subsequent removal of insignificant paths as it captures the “true model.” Thus, after trimming insignificant paths the SEM analysis is repeated. Figure 1 shows the whole and complete theoretical model constructed after CFA and before structural equation testing on AMOS. The model in Figure 1 offers theorized hypotheses based on proposed model fit, the literature as reviewed in Chapter 2 and the conceptual framework posited in Chapter 3. Sense of community is hypothesized to have both direct and indirect relationships with an individual’s decision to participate in a neighborhood organization. The indirect relationship is mediated by a community’s social fabric, which if positive, is in the form of social order or if negative social disorder or disintegration. Social fabric is hypothesized to have a direct relationship on an individual’s willingness to participate and on collective efficacy that is the efficacy of both individuals and their perception of their neighbors’ efficacy. Sense of community also shares a direct relationship with collective efficacy and willingness to participate is shown to have a direct relationship with collective efficacy as well, both hypothesized relationships. 56 Table 4. Correlation Matrix for Parcels derived from VPNOSS EFA Parcels 1 2 3 4 5 6 Community Quality of Environmental Neighbor Community Social- Problems Life Quality Interaction Involvement . 1 f... 2. .658 i 3. .649 .540 4. .211 .211 .164 .4“, 5. .290 .267 .177 .408 6. .286 .202 .090 .460 .590 57 Figure 1. Complete Theoretical Model, Post CFA e6 1 P6 0 ' v ‘ V ‘1 EE 1 Se f vEfficacy , nseo e5 P5 ‘ Community '1 ‘ 1 GA2§_1GC18_1 1 A 1‘ e4 ’ P4 ‘ e7 e8 58 Figure 2 shows the paths and resulting standardized regression weights at the first analysis of the model. There are positive path relationships among all the latent variables and with the dependent variable. Following the work of Schweitzer and others, sense of community has a positive relationship with social fabric, efficacy and willingness to participate. The completed model has predicted significant direct and indirect relationships between sense of community and willingness to participate. There are significant direct relationships also between the following: sense of community and efficacy, sense of community and social fabric, social fabric and willingness to participate. While all the relationships were positive, several iterations proved that the model improved, without losing any explanatory power by the deletion of relationships between willingness to participate and efficacy and social fabric and efficacy. In AMOS, X2 statistics trims insignificant paths thereby improving the model and compares the series of results as changes in Chi square statistics. The original X2 and its degrees of freedom (DF) is subtracted from the resulting X2 and its DF, respectively. The difference in X2 values and degrees of freedom — the Chi square difference test — X2 is then examined for significance where insignificant X2 indicates that trimming the insignificant path resulted in no loss of information from the model. Figure 3 depicts this trimmed model. The X2 statistic is used to assess model fit, but it is known to be sensitive to large sample sizes and can result in the commission of Type I error by rejecting model fit. Therefore, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CPI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) all of which are insensitive to sample size were used to judge model fit where models with TLI and CFI > (.90) and RMSEA < (.05) 59 Figure 2. Standardized Complete Model, First Analysis 96 ’ P6 v ' A .80 .9 'Efficacy Sense of W .95 ’ P5 ‘ Community .62, .46 .54 GA2§_1 GC18_I ‘ 94 ’ P4 67 e8 Figure 3. Standardized Trimmed Model, Final Analysis e1 92 e3 v , , EV GC25_1 P1 P2 P3 V A '71 v sr . .74 .91 /157 j Social SE ’ Fabric 4 .41 e6 ’ P6 ‘ .75 EE A 1.00 Efficacy 79 Sense of e5 b P5 < Community .62, {46 .54 GA2‘6_1 GC1 8_1 A } e4 5 P4 e7 e8 61 are deemed good fit. RMSEA values between 1.05) and 1.1.08) shows a moderate lit. Note slightly higher values ofCFI and TL! over (.95) are also used as indicators ofgood lit (Lambert, 2002 pending). The fit indices for me trimmed model were 71 = 14.101. p = 0.1119. or: s m -- 11.83.0171 = 0.92, RMSEA = .117 and the 31.311123) dif. = 3.00 at critical value 08.901. Between the X, ofthe full model and the. trimmed model, there was no difl‘erence in fit. The X2 con firms no difference between my explanatory and the AMOS confirmed model. Further discussion ol’these results follows in Chapter \.'_ CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ”As in the case of exit, a mixture of alert and inert citizens, or even an alternation of involvement and withdrawal, may actually serve democracy better than either total, permanent activism or total apathy One reason, stressed by Robert Dahl, is the ordinary failure, on the part of most citizens, to use their potential political resources to the full makes it possible for them to react with unexpected vigor—by using normally unused reserves of political power and influence—whenever their vital interests are directly threatened. According to another line of reasoning, the democratic political system requires “blending ofapparent contradictions on the one hand, the citizen must express his (or her) point of view so that the political elites (institutions and organizations) know and can be responsive to what he (or she) wants, but, on the other (hand), these elites (and organizations) must be allowed to make decisions (and respond). The citizen must thus be in turn influential and deferential”. (Albert 0. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, pg32) Reflections: Building a Transactional Approach from Interactional Elements of the Study The stated goal of the dissertation was to add to the body of theoretical and practical research on citizen and volunteer participation. This would include h0w to conceptualize relevant factors, characteristics and behaviors. Correct conceptualization of concepts and constructs lead to the matter of how measurement is to be constructed. Ultimately, these explorations lead to the identification of appropriate frameworks and paradigms best suited to the issues and dynamism of human behavior, interaction and transactions. At a basic level, the dissertation illustrates the precarious nature of research. The study was conceptualized as a practical research agenda; it ends as a theoretical scheme on construct measurement and model building. Original elements and foci of the study form a foundation for understanding the participation process. These elements — sense of 63 community, social fabric and prior patterns of prosocial behaviors — are interactional aspects of participation. These interactional elements lead still to higher dynamics that are transactional in nature. The exploration of one body of elements leads to the discovery of another. The process of enjoining new members and participants is insufficient based on interactional factors alone. A transactional treatment of data, problems and issues are also necessary. It is important to know the social context and fabric of a community’s environment, be it order or disorder. It is critical to know what to expect of members and participants in terms of how willing, vested, available or present people are to consider participation as a viable option, activity and response. The level of “communityness” in a place is also critical to understanding the potential for collective action. However, knowing the social context does not provide the information to bridge individual interest to organizational function. This is transactional in nature. Yes, sense of community as a marker of social interaction is central to participation processes. It identifies the caliber of relationships that exist within neighborhoods, their organizations and the larger community. Sense of community provides the mechanisms by which the machinery that is the organization, and its parts that are people, are oiled by value-filled, positive, validating, human contact and interactions. As powerful as this is though, sense of community is not the final stimulus or impetus to get people present and involved. Sense of community will reinforce or negate an individual’s decision axis, but sense of community will not direct such action — not consistently and not in the long term. In this estimation, it is not the direct determinant, it mediates; and mediators, whether individuals, structures or organizations 64 are transactional in character. Likewise, individual and collective perceptions of efficacy tell us to what extent people think they have the capacity to make change. Perceptions of efficacy, however, do not ensure those skills are inherent in the members and participants sought for involvement. Another distinction the results elude to regard the dependent variable, willingness to participate. It would appear that intent to participate does not and cannot appropriate expected correlations as actual participation. This range along intention, perception and what is an actual outcome governs the results more strongly than what is accounted for in the study. The common difference between perceived and inherent capacity and intent and actual participation seem to imply missing aspects of the model that would clearly indicate determinants of volunteer participation more strongly. Most studies including the UCR study capture a static understanding of participation. Participation, however, is a dynamic thing embodying realities that are leadership, membership, organization, environment, internal and external stakeholders, and potential, current and past participants. A transactional approach to participation would be dynamic in nature. A transactional view of relationships would more directly define and determine interactions among particular players thus influencing individual behavior to participate. The emphasis on social and psychological characteristics within the UCR survey and dissertation explore interactional aspects of participation. The study lends insight into the role of sense of community, social fabric and efficacy that leads to an individual’s determination and choice to participate. However, a broader view of participation that directs greater participation in quantity and quality is necessary. If an interactional view highlights the reinforcements and supporting motivations 65 of participation, maybe a transactional view will shed light on the deterrents and gaps to participation. In highly dynamic environments that include individuals, collectives, neighborhoods, communities and organizations, the challenge to develop the desired levels of participation is hindered by looking at just what is and not how various aspects come together. The point made here is that volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations is both interactional and transactional. To study one in exclusion of the other, results in less definitive assessments, the application of which to real world situations would yield spotty outcomes. A transactional framework of volunteer participation includes the interactions of individuals amongst each other, their neighborhoods and communities, but also considers the reciprocal relationships that extend to the organization of concern. Relationships with organizers, organizational membership and leadership surely play a significant role in an individual’s decision to participate. In turn, organizers need also make clear assessments on their approach to how they will enjoin members and participants. They need to know who joins and why, as it tells who is likely to join in the future. This also informs organizers on how to present the organization and its work to such individuals in a way that connects with people’s values, perceptions and interest. These types of assessments also allow organizers to learn something of the overall public image of the organization. To not include these aspects in a study that seeks to identify the determinants of individual choice excludes central parts of the picture and ensuing analysis. Such organizational assessments can be either formal or informal. The nature of social action, neighborhood and community organizations lead 66 to a more informal approach. This is an example of how sense of community is a tool toward the building of participation levels — lending a fiiendly, natural face to sharing, discussing and information gathering. In addition to identifying the motives and interests of new recruits, organizers need also know their problems, concerns, desires and interests in the organization. This is not apart from knowing of individual skill levels, past experiences, nature of networks and connections and their overall availability to be involved over time. This knowledge is related to organizational realities like changing membership composition, staff and member dynamics, present and future roles to be filled, tasks needing immediate attention and weaknesses in the current membership that could be strengthened with new blood. Enjoining new recruits, members and participants does not occur in a vacuum, it is not static, nor unidirectional. It is a process. Participation as a Process Studying the process of participation is as much like studying the proverbial question of which came first the chicken or the egg. Despite that ambiguity, right solutions will not come by dismissing or failing to delineate aspects of participation. In addition to identifying member pools, it is important for organizers and organizations to create appropriate recruitment messages and define specific means of communication for targeted populations. This second phase of participation is heavily dependent on the social interaction and climate within and surrounding the organization. It is in these initial stages that social fabric and sense of community play a primary role in supporting and advancing both the work and efforts of the organization in its endeavors and process of enjoining participation. Matching individual needs and interests to organizational 67 functioning is the third phase of participation. The fourth and last phase of participation is the sustaining and deepening of member involvement. There is delineation here as well. The former, sustaining member involvement, refers to the continuation of member involvement at current levels. The latter, deepening involvement, refers to members acquiring greater tasks, requiring greater demands on time, skill and effort. Quantity, quality, motivation, intention, ability and contribution of participation all filter to matters of process and outcome. As such, they are useful frames to employ in the conceptualization, delineation and building of theoretical underpinnings of volunteer participation. No such delineations were made in this study and stated intent to participate was equated as an outcome of participation. Both sustaining and deepening member involvement — levels of quantity and quality are connected to organizational effectiveness. Having and building a record of accomplishment with the ability to solve problems on an ongoing basis cannot be understated in its importance to attracting and expanding membership. Such a record of accomplishment ties closely to an organization’s leadership, its structure and the relationship that exists between leaders, the organization’s members and the larger community. These various parts and mechanisms indicate a process of participation that is cyclical, reciprocal and cumulative. Underlying Assumptions Embracing volunteer participation as a dynamic process that is interactive, transactional and reciprocal among a variety of stakeholder interests, conditions and contexts, produces a more complete and accurate depiction of the problem of insufficient participation in neighborhood organizations. A transactional approach to volunteer 68 participation help lead researchers to early identification of topic precepts and assumptions that adequately define approaches of analysis on how constructs are to be conceptualized, individual behaviors perceived and desired outcomes depicted. The following section identifies the assumptions underlying many of the concepts and approaches taken in the UCR study to improve citizen and volunteer participation. The central assumption underlying this study of citizen and volunteer participation relate to overarching themes of neoclassical economic theory that encompasses such tenets as rational and same choices and behaviors, maximal and stable preferences and criteria and objectivity to name a few. Not all individuals face the same choices even given similar or same ability sets. Rational choice and behavior is highly selective, subjective and contextual. Moreover, available preferences are usually projected based on elitist doctrines and constructions, which are subject to change. Another overlooked factor of volunteer participation is the question of the social contract held by various individuals, groups and populations. Previous studies imply that the prospect of improving participation is based on the premise and prerequisite that there must already be a standing ideal, value and commitment to participatory democracy. If enjoining new recruits to participate in neighborhood organizations is the goal in diverse urban neighborhoods, a central facet that needs clarification is the connection shared and experienced to democratic citizenship. This is informed and mitigated by the lived experience of each individual, and their connections with the nation, the state and as members of particular groups. The understanding of that social contract will inform individual and group mindset, proclivity or negation against the collective voice and action that is participation. Ultimately, a transactional approach “in its ideal form” seeks 69 to mediate many of these neoclassical constructs and assumptions that are automatic in operation. The question becomes then, what are the social contracts governing individual rights, perceptions and experiences in a socio-economic-political milieu that affect the process and outcomes of human interdependence. The issue of volunteer participation is a matter of human interdependence. This is one of the unheralded facts in the literature of this topic. Essentially, a transactional approach is concerned with what are the rules players are subjected to; who the players are and what characteristic sets do they represent; and what are the institutions, organizations, expectations and outcomes these specific contexts and situations which will then result? Finally, participation goals are not accessed outside costs and benefits structures for all involved parties and stakeholders. It is imperative that organizations consider the axiom that “things change” regarding channels of communication and inclusion. Such channels must be accessible and open, giving ear and voice to all concerns and . oppositions to direction, leadership and programs. Without individual’s clear understanding and liberty of ‘voice’, they exit. The adaptation and application of Andersen’s health utilization theory to the topic of volunteer participation leads to the tenet that neighborhood and community organizations offer a product and an opportunity within their communities. This is another unheralded fact in the literature, which would affect the direction of theory building and understanding of volunteerism. This tenet, therefore, requires product quality at sustained and improving levels. This product and opportunity that people 70 accept or negate relate to the benefit and cost structures they consider in their decision to get involved or stay away. Other assumptions regarding this study and the topic of volunteer participation relate to neighborhood or community organizations as a “build it and they will come” mentality. Many factors can impede this approach. First, for the politically inactive and disenfranchised, the presence of neighborhood participation structures such as organizations offer no greater incentive to get involved or a greater willingness to contribute and invest time. Second, there are competition and opportunity costs to participate in an organization as opposed to doing something else with one’s time. Whether the product or opportunity offered by the organization serves individual, group and community purposes further inform the utilization of that opportunity. This leads to the third reason this “build it and they will come” approach will not work. It is unreasonable to analyze the determinants to participation without analyzing the following: the characteristics of the organization or entity in which participation is to take place; the delineation on different forms, structures and outcomes of participation; or what steps and approaches to expanding participation have been employed by the organization. All these aspects concern how well and to what level is the organization operating. Another assumption regards people having strong association and investment in their neighborhoods and communities. The reality belies the assumption that all residents and citizens share the dominant mindset; where the truth of the matter relates to the notion of a social contract and the environmental conditions of specific populations. This perception of how individuals relate to society, other members of their communities and 71 the state and nation more predominates such investments and filial associations. It is acknowledged theory that personal ownership may be distinct from some places of residence and is dependent on socio-economic-political factors that surround inclusivity, service, marginalization, voice and or power. These deficiencies in the rational choice model and approach lead to narrow and myopic understanding of human behavior, which is more complex than that embodied in individual utility functions presumed to influence participation. Many cases of human behavior are not ones simply of wealth and utility maximizing behavior, but can be action borne of altruism and self-imposed constraints, which radically change the outcomes with respect to choices that people actually make. Likewise, people decipher the environment by processing information from particular and preexisting mental constructs through which they understand the environment and solve the problems they confront. Part of garnering new recruits is to identify how individuals and populations representing potential participants process this terrain. This relates to organizations creating meaningful and relevant messages of involvement. For this reason avoidance of automatic assumptions on the functionality of the neighborhood organizations is best. An organization that supports volunteer participation has as its hallmark internal structures of access, inclusion, voice and internal growth of leadership and attempts to account for member changes and interests. In this sense, the organization targets a wide selection of individuals serving various organizational functions and life stations. For instance, some members will be present to solve personal problems. There will also be those to solve other people’s problems, and those who come to serve the interest and 72 longevity of the organization. In this way, a cross-section of potential participants wards against attrition of members once success is achieved under personal and narrowly defined interest or goals The Study’s Contributions Factor Analysis Ultimately, the study confirmed that two factors, sense of community and social 1- fabric, are central to volunteer participation. The study clarified how those constructs can be measured for this urban population of the study, based along six parcels for two constructs. Indicators for sense of community were identified as neighbor interaction, community involvement and socializing. For social fabric, the parcel indicators were community problems, quality of life and environmental quality. Future studies can now add and compare these measurements, their survey items, and parcels to concepts previously developed and those yet to be formulated from future research. Structural Equation Modeling The study’s structural equation model is a start toward modeling how different aspects, constructs and processes of participation come together to identify the causal paths of individual choice to participate. The hypotheses of the model stand to be improved with dynamic interpretations of variables and factors and in ways that best reflect the reality of volunteer participation in urban environments. The usefulness of this model is the foundation of sense of community and social fabric to willingness to participate. Future research that replicate and clarify the study’s results will buttress the development of needed theory and add additional explicators of human behavior and interdependence for specific outcomes and definitions of participation. 73 moromiate Theory: Andersen’s and Others The study took as a tool, Andersen’s health utilization theory to explain human behavior. Perhaps other theories can buttress Andersen’s static predisposing, enabling and need components in a more dynamic framework. Both the theories of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior view it possible to explain variation in behavior in terms of a small number of concepts embedded in a single theoretical framework. This research shows that theoretical frameworks must mirror or appropriate the outcome of the study. The theory of reasoned behavior of action might be more appropriate to willingness to participate as a dependent variable. That theory holds that 1m“ ' In}. 1“ “IL'TKJKFIIIJ! the immediate determinant of behavior of action is a person’s intention to perform the behavior. In this theory, intention is a function of two basic determinants, one personal in nature or attitude toward performing the behavior and the other social in nature— perceived as social approval. This distinction on the dependent variable and what is the appropriate theory has at its basis the question whether a model is seeking to predict or explain behavior. The use of Andersen’s theory in this study was an attempt to answer criticism that his model did not pay enough attention to social networks, social interactions and culture. The results of this study show yet further limitations: the lack of transactional components as discussed in the previous section. The inclusion of social aspects do not compensate for what is still missing in the conceptualization and research of volunteer participation. 74 Study Constructs Previous research identified sense of community as setting-specific. From the methods employed, the value of the research is not so much to identify the correlations between people’s willingness to participate and sense of community, but to confirm and validate the use of the construct across sites. Sense of community is a multidimensional construct on individual, neighborhood and organizational levels; how it should best be measured in relation to other non-static variables such as willingness to participate is a major and central consideration as a potential determinant or mediator of individual participation. Willingness to participate is a variant concept dependent as it is on conditions, requirements, availabilities and other factors. Useful firture research could phrase the question: In what context and on what levels do these facets of sense of community and willingness to participate accurately interface? This study does not illuminate these dynamics. Though the study results reinforce the conventional theory between sense of community and willingness to participate, the following quote shows the variant ways this concept can be applied to garnering greater levels of participation. “Rather than seeking to bring people together who already share common interests and are already emotionally connected, strategies involving deep sharing of disparate individual interests in an atmosphere of mutual support, linked to a legacy of effective external action, may be the preferred route to development of sense of community for community organizations " (Hughey, Speer and Peterson, 1999: p109). This quote seems to indicate that positive and reinforcing relationships among members within a community might not be the only motivation through which they express intent to participate. This quote seems 75 to indicate that mutual support and effective external action might occur without a prerequisite of shared sense of community, and that level of interdependency is built as a result. The care needed regarding operational assumptions like sense of community is given by Kingston et a1. They say, “sense of community has become a general rubric encompassing different operationalizations that vary in their usefulness in addressing ’, “ different kinds of questions . ...the degree to which a neighborhood-level sense of community exists at all may be an important initial question to be addressed before proceeding with plans for an intervention, that individual-level predictors of sense of community may be inadequate for addressing issues related to neighborhood-level interventions. Similarly, relationships at the individual level may not always be present when one is looking at aggregate neighborhood-level relationships (Kingston, Mitchell, Florin and Stevenson 1999: p682). These researchers end their study with the following discussion point. “Neighborhood-based interventions that seek to increase sense of community as a catalyst of citizen involvement in addressing social problems will be more likely to succeed if they examine the robustness of the construct in their particular settings, as well as the full range of individual and environmental factors that might contribute to its development (p690). While this study did examine the robustness of the construct, sense of community, it did not do so for separate sites, and did not fully examine a full enough range of other individual and environmental factors that influence its development. In total, however, these quotes indicate the need for more understanding in the 76 It i conceptualization and application of sense of community as a volunteer participation construct and determinant. Furthermore, it is shown that the subjectivity of sense of community to specific settings and contexts exists as indicated by the followin citation. “There exists a dilemma inherent in developing a positive psychological sense of community (in areas) that may be low in organized resources and commitment to provide for its residents. A previous study, 5‘“ for example, found that some resilient single mothers in physically dangerous, low- income neighborhoods found it protective to have a negative psychological sense of ' community. These women saw the costs of identifiing with and depending on their community to be too high, and perceived isolating themselves from the community to be a protective strategy for themselves ad their families” (Brodsky, O’Campo and Aronson, 19992p661) This coping strategy highlights the subjectivity of rational choice. It shows the dynamism of sense of community as a construct to adequately portray the reality of social environments and gives caution against automatic assumptions that communities may have a predilection to or against collective action. The quote also illustrates the myriad costs and transactional natures of participation and the variables and constructs that govern its outcome as to how it is displayed. Finally this quote indicates other barriers to engagement might exist relating to sense of community and citizen and volunteer participation. Use and Applicability of Study Results The results of the study show that sense of community and social fabric are predisposing, enabling and requisite environmental conditions that create a context for 77 participation. Given the structural equation model, the following lists applications and adaptations of the study results as to how model expansion might provide a structurally fit model that more fully defines and outlines the paths, hypotheses and theory of volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations. Endogenous and exogenous variables introduced into the model can explicate the form, history, emergence and role of leadership in community organizations that encourages participation. Relating to the work of a UCR principal, the model might support the insertion of the role, responsiveness and support of government structures to encourage volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations. How best is the literature on citizenship, participatory democracy and other aspects of social contract theory introduced into a model of participation in urban centers. Further research on efficacy along the distinction between individual and collective efficacy is necessary. In addition, broader constructs than efficacy can be included. Capacity as an overall ability of an individual to take part in the political process as well as in aspects of personal grth that include knowledge and self-actualization might be more overarching. Identifying what role these facets play in a discussion and research agenda of volunteer participation will be useful. Capacity is a valid construct beyond efficacy as it incorporates various dimensions of the practical: the knowledge necessary to know how to participate; the psychological, the belief that one can influence the system; and the experiential, the drawing of lessons from past and observed activity. This concept of capacity encompasses many of the originally hypothesized variables of the study that included prior volunteerism, community awareness, and individual and collective efficacy and stands to be an improvement on the model. 78 Other variables to integrate into the structural equation model are the goods and benefits produced from volunteering. Goods. benefits. rewards and costs are in the final anal ysis the lite-tots that n-talte for llld‘lt-tduftl decision-rttaking. Aller all other mental (transcriptions. the benefits indivrdunls and groups receive. the goods the organization produces and the costs that are disincentives, thus disalltm'ing participation. might be the best information and knowledge generated on how best to increase the quantity and quality of volunteer participation in neighborhood organizations. Similarly. to define further a much-touted benefit of participation is empowerment. Does panicipatitm in fact empower. and through what variables and situations? Therefore. what and how are the feedback mechanisms around this construct that inform individual choice and behavior"? How are these aspects integrated into the panictpatton model. as requirement. benefit or feedback 2" A previous research study ended their work on urban participation by the statement: “All this summit- gum! but dues it war-k" (Florin, Wandersman et al..). They state a critical need for careful analysis. of the concepts. practice and theory: wherein I add. the processes of community-based initiatives. My best hope is that this dissertation adds to that theoretical discourse. 79 APPENDICES 80 APPENDIX A. Research Survey Address: interviewer: NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PARTICIPATION STUDY Good aftemoon/evening. My name is and I am working with a group of community members who want to learn more about this neighborhood in connection with the Urban Collaborators Project at Michigan State University. Your household was randomly picked as one of 50 residences that will be surveyed in this neighborhood. I’d like to ask you some questions about you and your neighborhood. Your responses will not be identified with you in any way and you may feel free to not answer any of the questions. If you have any concerns about this project, please contact Dr. John Schweitzer at the Urban Affairs Program at MSU (give information card). If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this project, you may contact Dr. Ashir Kumar of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects at the number listed on the card. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this survey by permitting me to begin this questionnaire. A. OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD DATA I would like start by asking you some questions about your neighborhood. These questions refer to the area that is bounded by . This is what I mean by your neighborhood. 1. Do you know if this neighborhood has a name? yes no (if no, go to question 3) If yes: 2. What is the name of the neighborhood? 3. Do you know if a neighborhood association represents this neighborhood? __ yes no (if no, go to question 16). Ifyes: 4. What is the name of the association? 5. Does this association have regular meetings? yes no don’t know (if no or don 't know, go to question 12) If yes: 6. Where are they held? 7. When are they held? 8. Have you or any members of your household ever attended a 81 neighborhood association meeting? _ yes __ no (if yes, skip to question 12). If no: 9. Why not? 10. What would get you to attend such meetings? l 1. What keeps you from participating? 12. Do you know any of the neighborhood association leaders? yes no 13. Do you know any of your neighbors who participate in the neighborhood association? yes no 14. Do you feel that the neighborhood association can affect change regarding the issues or concerns of the neighborhood? yes no 15. To what extent has, or does, the neighborhood association affect change in this neighborhood: great extent _ some extent little extent no effect GA16. How do you find out about events, issues, or activities in this neighborhood? (Check all that respondent mentions, but do not read the list) a. __ Don’t know any events b. __ Talking to neighbors c. __ Newspaper d. __ TV announcement e. _ Newsletter f. __ Fliers g. __ Other (specify) 17. Is there a neighborhood newsletter? _ yes __ no __ don’t know 18. Is there a gathering place in this neighborhood where people get together to meet? yes __ no _don’t know (if no or don ’t know, go to question 20) If yes: 19. Where? 20. In the past year, which of the following events occurred in your neighborhood? neighborhood block party ~ neighborhood garage sale 82 __ Neighborhoods in Bloom __ Other who sponsored it? _ Other who sponsored it? (list other events specific to neighborhood, indicate whether they were sponsored by the neighborhood association or some other group) 21-27. Now, in the next §i_x questions, I’d like to ask you some questions about the people living in this neighborhood. Remember that this neighborhood includes all the people living in the area bounded by the Grand River, Pennsylvania, Mt. Hope and Cedar. I am going to read you a list of statements and you tell me how well each statement describes the people in this neighborhood, using the following categories: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), not sure (NS), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD). (refer respondent to scale card) 21. The people in this neighborhood could be counted on to get involved if children were vandalizing vehicles. 22 This is a close-knit neighborhood. 23. My neighbors would get involved if the school closest to us was going to be closed. 24. People in this neighborhood generally do not get along with each other. 25. If a fight broke out in front of their house, my neighbors would get involved in stopping it. 26. People in this neighborhood socialize with each other. 27. People around here are viewed as being able to affect change in the community. 29. (27) What are the three best things of your neighborhood that make it a good place to live? a. b. c. 30. (28) What could be done to promote, enhance or take advantage of the things you listed as the best things of the neighborhood? a. 83 b. C. 31. (29) If you know the neighborhood leaders, do the leaders of the neighborhood recognize these special characteristics of the neighborhood that you named? __ yes __ no _ don’t know (if no or don ’t know, go to question 30) if yes: 32. (27) Are the leaders doing anything to promote them? _ yes _no _ don’t know 33. Are there things that stand in the way to developing and using these special characteristics in the neighborhood and its people to improve the neighborhood? __ yes __no __ don’t know 34. (30) What are the things that stand in the way to developing and using these special characteristics of the neighborhood and its people to improve the neighborhood? (31) Now I’d like to know what concerns exist in the neighborhood. For each issue, tell me whether you consider it a strength, a great strength, a problem, a great problem or neither a strength or a problem in this neighborhood. Great Strength Neither Problem Great Strength Problem Personal Safety Crime Housing quality Affordable housing Education Access to health care Nutrition Drugs Underage drinking __ Pests (mice, roaches. . .)_ Noise Air quality Water quality Vandalism Jobs and employment __ Childcare Transportation Activities for kids Others? 84 36. Are you willing to be actively involved in any of the above issues? __ yes __ no ifyes. I’d like to get your name and phone number then. This will be kept on a separate sheet of paper, apart from your responses. At no time will they be connected. I will give your name and number to the neighborhood association. I give your questionnaire responses to the researchers at MSU. Write down name, phone number and issue(s) on Volunteer List. B. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR DATA I will now be asking you questions about your immediate neighbors, the 5 neighbors who live closest to you (point to the 5 closest residences). Think about these nearby neighbors when you answer the following questions. ~ Of your closest neighbors, how many: 1. Do you know by sight? 0 l 2 3 4 5 2. Do you know by first or last name? 0 l 2 3 4 5 3. Have you spoken to in the last week? 0 l 2 3 4 5 4. Have done a favor for you? O 1 2 3 4 5 5. Have you done a favor for? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6. Have you visited in their homes? 0 1 2 3 4 5 7. Have you eaten a meal with? O 1 2 3 4 5 8. Would you trust with keys to your home? 0 1 2 3 4 5 9. Have given you keys to their home? 0 l 2 3 4 5 10. Do you consider close friends? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Now I am going to read you a list of statements. Tell me how well each statement describes your closest 5 neighbors, using the following categories: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), not sure (NS), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD) (again, refer to the scale card). 1 1. My immediate neighbors feel they belong here. 12. My immediate neighbors socialize with each other. 85 13. When an immediate neighbor has a problem, it’s hard to get help from a neighbor. 14. My immediate neighbors have a voice regarding community issues. 15. My immediate neighbors take care of each other’s plants, kids, pets. 16. If faced with a problem on this block, my immediate neighbors would be unable to create a solution. 17. __ My immediate neighbors talk to each other about community problems. 18. __ A feeling of community spirit exists among my immediate neighbors. l9. __ My immediate neighbors don’t care about the block’s future. 20. __ My immediate neighbors participate in community improvement activities (e. g., community clean-ups, flower plantings, etc.). 21. My immediate neighbors never do things together to improve the block. 22. Overall, what is your feeling about your sense of community with your immediate neighbors? Would you say your neighbors are too close and confining and know each other too well, would you like to have a greater sense of community and be closer to your neighbors, or is it just about right? ___too much ___just about right _want more 23. I’d like to know how the sense of community among you and your 5 closest neighbors compares to other places where you have lived or that you know about. Would you say that the sense of community here is: __ much greater __ a little greater __ about the same __ a little less or __ much less than other places you have lived or know about? 24. Do you know of any other groups of immediate neighbors or areas in this neighborhood that have a very high sense of community? yes no (if no, go to question 26) If yes, 25. Where? Intersections or addresses 86 26. Are there any regular gatherings or activities among neighbors around here? __ yes _no (if no, go to Section D) ifyes. 27. What kind of gatherings are they? social gatherings block club block watch Other (specify): C. INDIVIDUAL DATA This section has to do with things that are special about you that could be developed, enhanced, or promoted and/ or that could be shared with others. Remember, this information will be kept completely anonymous unless you wish it to be shared with appropriate community leaders. 4. You are able to make a change in your community. strongly agree agree not sure disagree strongly disagree 5. What special skills or abilities do you have? What do you enjoy doing? What are you proud of? a. b. c. 3. Have you ever used these unique personal strengths (discussed above) to offer something to your neighbors or improve your neighborhood (either as a volunteer, for pay, or otherwise)? yes __ no (if no go to question 5) If yes: 4. (3) Describe how you used these unique personal strengths. 5. (4) Are there things that get in the way of using your special skills for the good of the community (such as legal restrictions, the need for licenses, money, peoples' attitudes, the need for retraining, health concerns, or your lack of time)? yes _ no (if no, go to question 7) If yes: 6. (5) Describe: 7. (6) If neighborhood leaders are known: Do the neighborhood association leaders know of your special skills, abilities or the other personal assets talked about previously? yes no _ don’t know 87 8. (7) If neighborhood leaders are known: Have neighborhood association leaders ever asked about any personal abilities that you might have and whether you might apply them to the betterment of the neighborhood? yes no 9. (8) Has the neighborhood or the city government ever assisted you in improving or developing your skills or special abilities? yes no 10. (9) How could the neighborhood or city help you pursue your goals by enhancing your skills, talents and other characteristics? a. b. Please respond yes (Y) or no (N) to the following 8 questions: In the past year: 1 1. Have you been a member of a local club or organization? 12. Have you volunteered at a church activity? 13. Have you volunteered at a school event? 14. Have you volunteered in some other way? 15. Have you attended a community meeting? 16. Have you participated in a block watch group? 17. Have you worked on a neighborhood project? ~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~< 22222222 18. Have you donated blood? 19. How long have you lived at this address? 88 20. Do you own or rent? 21. Description of the residence (Ask if not sure): _single family house ___townhouse __duplex apartment building: __ fewer than 5 units __ 5 to 10 units _more than 10 units 22. Including yourself, list the age for each resident of your household: Respondent: Resident 4: Resident 7: Resident 2: Resident 5: Resident 8: Resident 3: Resident 6: Resident 9: 23. Which category includes your own age? 24. (22) Gender of respondent male female 25. (23) Racial/ethnic background of respondent (ask if not sure) African American Native American (Indian) Asian American White American Hispanic or Latin American Other (specify) 26. (24‘) To assist the neighborhood, would you be interested in sharing your time or talents? yes no if yes and name already noted, check Talents on Volunteer List if yes and name not already noted: I’d like to get your name and phone number then. This will be kept on a separate sheet of paper, apart from your responses. At no time will they be connected. I will give your name and number to the neighborhood association. I will give your questionnaire responses to the researchers at MSU. Write down name and phone number on Volunteer List, check Talents. That completes my questions for you. Is there anything else that you would like to tell me about your neighborhood or your immediate neighbors? Copies of the results of this study will be available through your neighborhood association. You may obtain a copy from them. If you have further questions, please contact John Schweitzer at the number I gave you at the beginning of this interview. 89 Appendix B. Survey Items on the Volunteer Participation in Neighborhood Organization Social Scale GA16. How do you find out about events, issues, or activities in this neighborhood? (Check all that respondent mentions, but do not read the list) a. ___Don’ t know any events b. _Talking to neighbors c. ___Newspaper (1. __TV announcement e. :Newsletter f. :Fliers g. __ Other (specify) GA 21—27. Now, in the next s_ix questions, I’d like to ask you some questions about the people living in this neighborhood. Remember that this neighborhood includes all the people living in the area bounded by the Grand River, Pennsylvania, Mt. Hope and Cedar. I am going to read you a list of statements and you tell me how well each statement describes the people in this neighborhood, using the following categories: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), not sure (NS), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD). (refer respondent to scale card) GA21. The people in this neighborhood could be counted on to get involved if children were vandalizing vehicles. GA22. This is a close-knit neighborhood. GA23. My neighbors would get involved if the school closest to us was going to be closed. GA26. People around here believe they can make changes in the community. GA(3 I) Now I’d like to know what concerns exist in the neighborhood. For each issue, tell me whether you consider it a strength, a great strength, a problem, a great problem or neither a strength or a problem in this neighborhood. Great Strength Neither Problem Great Strength Problem a. Personal Safety b. Crime c. Housing quality _ _ _ __ __ d. Affordable housing __ e. Education f. Access health care g. Nutrition h. Drugs 90 i. Underage drinking j. Pests (mice ...) k. Noise 1. Air quality m. Water quality 11. Vandalism 0. Jobs/ employment p. Childcare q. Transportation r. Activities for kids B. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR DATA I will now be asking you questions about your immediate neighbors, the 5 neighbors who live closest to you (point to the 5 closest residences). Think about these nearby neighbors when you answer the following questions. Of your closest neighbors, how many: GB]. Do you know by sight? 0 l 2 3 4 5 GB2. Do you know by first or last name? 0 l 2 3 4 5 GB3. Have you spoken to in the last week? 0 1 2 3 4 5 G84. Have done a favor for you? 0 1 2 3 4 5 G85. Have you done a favor for? O l 2 3 4 5 GB6. Have you visited in their homes? 0 l 2 3 4 5 GB7. Have you eaten a meal with? 0 1 2 3 4 5 GB8. Would you trust w/ keys to yr home? 0 l 2 3 4 5 G89. Have given you keys to their home? 0 l 2 3 4 5 6810. Do you consider close friends? 0 1 2 3 4 5 Now I am going to read you a list of statements. Tell me how well each statement describes your closest 5 neighbors, using the following categories: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), not sure (NS), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD) (again, refer to the scale card). 081 I. My immediate neighbors feel they belong here. 91 111‘ .1 I“. F-- . n . G812. My immediate neighbors socialize with each other. GBI3. When an immediate neighbor has a problem, it’s hard to get help from a neighbor. GBl4. My immediate neighbors have a voice regarding community issues. GB 15. My immediate neighbors take care of each other’s plants, kids, pets. GB 1 6. If faced with a problem on this block, my immediate neighbors would be unable to create a solution. 7- GB 1 7. My immediate neighbors talk to each other about community problems. C. INDIVIDUAL DATA GC18. You are able to make a change in your community. strongly agree ....... strongly disagree GC25. To assist the neighborhood, would you be interested in sharing your time or talents? yes no Efficacy Codes and Items GA26 People around here believe they can make changes in the community. GC18. You are able to make a change in your community. strongly agree ............... strongly disagree 92 Appendix C. Survey Items for Constructs, Parcel Labels and Numbers C1. Social Fabric Construct/ Parcel Number and Label Survey Codes and Items 1. Community Problems 2. Quality of Life 3. Environmental Quality GA311, GA31H, GA31B, GA31N, GA31J, GA31K, GA31A, GA31C Underage drinking Drugs Crime Vandalism Pests (mice, roaches.) Noise Personal safety Housing quality GA31F, GA31G, GA31Q, GA31P, GA31R, GA310, GA31B, GA31D Access to health care Nutrition Transportation Childcare Activities for kids Jobs and employment Education Affordable housing GA31L, GA31M Air quality Water quality 93 Appendix C. Survey Items for Constructs, Parcel Labels and Numbers C2. Sense of Community Construct/ Parcel Label/Parcel Number Survey Items and Codes 4. Neighbor Interaction 5. Community Involvement 6. Socializing GB3, GBZ, GB4, GB6 GBS, GBl, GB] 1, GA16E Of your frve closest neighbors, how many: - Have you done a favor for? - Have you spoken to in the last week? - Have you visited in their home? - Do you consider close friends? — Have given you keys to their home? - Do you know by sight? Among strongly agree to strongly disagree: - My immediate neighbors take care of each other’s plants, kids, pets. G810, G813, GBI4, GB15, GB7, GA22 Among strongly agree to strongly disagree: - My immediate neighbors have a voice regarding community issues. - My immediate neighbors talk to each other about community problems. - A feeling of community spirit exists among my immediate neighbors. - My immediate neighbors participate in community clean- ups, flower plantings. . .etc.) - My immediate neighbors feel they belong here. - My neighbors would get involved if the school closest to us was going to be closed. GA23, GA21, G38 Among strongly agree to strongly disagree: - People in this neighborhood socialize with each other. - This is a close-knit neighborhood. - My immediate neighbors socialize w/ each other. 94 Appanaix D; Factor Analysis (EFA) Iatargarralatjan Matrix af Valaataar P 'ia'ninNihrh r niza'n ilcal stop school by newsletter close-knit closin Correlation by newsletter 1.000 .107 .1 15 close-knit .107 1.000 .217 stop school closing .115 .217 1.000 socializing .171 .386 .347 GA26 .120 .513 .477 safety .060 .341 .253 crime .089 .383 .223 housing quality .070 .307 .087 affordable housing .034 .067 .373 education .037 .455 .285 health care .026 .164 .337 nutrition .077 .179 .282 drugs .062 .366 .207 underage drinking .026 .397 .163 pests .155 .238 .035 noise -.002 .049 .188 air quality .044 .048 .122 water quality .142 .036 .244 waste management .124 .136 .107 vandalism .050 .216 .058 employment .014 .275 .130 childcare .098 .050 .234 transportation -.033 .077 .383 activities for kids .164 .299 .128 bysight -.004 -.042 .320 talking .197 .309 .206 favorfor .243 .324 .135 visithom .182 .181 .185 keys .198 .194 -.009 friend .129 .379 .039 belonging .111 .239 .259 socializing .174 .246 .323 helping -.028 .145 .314 community voice .071 .242 .265 caring .183 .227 .247 unable solution -.191 .071 .312 talking .119 .317 .255 spirit .098 .531 .043 participating .146 .195 .362 overall soc -.098 -.348 .041 comparing soc -.017 -.185 -.070 GC18 -.073 -.021 -.287 GCZS -.195 -.006 -.187 95 . "m: ,. _f socializing GA26 safety crime Correlation by newsletter .171 .120 .060 .089 close-knit .386 .513 .341 .383 stop school closing .347 .477 .253 .223 socializing 1 .000 .487 .256 .304 GA26 .487 1 .000 .393 .409 safety .256 .393 1 .000 .635 crime .304 .409 .635 1 .000 housing quality .169 .261 .469 .605 affordable housing .178 .252 .341 .276 education .225 .353 .264 .348 health care .149 .31 1 .495 .484 nutrition .199 .270 .373 .370 drugs .110 .271 .399 .681 underage drinking .170 .377 .403 .671 pests .134 .243 .355 .498 noise .198 .189 .408 .449 air quality .187 .243 .188 .255 water quality .151 .31 1 .323 .269 waste management .141 .271 .279 .383 vandalism .124 .315 .175 .428 employment .119 .241 .242 .514 childcare -.076 .164 .256 .260 transportation .014 .208 .442 .398 activities for kids .136 .281 .401 .346 bysight .197 .113 -.061 -.047 talking .426 .276 .010 .170 favorfor .330 .238 -.084 .076 visithom .31 1 .170 -.084 .028 keys .1 19 .079 -.058 .048 friend .273 .200 -.065 .061 belonging .406 .356 .110 .161 socializing .533 .453 .146 .183 helping .178 .228 .071 .031 community voice .394 .500 .206 .179 caring .244 .243 .021 .045 unable solution .074 .207 .122 .125 talking .412 .357 .059 .132 spirit .252 .403 .246 .376 participating .288 .423 .097 .088 overall soc -.106 -. 140 -.158 —. 164 comparing soc -.138 -.098 -.303 -.229 GC18 -.264 -.248 .004 -.038 6025 -.281 -.223 .086 .040 96 housing affordable qualiy housing education health care Correlation by newsletter .070 .034 .037 .026 close-knit .307 .067 .455 .164 stop school closing .087 .373 .285 .337 socializing .169 .178 .225 .149 GA26 .261 .252 .353 .311 safety .469 .341 .264 .495 crime .605 .276 .348 .484 housing quality 1.000 .441 .407 .378 affordable housing .441 1.000 .290 .436 education .407 .290 1.000 .512 health care .378 .436 .512 1.000 nutrition .345 .358 .563 .754 drugs .454 .118 .337 .412 underage drinking .514 .131 .349 .364 pests .526 .334 .241 .363 noise .264 .433 .090 .413 air quality .291 .428 .171 .169 water quality .329 .304 .180 .276 waste management .392 .318 .070 .263 vandalism .436 .206 .166 .257 employment .562 .270 .405 .261 childcare .364 .369 .220 .373 transportation .347 .382 .207 .391 activities for kids .484 .330 .359 .264 bysight -.088 .319 .179 .147 talking .125 .076 .289 .015 favorfor -.093 -.135 .236 -.037 visithom -.068 -.021 .104 -.014 keys .100 .027 .125 -.072 friend .158 .059 .268 .003 belonging .222 .219 .262 .090 socializing .192 .176 .229 .098 helping .093 .215 .247 .066 community voice .086 .198 .323 .177 caring .042 .094 .304 .210 unable solution .097 .267 .250 .289 talking .094 .139 .294 .021 spirit .454 .089 .547 .21 1 participating .001 .207 .157 .1 15 overall soc -.192 .064 -.298 -.079 comparing soc -.210 -.161 -.211 -.122 GC18 -.055 -.113 .025 .070 GC25 .086 -.037 -.074 .060 97 underage _ nutrition drugs drinking pests Correlation by newsletter .077 .062 ' .026 .1 55 close-knit .179 .366 .397 .238 stop school closing .282 .207 .163 .035 socializing .199 .110 .170 .134 GA26 .270 .271 .377 .243 safety .373 .399 .403 .355 crime .370 .681 .671 .498 housing quality .345 .454 .514 .526 affordable housing .358 .1 18 .131 .334 education .563 .337 .349 .241 health care .754 .412 .364 .363 nutrition 1 .000 .398 .298 .324 dnJgs .398 1 .000 .792 .453 underage drinking .298 .792 1 .000 .502 pests .324 .453 .502 1 .000 noise .364 .399 .391 .524 air quality .306 .143 .239 .422 water quality .267 .217 .359 .387 waste management .260 .395 .383 .608 vandalism .258 .404 .449 .615 employment .207 .435 .430 .346 childcare .362 .223 .189 .251 transportation .223 .300 .247 .264 activities for kids .125 .307 .331 .276 bysight .232 -.067 -.069 .1 12 talking .095 .050 .177 , .051 favorfor .014 .013 .061 -.070 visithom .033 -.089 -.087 -.189 keys -.050 -.020 .048 .150 friend .081 -.024 .1 13 .058 belonging .188 .047 .212 .170 socializing .190 .058 .144 .063 helping .209 .078 .043 .025 community voice .189 .027 .100 .075 caring .250 -.107 .035 -.046 unable solution .239 .065 -.051 .030 talking .127 -.054 .118 .023 spirit .231 .326 .450 .305 participating .164 .050 .112 .1 13 overall soc -.136 -.179 -.235 -.042 comparing soc -.124 -. 1 18 -.226 -.220 GC18 .101 -.033 -.013 .009 6025 -.023 .095 .001 .004 98 noise air quality water quali Correlation by newsletter -.002 .044 .142 close-knit .049 .048 .036 stop school closing .188 .122 .244 socializing .198 .187 .151 GA26 .189 .243 .311 safety .408 .188 .323 crime .449 .255 .269 housing quality .264 .291 .329 affordable housing .433 .428 .304 education .090 .171 .180 health care .413 .169 .276 nutrition .364 .306 .267 dmgs .399 .143 .217 underage drinking .391 .239 .359 pests .524 .422 .387 noise 1 .000 .492 .418 air quality .492 1.000 .612 water quality .418 .612 1.000 waste management .530 .462 .501 vandalism .448 .392 .370 employment .1 13 .097 .116 childcare .360 .318 .285 transportation .353 .317 .393 activities for kids .234 .181 .242 bysight .235 .250 .177 talking -.146 .105 .197 favorfor -.215 -.027 .009 visithom -.035 -.043 .016 keys -.002 .056 -.101 friend -.134 -.030 -.003 belonging .068 .133 .090 socializing .077 .162 .227 helping .004 .088 .016 community voice .110 .170 .151 canng a109 .128 .095 unable solution .020 -.005 .037 talking -.039 .185 .169 spirit .017 .113 .179 participating .165 .146 .154 overall soc -.009 .029 -.066 comparing soc -.251 -.154 -.206 GC18 .008 .022 .069 GC25 .006 -.1 16 -.122 99 .n— -— -——- or -1flu_nl i.“- waste management vandalism employment Correlation by newsletter .124 .050 .014 close-knit .136 .216 .275 stop school closing .107 .058 .130 socializing .141 .124 .119 GA26 .271 .315 .241 safety .279 .175 .242 crime .383 .428 .514 housing quality .392 .436 .562 affordable housing .318 .206 .270 education .070 .166 .405 health care .263 .257 .261 nutrition .260 .258 .207 drugs .395 .404 .435 underage drinking .383 .449 .430 pests .608 .615 .346 noise .530 .448 .1 13 air quality .462 .392 .097 water quality .501 .370 .116 waste management 1.000 .550 .205 vandalism .550 1.000 .340 employment .205 .340 1.000 childcare .198 .266 .392 transportation .312 .247 .392 activities for kids .313 .182 .574 bysight .148 .134 -.212 talking .054 .103 .026 favorfor -.066 -.041 -.009 visithom -.098 -.049 -.1 1 1 keys .049 .001 -.028 friend .018 .057 .145 belonging .129 .156 .155 socializing .120 .037 .062 helping -.012 .042 .073 community voice .183 -.014 .023 caring —.070 -.033 -.055 unable solution .018 .031 .090 talking .017 -.018 .066 Spirit .217 .259 .312 participating .169 .154 .017 overall soc -.016 .049 -.125 comparing soc -.179 -.077 -.177 GC18 .020 .054 .074 GC25 -.079 .106 .150 100 activities childcare transportation for kids Correlation by newsletter .098 -.033 .164 close-knit .050 .077 .299 stop school closing .234 .383 .128 socializing -.076 .014 .136 GA26 .164 .208 .281 safety .256 .442 .401 crime .260 .398 .346 housing quality .364 .347 .484 affordable housing .369 .382 .330 education .220 .207 .359 health care .373 .391 .264 nutrition .362 .223 .125 drugs .223 .300 .307 underage drinking .189 .247 .331 pests .251 .264 .276 noise .360 .353 .234 air quality .318 .317 .181 water quality .285 .393 .242 waste management .198 .312 .313 vandalism .266 .247 .182 employment .392 .392 .574 childcare 1.000 .554 .414 transportation .554 1 .000 .455 activities for kids .414 .455 1.000 bysight .060 .063 -.095 talking -.126 -.102 .007 favorfor -.218 -.074 .049 visithom -.145 -.156 -.044 keys -.056 -.074 .070 friend -.106 -.252 .114 belonging -.098 .046 .052 socializing -.077 -.1 1 1 .044 helping .047 .063 .074 community voice -.013 .027 .072 caring -.007 -.013 -.022 unable solution .147 .203 .075 talking -.074 -.109 .068 Spirit .046 .007 .216 participating .124 .020 .009 overall soc -.056 .103 -.192 comparing soc -.058 -.191 -.115 GC18 .112 -.014 -.084 GC25 -.023 .092 -.008 101 bysight talking favorfor visithom Correlation by newsletter -.004 .197 .243 .182 close-knit -.042 .309 .324 .181 stop school closing .320 .206 .135 .185 socializing .197 .426 .330 .31 1 GA26 .113 .276 .238 .170 safety -.061 .010 -.084 -.084 crime -.047 .170 .076 .028 housing quality -.088 .125 -.093 -.068 affordable housing .319 .076 -.135 -.021 education .179 .289 .236 .104 health care .147 .015 -.037 —.014 nutrition .232 .095 .014 .033 dmgs -.067 .050 .013 -.089 underage drinking -.069 .177 .061 -.087 pests .1 12 .051 -.070 -.189 noise .235 -.146 -.215 -.035 air quality .250 .105 -.027 -.043 water quality .177 .197 .009 .016 waste management .148 .054 -.066 -.098 vandalism .134 .103 -.041 -.049 employment -.212 .026 -.009 -.1 1 1 childcare .060 -.126 -.218 -.145 transportation .063 -.102 -.074 -.156 activities for kids -.095 .007 .049 -.044 bysight 1 .000 .506 .251 .301 talking .506 1.000 .684 .546 favorfor .251 .684 1 .000 .611 visithom .301 .546 .611 1.000 keys .160 .282 .355 .404 friend .223 .565 .390 .452 belonging .212 .300 .269 .223 socializing .210 .448 .268 .353 helping .328 .270 .191 .144 community voice .264 .217 .224 .240 caring .185 .475 .492 .403 unable solution .253 .158 .080 .082 talking .205 .360 .328 .364 spirit -.022 .322 .253 .153 participating .268 .180 .108 .174 overall soc -.004 -.163 -.108 -.096 comparing soc -.009 -.050 -.008 -.002 GC18 -.162 -.097 -.107 -.163 GCZS -.222 -.215 -.223 -.192 102 keys friend belongi_rlg socializing_ Correlation by newsletter .198 .129 .1 1 1 .174 close-knit .194 .379 .239 .246 stop school closing -.009 .039 .259 .323 socializing .1 19 .273 .406 .533 GA26 .079 .200 .356 .453 safety -.058 -.065 .1 10 . 146 crime .048 .061 .161 .183 housing quality .100 .158 .222 .192 affordable housing .027 .059 .219 .176 education . 125 .268 .262 .229 health care -.072 .003 .090 .098 nutrition -.050 .081 .188 .190 dmgs -.020 -.024 .047 .058 underage drinking .048 .113 .212 .144 pests .150 .058 .170 .063 noise -.002 -.134 .068 .077 air quality .056 -.030 .133 .162 water quality -.101 -.003 .090 .227 waste management .049 .018 .129 .120 vandalism .001 .057 .156 .037 employment -.028 .145 .155 .062 childcare -.056 -.106 -.098 -.077 transportation -.074 -.252 .046 -.1 11 activities for kids .070 .1 14 .052 .044 bysight .160 .223 .212 .210 talking .282 .565 .300 .448 favorfor .355 .390 .269 .268 visithom .404 .452 .223 .353 keys 1.000 .171 .195 .130 friend .171 1 .000 .229 .373 belonging .195 .229 1 .000 .441 socializing .130 .373 .441 1 .000 helping -.118 .272 .141 .256 community voice .135 .247 .360 .502 caring .303 .369 .364 .519 unable solution -.167 .067 -.023 .1 13 talking .192 .362 .439 .529 spirit .176 .365 .337 .417 participating .069 .203 .267 .454 overall soc -.098 -.235 -.294 -.135 comparing soc -.006 -.074 -.162 -.123 GC18 -.206 -.068 -.264 -.308 GC25 -.164 -.149 -.097 -.281 103 community unable _ helpinl voice caring solution Correlation by newsletter -.028 .071 .183 -.191 close-knit .145 .242 .227 .071 stop school closing .314 .265 .247 .312 socializing .178 .394 .244 .074 GA26 .228 .500 .243 .207 safety .071 .206 .021 .122 crime .031 .179 .045 .125 housing quality .093 .086 .042 .097 affordable housing .215 .198 .094 .267 education .247 .323 .304 .250 health care .066 .177 .210 .289 nutrition .209 .189 .250 .239 drugs .078 .027 —.107 .065 underage drinking .043 .100 .035 -.051 pests .025 .075 -.046 .030 noise .004 .110 -.109 .020 air quality .088 .170 .128 -.005 water quality .016 .151 .095 .037 waste management -.012 .183 -.070 .018 vandalism .042 -.014 -.033 .031 employment .073 .023 -.055 .090 childcare .047 -.013 -.007 .147 transportation .063 .027 -.013 .203 activities for kids .074 .072 -.022 .075 bysight .328 .264 .185 .253 talking .270 .217 .475 .158 favorfor .191 .224 .492 .080 visithom .144 .240 .403 .082 keys -.118 .135 .303 -.167 friend .272 .247 .369 .067 belonging .141 .360 .364 -.023 socializing .256 .502 .519 .113 helping 1.000 .179 .204 .315 community voice .179 1.000 .370 .205 caring .204 .370 1 .000 .092 unable solution .315 .205 .092 1 .000 talking .211 .592 .496 -.031 spirit .229 .475 .370 .022 participating .178 .523 .282 .063 overall soc -.048 -.263 -.190 .191 comparing soc -.194 -.154 -.026 -.013 GC18 -.194 -.331 -.093 -.133 GCZS -.029 -.452 -.166 .110 104 talkin s irit participatin overall soc FCoTrelation by newsletter .% p .098 ’ .1496 -.098 close-knit .317 .531 .195 -.348 stop school closing .255 .043 .362 .041 socializing .412 .252 .288 -.106 GA26 .357 .403 .423 -. 140 safety .059 .246 .097 -.158 crime .132 .376 .088 -.164 housing quality .094 .454 .001 -.192 affordable housing .139 .089 .207 .064 education .294 .547 .157 -.298 health care .021 .21 1 .115 -.079 nutrition .127 .231 .164 -.136 drugs -.054 .326 .050 -.179 underage drinking .118 .450 .112 -.235 pests .023 .305 .1 13 -.042 noise -.039 .017 .165 -.009 air quality .185 .113 .146 .029 water quality .169 .179 .154 -.066 waste management .017 .217 .169 -.016 vandalism -.018 .259 .154 .049 employment .066 .312 .017 -.125 childcare -.074 .046 .124 -.056 transportation -.109 .007 .020 .103 activities for kids .068 .216 .009 -.192 bysight .205 -.022 .268 -.004 talking .360 .322 .180 . -.163 favorfor .328 .253 ‘ .108 -.108 visithom .364 .153 .174 -.096 keys .192 .176 .069 -.098 friend .362 .365 .203 -.235 belonging .439 .337 .267 -.294 socializing .529 .417 .454 -.135 helping .21 1 .229 .178 -.048 community voice .592 .475 .523 -.263 caring .496 .370 .282 -.190 unable solution -.031 .022 .063 .191 talking 1.000 .474 .561 -.291 spirit .474 1.000 .312 -.311 participating .561 .312 1 .000 -.040 overall soc -.291 -.311 -.040 1.000 comparing soc -.064 -.303 .056 .265 GC18 -.326 -.044 -.300 -.050 GCZS -.390 -.106 -.309 .079 105 comparing soc 6018 6025 Correlation by newsletter -.017 -.073 -.195 close-knit -.185 -.021 -.006 stop school closing -.070 -.287 -.187 socializing -.138 -.264 -.281 GA26 -.098 -.248 -.223 safety -.303 .004 .086 crime -.229 -.038 .040 housing quality -.210 -.055 .086 affordable housing -.161 -.1 13 -.037 education -.21 1 .025 -.074 health care -.122 .070 .060 nutrition -.124 .101 -.023 drugs -.1 18 -.033 .095 underage drinking -.226 -.013 .001 pests -.220 .009 .004 noise -.251 .008 .006 air quality -.154 .022 -.116 water quality -.206 .069 -.122 waste management -.179 .020 -.079 vandalism -.077 .054 .106 employment -.177 .074 .150 childcare -.058 .1 12 -.023 transportation -.191 -.014 .092 activities for kids -.1 15 -.084 -.008 bysight -.009 -.162 -.222 talking -.050 -.097 -.215 favorfor -.008 -.107 -.223 visithom -.002 -.163 -.192 keys -.006 -.206 -.164 friend -.074 -.068 -. 149 belonging -.162 -.264 -.097 socializing -.123 -.308 -.281 helping -.194 -.194 -.029 community voice -.154 -.331 -.452 caring -.026 -.093 -.166 unable solution -.013 -.133 .110 talking -.064 -.326 -.390 spirit -.303 -.044 -.106 participating .056 -.300 -.309 overall soc .265 -.050 .079 comparing soc 1.000 .042 -.118 GC18 .042 1 .000 .225 GC25 -.1 18 .225 1.000 106 LIST OF REFERENCES Andersen, RM. (1968) “Behavioral Model of Families’ Use of Health Services” Research Series No. 25 Chicago: Center for Health Administration Studies, University of Chicago. Andersen, RM. (1973) “Societal and Individual Determinants of Medical Care Utilizations in the United States” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly Journal 51: 95-124. Andersen, R. M. (1995) “Revisiting the Behavioral Model and Access to Medical Care: Does it Matter?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 36(1): 1-9. Bandura, A. (1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Bane, M., B. Coffin, and R. Thiemann (Eds) (2000) Who will provide?: The Changing Role of Religion in American Welfare. Boulder: Westview Press. Barro, R. (1991) Convergence across States and Regions. New Haven: Economic Growth Center, Yale University. Berry, J ., K. Portney, and K. Thomson (1993) The Rebirth of Urban Democracy Washington DC: The Brookings Institution. Bockmeyer, Janice L. (2000) “A Culture of Distrust: The Impact of Local Political Culture on Participation in the Detroit EZ” Urban Studies 37(13): 2416-2440. Bonito, J. A., and A. B. Hollingshead (1997). “Participation in Small Groups” in Burleson, B. R. (Ed.) (1997). Communication Yearbook 20. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Brodsky, A. E., P. J. O’Campo, and R. E. Aronson (1999) “PSOC in Community Context: Multi-Level Correlates of a Measure of Psychological Sense of Community in Low-Income, Urban Neighborhoods” Journal of Community Psychology 27(1): 659-679. Chavis, D. and A. Wandersman (1990) “Sense of Community in an Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development” American Journal of Community Psychology 18(1): 55-81. Chavis. D. M. and G. M. H. Pretty (1999) “ Sense of Community: Advances in Measurement and Application” Journal of Community Psychology 27(6): 635- 642. 107 Christenson, J .A., K. Fendley, and J. R. Robinson (1989) “Community Development” in J .A. Christenson and J .W. Robinson (eds) Community Development in Perspective. Ames: Iowa State University Press. Cochrun, S. E. (1994) “Understanding and Enhancing Neighborhood Sense of Community” Journal of Planning Literature 9(1): 92-99. Creswelll, J. W. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crew, Thomas, B., J. W. Kim, and J. Schweitzer (1997). Taking Care of Our Neighborhoods: Exploring the Leadership and Participation in Urban Communities in Lansing, Michigan An Urban Affairs Program Paper, circa 1997. Doherty, 1, R. Goodland, an R. Paddison (2001) “Civic Culture, Community, and Citizen Participation in Contrasting Neighborhoods” Urban Studies 38 (12): 2225-2250. Dyer-Ives Foundation Neighborhood Initiative: Grand Rapids. September 2000 Emmett, Tony (2000) “Beyond Community Participation? Alternative Routes to Civil Engagement and Development in South Afiica” Development Southern Africa 17(4): 501-518. Fear, Frank (1990) Elements Associated with Exemplary Projects, a RD864 (Concepts and Principles of Community Development) Handout - extracted from a Frank Fear WK. Kellogg Foundation paper. Filner, Matthew (nd) “Community Development Corporations: An Historical Overview” Florin, Paul (1989) Nurturing the Grassroots: Neighborhood volunteer organizations and America ’s cities. New York: Citizens Committee for New York City. Florin, P. and A. Wandersman (1990) “An Introduction to Citizen Participation, Voluntary Organizations, and Community Development: Insights for Empowerment through Research” Journal of Community Psychology 18(1): 41-54. Gates, C. T. (1987) “The National Civic Index: A New Approach to Community Problem Solving” National Civic Review 76(6): 272-279. Golding, Jacqueline M. and Lourdes A. Baezconde-Garbanti (1990) “Ethnicity, Culture and Social Resources” American Journal of Community Psychology 18(3): 465- 486. G055, K.A. (1994) “Rebuilding Community Amid Chaos” Chronicle of Philanthropy 6 (1): 12-15. 108 Hallman, H. W. (1984) Neighborhoods: Their Place in Urban Life Beverly Hills: Sage. Hodgkinson, V. (Ed.) (1999) Civil Society in the United States New York: Ford Foundation Hughey, J ., P.W. Speer, and N. A. Peterson (1999). “Sense of Community in Community Organizations: Structure and Evidence of Validity” Journal of Community Psychology 27 (1): 97-113. J oranko, Dan (1998) The Sense of Community on a Racially Integrated Residential Block Paper written for MSU SOC985. East Lansing, MI. Lambert, Michael C ., et al., (2002). Chapter pending: Very Low Birthweight Jamaican Children. La Porta, R., L. Florencio, S. Andre and V. Robert (1997) “Trust in Large Organizations” The American Economic Review 87(2): 333-345. 1.. arm-u- M Lavrakas, P.J. (1980) Factors Related to Citizen Involvement in Personal, Household and Neighborhood Anti-Crime Measures: An Executive Summary, Chicago: Northwestern University Center for Urban Affairs. Lewis, D. A. and G. Salem (1986) Fear of Crime: Incivility and the Production of a Social Problem. New Brunswick: Transaction Books. Kingston, S., R. Mitchell, P. Florin, and J. Stevenson (1999) “Sense of Community in Neighborhoods As a Multi-Level Construct” Journal of Community Psychology 27(1): 681-694. Mackin, J ., E. Gomez, T. Crew, and J. Schweitzer (1996) The Influence of Black Level Social Fabric on Individual Level Civic Participation. Paper presented at the Silver Anniversary Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. New York City. Mackin, Juliette R. (1997) Understanding the Social Fabric of Urban Communities and Its Relationship to Prosocial Behavior, A Michigan State University Doctoral Dissertation. McMillan, D. W. and D. M. Chavis (1986) “Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory” Journal of Community Psychology 1416-23. Medoff, Peter and H. Sklar (1994) Streets of Hope- The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood. Boston: South End Press. Ohio State University (OSU, nd) Fact Sheet on Community Development; “Citizen Participation in Community Development” L-7OO Ohio State University online 109 Portney, K. and J. Berry (1999) “ Neighborhoods, Neighborhood Associations and Social Capital”. A Paper prepared for Virginia Hodgkinson, ed. Civil Society in the United States New York: Ford Foundation. Perkins, D., P. Florin, R. Rich, A. Wandersman, and D. M. Chavis (1990) “Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residential Blocks: Crime and Community Context” American Journal of Community Psychology 18(1): 83-] 15. Prestby, J. E., A. Wandersman, P. Florin, R. Rich, and D. M. Chavis (1990) “Benefits, Costs, Incentive Management and Participation in Voluntary Organizations: A Means to Understanding and Promoting Empowerment” American Journal of Community Psychology 18(1): 117- 149. Public Sector Consultants (2002) Status of Michigan Cities: An Index of Urban Well- being April 2002. [http://www.pscinc.com/urbanstatus/Z002/report.pdf] Putnam, R. M. (1995) “Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital” Journal of Democracy 6: 65-78. RD870 Community Resource Development Compiled course pack: Christensen, 1989 handout: “The Self-Help Approach to CD” Lee J. Cary, Chapter 6: “The Role of the Citizen in the Comm. Dev. Process” Littrell and Hobbs, 1989 Chapter 3: “The Self-Help Approach” Social Capital and Networks in Comm. Dev., Chapter 2, Community Organizing Robinson, L, and A. Schmid (1994) “Can Agriculture Prosper Without Increased Social Capital?” Choices 4: 29-31. Ross, Catherine E. and John Mirowsky (1999) “ Disorder and Decay — The Concept and Measurement of Perceived Neighborhood Disorder” Urban Affairs Review 34(3): 412-432. Schmid, H. (2001) Neighborhood Self-Management — Experiments in Civil Society New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Schweitzer, John (1996) Sense of Community in Lansing Neighborhoods, Paper presented at the Defining Community, Reexamining Society Conference, Flint, Michigan Sept 1996. Schweitzer, J. J .W. Kim, and J. Mackin (1997) The Impact of the Built Environment on the Sense of Community and Crime in Urban Neighborhoods Paper presented at the International Sociological Association Conference in Alexandria, VA. 110 Shiffrnan, Ron (1995) “Urban Poverty - The Global Phenomenon of Poverty and Social Marginalization in our Cities: Facts and Strategies” 1995 Salzburg Congress on Urban Planning and Development (SCUPAD) Keynote Address. Shinn, M. (1988) “Mixing and Matching: Levels of Conceptualization, Measurement, and Statistical Analysis in Community Research” Paper presented at Researching Community Psychology: Integrating Theories and Methodologies, DePaul University, Chicago. Short, J. F. Jr. (1986) The Social Fabric: Dimensions and Issues. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Skogan, W. G. (1990) Disorder and Decline. Berkeley: University of California Press. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Taylor, Ralph B. (1997) “Social Order and Disorder of Street Blocks and Neighborhoods: Ecology, Micro-Ecology, and the Systemic Model of Social Disintegration” The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34(1): 1 13-155. Unger, D. G. and A. Wandersman (1983) “Neighboring and its Role in Block Organizations: An Exploratory Report” American Journal of Community Psychology 11: 291-300. Urban Collaborators Research Project Paper (2001) Citizen Participation in Urban Communities. Wamsley, G.L. and M. N. Zald (1976) The Political Economy of Public Organizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wandersman, A. and P. Florin (1990) “An Introduction to Citizen Participation, Voluntary Organizations, and Community Development: Insights for Empowerment Through Research” American Journal of Community Psychology 18(1): 41- 54. Wandersman, A. and P. Florin (2000) Chapter 11: Citizen Participation and Community Organizations in J. Rappaport and E. Seidman (Eds.) Handbook of Community Psychology. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Wandersman, A., J. F. J akubs, and G. A. Giamartino (1981) “Participation in Block Organizations”, Journal of Community Action 1: 40-48. Wilson, W. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: the Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 111 Woolcock M. and D. Narayan (2000) “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research and Policy” World Bank Research Observer 15(2): 225-249. Zimmerman, M. A., and J. Rappaport (1988) “Citizen Participation, Perceived Control, and Psychological Empowerment” American Journal of Community Psychology 16:725-750. 112