,3

”'9

i

 

ngu

 

; luvs...

 

....I. z...
k. t,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.., tints“?

:1...-

E: . . «Knit»;

2‘

 

 

THESfiS

LIBRARIES
3. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
h ‘ , EAST LANSING, MICH 48824-1048
. ‘l' f) v) " A)
éX/éjflg

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

A Mid-Term Evaluation of a
Rural Enterprise Community Program:
Creating Community Change From Within

presented by

Douglas A. Woodard

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Family and Child Ecology

 

 

994%? jut-g

Major Professor’s Signaturj

December 12, 2004

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

. _.—.-.-n----o-n-a-0-0-:-u---0-----u-o-o-----o-o-u-~---o-c-----~-u--I----—-r

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:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

A MID-TERM EVALUATION OF A
RURAL ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PROGRAM:
CREATING COMMUNITY CHANGE FROM WITHIN
By

Douglas A. Woodard

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Family and Child Ecology

2004

ABSTRACT
A MID-TERM EVALUATION OF A
RURAL ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY PROGRAM:
CREATING COMMUNITY CHANGE FROM WITHIN
By
Douglas A. Woodard

This dissertation presents the underlying rationale, methods, and findings
of a mid-term evaluation study of the Midwestern County Enterprise Community
(MCEC) program. The MCEC is a comprehensive community building initiative
that seeks to improve the lives of all county citizens by targeting economic
development, quality of life, and family self-sufficiency issues.

Using Constructivist Theory (CT) as an initial conceptual framework, this
study employed a set of techniques prescribed by an action research approach
that included a series of interviews with local leaders, observation of community-
based meetings, secondary data analysis and two strategic futuring workshops.
Throughout that process, local leaders and this investigator collaborated on all
phases of creating, implementing, and evaluating activities that responded to the
needs and expectations of the program’s stakeholders. A key component in
following that evolving course of action was the work of the strategic futuring
group, called the Progress Team. That team used information regarding the
history and current operation of the program, combined with a trends and vision
analysis, to create a new action plan for the next phase of the MCEC.

In sum, the program implementation team performed at an impressive

level in its first five years of operation, but program analysis data were interpreted

to suggest that the program is at a critical crossroad of operation. In its first

phase—the focus of this study—stakeholders put the majority of their effort into
enhancing the community’s capacity to respond in a timely manner to emerging
opportunities and threats by institutionalizing infrastructure. The final stage of the
program will continue that effort, but also will address sustainability issues as the
official Enterprise Community designation comes to an end. Two sets of tasks
emerge as a result of that new direction and represent this study's primary
recommendations:

1) Expand the number of community leaders to assist the core group of
existing volunteers in carrying out MCEC planning and activities. This
effort will focus on identifying, inviting, and training members of the
county’s rapidly expanding senior and seasonal citizen populations to play
a greater role in community development activities, and

2) Mainstream the self-evaluation effort that began with this study through the
MCEC’s sponsorship of an on-going Progress Team.

Subsequent reflection on the process as a whole led to the realization that
while constructivist theory served the process well from an inductive perspective,
it was concluded that the simultaneous use of Transformative Learning Theory
(TLT) from a deductive perspective would have provided a richer meta-
theoretical framework by which to conceptualize this evaluative study. It is
suggested therefore that future evaluative studies investigating community
change consider the use of both deductive ( TLT) and inductive (CT)

perspectives.

DEDICATION

To my family, who alternately encouraged, cajoled and at times, prodded
me to complete the various requirements of my doctoral degree. A “thank-you” is
extended to Dr. David lmig, as well, who always was available to guide me
through the bends and over all of the bumps that I encountered on my mid-life
journey through graduate school. Also, I extend my sincere appreciation to Dr.
Tom Summerfelt for his assistance with this project that was clearly above and
beyond the call of duty.

I imagine that the statement, “I really never thought I would make it,”
probably is made by the vast majority of those who attempt this sort of endeavor
while also trying to maintain a full-time family and work life as well. I now join that
group while acknowledging the fact that I would not have attained that end goal
without the support of those mentioned above and of countless others who
offered advice and counsel along the way.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to:

Michigan State University (MSU) Family and Communities Together
Coalition for funding this project

Midwestern County Enterprise Community (MCEC) leaders, including
members of that program’s Board of Directors and the Program Director,
for their willingness to actively participate in this project

The MCEC Progress Team members who rolled up their collective
sleeves, tackled a difficult task, and accomplished so much in a very
small amount of time

My MSU graduate coursework and dissertation committee—Dr.
Francisco Villarruel, Dr. Joanne Keith, Dr. Tom Summerfelt and Dr.
David lmig

Other MSU faculty and staff who offered their expertise on several critical
issues that emerged as part of this study, including: Dr. Richard Paulsen,
Associate Professor, Department of Park, Recreation & Tourism
Resources; Dr. Diane Ruonvaara, Extension Evaluation Specialist; Dr.
Mike Thomas, Extension Economic Development Agent for Jackson
County; Dr. Lela Vandenberg, Extension Academic Specialist,
Leadership Development, and; Dr. Christine Vogt, Assistant Professor,
Department of Park, Recreation & Tourism Resources

My employer, MSU Extension, that encourages employee professional
development by creating and offering formal study leave programs, and
my Family and Consumer Sciences Department supervisor, Kathy
Foerster, who approved my study leave so that I had the necessary time
to perform this study

The reviewers of this evaluation’s community report who took the time to
carefully read and offer suggestions as to how the contents could be
tweaked to better reflect their perspectives and vision regarding program
operation

Linda Hansen, who performed her formatting and editing magic on a
very rough draft of this document in a timely way

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ................................................................................... x
List of Abbreviations .......................................................................... xi

Chapter I - Introduction

A. Background ....................................................... 1
B. Purpose and Objectives .................................... 5
C. Significance ...................................................... 6
D. Conceptual Framework ..................................... 7
E. Research Questions ......................................... 9

Chapter II — Literature Review

A. Community Building .......................................... 10
B. Collaboration ..................................................... 13
C. Sub-theories ..................................................... 15
D. Evaluating Community Building Initiatives ........ 21

E. Logic Models and Program Theory of Change . 23

Chapter III — Research Design

A. Population ......................................................... 27
B. Methods ............................................................ 27
C. Data Collection Tools ........................................ 29
D. My Prior Experience with MCEC Program ........ 34
E. Balancing Bias with Purposeful Investigation.... 35
F. Protocol ............................................................. 39

1. Benchmark Ranking System .................. 41

2. Progress Team ...................................... 42
G. Study Limitations .............................................. 47

Chapter IV — Data Analysis and Results
A. AE External Factors

1. National EZ/EC Program Guidelines ...... 49

2. National Economy .................................. 51

3. Mandates and Reporting Requirements. 52
B. EP External Factors .......................................... 54
C. AE Assumptions

1. EZ/EC Legislations ................................. 55

2. MCEC and Community Change ............. 55

3. Evaluation Theory .................................. 60
D. EP Assumptions ............................................... 61

Vi

Appendices

A.
B.

A.
B.

C.

AE Inputs .......................................................... 61
1. Paid Staff ............................................... 62
2. Volunteers .............................................. 64
3. Other Assets .......................................... 66
4. Community Values ................................. 71
AE Outputs
1 . Activities ................................................. 72
2. Beneficiaries .......................................... 74
AE Outcomes
1. Short Term ............................................. 76
a. Poor Performing Benchmarks ..... 82
b. Administrative Cost Analysis ....... 84
2. Medium Term ......................................... 85
3. Long Term .............................................. 89
EP Outcomes
1. Short Term ............................................. 90
2. Medium Term ......................................... 91
3. Long Term .............................................. 93
Chapter V - Recommendations and Conclusions
Recommendations ............................................ 94
Beyond Constructivism: Transformational
Learning Theory ............................................... 97
Conclusions
1. AE Focus
3. Macro Indicators .......................... 103
b. Low Performing Benchmarks ...... 105
c. Program Infrastructure ................ 106
d. Future of MCEC .......................... 106
e. Self-reflection on AE activities ..... 107
2. EP Focus
3. Self-reflection on EP activities ..... 109
Future Study
1. Integrate Responsive Evaluation with
Program Design ..................................... 1 12
2. Expand Community Building Program
Dialogue ................................................. 1 13
Transcript of Progress Team Meetings .................. 116
Benchmark Summary Sheets
Table B1 - Quality of Life .................................. 131
Table B2 — Economic Development .................. 134
Table B3 — Family Self-Sufficiency ................... 137
Benchmark Ranking System Template .................. 141

vii

D. Progress Team Output

Table D1 — Asset and Barrier Summary ........... 143

Table DZ — 1970 Futuring Session ................... 148

Table D3 - 1980 Futuring Session ................... 149

Table D4 — 1990 Futuring Session ................... 150

Table D5 — 2004 Trend Analysis ....................... 151

Table D6 - SWOT Analysis .............................. 152

Table D7 — Priority Recommendations ............. 158

E. Progress Team Evaluation Summary ..................... 160

F. Milestone Points Per Category ............................... 163
References ........................................................................................ 1 65

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table1. MCEC Program Category Comparisons ......................................... 43-45

Table 2. MCEC Program Benchmarks Institutionalizing Infrastructure ........ 80

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - MCEC Evaluation Process (EP) Logic Model ............................. 25
Figure 2 — MCEC Actual Evaluation (AE) Logic Model ................................ 26
Figure 3 — MCEC Program Evaluation Cycle of Inquiry ............................... 33

AE —
BMS -
BRS —
CC —
DASH -
EC —
ED -
EZ/EC -
EP—
FACT —
FSS —
HUD —
MCEC -
MSHDA —
MSU -
MSUE -—
QOL —
RD —
RRA —
SBI —
SH —
SWOT —
TA -
USDA —

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Actual evaluation

Benchmark Management System

Benchmark Ranking System

Continuum of Care

Decent, Affordable, Safe Housing

Enterprise Community

Economic development

Empowerment Zone / Enterprise Community
Evaluation process

Families and Communities Together

Family self-sufficiency

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Midwestern County Enterprise Community
Michigan State Housing Development Authority
Michigan State University

Michigan State University Extension

Quality of Life

Rural Development (as part of USDA)

Rapid Rural Appraisal

Small Business Initiative

Self-help

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
Technical assistance

United States Department of Agriculture

xi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background

Midwestern County is a rural community of considerable contrast. On one
hand, the combination of abundant natural resources (lakes, streams, and forest)
and a highly accessible, mid-Lower Peninsula location make the area a vacation
get-away for many generations of families visiting from the more urban, southern
regions of Michigan and the Midwest. Historically, those tourists often turned into
seasonal homeowners as they fulfilled a part of the American Dream of buying a
cabin in the woods. That same group now represents one of the primary reasons
why the county is experiencing a rapid increase of its senior population that is
emigrating to the area after retirement; often to convert their vacation home to a
year-around residence. Concurrently, many of Midwestern County’s full-time
citizens face challenges as part of their rural, mid-Michigan residency, including:
a lack of new job opportunities in general, and of the jobs that are newly created,
most are concentrated in a service industry that pays low hourly wages with little
or no benefits to its workers; a persistently high poverty rate that seems to affect
the county’s young Children in a disproportionate manner, and; the out-migration
of high school graduates, a trend that robs the community of one of its most
critical resources—young adults and young families (US Census, 2000 a-d; 1990
a-d)

This context of divergent socioeconomic trends was evident in 1998 when

the Midwestern County community responded in force to an opportunity to be

named a federal rural Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC). The
purpose of this national program was to provide assistance to the nation’s most
impoverished communities by encouraging the collaborative efforts of grassroots
coalitions to ”build from within" using a comprehensive approach. Objectives for
the program focused on local leadership development of a cross section of the
community's population, total community engagement in an initial and on-going
strategic planning process, and the utilization of a regionally focused community
development perspective meant to foster collaboration among local, regional,
state and federal organizations. In Midwestern County, leaders and private
citizens alike collaborated to create a ten-year strategic set of goals for
community improvement that outlined the integration of most community services
involving economic development; child and family assistance; healthcare;
education; workforce development; environmental conservation; land use and
recreational planning, plus; housing development and rehabilitation. A two-year
work plan also was submitted to the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the agency responsible for administrating EZ/EC rural designations, as
part of the application process. That plan presented a timetable for addressing
the holistic community development goals for the 75 percent of the county tracts
deemed eligible according to grant requirements.

The monetary difference between the sought after EZ/EC designation and
the EC version that the community actually received was considerable. Through
three rounds and a total of 140 awards (rural and urban), communities named as

rural EZ/ECs were promised between $25-$40 million for a ten-year period, while

rural ECs were slated to receive one-tenth, or less, of that amount. In Midwestern
County's case, this difference translated to an EC program allotment of
approximately $250,000 per year. Other benefits and resources were made
available to these rural programs as well. Most programs, whether of the EZ/EC
or the EC variety, were promised comparable levels of technical assistance from
their respective state USDA-Rural Development (RD) offices. This assistance
came in many forms including leadership training for local board members,
national conferences, plus the assignment of staff members at the federal and
state levels who had direct EZ/EC program responsibilities to monitor the
progress of individual programs and assist those groups as called upon. Some
programs also had various tax credits and other incentives available to entice
businesses to locate or expand within program designated boundaries (Aigner,
Raymond, & Tinnizi, 2001; Aigner, Flora, Tirrnizi, Wilcox, & Zimmerman, 1998).
The Midwestern County Enterprise Community (MCEC) did benefit greatly from
the technical assistance provided by the Michigan USDA-RD office—especially
by regionally assigned staff members who specialized in community
development and housing assistance. It, along with other Round II rural ECs, did
not have the various tax incentives available to them, however, as that type of
assistance was discontinued before 1999.

Midwestern County's award was announced in late 1998, but due to the
lack of a signed formal funding agreement, progress in 1999 was limited to the
creation of program by-laws and board structure, plus an unsuccessful attempt to

hire a full-time program director. Once an agreement was executed in early 2000,

a second round of interviewing led to the hiring of the first, and only, program
director of the MCEC, the drawdown of the first year’s funding allotment from the
USDA was made, and program activities proceeded with the formation of the
program's Board of Directors and the redistribution of benchmark funding
amounts to reflect the funding differential discussed previously.

Authors of the original EZ/EC application created the framework of
benchmark categories that the program continues to utilize. From an analysis of
input received during several town hall meetings and survey questionnaires, a
set of priorities was identified that reflected the top issues and needs for
comprehensive community development as voted by the community-at-large
(Midwestern County Enterprise Community, 1998a). They were sorted into the
following three broad categories:

0 Improved quality of life (QOL)——focusing on the physical atmosphere;
environment; land use and recreational planning; natural resource
conservation; recycling; cultural sensitivity; cultural events; public and
private transportation; volunteerism, plus; youth and senior activities,

0 Improved economic development (ED)—targeting unemployment;
economic diversity; job training; business and industry attraction/retention,
small farm sustainability, and; small business assistance,

. Improved family self-sufficiency (FSS), strengthened families and human
services—concentrating on domestic violence; homelessness; emergency
services; family preservation; health care access and quality; housing

conditions, and; vocational education.

MCEC leaders created 52 different programs, or benchmarks, that
reflected the community assessment, and all but one, were retained in 2000
when the MCEC Board re-allocated funding at the reduced level. Additional
benchmarks were created during the first five years of program operation in
response to specific funding or new partnership opportunities that developed
after 1998. These new focus areas addressed community safety issues as part of
the QOL category, plus technological information barriers and community
leadership development as part of the ED category. Several other benchmarks
from the original group of 52 were deactivated due to the duplication evident
when a single priority was represented by two distinct benchmarks. For example,
the original list contained one benchmark (6.1) devoted to creating a county-wide
art council and another (6.2) that covered the continued operation of that council.
Currently, considering the effects of this churning activity that led to the addition
and simultaneously, the deactivation of several benchmarks, the current MCEC
menu of active, individual programs stands at 42. (See Appendix B, Tables 1-3
for a listing of all benchmarks and their summary information.)

B. Purpose and Objectives

Now at the projected mid-point of its ten-year designation, MCEC program
key stakeholders (paid staff, community-based volunteers, and benchmark
partners) agreed to participate in a formative evaluation process that would first
review the past and current operation of the program, and then use that
information, along with a strategic futuring analysis, to create a new action plan

for its remaining five-year term. As such, this dissertation's primary objectives

include: 1) a description of the underlying rationale that contributed to the study's
evolving design and implementation, and; 2) a presentation and discussion of the
findings from that process designed to summarize, interpret, and reflect on the
observations I made as a result of working closely with the program’s
stakeholders over a six-month period of time.
C. Significance

From a national perspective, this study adds to the literature regarding the
community building outcomes of various rural communities that first received E2
or EC designations in the mid-to-late 19905. This project attempts to reduce the
discrepancy of research between the more studied urban EZ/ECs funded by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and less frequently
analyzed rural EZ/EC designates sponsored by the USDA. This work presents
the Midwestern County experience as a model of a community-based coalition
building process that other rural communities can replicate, or customize, if
facing similar socioeconomic circumstances. It also offers the stakeholders and
funders of those same complex programs a framework that provides a cost-
effective set of methods by which to evaluate these initiatives in a relatively short
period of time. At the local level, leaders will use this study’s findings as a basis
to promote the program’s operation and benefit to local residents and other
partners at the regional, state, and national levels. They will also use a new,
shared understanding of the program's past operation to better inform the future

direction of the EC’s outputs and outcomes.

D. Conceptual Framework

This study evaluates a complex community building program primarily
designed to change the lives of Midwestern County residents in a positive
manner by holistically addressing the multiple needs identified by community
members in 1998. One way to assess the degree of that intended change is to
focus on the existing meaning schemes that stakeholders employ as they plan
and implement the various program activities created to produce specific
outcomes in the community. Of critical interest in that process is how and why
those perceptions change over time and what action is taken by the individuals,
and correspondingly, by the program in response.

Given that focus, I utilized Constructivist Theory (CT) as a conceptual
frame for this study. CT values an actively reflective process that serves as a key
to learning from experience. It involves three phases: 1) identification of
assumptions that underlie thoughts and action, 2) scrutiny as to the accuracy of
those assumptions with regard to how they align with experience, and 3) a
revisiting and restating of those assumptions to make them more inclusive and
representative of experience (Dangel & Guyton, 2003; Tenant & Pogson, 1995;
Brookfield, 1991 ). As such, CT is built on the concepts that learning is the
integration of new information with prior knowledge and experience, and that
process is affected by individual differences in ethnicity, gender, age,
socioeconomic status, geographic location, and personal preferences for learning

(Vennette, Foote, Bird, Mesibov, Harris-Ewing, and Battaglia; 2001).

Candy (1991) offers the following list of assumptions representing

constructivist thought:

People participate in the construction of reality.

Construction occurs within a context that influences people.
Construction is a constant activity that focuses on change and novelty
rather than fixed conditions.

Commonly accepted categories or understandings are socially
constructed, not derived from observation.

Given forms of understanding depend on the vicissitudes of social
processes, not on the empirical validity of the perspective.

Forms of negotiated understanding are integrally connected with other
human activities.

The “subjects” of research should be considered as “knowing” beings.
Locus of control resides within the subjects themselves, and complex
behavior is constructed purposefully.

Human beings can attend to complex communications and organize
complexity rapidly.

Human interactions are based on intricate social rules, the rules governing
which are often implicit rather than overt (p. 256).

CT adheres to subjectivist reasoning that is based on interpretation. That

philosophy can be contrasted with a positivistic, or objectivist, perspective that is

based on the logic of discovery (Arseneau & Rodenburg, 1998; Pratt, 1998).

Knowledge in CT terms is a product of social and individual assumptions that is

developed, reinforced, or changed through language, while knowledge from the
objectivist’s viewpoint consists of verifiable facts about the world that can be
derived directly from observation and experimentation (Candy, 1991; Fisher,
1991). In the former, truth and reality are constructed according to the
relationship between the observer and the observed while the positivistic
perspective believes that reality exists “out there,“ independent of the individual
and ready to be discovered.
E. Research Question

What can be learned from a systematic analysis of the first phase of a
rural community building initiative that can be utilized by that program’s
stakeholders to improve the program’s performance in addressing

comprehensive community change in the final term of the program?

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

One of the core assumptions of the national EC program is the belief that
rurally impoverished communities can be transformed by purposefully employing
a community building model using collaborative action methods. On a broader
scale, community building is often identified as an overarching goal by many
community leaders, in urban neighborhoods and rural areas alike, who face
unacceptable rates of citizen poverty, crime, income, health services,
unemployment, or any other number of statistics that indicate a poor standard of
living for residents (Joseph & Levy, 2002). However, the path to successful
creation and the sustained operation of collaborative initiatives is littered with
best intentions. Several factors contribute to this lack of success, such as the
reliance on a long-term vision and corresponding high cost of program operation;
lack of a concrete process to follow due to the uniqueness of each local situation,
and; the difficult requirement that individuals and community service providers
change their operating paradigms from one that measures success by
cooperative, not competitive, standards (Tukahashi & Smutny, 2001; Wolff, 2001;
Council of State Community Development Agencies, 1997).
A. Community Building

Community building, in Community Building Coming of Age by Kingsley,
McNeely and Gibson (2001 ), works by:

...building community in individual neighborhoods: neighbors

Ieaming to rely on each other, working together on concrete tasks

that take advantage of new self-awareness of their collective and
individual assets and, in the process, creating human, family, and

10

social capital that provides a new base for a more promising future
and reconnection to America’s mainstream (p. 3).

The authors also identify common themes of more successful grass roots

coalition building initiatives, four of which are useful for this analysis. They are:

Utilize specific improvement projects to build and reinforce resident values
and strengthen social capital networks—these programs create long-term
goals and measurable objectives that are designed to build trust, enhance
resident friendships, and increase community leadership. Often short-term
projects are designed and implemented so that participants experience
incremental levels of success that enhance motivation to engage in the long-
terrn aspects of the initiative.

Are community-driven by residents—it is imperative that community members
are meaningfully involved in creating the original improvement plan, in
implementing those strategies, and in the evaluation of those activities. This
work does not represent a more traditional “expert” model of community
development by which local leaders contract with an outside-the-community
expert(s) to assess a local problem and offer solutions; all within in a very
short timeframe and with no longitudinal requirement on the part of the
expert(s) to address the reliability of those recommendations.

Employ comprehensive and entrepreneurial strategies—these programs are
emergent in their design and implementation, meaning that stakeholders do
not have a blueprint or specific action plan to follow. Poor families face a wide
range of interconnected socioeconomic problems. Many community-based

service providers now realize that they serve the same set of clients. Given

1]

the current landscape resulting in the slow growth of funding resources, these
agencies have less time and money available to handle the increased
demand for their programs. Therefore, community building initiative planners
need to explore new ways of filling service gaps in some situations and
eliminating duplicate programs in others.

Fol/ow an asset-based philosophy—Kretzman and McKnight (1993) claim that
one of the best tools to achieve success in comprehensive community
initiatives is for stakeholders to move away from the more traditional needs-
based focus, where a community dwells upon its problems and deficits, to a
capacity-focused perspective, where the assets of the community from an
individual, association, and institution levels are first identified and then
utilized to build new collaborative relationships.

While most of those principles are represented in the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act of 1993, the legislation that led to the establishment of the first

round of EZIEC program designations, the tenet regarding the perceived

effectiveness of citizen empowerment in sustaining community development

carried the greatest weight. Defined as a process that enables low-income

citizens to improve their communities by means of continued, increasingly more

active involvement in decision making and implementation of projects,

empowerment is realized through the following strategies:

Increasing economic opportunities—by focusing on the creation and retention

of job opportunities plus training citizens for more rewarding employment.

12

B.

Planning sustainable development—by diversifying the system of community-
based services so that all citizens receive quality information and/or care in a
timely fashion and that the delivery of the services is purposefully planned
with their sustainability in mind.
Expanding community partnerships—by transforming the behavior of
community leaders who follow a "turf" philosophy favoring self-interest and
isolation into utilizing a more collaborative approach that recognizes the
synergetic value of other partners at all levels—local, regional, state and
federal—through the practices of negotiation and compromise.
Using funds as "gap-fillers”—by investing EC monies only as seed capital as
part of projects that have attracted additional partners (Reid & Flora, 2002;
Flora, 2001; Reid 8 Murray, 2000; Reid, 1999).

Collaboration

To be successful, community building emphasizes a process that uses

collaborative action. According to Gray (1989), in Collaborating: Finding Common

Ground for Multiparty Problems, collaboration promotes a process of joint

decision making among key stakeholders in regards to a problem domain that

focuses on the future of that domain. Five features are critical to the process:

( 1) stakeholders are interdependent, (2) solutions emerge by dealing

constructively with differences, (3) joint ownership of decisions is emphasized,

(4) stakeholders assume collective responsibility for the future direction of the

domain, and (5) it is treated as an emergent exercise.

13

Considerable literature has been devoted to categorizing and describing
collaborative initiatives at the community level by type; traits and characteristics
of members; critical importance of and type of leadership skills required; stages
of development; communication strategies; funding type and levels, and;
challenges to sustainability (Hyman, 2002; Joseph 8 Levy, 2002; Daniels &
Walker, 2001; Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson & Allen, 2001;
Wolff, 2001; Council of State Community Development Agencies, 1997).

For this study, prior studies and theories regarding team member
characteristics were helpful in understanding the operation of the MCEC. Factors
affecting short- and long-term collaborative effectiveness include: individual
member operating personality given the team's mission and task(s), type and
length of experience, power, values and motivation. Also, previous studies of
successful collaborating teams point to the fact that a mixture of several types of
individual styles, range of skills, and experience are important contributors to the
success of a particular team (Fowler, 1995). Belbin (1981) created a typology of
team member types that included: coordinator (mature and confident); shaper
(dynamic and outgoing); team worker (perceptive and accommodating);
completer (careful and conscientious), and; specialist (entrepreneurial) and
suggested that most effective teams contain a cross section of those member
operating styles.

MCEC leadership also was an important program performance variable to
consider when examining and analyzing the MCEC Phase I (first five years)

collaboration success. WK. Kellogg Foundation’s Leadership: Building Capacity

to Lead 3 Community-based Process: Developing Community Capacity (1998b)

handbook offers a list of attributes of successful collaborative leaders. Those

traits include:

C.

Flexibility—willing to adapt the process of mediating different stakeholder
self-interests for the good of the whole program,
Systems thinking—ability to see the big picture; employ a general systems
approach that practices an ecological perspective where changes within one
environment will ultimately effect other systems in possibly unforeseen
ways,
Trustworthiness—promises that are made are honored and no commitment
is made without a thoughtful process of weighing cost vs. benefit-given the
high value of time,
Patience—progress in a long-term initiative is measured in small steps and
the process is often frustrating if viewed only from a short-term perspective,
Abundant energy and hope—that are shared with stakeholders in a natural,
unforced manner.

Sub4heones

While not all inclusive, the following list of theories assisted my work in

iterative cycle of appraising, reflecting, designing, implementing and evaluating

this study:

Social capital theory—as defined as the potential to access resources

through social relations (Lin, 1999; Coleman, 1990; Bourdieu, 1986).

Paramount to this assumption is the opinion that through the network of social

IS

ties, individuals and/or groups can improve the efficiency of society or a
particular system by facilitating coordinated action (Lin, Cook & Burt, 2001 ).
One of the primary objectives of all rural EZIECs, as directed by the national
program legislation, is the enhancement of the network of relationships
between local, regional, state and federal partners by developing a shared
future, engaging in collective action to deliver sustainable community
services—altemately termed building community social capital (Putman,
1993). Components of a community’s social capital include bonding that
examine connections among individuals and groups with similar backgrounds,
experience and interests within the community, and bridging that looks at
relationships connecting various diverse groups within a community to
similarly interested groups outside its typical boundaries (Flora & Flora,
2004). Using this framework, the goal of most comprehensive community
change initiatives is to work to build and retain high levels of both bonding
and bridging types of social capital, as they tend to reinforce each other.

0 Exchange theory—with its focus on human behavior plus the nature and
dynamics of relationships regarding their formation, maintenance, stability
and breakdown, this theory addresses the ways individuals and groups select
different relationships and why they choose differing levels of involvement
according to such concepts as reciprocity, fairness, commitment, trust,
satisfaction, power, rewards, costs and expectations (Sabatelli & Shehan,
1993). Emerson’s approach (1962) to exchange network analysis is

especially applicable in its recognition that the nature of an individual’s

16

relational ties, rather than personal attributes, lead to a clearer, more accurate
understanding of a particular social system’s distribution of power,
dependence, or balance. In this study’s situation, this perspective assisted me
as I made, interpreted, and triangulated observations regarding the motivating
rationale of the stakeholders and other community leaders involved with the
program.

0 Human ecology theory—as it focuses on the relationship of humans with
the environment at multiple levels of interaction, it states that the family
ecosystem is a subset of the human ecosystem and any change to any
aspect in how the family system interacts with the natural, human
constructed, or social systems results in modification to all other systems
(Griffore & Phenice, 2001; Connard & Novick, 1996). Taken with the language
of a general systems approach, these sets of theories provide the basis by
which humans can be studied and analyzed as a function of their
relationships and reciprocal interaction with the total set of subsystems within
their environment. They are based on the belief that the well-being of
individuals and families must be considered in context with the rest of the
ecosystem in which they operate (Griffore & Phenice, 2001; Keith, 2000;
Greenwood & Levin, 1998; Bulbolz & Sontag, 1993). This holistic approach is
critical to investigating, understanding, and interpreting the operation of a
comprehensive community development program as it addresses quality of

life, economic development, and family self-sufficiency issues simultaneously.

17

. Organizational change theory—the existence of unpredictable, uncertain,
and highly turbulent environmental conditions are often a precursor for an
organization to retool its strategies involving the quality and timeliness of its
response to potential change options (Senge, 1990). These organizations
begin to value their inherent capacity to adapt to unforeseen situations by
identifying and Ieaming from their own experiences, shifting their shared
mindsets, and changing more quickly, broadly, and deeply than ever before.
(Kubish, Auspos, Brown, Chaskin, Fulbright-Anderson & Hamilton, 2002; L00,
2002 Rowden, 2001). Rowden (2001) outlines several models of
organizational change, but the fourth—the Ieaming organization, in which
“...everyone communicates and works together creating enormous
intelligence and flexibility to deal with rapidly-changing environments” is most
applicable to this study. Given the scarcity of resources available to
Midwestern County in terms of money, time, and people willing to volunteer
as leaders—combined with the fierce competition for community development
grants and other forms of assistance that now exists for all rural areas— the
ability to either predict threats, or identify and respond to new opportunities in
a timely, informed way, i.e., as a Ieaming organization, is of critical
importance to its continued success in enhancing citizen’s quality of life
standards in a comprehensive manner (Housing Assistance Council, 2002;
Quigley, 2002).

0 Evaluation theory—with its basic assumption that “changes in social

programs result from thousands of accumulated small inputs,” this approach

18

advocates that any evaluation study must deal with the historical beginnings,
political context, current and anticipated changes in policy, plus the often
conflicting wants, expectations, and assumptions of the various stakeholder
groups at the time of initial design and throughout the life of the program
(Rossi, Freeman & Lipsey, 1999; Shadish, Cook & Levition, 1991). Program
evaluation assumes that social problem solving is improved by a combination
of making incremental improvements to existing programs, by creating better
or innovative designs for new programs, and/or by terminating poorly
performing programs and replacing them with those that follow a more
innovative, but proven effective, strategy (Shadish et al., 1991). Furthermore,
evaluation methods should respond to the audience’s need for information
rather than some predetermined set of variables, and a participatory
approach is recommended that insists the consumers of the evaluation’s
findings be an integral part of the design and implementation of the study
(Kubish et al, 2002; Flora, Gasteyer, Fernandez-Baca, Banerji, Bastian, &
Aleman, 2000; Brown, 1999). As such, evaluation represents a constantly-
evolving process that should be employed not as a one-time event, but
instead, made an integral component at all stages of a program’s life that is
utilized on a regular basis for purposes of reflection and improvement of
program performance (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1997; Wholey, 1977).
This type of evaluation adheres to the following principles:
0 Allows important program variables to emerge—it accommodates ongoing

changes in the program, focuses on observing stakeholder interaction, and

19

uses a variety of data gathering methods (e.g., observation, interviews,
secondary data analyses, etc.) to confirm and report multiple views about
what people think is good and bad regarding the program (Shadish et al.,
1991). In sum, the emphasis in responsive evaluation is on flexibility in all
stages; in design, in the type of research questions investigated, in fieldwork,
and even in writing the final report.
0 Encourages change efforts in local stakeholders—during a formative
evaluation, the task of identifying issues and/or improving program practice is
a task best handled by local stakeholders (Cronbach, 1980). Stake (1975)
said,

It is much more likely that whatever truths, whatever solutions

there are, exist in the minds of people who are running the

program, those participating in the program, those patrons of the

program...He [the evaluator] is making his greatest contribution, I

think, when he is helping people discover ideas, answers,

solutions, within their own minds.
0 Increases local control—this type of evaluation of social programs is
described as a social process by which professional knowledge, local
knowledge, process and research skills, plus democratic values serve as the
basis of co-created knowledge and eventual social change (Greenwood &
Levin, 1998). Therefore, in lieu of acting as an expert model, the evaluator
becomes more of a “friendly outsider” who purposefully changes his/her
behavior according to the situation at hand. These roles alternately include

facilitator, silent observer, active encourager, historian, coach, and

occasionally, an expert (Edleson & Bible, 1998; Shadish et al.; 1991).

20

This set of evaluation theories act as one of the cornerstones of this study, and
lay the groundwork for utilizing an action research approach that will be outlined
in the methods section of this dissertation (Greenwood 8 Levin, 1998; Carr 8
Kemmis, 1986).

D. Evaluating Community Building Initiatives

A study that utilizes a responsive and participatory approach fits well with
the demands Of evaluating comprehensive community building initiatives. These
programs never follow a prescribed process, maintain a long-term focus, and rely
on building/sustaining a network of communitywide alliances represented by
many service providers who previously have not worked collaboratively. One
report, funded by the Ann E. Casey Foundation (Joseph 8 Levy, 2002), presents

a list of key insights offered by field staff regarding barriers encountered in

implementing comprehensive community development program plans:

0 Program theory and corresponding assumptions should be actively identified
early in the program. All stakeholders, including local participants and
funders, should be asked to clarify expectations by stating specific outcomes
that would result from the program.

0 Program implementers should not spread their efforts too thinly and utilize a
“small wins” philosophy which results in early success and the stakeholder
buy-in needed for addressing the more long-term, complex objectives.

0 Sustainable revitalization is accomplished only by leveraging the outside
funds initially made available from comprehensive community building

programs with increases in the local pool of private investment. Funding

21

should be viewed as “seed" capital that leads to the development of new
financial and human capital sources so that the community can address long-
term change of complex issues.

Effective leadership is critical at all levels of operation and participation.
Existing community leaders should be purposefully identified in the initial
stages of the program and potential leaders also should be recruited, trained
in leadership techniques, and engaged in program activities.

For government to change its “business as usual” behavior and share power
with local residents regarding how and in what way community services are
offered, those community-based representatives must reciprocate by
assuming a more proactive, constructive stance in their relationship with the
government officials as well (Joseph 8 Ley, 2002).

Other factors, listed below, speak to the difficulty of evaluating grass roots

coalition building projects:

Horizontal complexity—projects involve delivery of services on a cross-
sectional basis and therefore present a complex set of activities and
outcomes to measure.

Vertical complexity—projects attempt to create change at multiple levels of
individual, family, organization, and community systems. Outcomes at each
level interact with all other subsystems to present a complex set of activities

and objectives to measure.

o Broad range of outcomes—the inherent horizontal and vertical complexity
described above will necessitate the need to create multidimensional
outcome measures that are difficult to operationalize and interpret.

. Flexible and evolving intervention—the emergent nature of these initiatives
makes measuring/evaluating the evolutionary process difficult. Also,
contextual issues add considerable complexity to the evaluation project as
each community has its unique set of issues, plus financial, human, and
social networks (Kubish et al., 2002; Weiss, 1999; Annie E. Casey
Foundafion,1997)

E. Logic Models and Program Theory of Change

Logic models are diagrams, or visual maps, that show how a program
works from a holistic point of view, highlighting the theory and assumptions that
serve as a foundation for values and principles, plus linking short-, intennediate-,
and long-term outcomes with program activities (W.K. Kellogg Foundation,
1998a, 2001). In program planning, the construction of a logic model is useful for
creating a shared vision illustrating the anticipated theory of change that
represents how a program’s group of stakeholders intend to transform their
community over time (Weiss, 2003). It also assists in evaluating a program by
providing a visual representation of the relationship between planned activities
and targeted outcomes, and thereby, encourages stakeholder dialog and/or
discourse. That communicative action focuses on the program’s degree of
success in accordance with their expectations regarding the desired outcomes of

incremental change (Birckmayer 8 Weiss, 2000). Given the high utility that logic

23

models demonstrate in illustrating complex programs, this dissertation employs
two such models for descriptive and interpretive purposes. Each map is aligned
with an objective (listed on page 6). Figure 1 (see page 25) represents the
various components, plus the manner in which they relate, in designing and
executing my theory of change regarding this MCEC mid-term evaluation study,
and Figure 2 (see page 26) reflects my perception of the interrelationship
between MCEC stakeholder assumptions, external factors that influence the
program operation, resources available, activities, outputs and outcomes.
Essentially, Figure 1 illustrates my personal meaning schemes associated with
my work with the MCEC and Figure 2 depicts the stakeholder Ieaming evident in
the Phase I operation of the program. For clarity, further discussion regarding the
first objective and its corresponding logic model (Figure 1), will be labeled EP
(Evaluation Process), while any mention of the second objective and its
corresponding logic model (Figure 2) will be categorized as AE (Actual

Evaluation of the MCEC program).

24

 

Figure 1. Evaluation Process (EP) Logic Model of Midwestern County Enterprise Community (MCEC) Mid—Term Evaluation

 

A. Inputs

 

What resources were used to achieve goals:
Cooperation and active participation from:
. MCEC Director
0 MCEC Consultant
- MCEC Board Of Directors~past and present
0 Midwestern County community leaders and
MCEC partners interviewed as part of this
study
- Various content experts from many
organizations including USDA—RD staff at
federal, state, and regional levels; MSU
faculty in evaluation, recreation, and
leadership topics; other rural community
development specialists, etc.
0 My MSU Dissertation Committee
Previous research and theory involving:
. Community building initiatives, specifically
in rural communities
. Social entrepreneurship
. Evaluation
0 Responsive/participatory
0 Theory of change and use of logic
models
- Constructivismffransformational Learning
Theories
My background and previous experience In
program design, graduate education in MSU
Family 8 Child Ecology, etc.
Secondary data describing previous Operation
of the MCEC program
. County newspapers (3)
o MCEC Board of Director meeting minutes
. USDA-RD Internet-based reports filed by
MCEC staff
0 MCEC application for EZ/EC designation
. Other sources of information-publications,
meeting minutes, informal interviews, annual
reports, etc.- that reflect community
development issues

MSU FACT Coalition funding '

 

 

B. Outputs
B1. Activities

How it was done:
Rapid Rural Appraisal approach
. Using informal interviews,
secondary data analysis, and
observation of local meetings and
other local events
. To design, implement, and
evaluate a process that responded
to the needs and expectations of
the program’s stakeholders.
Benchmark Ranking System
. Identified all possible milestones
or activities that represented
program’s effort to develop
individual initiatives
0 Listed/summed each
benchmark’s milestones
. Resulting values enabled
benchmarks to be ranked and
compared by stakeholders
Other tools created for stakeholder
use to compare and contrast
benchmark performance
Progress Team
. Members selected to provide
best available representation of
0 Program issues—~community
quality of life, economic
development and family self—
sufficiency
0 History and current operation
of the program
. Meeting (2) activities designed to
provide information about past and
current operation of the program to
inform creation of future work plan
Final evaluation report
. Read, changed, and approved by
program leaders before distribution
. Focus on program assets

 

BZ. Participation

C1. Short Term

C. Outcomes - Impact
C2. Medium Term

C3. Long Term

 

 

Who was
reached:

Past and present
MCEC program
leaders who
participated in the
interviews,
Observed
meetings and/or
Progress Team
activities.

Other partners
who were
interviewed or
who somehow
informed this
study, but interact
with the program
as benchmark
leaders or in
some other forms
of participation
than serving on
the Board of
Directors

Experts and
others who
informed the
evaluation
process, recom—
mendations, or
final report

 

Changes to date
as a result of this
mid-term evaluation:

MCEC program stakeholders,
especially those who served
on the Progress Team, use
the information relating to
Phase I program operation
developed by this study as a
basis for preparing a
framework for Phase II
program operation.

Key program leaders review
study’s community final report
and recommend changes to
better match their collective
expectations regarding the
use of the evaluation's
findings.

Stakeholders find that rank
ordering the benchmarks
according to the process
specified by the Benchmark
Ranking System is useful in
comparing and contrasting
Phase I benchmark
performance.

Progress Team members
indicate that they would be
willing to continue to use the
process by which they
developed a Phase II action
plan framework on an on—
going basis.

 

Over the final five years
of the MCEC program,
what intermediate
changes are targeted as a
result of this evaluation:

More community members
are informed of the MCEC
plan of work, including low—
income individuals and
families, as a result of this
evaluation‘s findings and
also, due to the action of
the on—going Progress
Team

Regional, state, and federal
officials use information
provided by this evaluation
and also the on-going
efforts of the MCEC
Progress Team to inform
policy and budgetary
decisions regarding rural
regions with similar
socioeconomic
characteristics

Issues and
recommendations targeted
by initial Progress Team
are effectively addressed
including the need to
integrate evaluation
methods and techniques
with all Individual
benchmark planning and
implementation

Results of the evaluation
are distributed to a wide
audience at local, state,

 

Beyond the MCECi
designation, the ultimate
results are:

On-going evaluation effort of
Progress Team leads to a
more purposeful planning
process being used in
conjunction with individual
benchmarks

Midwestern County residents
enjoy the sustained benefits
of the MCEC’S efforts to
address quality of life,
economic development, and
family self—sufficiency issues

Given the documented high
performance of the MCEC,
due in part to Its on-going
evaluation effort, funders
continue to support the
operation of community
building initiatives which are
characterized by long—term
funding cycles, expected
outcomes based on local
theories context, and other
assumptions evident in EC
program design

Other rural EC and
comprehensive community
building programs across the
country apply all, or some, of
the methods developed by
the MCEC study to evaluate
their program’s past and
present operation. These
programs then use that
information to create a future
work plan that features an on—
going evaluation effort.

 

 

 

 

fl

D. Assumptions
3 Grand and local theories (listed above as resources), employed in conjunction with my

background and experience, and used as filters of interpretation In

designing/implementing/evaluating this study—plus as a means by which I Interpreted my

observations regarding the operation and performance of the MCEC program.

25

 

If

3 Funding limits of study
3 Time limits of evaluator and MCEC program stakeholders
3 Cycle of national economy as it impacts continued support of federal EC program and most

and national levels.
it

E. External Factors

other community-based service providers

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Actual Evaluation Logic Model of Midwestern County Enterprise Community (MCEC) Program

MCEC mission statement (created by evaluation Progress Team, 5/4/2004, pending review by MCEC Board of Directors): Through an empowered grass roots effort and
regional cooperation, Midwestern County Citizens will improve the quality of life for all, conserve natural resources and promote further development of vibrant
communities that are economically diverse and self—reliant.

 

Inputs

Outputs

Outcomes — Impact

 

MCEC program staff—time and money
. Paid — Director

0 Experience and background

0 Personality and behavior
. Paid — Consultant (funding search,
grant writing, web updates for MCEC,
program promotion and publicity

0 Experience and background

0 Personality and behavior
0 Volunteers (past and present EC
Board of Directors members, original
organizers for application in 1998)

0 Experience

0 Personality and behavior
Partners of MCEC at local, regional,
state, and federal levels
. Grants 0 Subcontracted
0 Loans . In—kind
. Technical assistance
Research
0 Feasibility studies
. Business plans
0 Community surveys and
assessments
0 Rural community factors-
socioeconomic
Community
0 Knowledge of culture, history, values
0 1998 priority input to MCEC
0 Continued input to MCEC
MCEC program infrastructure

 

 

on the MCEC Benchmark
Ranking System:
- Investigating potential
projects and
identifying/recruiting
partners for those new
programmatic areas
0 Identifying benchmark
leaders and recruiting
partners of current
projects
. Allocating/spending
MCEC money as directed
by Board of Directors
. Facilitating/supporting
start—up and continued
activities of work
teams/committees as
requested by EC
volunteers and partners
0 Answering questions
about MCEC programs
and Midwestern County
community development
programs in general.
0 Updating all
stakeholders on progress
and changes of MCEC
- Serving on partner
planning groups and
Board of Directors
- Sponsor strategic
planning and evaluation
efforts as necessary

 

County citizens of
all ages, income
level, race, gender,
or percentage of
residency—with a
focus on developing
and sustaining
programs that
improve individual
and family quality of
life, enhance
economic
development, and
strengthen families/
human services.

0 Individuals and
families who visit or
inquire about
visiting the area.

0 Other agencies
or programs
currently outside
the Midwestern
County community
that work with
similar clientele.

. Policy makers
and potential
funders at local,
regional, state, and
federal level.

complementary programs within
community

0 Increased levels of
cooperation between
community-based service
provider in education, business,
government, religion, economic
development, community
development, environmental
conservation, recreation, land—
use, agriculture, health, housing
and human service sectors

0 Increased access to services
by residents and other clients

. Better vertical ties with
funders and technical assistance
providers (regional, state, and
federal)

0 Better horizontal ties with
funders and technical assistance
providers (comparable
communities, other EC
programs).

0 Improved infrastructure —
public facilities (fire building,
industrial park expansion, etc.)
and services (water, sewer) plus
organizational (advisory
committees, recreation and land
use plans, etc.)

. Increased ability to identify
and respond to changes in
trends/ opportunities offered or
available to the community.

 

 

. Shift work plan of MCEC to address program
sustainability issues as USDA—RD funding ends.
0 Use infrastructure created in first years of
MCEC to develop, implement, and evaluate
benchmarks began in first phase of program.
0 Per MCEC mid—term evaluation’s Progress
Team recommendations, focus on following
existing or new projects:
0 Economic and industrial park development
and a new small business initiative with a
revolving loan fund,
0 Expanded family enrichment programming
concentrating on providing positive role
models for young parents, stressed families,
and youth,
0 Ethics and character promotion,
0 Recreation Opportunities,
0 Housing advocacy
o Assisted living for seniors and the disabled,
0 Farmers Market complex, and,
o A new health clinic in northern Midwestern
County offering emergency/urgent care service
as well as health promotion.
0 Continue to identify community strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats in
conjunction with program operation as part of a
formal, on—going evaluation process coordinated
by a work team that is sponsored by the MCEC.
. Use leadership development training and
promotion of MCEC program outcomes to build a
higher degree of citizen engagement in process
of benchmark creation, implementation, and
evaluation. Target seniors and youth in this
leadership development effort.
0 Plan for possible succession of program staff

 

Activities Participation Short Term Medium Term Long Term
What’s needed to achieve goals: How it’s done: Who is reached: Changes to date: What intermediate changes are targeted: That the ultimate
Per the milestones fisted o Midwestern - Increased awareness of results are:

0 Midwestern
County Citizens live
better quality lives
due to a sustained,
empowered effort
to improve
economic
conditions,
strengthen family
ties, plus improve
access and quality
of all community-
based services in
a comprehensive
fashion.

. Midwestern
County service
providers actively
practice
collaboration in a
continued effort
to reduce overlap
and to improve
quality of all
community-based
services offered
to Midwestern
citizens.

 

i1

Assumptions

Constructivist theory
Transformational learning theory
Evaluation theory

00000

regionalism, building partners, etc

Value of collaboration process in community building programs

Regarding EZIEC principles—effectiveness of seed money in leveraging funds,

26

0000

 

tF

National EZ/EC program principles

leadership. fl

External Factors

National economic recession at start of designation, currently in recovery or expansion, corresponding
reduction in community—based service programs
Change in federal administration policy regarding rural and community building programs / undetermined
impact of upcoming presidential elections
Entire length of project—various mandates and laws from state and federal governments specifying service
requirements (e.g., No Child Left Behind or minimum wage laws)

 

 

 

 

 

MC

DOD

F.-

0:

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN
A. Population
This study’s population is represented by the group consisting of all
comprehensive, community building initiates across the United States. The

MCEC program, with its past and present stakeholders, acts as a sample of that

population. That subset of stakeholders consists of, but are not excluded by:

0 USDA-RD and other funding or technical assistance partners who work with
the Midwestern County program and are associated with the EZIEC program
on a national, state, regional and local levels,

0 Midwestern County community-based agency administrative, management
and field staff responsible for delivering social, health, education, community
development, business, religious, government, and/or human services to all
income groups, but most particularly low-income families and individuals

. MCEC program paid staff and volunteers,

. Other resident groups, leaders, and visitors not specifically listed above (e.g.,
youth, media, and retirees).

B. Methods

As previously stated, a research project that studies the historical
beginnings, present conditions, and future expectations of a comprehensive
community building initiative such as the MCEC program requires an approach
that is responsive and participatory. Design and implementation strategies of

such inquiries keep stakeholder needs, values, and expectations at the forefront,

27

and studies of this type are often perceived more as a value to the community
rather than as a critical analysis with generalizable results (Stake, 1975). The
Midwestern County evaluation reflects that mission as it: (1) addressed the
immediate needs of the community and program leaders by producing tools that
enabled stakeholders to compare and contrast the operation of individual
benchmarks, (2) used that information to engage key stakeholders in a
systematic process aimed at taking action by developing a strategic plan for the
program’s future operation, and (3) created logic models and a community final
report that provided mechanisms for the stakeholders to reflect, reach consensus
or enter into discourse regarding the desired change they want to accomplish via
the program’s activities.

This form of inquiry is considered part of an action research framework
that endorses case study techniques as a viable, effective methodology (Shadish
et al., 1991). Action research, according to Greenwood and Levin (1998),
“generates knowledge claims for the express purpose of taking action to promote
social change and social analysis,” and therefore:

. ls context bound and addresses real life problems,

o Is inquiry where participants and researchers co-generate knowledge
through communicative processes in which all input is valued,

o Treats the diversity of experience and capacities of local stakeholders as
an opportunity for the enrichment of the research action process,

0 Recognizes that meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to

social action,

28

I" 3

OF,
me

0 Measures credibility-validity according to whether actions that arise from it
solve problems and/or increase participant’s control over their own
situation (p. 75-76).

It is difficult to dichotomize the methods of action research from those
regarding the practice of participatory, responsive evaluation. One key area of
difference, however, is that the action research process does not stop with
observation, nor interpretation of the targeted sample’s behavior, no matter how
valid. Instead, that information must be used as an agent by which to change or
transform the group of study focus (Greenwood 8 Levin, 1998; Carr 8 Kemmis,
1986)

C. Data Collection Tools

This study employed an evolving design and implementation process
meant first, to yield a viable interpretation of the MCEC’s first phase of operation
as it interacted with its multiple environments, and second, to utilize that new
information to develop a Phase II program plan of operation. That effort was
guided by a set of similar methodologies alternately termed Rapid Rural
Appraisal (RRA), Participatory Rural Appraisal, and Rapid Feedback Evaluation
(Greenwood 8 Levin, 1998; Kumar, 1993; Shadish et al., 1991). While each
approach recommends a slightly different set of data collection methods that
varies according to several dimensions (such as motivating rationale, target
population, allotted time to perform project, and/or amount of available funding),
all advocate for the use an evolving design process that features the participation

of the program’s key stakeholders while striving to maintain an environment of

29

openness and dialogue (Armson, lson, Short, Ramage, 8 Reynolds, 2001;
Greene, 1994). The core appraisal methods menu includes key informant
interviews, focus group meetings, community interviews, structured direct
observation, secondary data analyses, and informal surveys (Kumar, 1993;
Shadish et al., 1991). The final selection of data collection methods responds to
the needs dictated by the emerging design process previously described per
discussions between the evaluator and program stakeholders who assisted with
the evaluation planning effort.

In the case of the MCEC program evaluation, I became familiar with the
components of the program's operation over a six-month period of time through a
series of interviews with local leaders, observation of community-based
meetings, secondary data analyses, and two strategic futuring workshops. The
evaluation planning team--which consisted of the MCEC director, the paid
consultant and several volunteers, and myself--collaborated on most aspects of
design and implementation of the study. The action component of the process
was represented by the work of the strategic futuring group, called the Progress
Team. That group used the information compiled and analyzed by the evaluation
regarding the program’s history and current operation, combined with a trends
and vision analysis, to create a new action plan framework for the next phase of
the MCEC.

Several tools were developed specifically for the evaluation that were

designed to assist the program's stakeholders to better understand how the

30

individual projects, or benchmarks, performed in relation to each other during the
first phase of the program.

This emphasis on flexibility was evident as I visited the community at least
twice a week over a six-month period and alternately filled each day with
interviewing stakeholders, attending partner meetings, plus reading newspapers
and other sources that described the history of the community and of the MCEC
program. As I traveled about the county and came to an understanding of how
the program operated within the context of Midwestern County leader and citizen
meaning perceptions, the following sets of resources contributed to the process:

1) General social science theories and other assumptions - that implicitly, or
explicitly, guide the program (as listed previously in conceptual framework
and literature review sections of this paper). Using constructivist theory as a
template, they offer an overriding conceptual foundation by which to frame the
iterative process I followed in performing this study. Other perspectives
(identified as sub-theories in the literature review section) provide an
explanation, a set of predictions, and/or generalizations concerning how the
world operates from an ecological point-of—view in relation to Midwestern
County and its various subsystems (Creswell, 1998).

2) Local theories — as used by MCEC program stakeholders in providing
guidance to their efforts as they address how to best create, implement,
evaluate and sustain community change. Terrned local knowledge by
Greenwood and Levin (1998, p.111), my interpretation of these assumptions

was based upon my ability to establish in-depth, credible relationships with

31

the key program leaders. Also critical to the accuracy of my translation of
local theory was the study’s participants’ understanding of the motivating
rationale behind my questions and presence, plus the perceived value they
attached to the study in regard to the program and to the community, i.e.,
their degree of buy-in to the study's process and purpose (Creswell, 1998;
Dick, 1998; Adler 8 Adler,1994; Denzin,1989).
3) My personal characteristics and background - that acted as a lens by which
I filtered all of my decisions regarding EP activities, plus my observations
made while interacting with program stakeholders representing the AE portion
of this report. Those variables include: family, work, and education
background and experience; indicators of personal preference (for instance,
world view, political, and religious values); age; socioeconomic status,
gender, race, and extent of prior evaluation experience (Deshler, 1998).
Figure 3 (see page 33) illustrates the previously described, interrelated
components representing the cycle of inquiry that l utilized in performing this
study.

The last category, listed above, represents a source of bias in my effort to
present the truest possible reality regarding the operation of the MCEC (Denzin,
1989; Shadish et al., 1991). Therefore, the following description of my
background and experience with the MCEC program is warranted so that the
reader is better informed of the basis of my decisions, interpretations, and

judgments regarding this report's AE findings (Janesick, 1994).

32

Figure 3 - MCEC Program Evaluation Cycle of Inquiry

Adapted from Junker (1960), The Field Work Situation of Observation (p. 10)

 

Social science theory

I

Data

i

Information in recorded form

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluator (social role as
part of study) — using a
constructivist conceptual
‘fi framework and an action
research methodology,
including prior relationship
with program stakeholders

Evaluator (self) -
education and work
experience, age, ethnicity,
socio-economic status,
emotional-cognitive
development, Ieaming
preferences, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Stakeholders —
persons in society having information
in society, not necessarily recorded,
including local theory, program theory
of change as reflected on individual
and group levels

 

 

 

33

D. My Prior Experience with MCEC Program

I was the manager of a university-based rural community development
project in 1998 when Midwestern County leaders asked the project's principal
investigators to assist them with prioritizing the community issues as part of the
EZIEC application process. I attended two meetings at that time in Midwestern
County and became acquainted with several leaders of the community. Shortly
after the MCEC director was hired in early 2000, he and I (still serving as
manager of that same project) planned several activities focusing on small
business assistance and senior rural issues identification in that region. In 2001, I
assumed my current position as statewide housing program leader for a
university Extension department and quickly found myself working with the
MCEC again due to its considerable number of housing-related benchmarks. In
the summer of 2003, I approached the director with a proposal to evaluate the
MCEC program as part of my doctoral dissertation. The director accepted, asked
the Board and received its approval in the fall of that year, and the study officially
began in January 2004.

It is evident by that account that I entered this evaluation project with a
predisposed positive bias regarding the program's operation. That opinion was
formed as a result of my long-term, direct contact with the MCEC that led to a
friendly, but business-like, relationship with the program’s executive director. It
also was formed due to the comments of other community development
specialists who often spoke favorably of the program’s operation and success in

obtaining the EC designation. 1 also appreciated the ability of the program to

34

ob

pit

33

hu

1"
'0 L

COT

’.
UT: .

attract new partners and leverage considerable sums of new funding to the
community, given my lack of success attempting to do the same as a housing
program leader at the state level.
E. Balancing Bias with Purposeful Investigation
To ensure a high degree of accuracy regarding the interpretation of

observations, I made a specific effort to neutralize my positive perception of the
program by employing the systematic methods framed by a case-study
approach. This methodology advocates the purposeful investigation of a unit of
human activity as it is embedded in the real world with the understanding that the
activity can only be studied and analyzed in a fashion that merges it with its
context (Gillhan, 2000; Yin, Bateman, 8 Moore, 1983). Much the same as
techniques used in a court of law, evidence in case study research is gathered
via multiple methods in order to corroborate any interpretation, finding, or
conclusion regarding observed phenomena. This tactic, termed triangulation,
along with establishing a formal database and having the draft final report
reviewed by key informants, increases construct validity of a case study (Yin,
1994). Using the set of rapid appraisal techniques described previously (see
pages 29-30) as a guide, sources of evidence that contributed to the triangulation
goal for this project included:

o Documentation—the meeting sign-in sheets from the 1998 application
process, agendas and minutes from MCEC meetings and other community-
based events; letters of support and other program communication; benchmark

proposals for funding and other applications; program progress reports to the

35

USDA, reports and information from the USDA’s lntemet-based benchmark
database, and; newspaper articles from the three county newspapers. All of this
secondary data analysis was reviewed in an inductive manner looking for themes
and patterns regarding how the program operated and fit within other community
development initiatives in the county.

0 Archival records—such as comparison of county-based statistics between
the 1990 and 2000 US Census records; maps and charts created by state and
regional planning and economic development organizations, plus; MCEC partner
publications involving clients served, mission, and performance,

a Physical artifacts—including my visits to two newly developed industrial
parks that featured MCEC-supported infrastructure improvements, a new
farmers’ market building, and new shelters to serve the area's homeless,
transitional and abused populations,

0 lnterviews—semi-structured using open-ended questions so that l was
free to adapt the discussion as needed to better understand the nature and
quality of the relationship of those interviewed with the MCEC program (Morse,
1998). I followed a primary selection of informants technique that favored a
maximum variety sampling methodology (Patton, 1990). That technique guided
me as I first deliberately selected a heterogeneous sample of participants, noted
their common experience regarding MCEC operation across their diverse
community roles and experiences, and then used that information to select a new
round of informants who could confirm or disconfinn those initial interpretations

(Morse, 1998). For instance, many of my initial conversations regarding the

36

history and current operation of the program took place with the program's
director. His opinions were solicited regarding such factors as partner
participation, funding options, and individual benchmark performance. My
observations reflecting his opinions were noted, and then offered as points of
comparison, or contention, during subsequent stakeholder interviews. This
triangulating process continued until my investigation yielded little new
information, or alternative perspectives, regarding that particular issue.

A similar cycle was followed to investigate most of the themes represented
by the individual benchmarks within the categories of economic development,
quality of life, and family self-sufficiency. The iterative process led to a series of
interviews whereby a wide range of interests were represented, including the
fields of education, human services, library services, job training, business,
community development, economic development, agriculture, government
(township and county levels), lending, housing, career development, religion, and
youth services; state and national leaders in agriculture, housing, small business
development, senior population policy development, community development,
recreation, rural policy, and community planning, plus; research in recreation,
seasonal homes, senior programming, community capacity building, small
business development, community planning and leadership development.

c Observation—throughout the study, I made the purpose (MCEC program
evaluation) behind my attendance of an event known to other participants at the
outset of those various events. The goal of adhering to this participant-as-

observer role ultimately was to develop in-depth relationships with key

37

stakeholders over time and so, gain a more complete understanding of the past
and present operation of the program (Gillham, 2000; Yin, 1994; Denzin, 1989).
In this study, I attended numerous meetings of MCEC program teams and of its
partners over the six-month period of time. Those meetings included: MCEC
Board of Directors; MCEC Executive Committee; the low-income citizen
empowerment board of directors; the county’s human services coordinating
body; several local and regional economic development agencies; homeless
assistance advocates; the county-based housing service provider collaborative;
the county commission, and; this study’s sponsored Progress Team.

Not only did the protocol of the MCEC program evaluation respond to the
demand for multi-source evidence gathering as a means to increase construct
validity, but it also addressed reliability issues by purposefully incorporating
techniques meant to maintain case-study quality, including: investigator skills
(e.g., good listening; identify bias, ability to integrate relevant observations and
data using synthesis skills, and; willingness to adapt as required by emerging
stakeholder issues and expectations); treatment of participants (obtaining human
subject consent and permission from participants prior to interviews and
meetings, for example); treatment of data (for instance, transcribing Progress
Team meetings discussion, see Appendix A); creation and organization of the
computer database that represents all of the individual benchmarks histories
regarding many variables, including funds allocated, number of partners, amount
of MCEC money expended and total dollars leveraged (see Appendix B for

Benchmark Summary Sheets, Tables B1-B3) plus; writing and reporting findings

38

(e.g., actively entertaining alternative perspectives; providing a sense of
completeness that all forms of data are examined, and; providing a draft version
of study’s report to program stakeholders for review and validation) (Coffman,
2003; Gillham, 2000; Krueger 8 Casey, 2000; Naumes 8 Naumes, 1999; Yin,
1994)

F. Protocol

All USDA-sponsored community-building programs across the country are
required to submit activity and outcome information via an lntemet-based
Benchmark Management System (BMS) on a regular basis. The MCEC program
has performed very well in past comparisons to other programs on a national
basis using statistics taken from that Web-based system. Most notably, the
program was named the top Round 2 rural EC for the amount of leveraged
money it was able to attract to the community in 2003 (USDA, 2003). The BMS
serves a very useful purpose in assisting individual ECs in charting progress,
recording accomplishments, and as a tool by which to compare and contrast their
program's outcomes against other EZIECs on a national basis. However,
because it attempts to track so many programs that each represent a
tremendous divergence of goals and objectives, the BMS falls short in collecting
information that tells the unique story regarding the local context, history, values
and other variables that contribute to the rich fabric of an individual program's
development and implementation. That task—to weave the underlying contextual

factors that have influenced the first phase performance of the MCEC into the

39

story of its operation—was one of the primary tasks that the program's
stakeholder wanted the mid-tenn evaluation to address.

With that contextual directive in mind, I consulted with MCEC program
staff and Board members at every phase of the study's design and
implementation. That approach gave the evaluation's planning team the
opportunity to identify obstacles as they became apparent, and to plan purposely
how best to mitigate them to achieve the evolving goals and objectives of the
project. Several such problems emerged and were addressed in this manner.
The most perplexing of which centered upon the sheer complexity and
tremendous volume of information generated by the various activities of 40-plus,
active, individual projects. That collection of data representing the past, present,
and anticipated future performance of the MCEC benchmarks is summarized and
presented in the Benchmark Summary Tables (Please see Appendix B). Table
B1 represents data regarding the Quality of Life (QOL) category, Table 82 details
all of the Economic Development (ED) benchmarks, and Table B3 provides
information for the entire set of the Self Sufficiency (SS) category’s benchmarks.
Statistics listed in those spreadsheets provide specific details regarding the
program's:

0 Application stage
0 1998 money requested (columns E)
o 1998 partners (columns F)

. Present operation

0 Total MCEC funding allocated/spent (columns G)

40

0 Primary project or program to date (columns H)

0 Current leaders (columns I)

0 Total funding received (columns J)

o ln-kind funding received and contributing partners (columns K)

o MCEC Board of Directors number of discussions during its monthly

meetings pertaining to that particular benchmark (columns L)
. Future plans

0 Short-term plan (one to two years) (columns P)

o lnterrnediate-tenn plan (three to five years) (columns Q)

0 Long-term vision beyond the MCEC program designation (columns R)

1. Benchmark Ranking System
Another potential barrier that emerged early in the evaluation's design

process was the difficulty experienced by the program’s stakeholders when trying
to rank or compare the widely diverse outputs and short-term outcomes
generated by the numerous individual programs that constitute the MCEC
program plan. A question illustrating that dilemma is: How can the MCEC’s effort
made in the creation of a countywide, comprehensive master plan (Benchmark
1.1) be compared or rated against the accumulated activities that represent the
work to upgrade the county’s early warning siren system (Benchmark 23)? The
Benchmark Ranking System (BRS) was developed as a tool to address that
problem. That instrument created a score for each benchmark that represented
the sum of the various activities, or milestones, associated with their respective

development. That index of milestones was created after considerable discussion

41

with the program's staff in an effort to identify all of the individual tasks that
comprised the alternative paths of development of MCEC projects.

The goal in designing the BRS was that higher scoring benchmarks
represented a greater effort and value to the community than a benchmark of a
lower score. This was indeed the case as program stakeholders reported that the
rank order of benchmarks via the BRS seemed to agree with their informal
assessment regarding their perceived value of benchmarks to the community. As
an illustration, the highest scoring benchmark (14.1) that led to the creation and
operation of a county-based domestic abuse shelter garnered its points through
the accumulated effect of most of the individual milestones listed on the BRS,
including having a benchmark leader, being the focus of many MCEC Board of
Directors meeting discussions, spending most of the MCEC funding allocated to
it, creating an advisory team, working with a wide variety of partners, writing
several funding proposals, winning grants from many different types of funders,
and creating several types of strategic plans. Please see Appendix C for a copy
of the BRS template.

2. Progress Team

The Progress Team used the Benchmark Summary sheets, BRS
information, and corresponding Category Comparisons (see Table 1-pages 43-
45) as a foundation to inform their work in developing a MCEC action plan for the
next phase of the program. The group's members were selected through the

same participatory process that marked the development of other evaluation

42

 

 

 

 

«8.08.8 £28.?» 22.8.8 82-5 + 023:3 882 .98
82-5
SN Co E $8 A: .6 a $8 3 a a some 8280. as 98888 so as
08.08 80.08 08. 3; 8282 82-5
.Eowwfio
02 cm 00.0.: 00:8 3:300
520032.). =0E0 _0L0>0m
E 0E0E0>oa§ 056260.05
5.. 08o. 80 38.0 00-30: 80.83» 8:68.05 «8.08.8 8289 0:82 023:0

 

o\oON
IN .026. :_ «1000005 00: mm
”$8 - ~\. 02 E mxamEcocen “.0
:\o 53: 000. .8 00: 0m 0 ..OO

Asm: m .. : 8:0
3%: m - a 8:0
3ch m - N 8:0
08$ 0 - F 8:0

398:” .: 8:0
3008 e -m 8:0
308: -m 8:0
3:88 - F 8:0

305 m - 4 8:0
@008 e - m 8:0

o -N 8:0
088 : - F 8:0

$503005
E06050 L00 xcmEcoc0m

 

scam 8-0m - v 8:0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KW? - 0. 00:0
”079 - N 00:0
no; 00:0. 0088 - F 00:0 QN 2N mmN 000.08 I E06030
mxcmecocg
v mm0_-mm .0329 2 000:. 050205
”0coc-om um 000300 03 0.9 mdm so: 0500 00908 xcmEcoc0m
Bomflmo c. mxcmEcocon ._<._.O._.
:0 :0 0003 000.024. 05.9 0.9 00.: -0500 000.05 xamecoc0m
9:055:00 .58 voom \ 39
“mo. 00: 0000000 2000050 comm ow \ em 3 \ we 2. \ me -mctmEcocB 00 09:5: .08...
am:
000 858.98 3000 05
EEoEEoO >oc0_oE:w.:0w o_Eo:oom ho 5:030 0055:: 53.0000
38 2 as.

0co0tmanO bomflmo bEaEEoO 003.35 35.60 520032.). ._. 030...

43

 

 

Eomflmo

 

 

:88; . 80.88 38.08 . 80.88 E 2:08 0 00 Es
$2: :83; . R328 $:.0A $8 2 .822 88 w 00 $-
4.8
.88 08.08 . 08.8 .$2. 08.85 . 8:8; .$8. 80.08 . 08.08 8% a 00 . 8:0 a 00.
.2: .2: .3: n .09 .8 .3: m :0 .8 4.8 m .8 98288 ES- : 8:0

 

£5.88 \ 30.8 8 $0.:

£8.88 . 85:8 $0.8

Amomdow \ mom. w 5 $ch

bomflmo
s E08 a Om .29
2 .82: 0:08 0 Om $-

 

.$:t 05.88 . 80.8 8

0:88 8:08 . :9. :8

.088 80.08 . 08. a 5

.08
28: a 00 . 8:: a 00.

 

 

GI? .2: 0.05
m

a? .810: .38

SN .2: .2. .3.

AmL0nE3: 0.:0Ecoc0nv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

v v 9:08:80: .08...- m .0030
bom0.0o :_ E0mw w
:88 5 . 08.88 Om
$:.0 $0 $0 .06. 9 .88 a Om. $-
$.
.$m. 8 80.28 . 08.05 .8. 8:58 . 8 .8. o . o 8. 8:: . 0:08 w 00.
~200E3: x:0E:o:0£
8.8 .02: .08 .3: €50 :8 0.3.0 o 8.0880: acoeim 8:0
830.00
E 88 0 Om .92 -9
$0 $0 $o -8:0 :_ 8% a Om $-
i.$
3:8 ow \ ow 3:8 80.0w \ ow 3.8 08.0 E \ om 008 .oo_.0 \ E000 a Om.
8.8 .NdN .28 .89 8.09:3: 0:0E:o:0n
0.? NM: .83 .83 Nd: 8.0.. .00: N ANA: .80 N.» ...t v 00.:0Ecoc0n .0.o..l .. .0030
Rem. . $00..“ 80.3. 02002.0 \ E0 m a 0m E0900
Kmdm . KNEE momdmw E0mm a 0m.
Em. Sn 08.33 80.0vo 0008.0 w Omi
@ Sm.
>oc0.o£:m¢.0w E0an_0>0n. o.Eo:oom 3008 00... c6 3:030 v0>o:aE_ 5.3.8000

 

 

 

 

 

8:8. a 050s

44

0:200:02“: 9 - A0:0_::0£>mo_o::000
- 60065.88 3:0 .050 0

:_ 0:303:000:::_ \ {00 0:00:05

02% N8 0 250:
{0:5 voom 8 0023005 302200 0:00 230

0:05:00

0:200:86 Fm

2082 88$ 0.: 0 20;

0:900:86 Emom 0m 000E
:00

x:0E:0:0n

3000000
:00 0:000

:00 0:000

 

45

activities. Program leaders and I started the process by recommending names of
individuals who: 1) were familiar with the MCEC's set of complex goals and
objectives, 2) represented one or more of the program's target content areas,
including K-12 (during and after school), vocational, and entrepreneurial
education; economic/community development; human services; volunteerism,
small business assistance; health care; housing; environmental conservation;
recreation and tourism, and government services, and, 3) were available to
attend the two meetings of five hours length over two consecutive weeks. In all,
of those who were invited, the majority accepted. A facilitator from the state's
primary economic development agency was recruited who also had considerable
prior knowledge regarding the program’s scope and history of development, but
was not closely involved with its day-to-day operation.

The team spent the first day listening to an explanation regarding the
various, previously described tools meant to provide an overview of the
program's first phase of operation. Then it began to identify community-related
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (commonly called a SWOT
analysis)—from both internal and external community perspectives—all of which
would influence the MCEC’s direction in the future. The first day of work
concluded with a futuring session during which the team brainstormed possible
macro economic and other trends that might impact the next generation of
Midwestern County residents. The team's second day of work began with an
overview of that SWOT analysis, a review of the top ten priorities taken from the

EC application process in 1998 and revisiting the wording of the program's

46

original vision statement. Those activities were followed by several exercises
designed to create a prioritized list of projects recommending broad areas of
focus and/or specific projects that needed to be continued, expanded, and/or
begun by the MCEC program in the future. The day concluded with the team
creating a priority list of “top 10” projects, a brief action plan for most of those
programs, and an estimate of the funding required to carry out those plans. See
Appendix D: Table D1 - Progress Team Asset and Barrier Summary; Tables DZ-
DS - 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2004 Futuring Sessions summaries; Table 06 —
SWOT Analysis, and Table D7 - Priority Recommendations by the team.

G. Study Limitations

The limitations of this mid-term evaluation fall in three categories:

1) The inability to generalize its community level findings to other
comprehensive community building programs. While I took deliberate steps to
increase the accuracy of my interpretations regarding MCEC program operation,
this evaluation’s design and implementation followed an emerging process that
responded to the needs and expectations of the local stakeholders. In doing so, it
would be very unlikely that the community level findings determined by such a
process would apply to other community building programs.

2) Lack of input from the MCEC’s primary funder. The current political and
economic landscapes at the national level is unsettled. That situation features a
recent presidential election in which no one knows the level of support that either
candidate, if elected, will provide to the EC program and an economy that

continues to reflect slow job growth and a sluggish rebound from a recession.

47

That formula translates to the probable continuation of the trend that reflects flat,
or reduced, operating budgets for most rural program providers, including the
USDA. Over the course of this evaluation, I found no one within that organization
who could provide concrete evidence concerning the EC program’s immediate
and long term future.

3) My inexperience as a program evaluator. Although I have completed
several graduate level classes that have provided me with a good understanding
of qualitative research methods, have experience in program design at a
statewide level, and have worked with many community-based groups of
volunteers in a similar capacity found in this study, this is the first evaluation
project I have led. True to the literature that described community building
initiatives as difficult to evaluate due to a number of factors, the complexity
represented by the activities attributed to MCEC’s menu of benchmarks was
overwhelming at the onset of my work with the evaluation’s planning team. The
evolving nature of this type of investigation can be quite unnerving to someone
who has not experienced the anxiety that results from not knowing exactly where
the process outlined by action research will lead. That situation will be less
formidable as I gain additional experience by working with other evaluators, by
taking training that specializes in program evaluation methods, and by continuing

to read other accounts regarding the evaluation of this type of program.

48

CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The utility of using logic models in portraying a program’s theory of change
and in illustrating the complex interactions of various components that operate
within that program from a holistic perspective has been previously described.
The following section will present those interrelating components from the EP
and AE perspectives. Please note that this paper has already discussed a large
portion of the EP model—as the information contained in the sections describing
this evaluation’s conceptual framework, literature review, methods and sample
are represented by the model’s each input (Columns A), and output (Columns Bl
for activities and 82 for participation) listings. Therefore no further reference is
made to EP inputs and outputs.

A. AE External Factors

1. National EZ/EC Program Guidelines

The process used by Midwestern County community leaders in creating
the 1998 application adhered to an empowered approach. Town hall meetings
and survey questionnaires led to a list of prioritized needs and expectations as
expressed by a wide demographic range of citizens. The MCEC's own strategic
categories (QOL, ED, and F88), and benchmarks within each theme, continue to
reflect the strategic goals of the national program's authors as well. While the
high level of citizen input was evident in 1998, its continued engagement,
especially by low-income individuals, has waned over the course of the first five

years of the program's operation. Other comprehensive community building

49

initiatives have struggled with the cost versus perceived benefit of continuous
citizen engagement as well (Kubish et al, 2002). The primary factor for the drop-
off of citizen input with the MCEC is cost. The county’s original EZIEC action plan
was formulated on the expectation of receiving a $25 million award and so,
outlined a menu of 52 projects that cumulatively matched that funding level. In
fact, a portion of that plan called for the MCEC to support a work team consisting
of a representative group of citizens, including low-income families, whose
members regularly would review the performance indicators of the active
benchmarks and make recommendations regarding what next steps the program
should concentrate on in the future. As the MCEC Board reallocated funding at
the reduced award level ($2.5 million) in early 2000, it opted to preserve nearly
all (but one) of the benchmarks. That decision led to the situation where many
benchmarks were not supported with seed money, and where sponsorship of any
sort of on-going evaluation effort seemed unreasonable given stakeholders
perception that the program operated under austere conditions at its start. See
Benchmark Summary Sheets, Appendix B, Tables Bl-B3, Columns E for original
funding requests for each benchmark and Columns G for money allocated and
spent

The MCEC has applied the overarching strategies dictated by the national
EZ/EC legislation to a high degree. Statistics and observations gathered as a
result of this study, especially from the Benchmark Summary spreadsheets,
illustrate the net increase in number of partners at the local, regional, state and

federal levels (see Columns F and I in all Appendix B tables). The evaluation’s

50

interviews, plus observations from the MCEC Board of Director meetings and
minutes, show that program leaders often discuss sustainability issues and
consider those concepts as key components in any decision to support a
particular benchmark.

2. National Economy

Midwestern County has suffered with most of the country through the
economic downturn over the last four years. Any attempt to isolate the effects of
the MCEC program on the community's economic situation by citing statistics
indicating positive change in the number of quality jobs and/or a substantially
lower unemployment rate since 1998 is negated by the reality of that national
recession. Despite recent reports that the nation is emerging from the economic
slump, many of Michigan’s rural counties continue to lag behind the rest of the
state in realizing the benefits of that recovery. This especially is true in the area
of unemployment as Midwestern County, and an adjacent county, have the
second and third highest percentage of out-of-work residents, respectively, when
compared with the rest of Michigan’s 83 counties on a seasonally adjusted basis
(Michigan Department of Treasury, 2004).

This reality has led to a downward spiral of funding and staffing reductions
to federal and then correspondingly, to state program budgets, and finally to
deep program funding reductions for many types of human service, and other,
locally based programs. Conceptual and monetary support for the national
EZIEC initiative also has varied over the life of the MCEC designation in part due

to new policy priorities reflected by changing federal/state administrative and

51

legislative leadership. The Midwestern County program continues to operate
under that cloud of potential partial funding cuts or even, total program
elimination. That threat has materialized in part as the program's sixth year of
funding recently was reduced from $250,000 to $191,000 by the USDA.

The recent recession also influenced the MCEC program work plan as
local and regional service providers continually seek to replace monies lost
through state and federal cutbacks via requests to MCEC for direct funding, or by
asking the program's staff members to identify alternative funding sources and
for grant writing assistance. It also translates to the need for MCEC program staff
to constantly spend resources (time and money) to recruit and orient new
stakeholders to its key leadership positions due to the high rate of staff turnover
within partnering organizations.

3. Mandates and Reporting Requirements

The final set of factors representing primary external influences of the
MCEC program is the various mandates and/or legislation specifying quality,
client eligibility, or other standards with which the program must comply. One
group of those mandates is generated due to local participation in large,
nationally based programs. The “No Child Left Behind” program that requires
many school systems to adjust, and upgrade as necessary, student assessment
and testing procedures is a good example. Those schools that fail to meet
minimum student performance standards over a specific period of time face a
series of increasingly severe repercussions, culminating with the prospect of an

outside agency's administration takeover of the school in question.

52

Another type of mandate requires locally based programs to submit an
assessment of service quality and/or proof of collaborative effort as a precursor
to receiving funds from state governmental agencies or foundations. Homeless
assistance programs, such as the MCEC's Benchmark 18.8, which are funded by
United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and administered in
Michigan's rural areas by the Michigan State Housing Development Authority
(MSHDA), offer a good example of this type of hurdle that local service providers
face. In order to receive emergency shelter operating and administrative funds,
Continuum of Care (CC) groups across the state must submit comprehensive
community plans that demonstrate a coordinated effort in delivering homeless
services. These plans must be approved by local authorities and are subject to
audit, monitoring, and administrative requirements by HUD and MSHDA.
Homeless shelters must meet all local zoning and building codes, plus must
regularly submit performance and outcome updates to those funding
organizations.

Many other examples of mandates, rules, and regulations were
encountered during the first phase of MCEC operation. The development of a
countywide recreation plan and citizen preference survey that helped the process
of securing monies from Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources; USDA-
RD’s requirement that an environmental impact study be completed on a newly
purchased industrial park site before any MCEC money could be used to add

sewer and water infrastructure, and; the rule that a housing needs and availability

53

assessment be completed as a preliminary step in the process of securing
USDA's Mutual Self Help program funding—represent a few of those examples.
B. EP External Factors

The set of extemalities affecting the work of the mid-term evaluation is
similar to the those influencing the operation of the MCEC program. Specifically,
the sluggish economy that most of the nation experienced over the last four
years (since 2000) led to a series of funding and staffing cutbacks to my principal
employer's workforce and menu of social programs as well. From my personal
perspective, that scenario meant that continued support for my housing program
leader position was not guaranteed. Constant staffing changes within the
MCEC’s partnering organizations affected my efforts to effectively identify,
contact and interview key informants who had the necessary background and
experience to offer informed opinions regarding EC program expectations from a
national or state perspective. That situation added time and expense to the
project as often my investigation looking for that expert opinion yielded little else
than unretumed telephone calls and/or a referral to another individual.

Another external factor involves the continuing interest by foundations and
other funding organizations to determine the effectiveness of comprehensive
community building initiatives such as the MCEC in terms of return on
investment, degree of impact, and sustainability. Previous discussion in this
paper has described the greater evaluation effort targeting urban community
development programs, with rural programs finishing a distant second in terms of

number of studies performed at the local program level. I believe that

54

shortcoming directly assisted this study’s initial funding request being approved.
It was apparent that while many regional and state community development
specialists, with whom I am in contact due to my housing program leader
responsibilities, were well aware of the MCEC program, few knew of the
complexity and comprehensiveness behind its approach and therefore, wanted to
know more. This undercurrent of interest paved the way for the evaluation’s
funding award, my primary employer encouraging me to carryout the assignment
by providing a half-time study leave for six months, and for the assistance
provided to me and MCEC stakeholders in terms of advice and dialogue by a
large cadre of rural community development experts from several government
agencies and universities, plus many for-profit firms that evaluate and offer
consultation services to these programs.
C. AE Assumptions

1. EZIEC Legislation

The principles behind the enacting legislation of the national community
building programs administered by USDA have been mentioned in prior sections
of this paper.

2. MCEC and Community Change

At the Midwestern County level, assumptions of leaders and program staff
who not only are active with the MCEC program, but also play many other
community leadership roles, follow a similar tone as the national EZIEC
principles. Those mini-theories represent the group’s collective knowledge and

Ieaming that is reflected by their action in addressing how to best accomplish

55

community change. They are influenced by feedback obtained regarding past
success in attracting grants and other forms of assistance using a
comprehensive and collaborative approach to delivering community services.
Several examples of that approach’s effectiveness are evident by noting the
output of several benchmarks that show a high total number of partners (see
Benchmark Summary Sheets, Appendix B, Tables B1-B3, Columns I), including:

o The development and distribution of a human resource directory by the
countywide human service coordinating work team as part of Benchmark
16.2,

o The work of the economic development organization subcontracted by the
MCEC and all other economic development agencies in the county that
focuses on retaining and expanding job opportunities within a two-county
region, plus performs a host of other tasks as part of Benchmarks 11.1
through 11.5,

o The effort of the housing service provider collaborative group—the Decent,
Affordable, and Safe Housing (DASH) Team—that assisted in delivering most
of the activities related to the nine housing-related benchmarks, including
Benchmark 18.3 (provide low income family assistance to rehabilitate
housing) and Benchmark 18.4 (Group Work Camp that used a crew of
teenagers during Summer 2004 to help paint and perform various home

maintenance projects to over 57 homes in the area), and,

56

o The effort that led to the development of a 13-county plan to extend lntemet
access to all residents and businesses as part of total partner leader (with 23)
Benchmark 22's outcomes (eliminate informational access disparities).

Christenson (1989) offers three models of rural community development--
self-help, technical assistance, and conflict-that vary according to differing
assumptions, role of the change agent, basis of change, core problems to be
addressed, and overarching goals of the change initiative. Two of those models,
self-help (SH) and technical assistance (TA), are applicable when discussing
Midwestern County community development assumption preferences.
Communities that assume that SH is a preferred strategy focus their community
development efforts on institutionalizing a process of change that targets building
infrastructure addressing a wide range of natural, built, political and human
capital issues by expanding and enhancing the collaborative network of partners
that operate under that infrastructure (Flora & Flora, 2004). Broad-based and
sustained citizen participation in the change process is an integral part of SH
model, as is the ability to respond to new threats and opportunities to economic
or quality of life issues in a timely manner. The TA version adheres to a more
scientific, rational approach that relies on expert advice regarding definable
problems with technically and cost-appropriate solutions (Flora & Flora, 2004).
Citizen input is lower in the TA model, and the emergence of a particular project's
importance is based more on a narrow definition of community need than the SH

model.

57

Given that brief overview, it would seem the two approaches represent
incompatible strategies concerning how a community thinks development and
change should be handled; however, they co-exist quite well in Midwestern
County. SH is easily the goal to which MCEC leaders aspire as they carryout the
program's business of implementing sustainable community change. Frequent
conversations observed over the course of this evaluation, during MCEC Board
of Director's meetings and other organization's meetings as well, give testament
to the value that community’s leaders place on this approach. One good example
illustrating that success is represented by the process that led to the creation of
the EC designation in the first place. Several other examples focus on
benchmarks that are devoted entirely to building capacity with a wide base of
leaders and private citizens, including: Benchmark 5.1 that helped create a
countywide recreation plan and department via a resident preference survey and
Benchmark 10.1 in which MCEC funding assisted with the start-up and operation
of a countywide volunteer center that now coordinates several major projects.

But where the overarching philosophical assumption that SH community
change is preferred and practiced whenever possible by most Midwestern
County leaders, the actual means of performing the MCEC plan of work often is
more a result of a TA approach. As discussed in the program's external factors
section (AE), programs such as the MCEC and other community service
providers, spend a tremendous amount of staff time and money in complying with
the various rules and regulations stipulated by funders of their (the local

provider’s) programs. As such, a lot of the first phase effort of the MCEC was

58

spent in identifying and/or paying for feasibility studies, business plans, surveys
and other assessment procedures that were the requirement of a potential or
current funding agency. Illustrations of this type of MCEC activity include the
farmers’ market’s (Benchmark 12.2) feasibility and market studies, plus the
creation of a business plan and several unsuccessful proposals to sponsor a
feasibility study for Benchmark 18.10 that calls for the development of a senior-
assisted living center.

There is evidence of an undercurrent of disagreement in this group’s
meaning schemes concerning where best to focus MCEC initial effort in bringing
sustainable change to the community. For example, as part of the priorities
established in 1998, one called for the program to provide more activities for
youth as a way to address the negative outcome that so many young adults
leave the community following their high school graduation. One sub-group of
MCEC stakeholders might assert that the most economical, long-term solution
would start with building a youth activity center. Another part of the group might
favor starting a family strengthening program that would be available to a number
of existing schools, such as a youth mentoring program proposed by the
Progress Team. That program would utilize parents, community leaders, and
senior volunteers to act as mentors for all ages of children in conjunction with
many types of activities (sports, reading, homework assistance, etc.). While this
type of tension is evident in the planning process of many benchmarks, the key
program members do not let those philosophical differences impede the progress

of a particular benchmark's development at hand as observed during several

59

MCEC Board of Director and Executive Team meetings. In short, the differences
in perception are known and tolerated by MCEC team members as I did not
witness, nor hear any past account of, any situation where it erupted into open
conflict.

3. Evaluation Theory

At the start of this mid-term evaluation’s field work, it was evident that the
community-based stakeholders viewed the evaluation as more of a summative
approach designed only to judge the success of the program’s first phase effort
and then, publicize those results. And why not? Statistics taken from the USDA’s
BMS indicated that the MCEC program was performing at a high level. Also, only
a single, one-day assessment had been performed on the program by USDA
over its first five years so the Midwestern County leaders were anxious to tell
their unique story to a larger audience. Stakeholders initially viewed this study
and its findings as an opportunity to promote the program’s good work and create
a greater local, state, and federal awareness regarding its performance.

The group’s buy-in to the responsive and participatory format appeared to
be low in the initial phases of the study’s field work, but generated a great deal of
interest in latter stages of the project, especially as evidenced by the Progress
Team meetings. I believe the reason for that early lukewarm reception is that it
took time for the group to develop an understanding and to reach consensus
regarding the long-term community benefits that the study offered. The majority
opinion of the group seemed to view the evaluation process more as an audit

meant to judge the performance of the program, than a democratic series of

60

exercises designed to improve the program’s operation. As the study progressed
and information was made available regarding the true intent of the project,
stakeholders responded in a positive manner to any request I made for their time
or opinions. Within that process, my attempts to verify observations with various
members of the group that at first appeared to run against the grain of popular
belief regarding program’s success—such as the lack of continued citizen
engagement in the program after the 1998 application or that a small business
assistance focus was lacking in the MCEC first phase effort—were not treated as
threats to the program’s reputation, but instead, thoughtfully considered and
discussed.
D. EP Assumptions

The interplay between the general social theories, local theories,
stakeholder and my perceptions about program impact, and stakeholder beliefs
concerning the value of evaluation activities has been discussed previously in the
methods section of this dissertation. Figure 3, (see page 33), further illustrates
that system of inquiry. All of those components serve as the basis for the menu
of assumptions in the creation and implementation of the MCEC mid-term
evaluation.
E. AE Inputs

lnputs are resources available to a program for use in planning,
implementing and evaluating its degree of progress toward meeting stated
outcomes and ultimate impact (Carroll & McKenna, 2001). In the case of the

MCEC program, inputs represent the cumulative assets of the community and

61

are the foundation from which the program operates (Kretzmann & McKnight,
1993).

1. Paid Staff

The MCEC director started in early 2000 and he, along with a consultant
and administrative assistant, are the only paid staff of the MCEC program. Of
that group, the director plays a critically influential role in the operation and
performance of the MCEC as the sole full-time employee. That observation was
confirmed during the stakeholder interviews performed for this evaluation as the
overwhelming majority thought that the director and the program were
inseparable—in other words, that the reputation of one could not be discussed
apart from the other. The MCEC director brings a unique set of skills to the
position that serve him well in building and enhancing the program's operation.
That skill set includes: past experience as an educational administrator and
community development specialist, personal values that favor a social justice
perspective, and a willingness to operate in an environment that demands a
flexible, inquisitive, and creative decision-making approach. He tirelessly
promotes the tenets of the program during the many multi-level governmental
functions he attends on a regular basis, and also, while serving as a member on
numerous community service organizations' advisory boards.

While the traits listed above serve as the foundation for the manner in
which the MCEC director carries out his duties on a day-to-day basis, his
operating regime is best described by social entrepreneurship. Traditional

definitions of entrepreneurship often focus on the traits and success of for-profit

or business owners, but the concept of acting entrepreneurial can be expanded
to include a person, team, or organization trying to achieve a social or economic
end by means of acting as an innovator, change agent, opportunist or by
generally demonstrating resourcefulness on a long-term basis (Davis, 2002). As
the primary force behind the operation of a complex community development
program, the MCEC director’s time is stretched thin between the tasks prescribed
in building so many different programs. His primary strategy in making those
tough choices regarding where to spend that limited amount of time centers on
the benefit each choice represents in regard to long-term community change—
another basic trait of any type of entrepreneur—either social or business. For
instance, I observed that while large business retention and recruitment activities
were being carried out by the MCEC subcontracted economic development
corporation, small business assistance was lacking as a part of the program’s
action plan. That observation was confirmed through conversations with the
program stakeholders via interviews and the Progress Team meetings.
Eventually that group recommended the development of a small business
initiative as a Phase II project of the MCEC.

That decision was the starting point-in-time at which the entrepreneurial
activity began for the director as he purposefully began to survey various
community and regional partners for their level of support for such a project,
identified a potential grant through his network of regional, state, and federal
contacts that would fund a portion of the project, discussed hiring the MCEC

consultant to coordinate and write the proposal for that potential grant, and

63

96

C3

Ll .1
('17

generally, rearranged and cleared his schedule to accommodate the short
deadline for that proposals submission. The resulting decision to develop a small
business initiative signifies a major change in direction for the MCEC in how it
plans to spend its time in expanding small business assistance, job training, and
vocational education from within.

The consultant represents the second highest administrative expenditure
category for the MCEC, after the director’s salary. Her primary roles within the
program include: an investigator of potential funding for existing and potential
benchmark projects, a proposal writer, plus a resource regarding the history and
development of the program to area organizations. She also updates the USDA’s
BMS and tracks MCEC Board of Director allocations and expenditures. This
individual was instrumental in preparing the original application and continues to
be an opinion leader in helping to determine its operating direction. Through her
efforts, over $2 million in new funding has been secured from various sources to
benefit benchmark initiatives.

2. Volunteers

Most program advisory teams exert considerable influence over their
organization’s overall performance (Johnson, 1996; Fowler, 1995). MCEC
program volunteers are another asset that provide benefit to the community in a
holistic fashion. A core group of current Board of Director members was involved
in the initial application process and continues to promote the value of
collaboration and comprehensive delivery of community services on an active

basis. Most members of that group who do not currently serve in a formal MCEC

64

administrative capacity are still involved with the program by leading or
volunteering to assist with various benchmark activities. Through the efforts of
that existing volunteer group and the MCEC director, new volunteers continually
are identified and recruited to participate in program activities.

Observation of the MCEC group of volunteers reflects the diverse
composition needed for team success cited as important in the literature review
section of this paper. There appears to be an even representation between the
professional staff members from various service providers—such as the
education, human service, business, and government sectors—and individuals
who are not officially linked to a specific organizations but still possess a wide
range of previous work experience and interests. The group as a whole operates
with a similar number of residents who have lived in the area for most of their
lives balanced by those who have recently emigranted to Midwestern County in
the last decade. Although this evaluation's methods did not include a formal
investigation into the experience level, operating preference, and other personal
characteristics of each MCEC program stakeholder, observations focusing on the
MCEC Board of Directors meeting dynamics made over the six-month-period,
along with face-to-face interviews and many other informal conversations,
confirms the assertion that the key decision makers of this program represent the
wide range, but balanced blend, of personal and experiential characteristics
needed for effective team operation.

Several other factors regarding the behavior of the MCEC group of

volunteers lead to the program’s overall operational success. First, the degree of

65

trust that the group places in the MCEC director and his methods is extremely
high. I did not witness any stakeholder criticism regarding the general operation
of the program. MCEC stakeholders—due to the busy schedules, their volunteer
status, and also the extreme complexity of the program—entrust the director to
make expedient and responsible decisions regarding the activities of the
program. Secondly, this group practices a high level of fiscal restraint. As
evidence, in the first phase of the MCEC, no USDA money was spent on
benchmarks that scored in the lowest quadrant as determined by the BRS (see
Table 1-page 43). That statistic means that very little risk was assumed in
developing individual projects that had little chance of progressing past an initial
step. Standard operating procedure for the MCEC is that any benchmark must
first have an active local or regional leader to take responsibility for its overall
development before receiving any MCEC money. Finally, this group practices its
responsibility of guiding the program with great integrity. They view themselves
as stewards of a quarter million, USDA dollars per year. While they feel that
amount of money can make a significant difference in a high poverty area such
as their county, they also believe that the spending of those funds must be
accomplished in a prudently responsible manner.

3. Other Assets

Partners of the MCEC, either as part of the original application or added
as a result of the program’s first five years of benchmark activities, are another

set of resources utilized by the community as a whole. This evaluation found

66

several examples illustrating the MCEC’s successful effort to develop
benchmarks by building bonding and bridging social capital, including:

o The farmers’ market (Benchmark 12.2) eventually secured USDA-RD and
foundation funds to build and operate the center utilizing several new
partnerships including the local Amish community, university Extension located in
Midwestern County and at that institution's main campus, Michigan Department
of Agriculture, a statewide rural council, and a local city. The project is successful
to date partially because of MCEC’s effort at the local level to bring small
business and small farm owners, and the Amish community together to discuss
common areas of interests and differences—an example of building bonding
social capital. At the same time, the project illustrates enhanced bridging
relationships as the increased cooperation among potential farm market
stakeholders at the local level served as a catalyst for favorable consideration in
funding the project on the part of regional foundations and the USDA.

o The county’s housing problems especially were assisted by increased
levels of collaboration when viewed through the social capital bonding and
bridging lens. Through the facilitation of the MCEC, the DASH Team formed and
for the first time most of the county's agencies responsible for providing low-
income families with housing counseling, homebuyer mortgage rate or down
payment assistance, and low interest loans for home rehabilitation met and
worked together on several projects—an example of increased bonding social
capital. While past DASH Team projects focused on local issues, such as the

creation of a common application form (Benchmark 17.1) and of a housing

67

service provider directory; it is proposed that this group will increase its level of
collaboration by assuming a greater leadership role in the development and
administration of the USDA-sponsored Mutual Self-Help Housing program
(Benchmark 18.9) and by applying to become a non-profit, countywide housing
development organization (Benchmark 18.2). Both of those projects would
require further building of bridging-type relationships with partners outside the
county.

0 The highest scoring benchmark (14.1) per the BRS that led to the creation
and continued operation of a countywide domestic abuse center, is a model of
building bonding and bridging social capital simultaneously. Several partners,
including the Midwestern County United Way, several churches, and a local
women's auxiliary, assisted in developing a feasibility study, locating a facility,
plus renovating and operating it since 2000. The local branch of a statewide bank
provided a special term and rate mortgage to finance the shelter. This
benchmark is the only MCEC project that lists private citizen donations as a
funding source and it was effective in receiving funding from state and federal
sources such as MSHDA and a domestic violence treatment organization. As
part of the last update available, the shelter had housed 53 people, counseled
four individuals due to sexual assault, another 137 clients had received legal
advice, and 278 youth had received violence prevention education-—all services
that would have been provided out-of-county, or at a reduced level, previous to

the MCEC designation.

68

0 Part of USDA's promise to assist EC designated communities was not
only to furnish funding, but the organization also committed considerable staff
time to provide technical assistance to these programs. This input assisted the
MCEC program in several ways. It has been noted that changes at the federal
level leave the local program in a perpetual state of adjustment as new staff
members take time to become orientated to the history and current operation of
the MCEC. While technical assistance at the state level also has been affected
by staff reassignments, the situation is not as volatile as at the federal level. The
work of the Michigan USDA-RD staff members, who have regional
responsibilities that include Midwestern County, has been exemplary. These
individuals have worked with the program since its inception and in each case
have assumed substantial leadership roles with benchmarks that, in turn, have
performed well.

Substandard and unsafe housing were two areas identified by the
community as issues the MCEC should address in 1998. Through a unique
relationship which has not been duplicated in any other Michigan county, the
USDA-RD housing specialist commits up to two days of her time per week to
travel to Midwestern County and to work closely with the MCEC housing
advocate retained through Benchmark 18.7. These two individuals collaborate as
needed while making home inspections for rehabilitation loan requests, referring
clients, assisting potential homeowners address their financial record problems,
and qualifying families for USDA-RD down payment and/or interest rate

assistance. They each played an important role in the early development of

69

DASH Team as well. Their efforts, combined with other housing assistance
providers who are part of the DASH Team, led to Midwestern County residents
receiving over $1,200,000 in very-low and low-income mortgages, repair loans
and grants. That total represents nearly one-half of the money that citizens in the
other 12 surrounding counties received combined in 2003 (Midwestern County
Enterprise Community, 2004).

The USDA-RD community development specialist is also a valued
member of the MCEC program's operation in Phase I. This individual acted in a
number of advisory roles serving as a liaison between the local program and
Michigan, or federal, USDA-RD administrative staff, but her outstanding effort is
most pronounced in the development of Benchmark 18.4, Group Work Camp.
This ”camp" was actually a week long series of projects whereby teenagers from
all over the country traveled to Midwestern County and performed minor home
repair and painting jobs for low-income homeowners who requested their
services. A national organization assisted with funding, worker recruitment, and
travel logistics, but the level of local planning and quantity of volunteers needed
to successfully hold this camp was incredible. The USDA-RD community
development specialist was the catalyst for building this cooperative network of
partners and volunteers as she first traveled to out-of-state training sessions to
investigate the feasibility of bringing such a program to Midwestern County, and

then returned to the community to facilitate the process as needed.

70

4. Community Values

Community values, like assumptions, act as cornerstone sources of
influence over the decision-making process of the MCEC. Centering on the
values that might impact the work toward community change, it is evident that the
community's members value their close proximity to two micropolitan areas. The
USDA defines a micropolitan area as a primarily rural county with an urban
cluster of at least 10,000 persons, and where at least 25 percent of the residents
from outlying non-metro counties commute to that centrally located county for
employment (USDA-Economic Research Service, 2004). While Midwestern
County is not officially designated a part of those two micropolitan areas, its close
proximity to these small urban areas provides residents with an increased
number of choices in entertainment, health care, human service, education,
media, retail and government services. Concurrently, Midwestern County
residents feel that they benefit from a traditional rural environment that values a
"know your neighbor" attitude and the belief that a moderate amount of economic
growth is acceptable, but not at the expense of existing residents quality of life
expectations. The best example of the latter belief emerges from the survey data
gathered from Midwestern County residents as part of the early development of a
recreation plan and commission (Benchmark 5.1). The executive summary, titled
Who the Midwestern County Parks and Recreation Commission (MCPRC)
should serve (p.3-Focus Group Summary) states, “Regardless of the services
provided, MCPRC services should be focused on Midwestern County residents

first, then tourists” (Midwestern County Parks and Recreation Department, 2003).

71

the effec
means a
For instz
SWOT a
excellen
2') its ab
markelii
similar I
the pror
and age
at retail
Demelvi
ei’Efilua
of tilde,

F-i

That set of conflicting attitudes is well recognized in the community and
the effects of the "maintain the rural atmosphere" versus ”economic growth
means a better life for everyone" opinions are reflected in many MCEC activities.
For instance, two of the primary strengths listed by the Progress Team during its
SWOT analysis of the county were: 1) its central location in the state providing
excellent highways and access to proximate mid-size metropolitan areas, and
2) its abundant natural resources leading to the frequent use of the tourism
marketing slogan, ”20 Lakes in 20 Minutes." Those items also were mentioned in
similar lists during the community prioritizing of issues in 1998. However, two of
the prominent weaknesses listed during those same sets of exercises in 1998,
and again in 2004, were lack of good paying jobs, lack of major industry, and lack
of retail choices. Any concentrated effort by the MCEC to address those
perceived weaknesses that are all economic development related is destined to
eventually "bump up” against those who value the small town, rural environment
of Midwestern County.

F. AE Outputs

Returning to the logic model outlining the various interrelating components
of the MCEC program, outputs represent the activities to date that the program
has been instrumental in orchestrating. They also focus on the intended
beneficiaries of those activities.

1. Activities

Most of the program's activities are listed as part of the BRS tool

developed for this evaluation. As reported previously, that list was created

72

through the combined efforts of the MCEC program staff, principally the director
and myself. As such, it represents a comprehensive list of milestones that
contribute to the development, support, operation and evaluation of a particular
benchmark. Those activities are categorized into the following themes:

0 Leadership—e.q., benchmark leader named and/or active; committee or team
formed, and/or currently meets; brainstorming or organizational meeting held,
and; investigated sources for potential partners,

. Stakeholder involvement—number of discussions at MCEC Board of Director
meetings; number of MCEC staff and volunteers on benchmark-related
advisory boards, and; amount of MCEC money allocated and spent,

. Plan development—strategic plan developed, implemented, and evaluated on
a short-, intermediate-, and long-term basis, and; sponsored feasibility or
business plan,

. Fundability—number of proposals written and grants received, and; amount of
in-kind assistance received,

. Degree of collaboration—number of local, regional, state and federal
partners,

. Other activities—support letters written; EC designation used to increase
individual benchmark grant proposal scores; efforts to promote the program;
sponsorship and participation with the mid-term evaluation; the Progress

Team’s work, and; any subcontracted service.

73

DI’C

BR

l0}

Gil

2. Beneficiaries

The program's vision statement is the starting point for listing the
recipients of the set of activities identified above. Due to the comprehensive,
holistic approach to community change that the MCEC follows, that group
basically includes anyone residing in, or visiting, the community. From a different
perspective and given that the community’s persistent poverty levels were one of
the primary reasons that it was awarded the EC designation, the intended
beneficiaries of many benchmark activities are low-income families and
individuals. Many Phase I projects reflect that emphasis including the majority of
the benchmarks listed as part of the FSS category. Some of the highest scoring
projects of that group are found in the housing-related initiatives according to
BRS averages. They include Benchmark 18.3, which provides low-rate loans to
low-income residents who need to rehabilitate their homes, Benchmark 18.4, the
Group Work Camp project, Benchmark 18.7 that funds the housing advocacy
counselor who works exclusively with the low-income residents, and Benchmark
18.8 that led to the coordination of homeless services in the county.

Aside from the populations that are directly targeted by MCEC activities,
several other groups benefit from participation in the program. The increase in
the number of partners providing funding, technical assistance and volunteering
time at all levels of geographic location has already been noted. Several
examples exist in which organizations that were providing services in adjacent
counties prior to the MCEC designation either became aware of the program’s

breadth of initiatives and approached the group with a proposal to extend those

74

services to Midwestern County, or was solicited by the MCEC program staff first,

and eventually became an active partner. They include:

Benchmark 11.5 that led to the MCEC subcontracting a neighboring
county’s economic development corporation to promote Midwestern County
industrial development prospects to regional, state, national and even
international markets,
Benchmark 20.3 in which a home-visiting medical services organization that
covers a nine-county region (including Midwestern County) identified the
MCEC priority to address home health care issues and matched it to a grant
proposal from the USDA-Rural Utilities Service to enhance client access
and reduce costs through the use of patient home monitors,
Benchmark 18.3 that brought Federal Home Loan Bank-Indianapolis home
rehabilitation funding to Midwestern County, along with several other
counties, for the first time.

G. AE Outcomes

Program outcomes are indicators of changes that the program has

realized, directly or indirectly, as a result of its operation that are measured at

short-, intennediate-, and long-term intervals of time. This evaluation has divided

the MCEC term of designation into two distinct phases of operation, each

representing five years of the program’s operation. The following outcome

discussion will follow that same dichotomy. Correspondingly, short-term

outcomes fall within the first phase (1-5 years of operation), while the Progress

Team’s action plan and other developments that spun out of this evaluation are

75

the subject of intermediate-term outcomes (within 6-to-10 years of designation).
The long-term outcomes represent the ultimate impact of the program and so
have a sustainability component that represents the ability of the program to
maintain its various initiatives beyond the EC designation scheduled to end in
2009.

1. Short term

To date, the MCEC program's list of inter-related outcomes reflecting
community change includes:

3 Create awareness of complementary programs and increase levels of
collaboration among the county’s service providers.

Several benchmark milestones illustrate this on-going effort to develop a
comprehensive network of community-based service delivery by MCEC
stakeholders. Given the current environment of budget reductions to most public
sector programs that leads to ever-increasing shortages of available resources
(money and staff), long-term collaboration addressing gaps and overlap of
services is no longer an Option for agencies involved in this important work; it is
simply a necessity. One of the best examples illustrating the multi-system effects
of a MCEC benchmark’s development in relation to other organizations is
Benchmark 5.1 that led to the creation of a countywide recreation department
and commission. Starting with the priority listed as a result of the 1998 -
community assessment process to improve recreational opportunities for all
residents, the benchmark scored well on the BRS due to its subsequent activities

including a community survey, the creation of strategic and implementation

76

plan:
also
SUDi
Duri
seer
impr
obsr

hO‘l'i'

Spo
COU.

plans, and the identification of long-term funding sources. Sustainability issues
also will be addressed as the commission intends to explore resident level of
support for approving a millage proposal to pay for its continued operation.
During the initial phase of this evaluation, the development of this initiative
seemed to center on the goal of increasing recreational opportunities by
improving, expanding or establishing the county’s public parks. Subsequent
observations identified a more holistic approach to the department’s work plan,
however, as key MCEC stakeholders who also served on the Parks and
Recreation Commission explored opportunities for the new department to
collaborate with educators. Most of this investigation centered on enhancing
after-school programs as part of the US Department of Education's 21 st Century
Learning Grants operating in two of the public school systems in the county.
Other discussions sought to expand options regarding the department’s
sponsorship of youth recreational programs at various public facilities in the
county and of the more traditional youth athletic leagues, such as baseball,
football, and basketball.

It is impossible to prove that this collaborative effort ever would have
occurred in absence of the MCEC, but the program's facilitation of activities was
the primary catalyst that led to the creation of the recreation department and
commission. Many new partnerships were created due to this effort, including:
Midwestern County university Extension offices recommending and cooperating
with several of that university’s campus-based researchers as they designed,

administered, analyzed and created the final report that informed the new

77

department’s strategic plan; county government officials supporting that plan's
creation, deciding to house it within it organizational framework, and funding a
portion of its director's salary; several new funding resources becoming active
with the county as evidenced by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
accepting the plan as a first step for the county to be considered for funding to
fix-up and operate its many parks.

3 Enhance bonding and bridging social capital networks by increasing the

number of partners that operate in the county.
This component’s contribution to the program’s work plan previously has

been discussed in the AE input section of this paper.

3 Increase resident access to community-based services.

Several benchmark activities specifically focused on this type of outcome.

Most of the Phase I effort behind Benchmark 16.2's development concentrated
on creating and distributing a directory of human service providers. A work team
comprised of members from a human service coordinating body took leadership
with this project and the directory eventually was mailed to all provider
organizations in the county. Future plans call for regularly scheduled updates of
the directory, its posting on the lntemet, and mailing it to all county residents.
Similar projects were the focus of Benchmarks 18.5 and 18.7 that led to a
housing assistance directory and a list of available homes for rent, respectively.

3 Facilitate the institutionalization of infrastructure capacity building and/or

other formalized procedures in a comprehensive manner to address

economic development, quality of life and family self-sufficiency issues.

78

Clearly, the bulk of the MCEC's Phase I effort is reflected by this set of
outcomes. The theory of change supporting this action is that the optimum, most
sustainable method of achieving desired community change is through the
creation and continued support of formal organizations operating at the local
level under the guidance of strategic plans that are informed by a representative
number of community members. In many cases, the MCEC encountered
benchmarks indicating community priorities in 1998 that could not be acted upon
until some form of basic capacity was first developed as a platform from which to
address those issues. An analysis of the top two quadrants of benchmark
average scores (see Table 2-MCEC Program Benchmarks Institutionalizing
Infrastructure, page 80) shows that of those 20 qualifiers, all but five
(Benchmarks 4.1-Character Counts! training, 18.3-mortgage and rehabilitation
loans, 18.4-Group Work Camp, 18.7-housing advocate position, and 24-
leadership training) devoted a major percentage of effort to creating the capacity
with which to respond to either the 1998 community priorities or to new

opportunities that emerged since that time.

79

Table 2. MCEC Program Benchmarks Institutionalizing Infrastructure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 21, 2004
Strategic Quad- Bench- Project Description(s) Percent of
Category rant mark # benchmark
effort
institutional-
izing
infrastructure
Quality of 4 2.1 Blight ordinances created, solid waste 60
Life coordinator hired, Brownfield
Redevelopment Authority created,
electronic product recycling,
4 5.1 Countywide recreation plan created 100
4 6.1 Art council formed and continues to meet 100
3 1.1 Comprehensive master plan created, 90
Citizen Planner trainiLg offered
3 4.1 Character Counts! training 0
3 10.1 Establish and operate a volunteer center 100
3 23 A local township grant obtained for 40
evacuation center, another township
sewer/water grant
Econ. 4 11.5 County Renaissance Zone, Brownfield 90
Devel. redev., DDA development in a small city,
much more
4 12.2 Creation of farm market, including 100
business plan creation and first year's
operation
4 24 Regional project led to development of 100
Internet connectivity master plan
3 11.1 Development of Small City B industrial 100
park
3 11.3 Development of Small City C industrial 100
park, named as Renaissance Zone,
receives grant for sewer and water
3 13.2 Created and operated donated automobile 50
repair/training facility (currently out-of-
operation)
3 22 Leadership lnstitute in Small City 0
Family 4 14.1 County domestic violence shelter started 50
Self-Suffic. and currently in operation
4 18.3 Home mortgage and rehab. loans
4 18.4 Group work camp organized 20
3 16.2 Resource directory of human service 20
providers created and distributed to
selected organizations
3 18.7 Housing advocate leads to greater USDA-
RD mortgage loan activity
3 18.8 Continuum of Care committee created and 100

continues to meet and discuss homeless
issues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

 

This important outcome can be defined by the MCEC’s ability to utilize
organizational learning concepts. Previous sections of this paper described the
behavior of the MCEC Board of Directors and the director in relation to the
community. That explanation alluded to the fact that this is an active, engaged,
but small-in-numbers group who not unexpectedly demand an efficient use of
their time when acting as MCEC stakeholders. This situation gives Board of
Directors meetings and other events a business-like atmosphere at which
agendas are created and promised end-of—meeting times are met. The resulting
effect of that time constraint is that the program’s decision maker’s input is highly
valued, and the process of considering options to existing benchmarks or
entertaining new initiatives is formalized. The end result is the program moves
ahead with its planning, implementation, and evaluation functions in a more
seamless manner with information input, throughput (e.g., negotiations,
alternative solutions), and output (decisions or need for more information) cycled
in an efficient manner, but that follows a philosophy that values reflection and
application of past experience and Ieaming of the general group in making those
decisions (Bulbolz & Sontag, 1993).

Entrepreneurship, if defined by the ability to effectively identify and
respond to opportunities as they arise, is a valuable trait of a learning
organization as well (Flora, Sharp, Flora, & Newton, 1997). Examples of the
MCEC’s ability to act in an entrepreneurial fashion go beyond the examples cited
previously that detailed the director's behavior. It also includes all of the

benchmarks created after the submission of the 1998 application—

81

Cer

0” all
saw

r .
~ng,

Benchmarks 22 (eliminate informational barriers); 23 (address community
safety), and; 24 (enhance community leadership)—and the several cases in
which individual project proposals received additional points due to the fact that
an MCEC program was a supporting partner. Those projects include the two 21St
Century Learning Grants (Benchmark 5.1) and most USDA-funded projects
(Benchmarks 11.1-11.3, 13.2, 18.3, 18.4, 18.7, and 23). The several cases in
which the MCEC subcontracted existing organizations to extend services that
matched the Midwestern County program initiatives are also examples of the
MCEC responding to opportunities. Hiring the existing economic development
organization already doing business in an adjacent county to promote
Midwestern County economic development resources, expanding the Character
Counts! curriculum that teaches character education to area children and
employees via the local university Extension office with assistance from
economic development corporation (Benchmark 4.1), and negotiating partial
salary support of the housing advocate position by that same university
Extension department (Benchmark 18.7) are all examples of expanding the
scope of the MCEC program by entrepreneunally taking advantage of
opportunities presented by existing resources .

a. Poor Performing Benchmarks

It is the responsibility of this mid-term evaluation to investigate and report
on all aspects of the MCEC program and so, a discussion concerning the low
scoring benchmarks, or in other words, those with few short-term activities and

outcomes, is in order. Previous discussion in this report stated that the MCEC

ben

ider

80d

”J'Ut

Board of Directors made the decision to retain all but one of the 52 benchmarks
listed in the 1998 application, even though the awarded funding level was
drastically less. This decision profoundly affected the program’s Phase I
operation as it realistically could not implement an action plan designed to utilize
ten times the funding as it actually received. Paid and volunteer staff members
did not have the time or resources to take action on the complete set of
benchmarks, so a selection criteria was established that emphasized first, the
identification of local leadership and second, the identification of external funding
sources, before moving forward to develop a specific project. The reality of the
situation is that some of the benchmarks that did not meet those standards, and
so, show little activity to date.

Considering the benchmarks that fell in the bottom two quadrants of the
BRS average scores (see Table 1, pages 43-45), one of the primary reasons for
that group's lack of performance is that the MCEC program had little political,
social or economic ability to influence their development. Benchmark 7.2
represents a good example of that situation. It called for the construction of a
tunnel under the interstate highway bridge to the north of a small city in
Midwestern County so that members of the sizable Amish community could
travel into the city more safely in their horse-drawn vehicles. This benchmark
addressed a community-stated priority in 1998, but the MCEC program leaders
found that they had little means to exert pressure on the Michigan Department of
Transportation to change its long-term road and infrastructure strategic plans to

include their (the MCEC) benchmark's objective.

83

aligr

as;

at if

ben

dew

SBI").

Another set of benchmarks performed poorly due to their high degree of
alignment with a specific organization. Typically those organizations were named
as potential leaders of the benchmark in 1998, but for many reasons—e.g., staff
turnover, economic downturn and funding reductions—are no longer partnering
at that anticipated level with the MCEC. Several of the health care related
benchmarks fall into this category. For instance, Benchmark 20.2 was created to
develop and construct a Midwestern County medical center that would be
managed by a rural health care provider located in an adjacent county. Since
1998, however, that organization changed its geographic focus relating to
services, so the current prospects of the MCEC partnering with it are slim. A
number of benchmarks that were created to address individual job-training
barn'ers (Benchmark 13.6), eliminate low-income family transportation obstacles
(Benchmark 13.2), develop good work habits (Benchmark 15.1 ), and build family
strengths through peer-managed family—enrichment teams (Benchmark 16.1) fall
into the category of poor performance due to a relationship change between the
MCEC relationship and an external partner from 1998 to 2000.

b. Administrative Cost Analysis

Another set of issues emerged over the course of this evaluation that ties
into the short-tenn outcome discussion—namely costs incurred to administer the
program. Benchmark 21 shows that these administrative costs currently average
approximately 50 percent of total dollars spent by the program. Most of this
money paid for the MCEC director's salary, fringe benefits and travel expenses,

with another ten percent paid to the consultant. At first glance, this administrative

84

costs-ll
range I
progra
herflr
expans
2002)
min
ender
poorly
money
lentati

(see l

costs-to-total funding statistic seems extremely high given the 10-30 percent
range target that many grantors allow. However, other community-building
programs have experienced a similar high administrative cost ratio especially in
their first years of operation when labor-intensive tasks focusing on partnership
expansion and capacity building dominate the program activities (Kubish et al.,
2002). In defense of the MCEC program, the fiscal restraint that the stakeholders
employ in deciding how and when to spend USDA money is very high, as
evidenced by the fact that no funding was risked on benchmarks that scored
poorly on the BRS. That value translates to a behavior that does not spend
money without just cause, as evidenced by the amount of money that has been
tentatively allocated to an assortment of benchmarks, but has yet to be spent
(see Appendix B, Tables B1-B3, Columns G). Additionally, if the statistic for
comparison is changed from USDA funding spent to total leveraged funding
received by the community due to the program's efforts, then the resulting ratio is
more respectable (50:1 or 2 percent administrative costs-to-total leveraged
funding received).
2. Medium Term
Many of the expected medium-term outcomes of the MCEC have been

outlined previously in this paper. They include:

0 Increase the cadre of community leaders so that the core MCEC

stakeholder group is not relied upon exclusively to plan and carry-out the bulk

of community change initiatives,

85

0 Continue to create infrastructure and build the community’s institutional
capacity to respond to socioeconomic threats and opportunities,

0 Begin to plan for the end of the EC program designation by insuring that
all individual programs have developed strategic plans with measurable
indicators for periodic evaluation.

An additional outcome of this nature involves the continuality of the
program’s leadership. A previous section of this report described the present
director’s high level of influence over all aspects of the MCEC, and one cannot
imagine how the program would operate in his absence. At present, there is no
plan in place to guide the program’s decision makers in identifying, recruiting and
selecting his replacement if he decides to change his current level of involvement
with the program. Part of that plan also should be devoted to setting performance
standards for that position; a necessary first step in creating a yearly evaluation
of the director by the Board of Directors.

The Progress Team's work contributes to the discussion of intermediate-
terrn outcomes for the program as well. Charged with the task of reviewing past
development patterns of the program to provide a more informed perspective as
to how to proceed in the future, the team produced a set of recommendations
regarding Phase II operation guidelines to be considered for future allocations by
the MCEC Board of Directors. As stated previously, the Progress Team's
members represented a mixture of current and past MCEC Board members who
varied on their level of involvement with the 1998 application process. Members

also were selected according to their varied professional and/or private interests

86

in education, business, government, human service, religious, health and
economic topics. This selection process gave equal voice to the historical
development, current operation and professional expertise components of the
program.

The general opinion reflected by the group's deliberations in creating the
Phase II action plan was that the MCEC program has accomplished a lot in a
short period of time. Group members agreed that one of its best outcomes for the
community is the program’s ability to facilitate collaboration through the effective
use of seed capital, thereby bringing new partners and funding into Midwestern
County. Part of the second day agenda included a presentation in which the
director discussed past practices and emerging issues of the program. The team
agreed, for the most part, with the director's assessment regarding the core
group of benchmarks that the MCEC should continue to sponsor. ED initiatives
received the strongest vote for continued support as Benchmarks 11.1 through
11.3 (expand and develop industrial parks for several Midwestern County cities);
Benchmark 11.5 (subcontract the economic development corporation to continue
marketing Midwestern County economic assets), and Benchmark 12.2 (operate
the farm market) were approved for additional funds. Several QOL benchmarks
also received a vote for continued support including: the Parks and Recreation
Department (Benchmark 5.1), the Character Counts! program (Benchmark 4.1),
and the housing advocacy position (Benchmark 18.7).

The Progress Team indicated that the MCEC plan of action should

increase the program’s effort to develop a few projects that previously had been

87

a stated community priority issues in 1998, but for one reason or another, had
not demonstrated much success in the Phase I operation. Those projects
include:

0 Develop an assisted living care for seniors and the disabled,

. Build a rural health care center in northern Midwestern County that will
enhance emergency and urgent care services,

0 Start a family enrichment program that uses volunteer role models who will
assist young parents, stressed families, and youth,

0 Create a small business initiative that will assist all types of entrepreneurs
(e.g., business, social, start-ups, expanding, seniors, women and low-income
individuals).

It should be reiterated that each of these newly targeted priorities fit under
the umbrella of existing benchmarks. As with all other individual projects
previously developed, considerable discussion transpired during the Progress
Team meetings to identify local leaders who might be willing to assume the long-
tenn leadership roles of these individual projects. While each issue area owns a
unique development history as part of the program’s Phase I operation, the
team’s reasoning in choosing these four initiatives was based on a combination
of responding to threats and to opportunities. In the former case (threats),
creating and operating a youth mentoring program was based in part on the
observation by a few of the Progress Team members that the public schools
recently lost literacy program funding. An example of responding to an

Opportunity was represented by the small business initiative. It rose to the top of

88

the Progress Team's priority list for two reasons: 1) a large foundation
announced that it was seeking proposals to develop regional, comprehensive
entrepreneurial assistance networks, and 2) several influential partners of the
MCEC agreed prior to the Progress Team meetings that the development of such
a program was strategically imperative for Midwestern County to "grow from
within" economically.

The complete list of Progress Team recommendations is listed as part of
Appendix D-Table D7.

3. Long-term

Long-term outcomes represent the ultimate intended, and unintended,
results of a program (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2001). They address how the
community residents’ lives have changed over time in response to the program’s
activities and/or to other factors within and outside the community as well. In the
case of the MCEC, one of the best sources summarizing the program’s intended
efforts toward community comprehensive change is found in its vision statement
that reads: Through an empowered grass roots effort and regional cooperation,
Midwestern County citizens will improve the quality of life for all, conserve natural
resources, and promote further development of vibrant communities that are
economically diverse and self-reliant.

Additionally, the long-term impact and continued value of the MCEC
Operation with the Midwestern County community will be the continued practice
of the collaborative methods it has employed effectively during its first phase of

Operation.

89

H. EP Outcomes

1. Short-term

The evaluation process for the MCEC program focused on providing
stakeholders with valid information they could use to effectively inform the
creation of a Phase II action plan, and then assist a team comprised of key
leaders to create that future plan via a specific process previously described by
the Progress Team activities (see pages 42 and 46-47). The rationale for
creating the BRS and other tools (such as, benchmark and category
comparisons) has been outlined previously. Evaluation surveys were mailed to all
Progress Team members a week after the final meeting concluded asking their
opinions regarding the utility of those tools, plus their views as to the
effectiveness of the process and procedures employed during those two
meetings. Nearly three-fourths of the group completed and returned the surveys.
An analysis of those surveys found that an overwhelming majority of the
members highly valued the BRS and other summaries regarding Phase I
benchmark performance. Most of the exercises, for instance, the SWOT, trend
analyses, and the issue prioritization process were well received, as were the
presentations that outlined the mid-term evaluation methods along with the
MCEC assets and emerging issues presentation.

In response to the question, 'What would you change ?, " a few team
members suggested that the proceedings be reduced to one day, that the
benchmark history and comparisons be mailed out prior to the meetings to give

team members more time to review them, and that overall, the team did not

90

represent the diversity of Midwestern County's residents—particularly from the
low-income population. (For a complete summary of the Progress Team’s
evaluation results, please see Appendix E).

A significant number of respondents (64 percent) chose the most
favorable response (on a 5-item scale in which choices ranged from 1- “not at all”
to 5- “completely agree”) to the question asking them to indicate their level of
interest in serving on another Progress Team that would provide evaluation effort
for the MCEC on an on-going basis. The magnitude of that favorable response is
the best indication that this group of stakeholders desires a means by which to
continue the work started by this mid-term evaluation. The post-meeting
evaluation survey's support for the continuing Progress Team was not surprising
since it reflected comments made by several team members to the evaluator,
and to program staff members, that stated that the exercises re-energized their
commitment to the MCEC goals and mission.

2. Medium Term

lnterrnediate changes anticipated by this evaluation study are listed under
Column CZ, as part of the EP Logic Model (Figure 1, page 25). That group of
outcomes includes: the distribution of the this evaluation’s community report to all
levels of government (local, regional, state and federal) with the hope that its
findings contribute to more favorable policy, funding, and technical assistance
support to community development and human service programs in rural areas in
general, and of course, to the Midwestern County region in particular. At the

MCEC program level, intermediate changes that extend the work started by this

91

mid-term evaluation include: 1) creating the on-going Progress Team mentioned
previously, and 2) using that team to create action plans for the high priority
benchmarks named by the original Progress Team, especially the small business
initiative, the family enrichment program, and the senior/seasonal citizen surveys.
Support for those new projects officially has been guaranteed as the MEC Board
of Directors recently approved the set of recommendations created by the
original Progress Team.

The creation and on-going support of the Progress Team that will
mainstream evaluation into more individual benchmark planning and
implementation phases will also provide additional opportunities for higher levels
of citizen engagement. As logic models more succinctly illustrate individual
benchmark action plans, more community members will become aware and
understand the program’s numerous areas of potential impact. And as the
program’s activities and direction become better publicized, the on-going
Progress Team should be able to access a new cadre of interested individuals to
serve as members, especially from various populations that tend to be
underrepresented in MCEC program planning to date. This effort should
particularly target low-income family members. This citizen empowerment model
is not new as its framework was part of the 1998 application to the USDA for
EZIEC designation, but the activity was dropped due to several extenuating

circumstances previously outlined.

92

3. Long-term

All of the long-term outcomes listed in the EP Logic Model (Figure 1, page
25, Column C3) are tightly intertwined. The proposed cycle is quite clear—if
MCEC stakeholders are successful in incorporating a culture of evaluation with
all other program planning and implementing activities, then its target population
(Midwestern County residents) will enjoy the sustained benefits of a better quality
of life, appropriate economic development, and family self-sufficiency assistance.
That impact will be realized due in part to the county’s ability to attract higher
levels of funding and other forms of support from new and existing partners at the
local, regional, state and federal organizational levels. Those partners will be
willing to participate in such programs because of the combined efforts of the
community’s leaders and private citizens as they practice collaboration while
focusing on building comprehensive community development programs as
established through the work of the MCEC program and told through its on—going

evaluation effort.

93

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION
A. Recommendations

As part of the evolving process followed in the creation and

implementation of this mid-term evaluation, the set of recommendations aimed at
MCEC program improvement were not left to the purpose of the final community
report, but instead, were part of the triangulating cycle that integrated their
discussion with other study activities. As I made observations regarding the
program’s operation and took deliberate steps to credibly interpret them,
opportunities of which I was aware, due to my housing program leadership
position or other areas of experience, were incorporated into stakeholder
interviews, and other program leader interactions. This practice falls within the
role definition of an action researcher as a coach and co-leamer with community
program leaders, and also fits the rationale for utilizing evaluation methods that
are responsive, participatory, and meant to improve program performance
(Greenwood & Levin, 1998; Stake, 1980, 1986). For example, several MCEC
housing-related benchmarks focus on building more affordable homes for low-
income family ownership. My knowledge of the housing assistance grant network
led to a suggestion that a national USDA program should be investigated as its
goals and target population align well with the MCEC’s. As a result of that
request, a meeting eventually was held in the county whereby the regional
technical assistance provider subcontracted by USDA to administer the program

met with several MCEC leaders, determined that the county was eligible to apply

94

for funding, and created an informal plan to develop an application within a year’s
time.

Other recommendations progressed in a similar manner. For instance,
there is a critical need to identify and build the community leadership core of
individuals. This activity will lessen the program’s degree of reliance on the
relatively small group of individuals who volunteer their time to plan and lead
most MCEC activities. Benchmark 24 was created to address that issue and the
first leadership class graduated while this study was unden/vay. Long-term plans
for that benchmark include expanding the training to the entire county. However,
I noted several comments from stakeholders over the course of this study’s field
work that confirmed the need to more aggressively expand that leadership base.
The majority of the active leaders have been guiding the MCEC since its
inception and while no one specifically claimed to be “bumed-out" from that
responsibility, most agreed that they would welcome new members to their
group.

A strategy tentatively planned by the MCEC to address that issue utilizes
two surveys; one of the county’s rapidly expanding senior and the other of the
large seasonal citizen population. It is suspected that there would be a large
number of respondents who represent both demographic groups (i.e., seniors
Who are part-time residents), but the two studies would serve different end
purposes. The senior survey's questionnaire would focus on identifying the
individual assets of full and part-time residents regarding past experience, and

how they might be able to utilize those skills to address community needs. Part of

95

the work plan for the study would be to purposefully invite and offer training to
those seniors who indicate that they would be willing to volunteer their time to
community service in conjunction with the current assets they possess. This set
of outputs would fit with Benchmark 24’s overarching goals and objectives.

Previous studies suggest that seasonal citizens, in general, have different
expectations regarding the growth of their part-time community than full-time
residents, and so, that proposed survey would target the identification of this
group’s differing opinions regarding community change (USDA Forest Service,
2002; Green, Marcouiller, Deller, Erkkila, & Sumathi, 1996). With nearly one-half
of all Midwestern County homes occupied on a seasonal basis, combined with
the probability that this group possesses different socioeconomic characteristics
than their full-time counterparts (i.e., wealthier and older), this study would assist
the work of community development leaders by creating a profile of opinions for a
large percentage of the county’s population that is not politically represented and
also, would serve as a foundation by which to identify, recruit, and enlist
members of this group for community service, albeit part-time. Both of these
proposed plans emerged directly out of the work of the mid-term evaluation. Of
the two, the senior survey project received the greatest level of buy-in from the
Progress Team and it became part of the set of recommendations detailing the
Phase II MCEC activities created for Board of Directors consideration.

Other recommendations, previously mentioned in this report, were
generated by the mid-term evaluation process as well and became part of the

official record representing the Progress Team’s work. They include: create a

96

succession plan and set of performance objectives for the program director’s
position, and build an evaluative culture within the program by sponsoring and
promoting the on-going efforts of 3 Progress Team.

B. Beyond Constructivism: Transformational Learning Theory

As previously discussed in the conceptual framework section of this paper,
CT was used as the orienting perspective. The planning, acting, observing,
reflecting, discussing, theorizing and concluding phases represented an iterative
methodology that had no precise starting or stopping point (Wadsworth, 2001).
This perspective represented an inductive approach to research that seeks to
identify grounded assumptions, principles and constructs as guides by which to
analyze and interpret observations as data (Bowling, 2002; Adams & Steinmetz,
1993)

However, as I came to an understanding of the program’s first phase of
operation, I concluded that CT tended to direct my focus towards the individual
level of meaning construction. This focus seemingly excluded an evaluation of
group process (Candy, 1991). In addition, it also became clear that CT did not
provide an adequate means for defining stage or phase of process.

Transformational learning theory (TLT) provides a framework by which to
effectively conceptualize the development of meaning perspectives at the group
level. Like constructivism, TLT maintains that meaning is structured by
experience and that all individuals function within meaning systems that are
complex and dynamic structures of beliefs, theories, and psycho-cultural

assumptions: all interacting as a lens through which personal experience is

97

interpreted (Baumgartner, 2002; Clark, 1993). Critical reflection is a process by
which underlying assumptions are rationally assessed and critiqued by the
individual (Clark, 1993). As information and context changes, a person’s meaning
scheme can be challenged and changed to better fit a new interpretation of
reality. The two sets of theories tend to part ways at this point and TLT contends
that changes in those schemes can occur incrementally or suddenly in the event
of a “disorienting dilemma” that acts as a catalyst for abrupt change. In the latter
case, the resulting perspective transformation represents a major developmental,
or worldview, shift of the individuals meaning schemes (Tennant & Pogson,

1995; Mezirow (1991).

Other TLT concepts include dialogue, or communicative action, which
occurs when an individual using the platform of his/her particular meaning
perspective communicates with another person with the intent of coming to a
common understanding, or consensus— thereby validating the meaning of a
shared experience (Mezirow, 1991; Habermas, 1971 ). Rational discourse is an
outgrowth of this validity-testing process that is employed by individuals when the
meaning of a communicated idea is contested and consensus is not possible
(Gouldner, 1976). Mezirow, in Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning,
claims that rational discourse, therefore, is one of the key elements of the
communicative process and he outlines the optimal conditions for its

development and use.

98

Those factors include:

.. Participants will-

Have accurate and complete information;

Be free from coercion and distorting self-deception;

Be able to weigh evidence and assess arguments
objectively;

Be open to alternative perspectives;

Be able to become critically reflective upon presuppositions
and their consequences;

Have equal opportunity to participate (including the chance
to challenge, question, refute and reflect and to hear others
do the same), and;

Be able to accept an informed, objective, and rational

consensus as a legitimate test of validity” (p.78).

Friere (1973) advocates that the ultimate goal of any such Ieaming

experience should result in social change achieved through the transformation of

social consciousness and the reconstruction of social structures (Darder, 2002;

Clark, 1993). That outcome is achieved through the reciprocal linkage between

action and reflection, termed praxis, and follows a process by which the learner

becomes conscious of the unjust social structures evident in his/her world,

comes to understand how those structures have influenced his/her meaning

perspectives, recognizes his/her power to change those conditions, and finally,

purposefully acts to transform those unequal systems (Friere, 1973).

99

While I was familiar with TLT, I did not make the connection that it offers a
broader framework for studying such complex, comprehensive programs as the
MCEC until I was gently urged to do so by my dissertation committee. As part of
the research logic cycle, the addition of this conceptual framework serves as an
deductive approach to research as TLT emerged as a good fit for explanation of
this study’s findings after observations/data had been gathered and analyzed
(Bowling, 2002).

Mezirow’s and Friere’s interpretations of TLT are useful in defining the
reiterative cycle utilized by MCEC stakeholders and myself as we alternately
applied our efforts to create understanding, shared meanings, and consensus at
the individual, group, and community levels. The next section lists the four
components of that cycle followed by an explanation of each:

1) Analysis of Phase lprogram operation that provided more complete
information to stakeholders regarding how the activities representing the
complete set of individual benchmarks related.

The majority of my early effort in Ieaming to understand what each
individual MCEC benchmark represented from the perspectives of prior activities,
stakeholder perceptions, and fit within the 1998 community priorities falls into this
category. I found that the dissertation proposal outlining the anticipated
components of this study and my prior positive relationship with the MCEC
program director offered the most assistance at this juncture of my work. In
reflection, I am surprised by the fact that my relationship with the director served

as a lynchpin regarding the overall success of the study. I have described his

100

back

 

deve

lner>

wthl

the st

conka

 

background, personality, and behavior that willingly assisted the project’s
development, but I also realize that under alternative conditions, his position as
the only paid employee combined with the fact that stakeholders are satisfied
with his performance to date, provided him with the capacity and power to halt
the study at any point in time. This point is an important consideration for anyone
contemplating the replication of this study’s methods in another rural community.

This stage represents Mezirow’s “need for complete and accurate
information” that program stakeholders require as a building block for effective
reflective discourse. I previously described the pattern of my fieldwork activities
as I examined secondary data, interviewed stakeholders, attended community
meetings, triangulated and interpreted observations—all while coordinating the
study’s design activities with the evaluation planning team. The primary product
of this stage is the Benchmark Summary sheets (Appendix A-Tables 81-83). The
creation of these tables, in combination with their editing from key program
stakeholders, provided me with a shared understanding regarding the historical
aspects of the MCEC.

2) Development of stakeholder shared meanings regarding the value of
past and present program activities.

The creation of the BRS and the category comparisons are a part of this
stage. Considerable time was spent by the director and me in identifying the
complete set of milestones that represent all Phase I MCEC activities (see
Appendix C). Another important component in establishing common meaning

schemes between the director and me involved the ranking of the individual

101

benchmarks. He and I analyzed each benchmark for developmental history (as
indicated by milestones), assigned values, and then tabulated each to produce
an overall score. That score then could be compared to other benchmark scores
to give stakeholders an index regarding the success and value that each
individual project possessed. The BRS statistics provided the basis for the
category comparisons (see Table 1, pages 43-45) that gave program leaders the
ability to interpret and judge the past activities of all 40-plus benchmarks on an
inter— and intra-category basis (i.e., QOL, ED and F88).
3) Rational discourse through public communication that enabled the group
to reach consensus regarding the relationship between the program ’3
past practice and new direction.

Most of the Progress Team output addressed this transformational
Ieaming stage as all previous evaluation activities set the table for these
meetings. Appendix D, Tables 1 through 7, summarize the various team activities
designed to assist members to reflect upon their assumptions and identify
differences/similarities regarding their expectations of community change. These
exercises addressed the rational discourse prerequisites of looking at alternative
perspectives, weighing evidence and assessing arguments, plus critically
reflecting on presuppositions and their consequences (Mezirow, 1991). The
community asset and barrier exercise (Appendix D, Table 1) and the SWOT
analysis (Appendix D, Table 6) seemed to add the most value in addressing

those goals.

102

4) Creation of a new set of recommendations and a program action plan.

In short, all of the effort devoted to transformational Ieaming (e.q.,
dialogue, common meaning, reflective discourse and consensus building) falls
short of the goal if the process does not proceed to initiate social action. It also is
the recommended outcome of action research methodology and of Friere’s
perspective on TLT (Greenwood & Levin 1998; Friere, 1973). In the case of the
MCEC program, this stage represents the culmination of all of the activities
generated by the first three stages of this study’s effort. Indicators of this action
stage include the priority list and recommended future action plan developed by
the Progress Team (see Appendix D, Table 7), the MCEC Board of Directors
approval of that action plan, and the community report summarizing the findings
of this study. Admittedly, this action taken by MCEC stakeholders cannot be
characterized according to Mezirow’s perspective transformation definition, but it
does indicate that stakeholders have changed their program’s future plans in an
incremental manner as a result of this study’s activities.

C. Conclusions
1. AE Focus
3. Macro Indicators vs. Local Context

Since the MCEC program maintains the potential of simultaneously
supporting the development of 50, or more, benchmarks and virtually targets all
Midwestern County residents for a vast variety of community-based services, the
ability to isolate the effects of its complex set of efforts from other environmental

factors is impossible. Amid this complexity, one responsibility of this mid-term

103

prr

SUl

p8

bui

hig

an

ass

usi

in-l

the

em

car
an:
ODE

ant!

and

program evaluation was to provide evidence of the program’s Phase I operational
success. This report cited several of those indicators that illustrate the MCEC’s
performance quality when compared to other USDA-sponsored community
building programs via the lntemet-based BMS, i.e., high total leveraged dollars,
high amount of USDA mortgages written when compared to adjacent counties,
and the significant increase in total number of partners at local, regional, state
and federal levels.

The program performed well in addressing the various strategies intended
by the national EZIEC legislation of the early 1990s. It expanded its quantity and
enhanced its relational quality with a wide-range of partners to bring a solid base
of multi-level government and foundation support, plus other forms of technical
assistance to the community. It also utilized the USDA funding judiciously in
using MCEC monies only in projects that met strict guidelines for leadership and
in-kind monetary and staff support. In short, funding was not wasted on projects
that demonstrate small potential for sustainable impact. The program also
employed an empowered approach when it created the list of citizen priorities in
1998 that featured a process of identifying issues and needs during a series of
community meetings and resident surveys. Most of this work was accomplished
under the cloud of a national economic recession and in spite of working with an
operating budget of one-tenth the amount that the community’s leaders originally
anticipated.

A more convincing story of MCEC performance is told through an

understanding of the program’s local context and how it fits within the culture,

104

values, priorities and other characteristics that make the community it serves
unique. This study has found strong evidence that this grass-roots-driven
program is effective in its focus on facilitating comprehensive community
change—given enough time. So many of the issues named by the Midwestern
County community in 1998 were not immediately accessible by MCEC attention
until some sort of basic capacity was created. Much of the Phase I program’s
work was devoted to facilitating the institutionalization of that capacity so that
Phase II effort can now effectively address more of the original priorities named
in 1998. Now that the major pieces of that foundation are in place, the program
can continue to expand its level of assistance to the community’s service
organizations in response to new opportunities and/or threats as they emerge.
b. Low-performing Benchmarks

The reasons for several of the low-performing benchmarks were identified.
Those reasons included: 1) initiatives tied to one partner for expected leadership
and that organization no longer is active with the MCEC, and 2) projects for
which the MCEC has no political or economic clout to affect the desired change.
Several of the low-ranking benchmarks have potential, however, as new funding
opportunities and/or new partners are identified. Over the course of this
evaluation’s field work stage, at least two such scenarios emerged—the small
business assistance initiative request for proposal from a major foundation and
the home visiting health organization’s co-proposal with the MCEC in requesting
the purchase and support for use of home-based monitors for low-income senior

patients.

105

c. Program Infrastructure

One cannot fully discuss the operating dynamics of the MCEC program
without mentioning the high quality of work by the director and the team of
volunteers who create, implement, and evaluate its various activities. Previous
sections of this paper described the entrepreneurial behavior of the director, plus
how his background and attitude contribute to his effectiveness in directing a
program that changes its management requirements on a daily basis. This paper
also outlined studies that researched the necessary components of effective
teams, and I observed that the volunteer group of MCEC stakeholders share that
range of diverse backgrounds and personalities needed for collaborative group
success.

d. Future of the MCEC

This program is at a crossroad of its operation. In its first phase,
stakeholders put the majority of their effort into enhancing the community’s
capacity to respond in a timely manner to emerging opportunities, and threats, by
institutionalizing infrastructure. In the second phase, two primary set of tasks
emerge as a result of a new direction and are a part of the recommendations
listed in the previous section. They include: 1) recruiting, training and, enlisting a
new cohort of community leaders to assist the core group of existing volunteers
as new programs are created and implemented utilizing the infrastructure the
MCEC helped to create in its initial years of operation, and 2) mainstreaming the
self-evaluation effort that began with this study through the MCEC’s sponsorship

Of an on—going Progress Team.

106

The second item represents a critical change from the Phase I operation
of the program. It entails the closer monitoring of the program's activities in
regards to the program’s stakeholders shared meaning as to how best to
transform the Midwestern County community and ultimately will alter the manner
in which the program "does business" by building and sustaining a more
evaluative culture (Bamette 8 Wallis, 2003; Duignan, 2003). So much of the
effort to date was directed at building basic capacity that one could argue that a
full blown, contextual evaluation was not warranted—especially given the facts
that the program met the annual reporting requirements specified by the USDA.
Many comments from MCEC stakeholders over the course of this evaluation
affirmed the observation that they placed top priority on supporting projects that
led to tangible outcomes in a reasonable amount of time. It is difficult to argue
with that contention as the menu of potential benchmarks with readily-identifiable
objectives was so large in Phase I program operation that support for evaluation
waned due to its reputation among stakeholders for producing intangible results.

e. Self-reflection on AE Activities

At the time of this writing, it has been nearly three months since the MCEC
mid-term evaluation concluded its fieldwork. Frequent conversations between the
MCEC director and me during that elapsed time lead to the conclusion that many
of the benchmark summary statistics generated for this report are now out of
date. Indicators of that changing environment include: several new projects have
emerged on the MCEC work plan due to new request for proposal

announcements; new USDA-RD staff members who are now in place at the

107

regional and state levels, and; the continuing, constant staff turnover within local
human service agencies that causes the MCEC program staff to identify, invite,
and orientate new volunteers to the program planning table.

The findings of this study also quickly evolve into a point-in-time analysis
and the true value of its work will emerge only as the program's stakeholders
continue to employ its practices and procedures to tweak the program's logic
model as they integrate evaluation strategies with other planning activities.
Toward that end, program leaders already have taken an important first step as
they have contracted me to assume a number of roles, including coordinating the
USDA housing program application previously described, leading the
development of the small business initiative, and directing the new Progress
Team evaluation activities.

There will always be a high degree of risk and stress associated with
running this program—if it is not facing the elimination of the program’s federal
funding, then it may be losing a key USDA technical assistance provider; if it is
not losing a local partner that supported the salary of a subcontracted MCEC
benchmark position, then it is quickly finding another source to replace that
exiting partner or lose the program position altogether. The ability to respond to
an environmental change with multi-Ievel implications, either of a positive or
threatening nature, with a timely and informed decision using a network of
knowledgeable and active stakeholders is the paramount outcome of the MCEC

to date.

108

Prog

 

exist
this 6
little I
indiv‘
and I
In lhr
term
inlerr
at 25
was
Tear

Sue:

2. Self-reflection on EP Activities

I must admit that one of my early goals regarding output from the two
Progress Team meetings was a fully developed logic model for each new and
existing benchmark. Several field-based observations quickly informed me that
this expectation was far removed from reality as it became apparent that very
little Phase I work of the MCEC was devoted to formal strategic planning of
individual benchmarks. In analyzing the BRS total points per category (QOL, ED,
and F88) only 2-3 percent of the total milestone points received by benchmarks
in the ranking process were attributed to identifying or creating medium- or long-
term outcomes (in QOL 6 out of 192 total points were generated from those
intermediate- and long-term categories; in ED-4 of 216 total points, and; in FSS-6
of 259) (See Appendix F, Benchmark Milestones-Total Points per Category). It
was evident in the recruitment and invitation phases of assembling the Progress
Team that the amount of member’s time to devote to such meetings was in short
supply. As the agenda was created and unfolded over the course of the two
meetings, it was apparent that the group was very comfortable in an advisory role
that focused on giving macro-level direction to the program, not specific action
plans for individual projects. Therefore, my adjusted expectation for the team’s
output was that members would use the various tools developed to rank and
compare benchmark past performance as a basis to reach consensus (through
dialog and/or rational discourse) and inform the creation of a new action plan for
the final phase of the program’s operation. I believe that goal was realized as

indicated by the various outputs of the team.

109

That group’s vote on the post-meeting surveys expressing a willingness to
participate on a MCEC evaluation work team is the best evidence that they wish
to be stronger force in the long term, formal strategic planning and review
process of the program. While the other suggestions provided by the Progress
Team regarding overall program direction (e.g., the senior survey, the small
business initiative, the medical emergency care center, and the assisted living
care facility) swing on factors that are not under the direct control of the MCEC
program leaders, the development of an evaluation culture through the
sponsorship of an ongoing Progress Team is within their influence.

D. Future Study

The following quotation is taken from the Annie E. Casey Foundation
commissioned report, Voices from the Empowerment Zones: Insights about
Launching Large-scale Community Revitalization Initiatives (Joseph & Levy,
2002x

Often we don’t take time to capture the real stories and the real

experiences. A lot of times what it takes to get to an outcome is a lot more

than what is seen in the public eye. That’s the part of the work that really
makes the difference, that’s the capacity building, that’s the change that
will last over a long period of time... People need to hear that we were
able to build some new neighborhood relationships and truly begin to
empower some communities to make decisions, not just on economic

development, but on the whole array of social interventions. That’s a

powerful message. The strategic approach taken from some of the

110

Empowerment Zones suggests a different kind of model of neighborhood
revitalization than what most cities are doing right now. What cities
basically do now are fund institutions to provide services, rather than
trying to grow neighborhood intelligence or build local capacity. I think this

is a very exciting story (p. 1).

The above passage applies to the operation of the MCEC if one
substitutes “rural community” for “neighborhood” at several places. This
dissertation has laid out the background and current impetus underlying the
growth of community building initiatives across the country. It has also set that
comprehensive approach within an action model emphasizing the collaborative
process. Evaluating such programs is a difficult task due to their complexity of
subsystem interaction; focus on long-range goals, plus emergent nature of
implicit and explicit theories at the design and implementation stages (Annie E.
Casey Foundation, 1997). By adhering to an evaluation approach that utilized
action research methods and a conceptual framework that employed an
inductive—deductive cycle utilizing constructivist and transformational Ieaming
theories, this study not only addressed the current and future needs of the
program stakeholders and of the community, but also, adds to the literature that
examines these rural programs within their local context. Toward that end, it
helps inform the debate concerning the efficacy of these holistic endeavors by
community leaders contemplating a similar process, by policy makers and
philanthropic organizations that consider funding them, and by practitioners who

are interested in replicating similar studies in other rural communities.

111

1. Integrate Evaluation Practice with Program Design

The need to integrate evaluation methods with the initial stages of
program planning is a critically missing piece of the effort to increase
accountability of community-based programs. Many community development
practitioners define evaluation not as a process that helps improve their program,
but instead by the tools commonly used to carryout summative evaluations.
Those who require program evaluation often speak of “doing an evaluation” in
terms of hiring a professional outside evaluator who will offer a tum-key study
that hopefully meets the clients needs and budget. The focus is more on the
development of survey questionnaires, facilitating effective focus group meetings,
or other evaluative tools, than spending the time to first learn the unique
contextual variables that contribute heavily to the past and current operation of
the program (Chavis, 2003; Stake, 1995). Better use of logic models that
facilitate the process of integrating ongoing evaluation practice with program
planning and implementation is needed. This method of illustrating a program’s
vision is especially useful at a program’s design phase as indicators are
established upfront to measure how resources and activities are being effectively
linked to projected outcomes in accordance with stakeholder shared meaning
schemes relating to community transformation (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2001).

2. Expand Dialogue Among Community Building Programs

Another area for future study is the use of this evaluation’s basic
framework to evaluate other USDA-funded EC programs around the country. As

part of this study, I had the opportunity to interview several program directors

112

who lead similar comprehensive community building initiatives to the MCEC.
That investigation led me to the conclusion that the system represented by the
lntemet-based BMS is not adequately serving the full spectrum of evaluation
requirements of those program leaders. I believe it would be of great value to
most of the USDA-funded, community building initiatives’ leaders to apply, and
customize as needed, this study’s template. That effort would be an important
first step in linking these diverse programs across the country together in
dialogue, and rational discourse if need be, with the ultimate purpose of creating
common perspectives in respect to the range of practices in nJral community

development.

113

APPENDICES

114

APPENDIX A

115

APPENDIX A
Transcripts of Progress Team Meetings

Midwestern Economic Development Team
Notes 5/26/04

We’re in the home stretch.

That was hard wasn’t it?

I agree, we can’t estimate the time, and we can’t estimate the amount of money
or anything if you don't know.

I sensed everyone was struggling with that, also with the money issue, was
lingering over the discussion too.

Also, another part of the discussions I heard around was, well, maybe one of the
top priorities is still having a relationship with a local economic development
corporation. Why is that even realistic because that is an annual contract; that’s
an annual payment involved—so you have to continue listing that as a top
priority. There was that kind of debate over here and I heard similar sorts of
things being debated around the table.

Certainly, over the two days this has been mentioned over and over—one of the
top accomplishments in the counties and it has been very, very useful.

What I am going to do is ask each group to summarize just in a minute or so, just
a couple or maybe just one, what a top priority was—and just talk about your
group discussion just for a second. We’ll go around the group, and I am not going
to write anything down right then, and then I’m going to come back and take all
three groups and charts together. We’re going to have a verbal discussion about
what might be the top priority out of all three. We’ll begin listing them here. Then
I’m going to take us through a quick activity chart where I’m going to ask you to
share one or two of the next tasks necessary, what to do and how to do it. We
will do a little timeline or what to do on a timeline. We want to leave a good start
on a new activity chart. We want to start with the group leaders.

Group 1.

#115 Contract, #11.1-11.3 Midwestern Industrial parks—making sure they
continue on, #24. Enhanced Community Leadership—train more people to
participate in community development.

Eliminate informational access disparities in the county

New Benchmark: to become more user-friendly

1.1

Thank you very much...very nice job on all three groups.

Let me ask... are there some obvious benchmarks right off the bat that we’re
missing here, that you really think you need to add as priorities—your
recommendations to the group?

116

Appendix A (continued)
Well, we really didn’t address housing.
Where do we see that? Which part of the housing?

Well, as I said, we are trying to refocus the roll of several of those into a
benchmark with subheadings, because it makes a whole lot more sense to
address housing as housing. We have been taking it as an individual task. I think
we are now at the point where we need to roll with the government, we’ve got a
lot of the individual pieces... and that's a... (pause)

Basically, that assisted living, the whole thing with housing advocacy, rentals,
and account applications. We have a process. . ., the one thing we identified that
when people were trying to find assistance for housing that they were being sent
to five or six different agencies and everybody had their own set of paperwork.
And so far we’ve been fairly successful in being able to do that. We’ve got
everybody to agree that we all can use the USDA Rural Development set, and
we pull from that. So we can do that in a central spot now. But, that’s all
continuing kind of stuff.

OK, so that’s pretty much your assessment.

I am curious.

Back to this group up here, you had the contract with (local economic
development corp.) and yet you listed as a need for a new benchmark as one-
stop-shop. How do you reconcile those two? Isn’t that what your contract with
(local economic dev. corp.) is doing?

Answer

(lnaudible gap...)

Finding a site and getting incentives in place, I suppose, is that typical?

Right.

Like he has said, you have someone come in who doesn’t know how to build but
they go and they want to build their own home... before they/re done getting off
(???), they’re going to hate everyone because of all the things you have to go
through.

Don’t you get off (????) at the courthouse?

No, No.

It depends on what township you live in and what permits they have to have and
what inspectors, various things like that.

I think that one thing that is important to think about here and I should have
mentioned it when l was doing the benchmark review this morning; we are
involved in the very early stages of (local economic development corp.) I’m
asking them to take a larger role in our small business development, in regard to
these types of things.

We had a short meeting a couple of weeks ago. Currently (county official) is
doing some research... We are hoping (a local economic development
corporation) will help. I think that is going to happen.

117

Appendix A (continued)

...call it SBI—small business initiative

How is that different from the Small Business Development Center, which I know
you put in place?

Well, the Small Business Development Center is their own organization and they
have a very specific purpose of preparing business plans for people and doing all
the individual business counseling and that kind of thing.

Well, what we need is do is to have somehow, first of all, one of the issues that
we have that we talked about this, and we talked about this, was we would like to
do something with this and have this loan fund; but they’re not the appropriate
place for that to be. They shouldn’t be doing counseling and this kind of thing.
So, we have to figure out how we’re going to do that. So maybe the way to do
would be that is to have lower Michigan or someone else be the host agency who
is going to do that. So what we’re trying to do is, we’re trying to pick up from the
services or where these services basically leave off and what we need to do to
pick up and give the assistance—and what we need to do to provide for her to be
able to provide to the clients. You know, we are very fortunate that the regional
office here is our accountant, I’ll tell you that. But we are fortunate to have the
regional office here (of the Small Business Technology Development Centers)
because that affords us more service, no question about it. But we need to do
that! We have talked with XXXX and several organizations about partnerships
and various other things about some potential there so...

We added the small business, residential one-stop shop.
I added the housing and the assisted living care.
Is there anyone else that would like to add before we start our discussion?

It is easier to get your (high school equivalency degree) in jail.
Michigan Works! has a program.

I would still like to see a senior asset survey.
We would love to tie that into our program too, an asset to these communities to
work with these kids—a compilation of skills.

We’ve got action steps going like crazy.

Out of all the discussions going over the past 20 minutes.

Think about, which the first one is. . .it doesn’t really matter what is number one,
...we just want to get a top 5 or a top 8 or top ten. Can I hear what we should list
in the next 5 years? What is the most important thing that the county needs to do
out of your benchmarks.

The economic development contract—11.5 & 11.1 thru 3—lndustrial parks that
work

Jobs

...(inaudible) ...(talk about jobs and youth, mentoring and where this fits)

118

Appendix A (continued)

I’m going to put that up here as 16.1

Educating for kids [more discussion] Tutoring after school, mentoring for youth.
To continue to writing our action plan. Let’s look at the benchmarks up here.

I don’t want to forge ahead. . ..the agricultural development, and there’s also the
small business development.

Small grants.

Let’s pull you back. In our discussion, you tell me what are our priorities here?

Small business development loans.
And is that a benchmark? Yes, that is a benchmark. The Small Business
Initiative? Yes.

I think we need to keep in mind that for the scope of our problem is such that
$250,000 a year is not going to solve our problems. We need to be looking at
what we can use that $250,000 to leverage outside funds, and outside agencies
to come in and actually solve the problem, not us just throwing a lot of money at
a problem and trying to solve it by ourselves.

You guys are seeding, like gardeners, sewing seeds, planting seeds.

Right.

Assisted living and housing.

Benchmark ....Assisted living 18.10 with 18.7 - Housing advocacy.

Agricultural development.

[individual discussions ensue]

Guys, we are going to come back and do the actual tasks on these individual
ones, but right now let’s finish up on our actual lists.

Is there more work to be done with the (farmers market?) overall issue of
development of the Agri-business?

The farmers market has become a 50103 and we want them to move along on
their own.

[Discussions on farmers’ market progress]

This is obviously a rough draft... Your administrator will be making one better for
you.

I think we actually have a list of ten things...

Yes, housing is on there.

[Review of chart ..... 10 most important things]

So, there are ten activities to take on.

I hesitate to say one is ahead of number ten. My guess is that is not that much
different than the list we just made. I think it is important to say that ten is not less
than one—because ten things are do-able over five.

Do you want to leave that open or do you want to prioritize them?

Well, I think we need to leave that open. We will work on these as the way things

emerge because of funding and various other situations.
Oh my [exclamation from the group]

119

Appendix A (continued)

[Discussion] Property issue for (a Small City) fund. Any other issue there? Are
they going to do a 425? They don’t have the property but they have the sewer
water and road?

Yes.

The county airport owns the property. There is a 25 year-old agreement with the
airport that needs to be redone. There are issues with the clauses on the
property.

Is it under 425 right now?

No.

There’s just an agreement with the airport and the airport authority.

They may mean that they may need to find a whole new piece of property.

The property we have at the airport is suitable for one type of development.
There are issues because there will be high utility users.

In order to make the (a Small City) project the best that it could be, we want to do
the same as we have done with (other small cities).

Are (Small City C) and Midwestern City — are we all set on those?

Yes, we’re home.

The big task, then, they need to resolve a semi-complicated issue here with the
(a small city) property. Is that fair to say?

The tasks are individual.

Are the two of the three done?

Partly the thing is, is that these things never seem to come to closure. Can you
understand what I’m saying?...

Ya.

(County administrator) , do you have sense of the timeline on the (a Small City)
property issue here... is there something being done here?

Yes.

Seriously?

How many people are employed? When I think about the (A small city) Industrial
Park.

Transfers—they employ quite a few people. That’s it? Well, ya.

Well, when you think of (energy company) is out there... quite a few people are
employed.

We’ve already decided that this is a benchmark up here, we just need to go
through the task of how we are going to get it done. The timeline is what we are
on...and (MCEC director) and (County official) seem to be saying that the
property issue seems to be eminent, I guess. I’m just going to put eminent.

I was interested in talking some more about last week...possibilities...
broadband.

It isn’t broadband. That’s why we’re working on LinkMichigan. Because if you get
a call someday, from the call center and they are a business that are very

120

Appendix A (continued)

environmentally friendly and they require very little utility other than electricity and
Broadband.

Thank you, I put that up here, you’re exactly right.

So (MCEC director) , the LinkMichigan...your plan is done and you’re ahead of
the game.

I think we can make the statement right now, if anybody came to our community,
to locate and broadband was a necessity, I believe we could do it right now.

You could get a loan from the broadband authority?

Well, the fact that I now have the suppliers in the area, and we can look at a
combination of wireless, fiber—we understand what we have. We didn’t know
two years ago where the fiber optics lay in this county. Mapping of that fiber
optics was a great start, because we know where it is.

Is there going to be any exchange of money on the Harrison property?

Well, we have earmarked $20,000 right now, and it's been there for a while.
Should I add the broadband.

Well I have $50,000 set aside right now.

Expand family enrichment

Family mentoring and family enrichment.

Teen pregnancy program.

There is no money for this benchmark right now.

Wait a minute, first, what would be examples of the first three tasks to do?
To identify a benchmark.

I assume this person will do a benchmark study?

We can help in the benchmark study, but we need someone to champion the
effort.

We need someone to be a committee chair.

This person would do the study.

Really, you would expect the committee chair to do the study.

We would help them financially to do the study or whatever.

Well, that person would do the footwork.

Meeting and organization.

Any idea off the top of your head who that might be?

Schools, volunteers.

A lady from Midwestern City— XXX High School.

I think this should go to the volunteer centers. It seems to go there. It may
accomplish a couple of things.

If you have some money to put behind it, it may strengthen some aspects of your
volunteers. Seems to me like this would be good.

This strikes me as a lot of a heavy duty programmatic effort, not just volunteer,
and a Iota major program design involved in this.

121

Appendix A (continued)

I think we have a lot of potential agencies who would be willing to do this.
I think it is a matter of making a program fit.
I don’t think any one agency

Is alternative education an agency by itself?

No.

It’s part of Midwestern schools.

lntennediate or regular school?

It is regular school, High School.

(A Small City) has an alternative high school, too.

What about putting the two alternative high schools with the volunteer center?
Is the alternative person part-time? You may have to pay that person to do...
Let’s just leave that volunteer aside for a minute.

We need to identify a benchmark leader.

Is it possible for the two alternative high school principals could co-chairs?
That’s \what I said. But then you have three schools...

Would need somebody to coordinate volunteers.

But that’s the benchmark chair’s problem to try and figure out what the
connections are, right?

Does anyone know any of these individuals, in charge of these schools? The
chairs from these two schools?

The youth-at-risk core group would be a good place for this to land.

(A youth group) will be meeting soon, I think they’re meeting in June as a matter
of fact to talk about what the function is of that group and where they are going.
The timing would be perfect.

Ok, let’s say we do that.

(County human service collaborating board) will be thrilled to meet and (MCEC
director) will invite them to be a chair of this pretty big task.

This pretty broad task.

We have been working with them, this is actually no surprise.

We would have to put together the concepts, so it would have to be program
design.

Before community development?

I think so.

I think we need to get an idea of where we are going with this...if you can’t send
this out to a committee without some design work ahead of time.

Would the core be mentoring?

Yes.

The timeline....when are we going to contact (county human service collaborative
board)?

June. June 2004.

Let’s put on here for fun, when we want the program design started? Assuming
the chairs agree.

122

Appendix A (continued)

When will program design be started?
At the end of school,
yesterday.

What will be built? What kind of seed money? What are they going to want? Are
they going to want to bring a consultant on to help in the program design?

There has to be some work there, sit down and take a snapshot of where we are
at. . .and that whole thing.

$10, 000 would be a conservative estimate.

The cultural sensitivity group. What would be the number one task to accomplish
that?

Expand Character Counts! I hear a lot of these guys’ names mentioned a lot
here.

Character Counts!CoaIition is the benchmark leader. We have the coalition.

But what is the first step, and what do you mean by expand? What is the idea?
Expand the idea. I would say to expand Character Counts! but maybe coming out
with another program. We were talking about the mentoring thing too, that these
children need to be mentored and if they can’t be mentored, by their parents or
whatever—parents are too busy—then maybe a citizen can come up with a
program, and then incorporate, you know. We had no timeline for the program,
just something for us to look at.

A possible need for additional mentoring focus group.

And who is going to have that discussion with Character Counts!?

We need additional programs in addition to Character Counts!, not expand
Character Counts, but add programs to help all these kids.

And who might be the benchmark champion of that effort?

And she is not here.

What do you think (MCEC director)?

I am trying to sort out the difference between that and the mentoring piece, trying
to see if this overlaps here.

Character Counts! is doing mentoring right now?

No, but we have been talking about doing mentoring.

What Character Counts! is expanded into right now is they are doing business
ethics, in the adult community and expanding into that. We’ve talked about
possibly offering the judicial people something as a step of probation or a
condition of probation, doing character education for their clients.

Seems like a natural fit there.

There’s lots of discussion.

There’s also a (youth) program as well.

That’s what we were talking about, that we need to work together on this.
Because, the idea really too is not only mentoring, but a motivational thing... to
get these kids fired up about something. His is like a motivational project too, like

123

Appendix A (continued)

the parks and rec. where we’re getting some sports into it. Programs for the
young adults and children too, get them motivated.

At sports and recreation we’re trying to develop a few sports-type programs,
summer program, whatever. And we’re talking that we have the base of kids -
they’re already there, if we could just develop the sports side, mingle the two and
mix the two together, we could have a up and running program for them, without
having to go and search for kids.

Or we could expand the (youth development) program.

If I can, if we could bring it back to...

These are details your administrator needs to sort out.

The ethics and character as a benchmark... are you still sure you want to put it
up here?

I know it is important but I’m really confused; it seems this has already being
covered somewhere?

We worked on this as three separate groups. We could collaborate—we have the
same kind of ideas. This isn’t an issue, whether we combine it or whatever.

The importance of having it as a separate benchmark is that it is a way of
assuring that it is incorporated into the other entities.

Maybe the fact that it came up in two separate groups, indicates that it’s a high
priority, and obligates it to be right there... The concept needs to be there.

Ok, I’m going to leave it there then. I said “need for additional mentor focus
programs in role model program” and I don’t know what more to do with it at the
moment. I’m going to put one more task which is to remind us ...where mentoring
belongs and throw June on here for the board to have a date to talk about that
Issue.

Question on kids and sports... [inaudible]

I don’t think there is any support for that anymore is there?

This leads right into our recreational...

The original concept appropriation program that we were talking about was a
county parks and recs providing a roving leader to go from township to township
to build a summer or after school and summer-type program for kids in that
township, or intramural between townships one day a week. Rove around, start
out around five so he’s there M-F, a different township each day-have a once a
week type program for kids in each township. What we were talking about then
was combining that with the school districts and meld that together as a single
program rather than separate programs in individual townships.

[inaudible comments]

There is no county recreation?

The roving leader would do that. Do that for ya.

We’ve never had a county parks and recreation commission before.

124

Appendix A (continued)

What should be the task number on of the county parks and recreation
commission?

Hire a director, a leader in order to set up these little... that’s what you need... a
leader... yes, yes. Right now would be great, a start.

The roving leader was our start.

Is that part of the general fund of the county?

We have limited money to use.

So a fund raiser from local governments is a step one.

The plan was to have five or six townships throw in if they wanted to participate
in this.

So you raise money to hire somebody. What is the next step after that?

Well, we really need the money to start with, but right now we have very limited
funds.

Our prime goal is to develop a program, visibility, convince the public that this
program is a viable one that we should have, and then three years down the road
go to the public and ask for a millage to make it sustainable. That’s it in a
nutshell. We figure it would take at least three years and some proof to get
people to pass a millage.

So, no where do you have a leader planned in there.

No, we do It’s in the works, I guess.

[inaudible]

So you have five really good tasks down there that you are working on

What you really have to prove is that it is worthwhile.

What would we be looking at as far as going out to raise funds as far as
engaging on doing that?

September

We have to wait for the grant in order to be able to provide the service.

We have to have this in place before we can ask anyone for funding.
[inaudible]

The park, yes.

A building?

No, playground, walking trails.

See, we need the grant in order to hire somebody to help develop the product.
The problem is that the local township hall or center is not used a lot of the time.
The kids in the township don’t have transportation to get to the place, even in the
township. Even in the township they don’t live close to the township building.

I would think we need some sort of transit pickup that would take them to the
center and back. They’re looking for kids to be in that center.

That’s why the 21St Century grant will be successful, we built transportation into
that.

We took a good chunk of that grant to provide transportation.

Hey, how much is your grant requesting?

Are you putting any match in that grant?

$11,000

125

Appendix A (continued)

Is that match coming from you, (MCEC director)?

It’s a combination

See, you have some money in this?

How much are you in for, or will be in for on that grant?

$40,000

$40,000, right now.

You may have to put in an additional $20, 000.

We have $80,000, total

Should I put down $20,000?

Well, we have monies protected, right now. We’ve already put money into the
project

The reason this is so perplexing, until we know about the grant is in the next few
weeks, we can’t go forward.

Apparently, again there is a large amount of money.

We are not spending any money here, what is happening here?

As before, it’s not the money, but the coordination. The benchmarks leaders and
collaboration of making it work.

The small business development, the revolving loan fund, the one-stop shop—
that’s what we’re talking about here when we talk about the small business
development initiative. Apparently the first step has already taken place.

What would be the next step beyond that?

Would be to establish the

How do you do that? Where do you get the money from?

We think maybe the Michigan Economic Corporation is going to do that.

Are you talking about using MCEC money to establish the revolving loan fund.
Maybe we can leverage our money through USDA or something else, you know.
How much, how much are you going to put in... can you take a guess?

You don’t have that money allocated right now then? This would be new money.
Very similar to the recreation plan, you got to have somebody in place.

When might you establish the revolving loan fund?

I would say by the end of 2004.

What might the very next task after establishing the revolving loan fund?
Building business incubators.

You mean brick and mortar?

Possibly.

We need a benchmark to do it.

Ok, you need a benchmark study first?

Well, we think this is one of the things that we’ll need to look at.

Benchmark and study for incubator.

That could roll in to the incubator kitchen as well.

That’s alright, these are good topics.

By the way, we have funded half of two incubator kitchen studies around the
state.

126

Appendix A (continued)

I think Rural Development did the other half.

The benchmarking and study for the incubator should begin by Spring 2005?
Ya, ya.

You will probably have to pay for half of it. Maybe 40.

Assisted living care facility

Identify benchmark leader

Any ideas who that might be?

Could (Small City) Housing Commission, we’re looking at a number of ways.
We would go with a private investor if we had somebody to do it.

We can, we could, and we’ve come up with name over the years, just
businesses.

(MCEC director), right now, (MCEC director), sounds like you are primarily
handflngit

Yes, right now we are driving the train.

We went to (Small City D-located in adjacent county)

We’re working on this.

Who is we?

Me and the MCEC housing counselor, the housing applicant.

The assisted housing issue is this...we applied twice for funding. We were
unsuccessful in getting that funding. The reason being is that the depth of our
market study, so we know we have to re-do that. So right away I know that the
cost on that is going to be 25 thousand.

(MCEC director), you know what needs to be done, as far as the group—is this a
time—does someone else need to be in charge rather than you here?

We need to find partners, and a benchmark leader.

We’re thinking MSHDA, they may be a major partner.

We need the benchmark leader.

I think getting the study done will help in getting the benchmark leader.
Sounds like this time you know how to get it done.

We’re fixing it.
To get the study done. . .l’d like to look at it immediately.
I am going to say July 2005

Now, is that money already allocated?

There’s $17,500 allocated.

(MCEC director), that’s not enough, so put another 10 with it.

Might, MSHDA?

So you get the study, you are going to submit that back to HUD?

We don’t know, we think probably USDA is a better match for us.

(MCEC director), we need to think about assisted living is not wonderful for most
people.

Exactly.

Let me tell you why we went to (Small City C) .

(Small City C) is an example of starting with independent living and totally
unsubsidized right through assisted nursing. We know we have to be

127

Appendix A (continued)

Medicare/Medicaid eligible in order to survive. So we have been looking for the
mop and we think with (Small City C) we have found the m0p because they do
complete continual care. I just talked to them Thursday.

The one’s that are successful are part of continuous care.

Let’s branch that discussion into our housing advocacy. I feel better now because
we are already over budget now. We had $90, 000.

The housing advocacy position?

We support housing advocacy.

Are you saying that we want to make sure to continue to fund that position?
Well, this is what drives our whole housing initiative.

We are three quarters of that person.

[inaudible]

We are all set, we don’t need any more funds.

We are sliding into home plate.

We don’t know what (a local university’s) next steps are. We need to talk to (a
local university) and pull stuff together.

We never really had true emergency services—just a doctor’s office, no x-ray or
anything.

We need to identify with (a local university) the next steps are for their study.
Who is going to engage?

There may be an additional study. The old study won’t help us anymore.
[inaudible]

(MCEC director), you are doing a lot of the legwork right now, a superb
administrator.

END OF TAPE 2

Progress Team
Notes 5l26/04 Tape #3, side A

Farmers’ Market final plan

Let people make their product, use the kitchen so it is licensed.

Then help them with how to jar it, label it, market and distribute it.

They need a business plan

They need access to the site?... it’s a handshake agreement—there’s no 20
year...

Need to complete land agreement

This is all part of the business plan.

Finish business plan.

(A youth development program) can’t finish their final plan until the land site is
approved.

The land agreement may be a year away.

[Soft talk. . .]

We need a long term to start building roads, and building buildings...

128

Appendix A (continued)

I certainly saw a lot of Farmers’ Markets proposed in these Cool City grants that
people just wrote.

Did Midwestern City and Small City B do a Cool city grant? Yes, but it was
declined, or they were going to, but...

This is really not a downtown operation. The full expansion of this with the
kitchen and the five years of the plant—it’s a big operation.

There would have much greater chance of our interest if it were in a downtown in
all honesty... I really wish it would have been downtown on Main Street
somehow. If it were in downtown, I think we could actually talk right now.

It’s all about money.

I know.

I’m not making any promise at all-it would be an unusual leap, but I think as an
agency, we are ready to make unusual leaps to support downtown. We feel
Farmers’ markets

should be

On the record?

No.

You said it.

Then, I was not making a promise

All I’m saying is, if you came to me and had a plan that was a Farmer’s market in
the downtown area, and we need some assistance—we could talk.

That’s what our boss says to do. It’s just emphasized.

Yes, it is anti-sprawl.

Is there any new money, (MCEC director), for this, any other money that is
involved?

No, we just need to see where it’s going.

Guys, we have gone through ten activities, I doubt that it is complete, but it gives
a good start.

I think we have set some wonderful priorities.

Yesterday, we stepped back and looked at the big picture of Midwestern County.
Today, (the evaluator) and (MCEC director) have drawn us in and we have been
specific in drawing priorities, benchmarks, money, how, and even identifying a
few people who might be responsible for some of the tasks. Maybe we educated
ourselves and maybe we made some connections that we might not have been
fully aware of before.

I thought this was a great two days!

I’m pleased that you invited us up to help with this process.

Kudos and conclusion from facilitator.

Applause.

For all of you here you will be getting copies of this.

(The evaluator) will be pulling this all together over the next several weeks. Part
of our plan is that I want to take this to Washington when we get all done with it. I
think we need to tell our story there as well as here in Michigan.

129

APPENDIX B

130

 

APPENDIX B

Table B1. Benchmark Summary of Quality of Life of Midwestern County Enterprise Community Program

QOL—Improved Quality of Life

   

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

A B C D E F G H I J
Target Goal(s) Bemhma’k Objective(s) 1998 s 1998 Partners- Total EC Output—Primary Project] Alfggimrs “(Eff Ref-
Re uest L/R/SIF** All 3 t "er
q oc/ pen Program To Date L/RlS/F** (not inc. EC)
Improve countywide Countywide comprehensive
Physical comprehensive land Create/implement a master plan created, Citizen $65,227
atmosphere use planning 1.1 coordinated land use plan $112,000 5/1/0/1 $5,000 / $175 Planner workshop held 5/1/2/0
Blight ordinances created in
16/19 gov‘t entities; Scrap tire
Establish recycling clean—up/elec. recycle. project;
programs; Establish Solid waste coord. hired;
Improve use of countywide blight Brownfield Redev. Auth. $905,845
natural resources 2.1 ordinance. $692,700 8/2/1/0 $3,000 / 0 created 3/1/1/0
Improve cultural Character Counts! provided to
sensitivity; Promote Develop/operate cultural County schools and
ethics and character sensitive education businesses; 2004 Small City
Community education for adults program; Support ethics & $16,000 / After—Prom Party and Ethics in $1,000
behavior and children 4.1 substance abuse ed. $27,250 1/0/0/0 $1790 Sports program supported 2/2/1/0
Culture / Improve recreational Establish/operate a Citizen needs assessment!
Leisure / opportunities for all comprehensive recreation $80,000 / strategic plan dev.; Ctywide $74,301
Recreation residents 5.1 plan and department $1,654,500 6/2/1/0 $40,000 rec. plan/commission created 6/1/3/0
Arts Council started/created
Increase community Create/operate a $15,000 / Community Cultural Plan; $3,575
art/cultural events 6.1 countywide arts council $151 ,500 4/1/0/0 $15,000 Several projects completed 5/1/1/0
Improve Improve roads by
Infrastructure infrastructure 7.1 developing brine well $2,002,500 2/1/1/0 $0 / $0 None O/O/O/O $0
Build a tunnel for safer
7.2 Amish travel None-yr.3 4/1/0/0 $10,000 / $0 None 0/0/0/0 $0
Improve public
transportation 8.1 Provide 24/7 transit service None 2/1/1 $0 / $0 None 0/0/0/0 $0
Better utilize senior K
talents; Increase Establish/operate a county $10,000 / Started/operate Volunteer $92,697 “
Seniors intergenactivities 10.1 wide volunteer center $90,000 2/2/0/0 $10,000 Center in Small City 1/0/0/1
Improve network .
that addresses Facilitated TRIAD potential
senior safety issues 10.2 Start/operate a TRIAD $65,700 1/0/0/1 $5,000 / $0 partner meeting 0/0/0/0 $0
Improve system that Countywide early warning
ensures safety of residents sirens upgrade; Improvements
Resident Address community by supporting disaster BM to township facilities regarding $1,463,377
safety safety issues 23 preparedness activities est.2002 NA $5,000 / $0 disaster preparedness 3/0/0/1

 

 

 

“Partner Categories — Local / Regional / State / Federal

131

 

 

  

 

 

 

Table B1 (cont’d)

QOL—Improved Quality of Life

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

K L M O P
Benchmark In-Kind ECBD Bchmk
# $ Disc Score Comments Short Term Plan (1-2 Years)
Public hearings of master plan scheduled through late 2004,
township & adjacent communities must also review; then
1.1 $40,000 14 27 Midwestern County Commission can adopt
Recycle scrap tire chips w/Health Dept assistance;
$5,532 Continue to work with townships that do not have blight
2.1 18 31 ordinances; implement electronic recycling program
Continue to support expansion of number of trainers and
Over 3200 children and adults trained through Character Counts! number of community members trained with Character
$46,974 (as of 4/04) at work sites, after school programs, in-school classes, Counts! curriculum; Support other school district's After—Prom
4.1 17 25 seminars and other special events Parties
21st Century Learning grants received / 2 unsuccessful proposals WIN proposal will fund 3-yr operation of Parks & Recreation
prior to EC/ EC support letters assisted securing grants/ EC Commission; Begin process of raising community awareness
facilitated negotiation with local transit regarding after program regarding scope and importance of that Commission; Review
5.1 $47,942 16 30 student transport and adapt recreation plan on regular Intervals (?)
Facilitate process that encourages Art Council to become
$1,300 independent of EC support via public awareness campaign,
6.1 21 29 fundraising, identification of alternative funding sources, etc.
7.1 $0 0 1
7.2 $0 0 1
Midwestern Transit grant (rec.2002) for extended eve. & weekend
8,1 $0 2 did not rec. enough riders
Volunteer Center sponsored Learning to Serve, youth HOPE, Yard Support continued independent operation of Volunteer
10,1 $0 0 20 Clean-up, Community Gardens Center--as requested and via referrals/promotion of Center
Revisit starting a TRIAD group with AARP volunteer support;
Engage statewide task force that is focusing on developing
community-based comprehensive networks to address
10.2 $0 0 6 AARP starting new statewide initiative to increase TRIADS senior safe_ty_i§__sues
EC tech. asst. provided for siren proposals—8 total; Homeland
Security training; EC faci.2 mtgs between USDA & small city
Rescue; Grant for a Township hall/comm. ctr./evac. site; Fire Prev.
grant (smoke detectors for Group Work Camp); Another Township Continue to support county's emergency services by
23 $0 8 20 Hall sanitary/water grant identifying and defining EC role as opportunities arise

132

 

 

 

  

 

Table B1 (cont’d)
QOL—Improved Quality of Life

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q R
Benchmark _ Long Term Vision
# Intermediate Plan (3 5 Years) (Beyond EC Designation)
Make comprehensive master plan a MCEC will assist County in hiring
living document that is reviewed and professional planner and in
revised as necessary at regular establishing/operating countywide
1.1 intervals (2 years?) Planning Department
Investigate feasibility of creating and
operating full-time recycling program Recycling will reduce solid waste
and/or center; Investigate ways to fund going to landfill by 50 °/oby operating
2.1 the enforcement of blight ordinances full-scale recycling center
Support evaluation of Character
Counts! programunot only with national
evaluation measures but also with local
evaluation analysis; Use those
evaluation results to adapt program as
4.1 indicated
Reduce MCEC and County support for
Parks 8. Recreation Department by
5.1 encouraging countywide millage vote
Investigate methods and facilitate the
process of increasing local artist
participation on the Art Council; Assist
with planning/promotion of additional Art Council will operate as self—
cultural events as requested by Art sustaining, non-profit organization
6.1 Council with 501c3 status
7.1
7.2
8.1
10.1
10.2
23

133

 

Table B2. Benchmark Summary of Economic Development of Midwestern County Enterprise Community Program

ED—lmproved Economic Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B C D E F G H I J
Goa|(s) Benchmark Objective(s) R1998 55 [35:35:25 Total EC Output—Primary Project / Program To C:;::;r:" Total $ Rec.
equest L/R/S/F** Alloc.l Spent Date L/R/S/F** (not inc. EC)
Encourage economic Expand/develop industrial
development by: park & infrastructure in a Midwestern County airport expanded, $1,075,000
Creating jobs 11.1 Small City B $1,650,000 2/0/2/0 $20,000 / $0 purchased new 16—acre industrial site 1/0/1/3
Diversifying the Expand/develop industrial
economy & Lowering park & infrastructure in a Water/sewer updates & expansion, new $12,374,650
unemployment 112 Small City $1,250,000 2/0/1/1 $20,000 / $0 fire facility 8 equipment 2/0/0/1
Expand/develop industrial Industrial park property purchased;
park 8 Infrastructure in $20,000 / infrastructure developed; grant/loan for $3,763, 250
11.3 Small City C $911,000 2/0/1/1 $20,000 sewer upgrade (4/04) 2/0/1/2
Develop/support a
countywide economic
development org; Dev.
tools to assist community $113,000/ Local economic dev. corporation
11.5 development initiatives $75,000 8/1/0/1 $113,000 retained as county economic dev.org. 10/2/0/0 $310,000
Gap analysis study; 13—county regional
plan created to improve availability,
Eliminate informational cost/quantity of advance Internet for all
Address informational access disparities in BM residents; Supported technology related
barriers 22 county est.2002 O/O/O/O $50,000 / $127 grant proposals from libraries 6/14/4/0 $376,178
Train more people to
Enhance community participate in community BM Leadership Institute in Small City, Fall
leadership 24 dev./volunteer activities est.2003 0/0/0/0 $5000 / $1100 2003 3/1/0/0 $0
Increase small farm
profitability & Preserve family farms/ Farmers’ market feasibility plan created;
preserve agricultural Create more agriculture $20,000/ Built market (Summer 2003);
enterprises 12.2 jobs $228,000 4/0/0/1 $20,000 Sustainability plan created 2/0/4/3 $182,975
Joined local Chambers and facilitated
discussion to explore ways to increase
Increase support for start- collaboration; Investigated partners to
Attract and retain up and existing small support development of a 1-stop capital
small businesses 13.1 businesses $452,000 6/4/1/2 $40,000 / $0 shop with revolving loans 0/1/0/1 $0
Address barriers to
county residents Created/operated automotive repair
Obtaining & retaining Remove employee $20,000/ facility to assist low—income individuals to
jobs 13.2 transportation obstacles $437,000 3/3/0/1 $20,000 obtain/maintain jobs 3/2/1/4 $348,371
Expand child care
services with senior $5,000
13.3 interaction $72,000 2/5/0/0 (from 16.3)/ $0 None 0/0/0/0 $0
Expand empowerment & Promote empowerment, build skills and
peer-managed job provide job training (of/for local human
13.6 training opportunities $0 (yr. 3) 2/0/0/0 $1 ,000 / $0 service agency patrons) 1/0/0/0 $0

“Partner Categories — Local / Regional / State / Federal

134

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 82 (cont’d)
ED—Improved Economic Development

K L M N O P
Benchmark In-Kind $ ECBD Bchmrk
# Disc. Score Quadrant Comments Short Term Plan (1-2 Years)

 

Assist (local economic development corp.)to
EC participation waiting for USDA—RD required environmental study; EC designation develop industrial park as requested; Utilize

aided a small city airport award of $75,000 grant instead of requested loan of same allocated money for ind. park infrastructure

11.1 $0 3 19 3 amount. development when envir. study completed
Assist Small City economic dev. corp.

USDA Community Facilities grants/loans used for water/sewer upgrade and Iocate/purchase/develop (as requested)

expansion; additional land for industrial
11.2 $0 5 17 2 New fire department facility and equipment expansion/development

Small City C established a LDFA and Chamber of Commerce, received Renaissance

Zone status for industrial park, that site is promoted on state agency economic dev. Continue to market Small City C industrial park
11.3 $0 3 21 3 Web site (with its Ren. Zone designation) as requested

MCEC/Midwestern County maintains strong presence on (local economic
development corp.) Board & Client Council; Partnership Council est. for Midwestern
County partners; Original agreement called for regional economic development
promotion, not by county; (Local economic development corp.) instrumental in

County's Renaissance Zone designation, an adjacent county Smart Zone, and Work with a university to develop GIS maps for

Brownfield Redev. plan; Involved with Character Counts! and Business Ethics County and utilize those maps for various

programs; Facilitated focus group meetings in a Small City that led to start of DDA community development initiatives; Continue

development and Cool Cities program interest; another small city with CDBG present level of financial/management support of
11.5 $0 9 31 4 application and townships with PA198 process a local economic dev. corp.

 

Investigate funding sources to implement LinkMI

 

$5,000 plan with other partners; Create and submit

22 3O 29 4 Linle plan led to NSF grant proposal for GIS mapping proposals per results of that investigation

Expand Small City Leadership Institute to
$500 Leadership Institute created after (local economic dev. corp.) needs assessment in a countywide program; Investigate cost and time

24 4 22 3 Small City; First 12 members will graduate in Summer 2004 table of asset identification study of area's seniors

Continue present level of support for operation of
Farmers’ market is a 50103 non-profit organization; Collaboration with Amish farmers market; Investigate potential funding
12.2 $15,350 32 30 4 community was critical to start—up and continued operation of the market sources to hire full time market director

 

Encourage all Chambers organizations to explore
(Local economic dev. corp.) sponsors Small Business Dev. Center and a technology collaboration; Investigate opportunities to
center at local community college; Small Business Initiative needed that may require start/operate regional Small Business Initiative;

 

 

 

13.1 $0 3 11 2 regional approach Explore funding sources for that initiative
Operation out of business 12/03; New legislation increasing credit to those donating Revisit automotive repair program using scaled—
$16,000 cars may assist; EC helped (local human service agency) develop business plan w/o down operation (repair only); Facilitate disc. w/
13.2 4 23 3 car repair operation other org. successfully running similar programs
Needs feasibility study; Funding for child and adult care is available; may need to look
13.3 $0 0 2 1 at regional approach

Support development of local human service
agency auto repairjob training once operation

13.6 $0 0 7 1 described in 13.2 short-term plan is successful

135

 

Table 82 (cont’d)
ED—lmproved Economic Development

 

 

 

 

 

Benchmark (R) Long Term Vision
# 40) Intermediate Plan (3-5 Years) (Beyond EC Designation)
11.1
11.2
11.3
Investigate alternative methods of MCEC program
financial and management support of local
econ.dev.corp.; Train local community
development/planning/ other interested staff in
accessing and utilizing GIS mapping techniques
developed through National Science Foundation
1 1 .5 grant
22
More residents will
Create evaluation of Leadership Institute program volunteer to assist
and use results to adapt program as needed; community development
Recruit seniors to volunteer for community service and human service
based upon the asset identification project organizations on a regular
24 findings basis
Continue financial support of farmers market;
12.2 Assist operation as it moves to Midwestern Airport
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.6

136

 

Table B3. Benchmark Summary of Midwestern County Enterprise Community Program Self Sufficiency

FSS - Improved Self Sufficiency/ Strengthen Families & Human Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B C D E F G
Benchmark 1998 Partners Total EC
Goals Objective(s) 1998 $ Request L/R/S/F** Alloc/Spent
Develop/operate a local domestic violence shelter; Develop/operate $39,000 /
Improve emergency services 14.1 emergency shelter $403,000 3/2/0/0 $20,500
14.2 Increase 911 access for all citizens $14,000 1/1/1/0 $0 / $0
Improve social services through:
Increased self—sufficiency 15.1 Increase incentives for developing good work habits $91,500 3/0/0/1 $0 / $0
Family preservation
Improved family life 16.1 Expand peer—managed family enrichment teams $164,000 1/0/0/0 $0 / $0
Increase resident access to and awareness of countywide human
Support to avoid out of home care 16.2 service provider network $189,000 1/3/0/0 $10,000 / $0
Increase access to social services 17.1 Develop a common application for all human service providers $0 (yr.3) 2/0/0/0 $500 / $0
Provide decent, affordable, and safe housing to all
county residents 18.1 Establish a low interest, short-term housing loan fund $174,000 1/1/0/0 $15,000/$10,000
18.2 Establish a housing non—profit organization $840,000 2/0/1/1 $11,500 / $0
18.3 Provide assistance for low—income, in—home conversions, rehab. $456,300 2/1/1/1 $4305 / $4305
18.4 Create a housing clean—up, paint—up program $161,500 3/1/1/0 $25,500/ $5000
Create/enforce a countywide rental code; Address other rental housing $5000 (from
18.5 issues $95,000 3/1/1/0 18.6) / $0
$143,619/
18.7 Create a housing education/advocacy position $42,000 2/1/1/0 $116,572
Increase availability of emergency services for the county's homeless
18.8 population $112,000 2/2/1/0 $3,000 / $0
18.9 Provide infrastructure to build new homes $660,000 2/0/1/0 $0 / $0
18.10 Create an assisted—living center for seniors $0 yr.3 0/2/1/2 $17,500 / $0
Increase availability of vocational training & support Design/construct a vocational training & business center for PK-14;
upgrades of county schools' infrastructure 19.1 Support QZAB loan application to USDA for school renovation $5,245,000 3/2/0/0 $12,500 / $0
Increase access to affordable health care 20.1 Purchase a van to transport low-income fam. to medical appts. $0 — yr.3 0/1/0/0 $0 / $0
202 Develop/construct a satellite office for a health park $0 — yr.3 0/2/0/0 $0 / $0
20.4 Provide rural area health access w/ mobile health care unit $196,000 1/1/0/0 $5,000 / $0
20.3 Develop/expand home health care services $0 — yr.3 0/3/0/0 $8950 / $0
$400,773/
21 Provide mechanism to pay administrative expenses for EC NA 0/0/0/0 $303,087

EC administration

”Partner Categories — Local / Regional / State / Federal

137

 

 

 

 

 

         
     
  
 
   
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B3. (cont’d)
FSS - Improved Self Sufficiency / Strengthen Families & Human Services
H | J K L M
Current
Benchmark All Partners Total $ Rec. In-Kind $ ECBD Benchmark
# Output—Primary Project/Program L/R/S/F** (not inc EC) Disc Score Quadrant

Plan developed, site secured/renovated, Midwestern County domestic

14.1 violence shelter (Shelter House) opened in 2000/continues to operate 5/1/1/1 $129,622 $10,896 12 35 4

14.2 None 0/0/0/0 $0 $0 0 2 1

15.1 None 0/0/0/0 O 1 1

16.1 None 0/0/0/0 $0 $0 0 2 1
Created and distributed county-wide resource directory to service

16.2 providers 2/1/0/0 $6,000 $3000 6 22 3

17.1 Developed common application for all DASH Team providers 3/1/1/0 $0 $20 0 13 2
Facilitated partner meetings with goal of establishing low—interest
revolving loan fund to provide financial counseling/mortgage assistance

18.1 to low income families 3/0/1/0 $1,500 $0 0 12 2
Investigated legal structure and organizational capacity available for the

18.2 creation of a community development corporation (CDC or CHDO) 3/1/0/0 $0 $0 0 7 1
Provide low income home rehab. assistance; Acquired/operate

18.3 transition house 6/1/2/1 $1,247,467 $31,500 8 28 4

18.4 Clean—up/paint—up project scheduled for Summer 2004 6/3/1/2 $20,000 $2,589 11 29 4
Facilitated creation of rental unit waiting list to increase section 8

18.5 voucher usage in county 1/0/1/0 $0 $3,000 0 6 1

18.7 Housing educator/advocacy position created and filled 2/0/1/1 $40,500 $17,000 13 23 3
Continuum of Care plan created; Established homeless prevention

18.8 endowment thru Midwestern County foundation 3/2/1/0 $75,500 $0 19 27 3

18.9 None 0/0/0/0 $0

18.10 Created two proposals to fund feasibility study for possible senior center 1/0/0/0 $0

191 None 0/1/0/1 $2,760,000

20.1 None O/O/O/O $0

204 None 0/1/1/0 $0
Supported visiting nurses agency’s monitor proposal; Agreed to provide

20.3 funding for one monitor 0/0/1/0 $0

21 Payment of EC administrative expenses (director, consultant) NA NA

”Partner Categories — Local / Regional / State / Federal

138

 

 

 

 

Table B3 (cont’d)

Benchmark

14.1
14.2
15.1
16.1

16.2

17.1

18.1

18.8

18.9
18.10
19.1
20.1
20.2

FSS - Improved Self Sufficiency
0

Comments

As of 9/02, 53 persons sheltered, 4 counseled for sexual assault,
137 received legal advice, 50 rape victims served and 278 youth
received Prevention Education; Shelter House has 20-year mortg.

MCEC money will be used to produce and distribute Resource
Directory to residents; United Way bulk permit used

DASH developed common application in Fall 2004 and now

utilizes

$10,000 EC funds used for housing study

Local comm. action agency named CHDO (2003) / Lots of

proposal

activity on this benchmark, but no resulting grants
USDA donated transitional house, All housing $ in this category,

USDA report Fall 2003

$20,000 from Group Work Camp Inc payable 7/04

Mutual Self Help meeting April 2004

MCEC provided letter of support for local health provider 4/04;
proposal for rural monitors from USDA DLT Telehealth program

139

P

Short Term Plan (1-2 Years)

Develop sustainable plan for Shelter
House via fund raising efforts and
identifying alternative funding sources

Support update of Resource Directory
and distribution to all Clare County
residents; Encourage posting/updating of
Directory onto Internet

Hold Group Work Camp in Summer 2004
Locate/visit comparable communities that
have faced similar conditions regarding
lack of rental codes

Continue to support and expand housing
advocacy position; Support expansion of
DASH Team as members increase
collaboration levels to take primary role in
directing countywide housing services
Continue to support efforts of Continuum
of Care as requested; Add to homeless
endowment to increase # of emergency
bed nights

Develop Mutual Self Help pre—application
with DASH Team members; Investigate
funding alternatives to purchase land
MCEC fund feasibility study?

Promote availability of a local university
regional health survey from Spring/04

 

 

Q R
Long Term Vision

Intermediate Plan (3-5 Years) (Beyond EC Designation)

Evaluate and adapt short term
sustainable plan as required to
anticipate elimination of EC support

Shelter House operates
independently, expands
services, pays off mortgage

Support dev./implementation/ update of
countywide 211 system

Continue to support operation of
transitional house

Based upon evaluation of first Group
Work Camp, schedule another program

Support DASH Team dev. of proposal to
develop eight houses over two years

 

APPENDIX C

140

APPENDIX C

BENCHMARK

Benchmark Ranking System
Midwestern County EC Program

Each of the EC program benchmarks have been assigned a cumulative total
score derived by summing the various activities specifically associated with
that benchmark. Most activities received a value of one (1) point—except

where noted.
Points / Activity

Benchmark leader named
Benchmark leader active

1-5 EC Board discussions
6-10 EC Board discussions
10 or more EC Board discussions

EC money allocated

1-49% EC money spent

50% or more EC money spent
Investigated potential partners or project
Facilitated activity (support letter,
brainstorm session, etc) (1 point=low,
2=medium, 3=high activity level)
Sub-contracted service
Feasibility/marketing/other plan created
(1 point per study or plan)
Organizational meeting held

EC program staff served on
Advisory/Policy Board

Committee/team formed & meets 1-4
times

TOTAL BENCHMARK POINTS

Point(s) / Activity

1 funding proposal written

2-3 funding proposals written

4 or more funding proposals written
1 grant received

2-3 grants received

4 or more grants received

In-kind received

_—
—
—_
_
.—
——
—_—_.__

141

1-5 local partners (funding or in-kind)
6 or more local partners

1-5 regional partners

6 or more regional partners

1-5 state partners

6 or more state partners

1-5 federal partners

6 or more federal partners

Short term strategic plan identified
Short term strategic plan created
Short term plan implemented
Short term evaluation plan created
Intermediate term plan identified
Intermediate strategic plan created
Intermediate plan implemented (beyond
current programming)
Intermediate evaluation plan created
Long term plan identified
Long term strategic plan created
Long term plan implemented (beyond
current programming)
Long term evaluation plan created
Other

APPENDIX D

142

 

 

 

 

 

 

__0:000 t< :0 00
:00055000 :09::.0> 00:59:00 :0_t0m .8500 9:0 00.33::00 v.0 9:0>0 93.0000
0000.0 m. .0500 t< u0wm< 0 990009090 3.:05500 00090:.
on
:90050 .09 9:00.09 :000900m
:00 >00 0:0 :0... E08035 9 a :0_t0m 9:0Et0000 0:0 :03 mm __0 :9 0055:0000 9300..
90.0500 0. :03 .00m 00090. :000909 0230:9058 .0:0=0909 06:05 93.00
0 90.000.50.593
83.0.6900 Co 0.00.. mm 5.0000 02.0590 :90__:0 0:0 :0_>0:0m
90.900 9:0030 Co .0050: 0900.0. 9 00:00 00:99.00 9.000 :8 5:00:00 5:35:00
000.0 00:000.. 00: 9:000 :9090:0 90004. .0 00.50 000030 .E9090 :4 90905 0:0 00.50
:0000000 02.350 0.0590 ”3.25800
.9330 9900002000 .9330 06:05
0:05 5 00:0500 _..N 0005009
.:0E099:0 20:0 0: ”E9090 05.069 E050 00.33::00 .930: Co 00: 06.5.8.
02 ”90...:0m 09090 .00 30.3 000000 or :m__090m ”08900.0
00 3 09050000 05.0»09 09.: .9002 05.039 5:00.00
:000EE00 50: «$00 00 R :03 00: 0:0. 09059000 : 3::03 00: 90.30083
20.900 2:95:00 :9 0905.350 0 .:0E0_QE_\9090 0:0. 020:0:90 500 .0595.
0:0 0:00 0. :03 .0800 .9002 00:53:08 05.08.
90.:L0m \ 9002 9000 300380.30 a 09.000 .0905
00E 000E
90:00 5:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:00. e: a 0:90 8555

 

 

b0EEsm :0_E0m0000< 008:0:0m I E00... 009090 E9090 0w0.2 .5 0.005 - o x.n.z.n..dn.<

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a ..0...0m om 00...>..00 000:00.0m90 00 00000. 3900 3900
00>0.0E. 003 E9030 0:0..0 ..000< 0.0.00.0 05000000 .3 >..:0E:.00 000.00< €00.00”.
9:00.00. .0 3.900 00.00:0
.05 E900 06.0....
59%.. 0 91m» 0 990000.90 0.3 00000. 3.900
:0. 9 0.00..0>0 .0: 0 .:0..0000. :90 .0.:00 00009000
5.0:0 90.0 0. 00. 00.00900 050:0 n. ”.0...0m .05 5.03.0: 0>0.0E.
0050.. 0.03 0.0050 0.0004.
90.0 09:29 0.00.. ..0...0m om .9:00 5.0.. 00...>..00 95:00
05:5... 09:29 00.33.:000 .0:0..0.0:00.0.:.
0:0 :000 0. .0.:00 .00.:0_0> ”.000< 0 0.0.00020..00.0m 000905 9:0.0.
.0.:00 00....0 .0..0m
N F...
0.00: 000:9x0 0005.:00 00.200 :0..0..000:9.
..00000 .0: 0.0 02900.0. ”.0...0m ..0:0.. 030 0030.0 0.500 05.05.
.:0:.0>_0>:. 0w 0.3
0.00: 0:00x0 9 .:90 .00 0.0 ..0:0.... ”.000<
0:... 02 ”.0...0m\ ..00000 F NN
0w 93 000.... 00:00.3 ...OOS. ”.0000. .0>9. :0.E<
.900 .9 .0::0. 0 0_.0m
0m. .0 F 2.
00.900 ..00000 0:09 .0990 ”.0...0m>000< :03 05.0 0500.000 90.03.0095 06.05. 90.03.0095

 

 

.3 0000. 05.05.

 

 

 

 

 

.00 ...83 E 030»

144

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

{03 90E 00002 00.000 0. 0550.. 00.. 0000:05 -.000 0:0 x0
0.?
50.090 N :0..00.0.5
00.050 0. 000.0000. 905 00002 .0500 5.3 000.200 0.00 0:00 0:00xm. 0.0.
5050.0 0N 00.00.000 NM... 0000 0550.00 0550.00
00.050 0. 0090009 0.05 00002 :0..00000:0.. 096.050 0>050m 0500.000 0. 0.0.000 00900<
: 00000:.000 __050 00. 00000:.000
000:00 2505500 05008 0:0 0000.0 .0. 000000 00090:. ..050 50.00 0:0 .00...<
.0 .0500 $00 000:.000 __050 ”0.000...
0:0..0.00.0:00 on 00o._ 92.00000 000.. .050 05:00.. < 02000.0
000.0 0:0 5.0. .00000 :000 00.000 0.05 0.090 05.0. 2.50. 020090 00.. w 2.500.090 5.00. ..050 00090:.
0000.0>00 .9005. 0.05.0“. ”.0006.
09060008 05095 00.000 NIN 00...>..00 .00.:0.o>..>00 ..:05500 0590000..
00.090.0000 .0::0.n. c0050 09000 5 9050.000 0. 0.0000 0.05 50. 5 ..N 3505500 080.50
0.2005 5090000.. 0000.0 H.000<
:0 00 0. 0000: __..0 00.000 mm 5:000 5 00.5.0000 0.0.000
00.090 :0.0 0.0.0 .505... 0000.0 000000 .0:0..05.0.5 0.05550 mm .000..05.0.:_ 00900<
5000 5 00.000. .02 00.000005 5 :0..|0mu.:00.0 .:05um..fl>00
._0>00 0.50:000 .000. 0909500 ”.000< 0.50:000 00.30.5000 0 000000.00.0>0n. m. E.
E 0 ..o ..050 5 90.02.0005 0. S
{00 :0 0:00 90.02.0005 ”.000< w .000 00.0005 00_0>00\0:00xm
< 5.0 __050 5 0000 .0...000:. 02 00.000 2. < ..o __050 5 90.02.0005 N. 5 5053.099: 05.0300
90.02.0005 0:00 ”.000< 0:00 .0 0000 00.000: 0.000.. >50:000 0:. 0550.020
0. ..0 590035.). 5 90.02.0005 P. E 0020:0090
00900.0 :_ ”.000< w {00 .0...000:. 0o.0>00.0:00xw .:0500.0>00 0.50:000 00900000
0.00.00 . 040M0< 0 ~0fi0>..00.__00 0.000
.000 5.0
.20

 

 

 

Em. .:050o_0>00 0.50:000

 

 

8.08. E 0305

145

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E mm 5&2: 3:
meow :_ GEES :mEo:< :wEmm 93st d:-:mm_o msmao: m 93:0
.2556 25
Em: 0: ___>> {02, 96:0 ummw<
3523: mm .229 .w:o_w._m>:oo mEo: m.w_‘
yo :oEncoo _m_o:m:: :oon. .5 .0885 .32 :2 mocmfimmm 839a
”29:3 598:0 53:80
-3069: we 5.. ”$33
2‘ :mEmm n Ugo E295: 97.50: m :flfiflmm Nd?
88m: =5 :9:
-:o: 3:25 umucmaxm 5390‘
32m www.moi uoEmm NF 0:2 58. 36:0: 2: mEmao: 2mm
39: $059: 85385 .699E 26. m :mznflmm .oBmEot/x .Emomo 339a
ncm vam: .5nt :32
dam :oEEoo 2 2339a 02me :95: fit
0:6: Ho: :5 9m 80:39: __m :8 :28238 :oEEoo m 8.900
83.3. __< :mEmmBQmano 822mm
8: Ema... :93 :32 _m_oom 2 $82 388:.
«no 6993 __< :mEmm mm 2536: New
8590 :5 .8m uomm< 8:305 835m :95: $22,258 Emu
B mmmcmfisflmmooom EmEmm: 385:. 85: 8-50 n_o>m 9 .585
:38. 02 N mEmQ EmEcotcm to? at. 2E5:
£53 385:: -.moa ncmaxw 855E. :ozmtmmma >__Emu
:38 02 F 35m: x53 fimr 35653
:80 950.90: :2 33:85 0320:. -zmm 8320:. ”3:95
$223 .308 055::
:03an 02 N 2350 =m :8 mwmoom :m 388:. N:
nocmm: 952:2? mm .255 >§Em .23 803:5 xocmmEEm 905 E.
a tmum 933 .w umEmm 998030.900 5:95 8:203
:80 E80 m_ .250 ammm< 276:5: .80. m 9982:0350
EoEnm ‘332 9.9%
xEnucom Amvgzoafio in mice

 

 

 

mmo_>._mm :mEzr a mm___Emn_ :mfimcmbm \ >o:m_oE:m 2mm BEBE.

 

 

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00:2 0005 :9 FF 900 5.00: 050: 059900.900 0.00.
5.500500 00 90. ”0.0.0000
99.:05 5.00: .92
.9 .000020 05000509
0 005.5030 5:800 9000<
:0500 02 m 5:: 900 5.00: 0.505 v.0m
5.3 000000 5.00: 090 .92 00.>2n.
:0500 02 F 0:00 5.00... .20.: N00
:9 0050 95900 0 “0250:0202900
:0500 02 N 95950000 .0209: 9 00...:9 F.0N 900 5.00:
05005.30. 2000:05 9 :9 0 000:2:0 0.000093 9 00000< 00090:.
000 20.200 9: 9m <00: 0 2059295. 99020055 .00:00 F.0 F 99020055
09:00 350509 90000. 000030 .320 :9 09:00 00050:: 0628 3:000
0550: 08.009 0 502.0:00\:0.000 h.0 000900: 000030 .0 0559...
.0:05000> 00 >.._.00..0>< 00090:.
0 20.200 0F 95:00 0 F0 F
0:00 >090 3.50.009 :9 09:00 0:.>..-090.000 :0 9090
000 9 0550>> 0000<
c0000: 9 00002 00.200 0F 0050: 0.0F
E9020 0.0... 30: 0.5: 9 990350055 00.>2n.
500 0222 2:620 0002
2.0 00500 \ 0:60 :0 R 8.0580 0.9
000.05 005:: E9020 000.050: 0.5::00 05 :9 000.200
900 00 52.5500 0000< 5:00.050 00 3:50:90 00090:.
E. 0900 00 80.08 Z:
\ 09.: 00.00500 0000< 5009098500000 050:0: 0 9090
000030 0 00:00. 0.0 F

0:0 0:03 0000: :05090
0000 0.0.200 \00009000
00:00. .9:9 .050 S:
:0000: r:0.0 0000 u000<

 

 

05030: .029 .050 00900< .0000
.029 00.25::00 0 029:99090

 

 

 

 

000 05:8. .5 0.an

147

APPENDIX D

Table DZ. 1970s Progress Team Futuring Session
(5/18/04)

19703

VVV VVV

VVV V

VV

mug M10590!!!
Gas shortage > Mardi Gras
Impeach Nixon festival
President > New sheriff
Gerald Ford > A Midwestern
Leisure suits City high school
Vietnam War built
Home > Major highway
computer P/C dedicated
VCR-(Beta vs. > 1St arts council
VHS) formed
Drug culture
Free love
Back to the
land
Health food
Economic
Recession
Electric
typewriter
Songs
> Bridge Over
Troubled
Water
> Crosby,
Stills, Nash
& Young
> Disco Duck

 

148

VVVVVVVVV

APPENDIX D

Table DB. 19805 Progress Team Futuring Session

M
Gas shortage
Lower population growth
Challenger
Mt St. Helens
Home computers
Cable TV/Dish
CNN
lntemet
Cell phones

VVV

V

(5/18/04)

19805

 

M5901!!!
> A Small City B
family murder
> Out-of-home
care kids
> Judge XXXXX
> A new store
> Transit
> Hamburger Hill
> Cable
> Local murder
case
> (sheriff)
mg;
Bee Gee’s —
Stayin’ Alive
Rocky Mountain
High
Boston

149

VVVVVVVVV

V

VVV

APPENDIX D

Table D4. 19908 Futuring Session
(5/18/04)

19905

M
Gulf War
Communication explosion
Stock market
Generation X
DVD’s/CD’s
Proposal A
Digital Camera
Fiberoptic & Broadband
Websites

0101100
George Foreman
grill
Smoothie maker
Bread makers
Electric breast
pumps
Computerized
milking parlor

VVVV

Wm!

Landfifl

MCEC planning

Local hotel

expansion

Jail expansion

Local human

service agency

created

> Engler (governor)

> New technology
center opens m

> Sheriff XXXX

> A local restaurant
opens

> Local community
college fall festival
starts

> New Business and
Professional
Women
Association formed

VVV

VV

 

000

Macarena

Back Street Boys

N-sync

Friends in Low Places — Garth Brooks

150

APPENDIX D

Table D5. Progress Team Trend Analysis

(5/18/04)
2004
M 10011.:
> Iraq & terrorism > Fuel costs up
0 What is long-term cost > Transportation costs up
+ changing psychology > Inflation increasing
of business > Defense material spending on
> Health care costs rise
> Baby boomers > Healthier lifestyle
> Drugs > Self insurance
> Outsourcing—jobs & employers > Chamber insurance (pooling)
> Service industry helps small business
> Shortage > Outsourcing—boomerang effect
> Scarce public resources > Midwestern County offers
transportation system advantage
> High tech education available in

county
WVFI (wireless technology)

‘7

 

151

 

 

.90 60:00:00 5 3.0:: 0055:00000
.0:0.50909 .99.:0 03.55500 00 0.00.
00.0 990.050 302 00:-090 00050::

..050 50.000 0:0 .055 0500.00 3205.99
30:05 00:0. 50900 909050 50502900
0.50:000 0>.0:0:90500 0002

.090 3::00 290030.:

:9 9.. .0 3:90 09.0200 :92050

0:0 .0250 00.0 05505 :9 :0x:0>> ..:09
.0:0.00::05.-Nm :28 .>00 .:000 .000.
0000:0-0.FF 005.0 .9900 5 :0.0:00x0
0.:00 .050:05 0:0 9902:0955. F F- F. F F

90:05 00:0. 5 :00: A

 

.:050 05 :0 000500 09.0200

005 9 0:00 :9 :0503 050900:

00.0 0.53 59902095. 050320

+ 90:05 0:0 00050:: 30: 0:500:00.
00.0 0:0 :0 00.00 50500.900 0.50:000
..0 00.0000 9 000:l00:0 .0055

000000 00295-00 .:09.00>

-09 .059 0.8; 080 5.. $2085-09
.0550: :0_.0.mF .95055. 0:: .50-F.mF
.00.)..2 0000:0-0. FF .0050 ..050 .9900
:9 .>00 9902509570.: .NFF .F.FF

0:0.. 0:300 0000 .0 0.00.. A

 

00590 99.3 50.00909

0055:00000 :0_-00:00. :050 0:0 00:>>
0000.0:0 505:.00050 ..0 0.00. 5 00:000:
>_.:05.:0 0.0000 0::9 0500. 02, 94.

0590 .9950 w ..0::00 000-F0
:0.0 :050909-F0

00.0.
:9 005.500 0:0 000.0:0
505500050 5 0.00:

A

 

:09-9- F .0 F

..>00 .:000 0000:0-0. FF

.0590 .9930 w ..0::00 0:0-F0
.:0.0.09-F.m

0.0000 0::9 0500.. A

 

$09 8%. 50:09: 00 05
.0 00:80: to :000: 00:50.. 05005-30.
0.3::00 290030.: 9< "00.00030 >3.

00:00. >00>00 009000 505 050:00500
90: 00:05:80: >0:0.0E:0-=00 2.50..
0:0 50500.900 0.50:000 05 5 .00.).

309cm 5:990:90 I $000.3

 

 

quOEEOU

 

0205:0000 0.0.0000 :0 59.50

 

”mmwmmzxxxw;

 

 

3::00 5900355. ..0 0.0>.0:< .530 500... 009020 .00 0.:0...

O X52m00<

152

 

000050000: 0.5 5 0:09 000000

00.200 9.000.. EVNFd

.0000 900 00.5:00
.505 5:. 055000009.
05:0 .o 0.03 A

 

0000:1030 5.5.009 05:00 05050.0

0.0500 052. 09050006 F .0 F

050:0:
090.000 .0500 5 0.00.. A

 

000.0 5 00.0
5.9 0000 000 0.00 2:000:00. 0.00 5.00...
5.3 .000 :0. 0000050000: 0005 0:00.00

0.00 5.00... 0500.95 9 000000 You-F00

000.200 .00.005 5 0.00..

A

 

00:.0:00000 .000:0900.

000 5.0:: 00:00:00 .0590 .9350
...99 5:50:90 050:0: :00 0:00.

0.5 5005. 0503 0.5050000: .050 >005.

0000 0:.00I XXXX .9 0050 0:...900-Ndm

000.200
50500920 5 0.00.. A

 

9:0:5. 00050:: ..050 -F.mF
..00 00000-0:_0>-.NF
0.00 .>00.0000 .000. 0000:0-0. FF

000.000 ..99 5 500.. A

 

.00:.>:00 50500.900 3.0:5500 5.3 50
0.00 000 59029 9 0900.05. 0005 9.2..
000 0:20 00.:0. 5 0.0000 3.500. 9 0002

 

0.0.000
.0005. 00.0 05050000: .050 0.05

s: .0008 05>: 020.000. 9.9 .50
3.900. «.9 ..00...>:00 .000:90000.05..
F.oF ”0. 005500. 2.0050000 00:00. .0500

00._.50.
00:9 005 000.:0. 0.0.2 A

 

.90. 0000005 000

00090500 505.80 0.500 .000. 05290..
00:59 05005.30. .9 8090.000

.000 .00000 .050. 5 50502900

000 00:00.0 00.0 .0000 00:0.x0

055000. 000 00500 300 00.0..:: 09.90.

0.0:
05050000: 090.0. 050:0... 05 5 .002

9.0: 2.50. 0.00.0

050:0... 0500.95 5 0.00: A

 

.0300.
0.5 00009000 2002.0 9.00.0000: 02

00:00:00 009.09- F .0 F
0.00000 0. 00:00:00 .0..:0090950- F .mF

30.9.... 5 0000.00. A

 

 

05050.00

 

0f050000m 0.0.0000 .0 0:0.-So

 

“€02.58. 000002502.
.58. 00 030»

 

 

153

 

00.0
0.0. :_ 0003.00 02250 0.00390 .808
0:2, 0:0000. 0. 00060 0_ 3::00 0:.- .0300.
80802050 3838800 .0. 00.0 005.0
.0:.0:0 0. 0.32080 0:_.0_x0 0:0 30:

.0 080802300. 0:. .008 0. 0220.. 02-

.000.-00>- F .0 F 0220..
0:0 00:0.0_000 0002030 __080-F.mF

0c_c_0...co_.0oaom._%< A

 

005:2 50030-0. FF ..:0800_0>00
05.02.0002 _0_..0:0:_-m. F F- F. F F
.0223 ..0:0..- F .0 ..:08t0000\:0_0 00.- F .m

80.0% >0>E0E 0.0.0.92 A

 

0003.90
.8800 .0 b__0:0._0>0_ :0 05000.0

0.00 ..:08020>00 8030.82.00.00.

0:0 .0:2.0.000 0002000 0.0008_
”0:0_0_000 0.000200080000300 .0. 02000
0.08 080200. 0020 :00002 0.800

02.022 000E030 __080-F.mF
..0.00 80802050 0.80:000 _002 ..00000
-mF F ..:0800_0>00 0.302.098. _0_..0:0:_
.0. F F-F. FF :20 .2008 0>_0:0:0.0800-F.F

:2.000_ 0.800 A

 

..050 0:. .0 >03 0:0 :_ 02.080800
.008 0.0008_ .00. 00.0 0. 0.02.00 E0800

808:0000 0:0 :0_0.00.-F.m
.:0_0 .0.008.0800-F. F

000.3000. _0.:.0z A

 

02.080050 80802900 0.80:000 =<

_0.0:00
:_ t0t0 .:0800_0>00
280:000 -80.00.0 0m A

 

5:300
:_ 0.008000 00.0. 0:. :22, :0_.0.000__00
0.08 .200. 0. 0:_::_000 .00.. x.0>>

02.0.5 000208 __0_..0-:0.

0.008000 0:95 A

 

80802050
3828800 0. 0000.000 0>_0:0:0.0800
0 08.526. 0:0 :0_.0.000__00

.580 =0 0 00 9.. .2; 0. 0.5

:0...00E:8800 00000
.0005 .0000 00000.0 00.0:000
02085030 .- 20.00.0008

0.00.0005 I 0.03.2

 

 

3:00.800

 

0f0800:0m 0.90000 .0 80.50

 

U0152050
:83 00 2an

 

 

154

 

0000.000 .00000- F .0 F
...0:000 0:0-F0 80800000 0:0 :0_0.00.

6:003 00...80.

 

 

 

 

 

-- F... .:0.0 .0.008 0>.0:000.0800-F.F 0.08 390000.00 0. 0002 A
0:429. 0.00.0000.
3.:08800-vw .0800. 80800.80 3.:08800
3.80. 0000:08 .000-F.0F ..0.:00 :. 0.0000. .0 080.00 04%..
.- .00.:0_0>-F.oF ..0.:000 .0.00.000-F.v % 0.08 0002 A
8005.0 0 00 00.0.. 8... 0...... 00656.50. A
000.200 0.00.. 08080
.020>00 0. 0000.000
- 0...... 80.0.0000 0.08 0002 A
0:90:00
0.090 00. .0. 00800.00 .000 00. :0 0000. 0.0. 3.0.60 0....0 00.:

80.090 0....0000 .0.00.0 0 0>00 03 0.0000

 

 

0.0. 00.0.00 :00. 00....
00.0. 320000... 000000. 00....
090000.000: .00000 00....

 

 

 

.2003...
0808800 02.080800 0.0.0000 .0 89.00 ”0.5%.th
:0..0.00.00 .:0800_0>00
0.80:000 .000. ..00000-0. FF .00...0 .0.0>00 0.0.00..00..:..000.>.00
- :. 808020>00 0.0.00..00..:_ m.FF-F. FF 3.0 0000 A

 

.0808 8.0. >030.00-m.~F

 

 

 

- ..0::0. 00.8.4-0... 3.:08800 00.84.. A

3808800 00000
-0..0. 0...... 02.0.5 3.0050000 2.080800 0.0. .0.08 >20 A
0m0.2 02 00.090. 00 00.0.. 00_< 0......- 0000.000 A
€02.88. 0152050

0808800

 

00.080800 0.0.0000 .0 89.00

 

...83 00 mam-F

 

 

155

 

...03 00 0..0..0 80802900 3808800
.0000 0.003 000..0.000x0 000 00000. .00.0
0000.0 0.0. :0 00.08.08. .0000 0.00.0000.
0.3808800 00. 0000.0 0.0.0800 0.00.0

000.0 0.0. 00 0000. 00.0 AerdN.
0000800000 00000 000 ..>00 0000.000
:20. .0. 0.08000... ..0 .800 .00..

F0 .00 00.2. 020.000. 0F.wF 000 30.00
.00 F .00...>..00 .000..0.0c00.08.- F .o F

 

.0 .0800 .0000 00 00.0000 0. 000.000 0. 0. 00000.000 3.0050000 0.0 00000. 0.0800 0.003 ..00..000...0. 30.0.2 A
0000.00. .00. .0 0.00 00.
8000.00. 0.0800 .00. 00.0 .00 0.0. 0.00. 0.30.0 .0. 008 08000.0...

0 .0 00.320 0.30000 00. .00. >80 .02

000.>0.0 00.0 .0.008 020.000.0800 F.F

0. 00.0.0000 .0020.

 

0808800

00.080800 0.0.0000 .0 80800

0.0.0”. 00 0. n 0008000000

 

 

0.0.0.0.. .0003 0.0.0.00.
0. 00.0.00 8080.0 0000>0.

 

 

 

 

 

0 0 .0.000 0:000 0.80.0.0 A
808020.00
000 80802050 .0.0000000 0. 0000 00.0000 .0.00.-m.0F
000. 0000. .30.0 0 0>00 080800000 0.0m 000000.80 .00..0-F.N 0000.000. .0 0.00.. A
.00...>..00 .0080.0>.80800_0>00
3808800 0. 0.00.0...00 0. 800. 00.00. 008.00 0.0000 00000
3.2000050 000 0>00 0800.00. .008 0.00.0000. 3808800400 ..0.:00 .0080.0> 000 09.00.0800 0.08
000 0.0800 0.0000 .003 305. 0. 0002 -F.0F .0800. 80800.80 >..80.-F.0F 008-080.0000. 00.0.0.0 A
$0.80.. .000..00>-F.0F
+ 00.00.000 0000000000.. 0>080.-N.mF
.80800_0>00 000..
0000.000 ..080-F.mF 008.00 00.. 0000008 00300 30. >80 0. 0000.00. A
.000-0.mF ”00.00.00. .000 0.0. .090. 000..
.. 080800000 80800_0>00 0.800000 .00.). 00.300 0000 0.08 0002 A
802.88. 020......

0808800

 

08080800 0.0.0000 .0 80.50

 

3:8. 00 0.00.

 

 

156

 

.00...>..00 m0.000_0 3.008800

0. 0.00.0.000 0. 0000000000 20260 00
.008 .0.00> 000 0.0.000 >_.0.00000. 000000
300 000 0000.8 0. 000.800 .008 00.0.00.
0.00.0000. 30:00 00. 0. 00000000 >.00.3
0.0 80...00.00.0> 000 00..00000._00 0_.0>>

.00.080x0

30. 0 000 .0000 .0 80000000. 0.?

0:0 .0500 003. 0.0. .008... 00.000.
v.3 60.000 .0080.0>. ..o. .0.00000 0.00.
4008000000 0.00. .00->000 0. 0000.00_0>
00 >_00 0000800000 .00800 >005.

.0008 .0080.0> 0005 A

1!

 

.0000.0.000
0.00..0._00000 .>00 0.800000 .000. 0 5.3

 

$6 a... 02.020. 0000.00m ..08m .00060. 0030.0300
00. 00.02050 00 0.000080 0003 00.0 000 .0>..0...0. 0000.000 ..080-..m. 0. 00 >08 .00800.0>00
00..0.0000< .00800.0>00 030.0300 0 00.0 ..0000 000000000000

0. 0000 .0003 3.3.0 ..080 0. 0000000 .00800.0>00 0.800000 .000. 0000000. 3 0000.000 ..08m A
0200.0. 0000.000 ..080- F .m. 0.0.0.0.0.

.0000 .00800.0>00
0.800000 .000. 00. 0000000. 3

00 .0008 0080.000
.0..00.00 00000.00. A

 

0002.0...0. .00800.0>00 3.008800 .0 0.0.0.
0.000.000 08.. 000 030000 80.003002

.0 $00 00. 00 .00>> .0000000 0.00. 0.
000000 .0 000 >00 .0.00. 0. >.0.... 0.08 0.0
000~...0 .0000000 .00. 8.0.0 00.020 080m

000.000
00000000 00>0 000 0000.000 0002.00.00.
.0000 0:000 00. 0000 0000800 00>000
.00 00.0 .008 00000 0.0. .00 .0000.0.000
0009-00. 00.2.3 0&2 2,000.0.

0.0000 0800 000000., A

 

 

0.008800

 

00.0080000m 0.0.0000 .0 .0250

 

8000.800. 0008000000
€005.08. 00 033

 

 

157

Table D7. Progress Team Priority Recommendations

APPENDIX D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benchmark Tasks Timeline 3 Cost
Economic dev. Participate. . .remain involved Continuous $20’000
11.5 annual

Need property for Small City A 'mm'l‘em
lnd. Park . Continuous 7,,
Support 11 1_3 Continue purchase & update Small Ready to go- . .
’ ' Cities B 8. C, Need Broadband
Plan done
Ex and Famil Identify benchmark leader/ 332$?
Enfichment _ y Youth at risk program design - June 2004 Est for '
16 1 chair/mentoring/ connections/ Sept. start 2004 needs
' kids/senior/Alt. Ed
assess.
Need for additional mentor. Continue
Ethics & Focused program & “7" models June 2004 present or
Character — 4.1 Sort through where mentoring expand (?)
belongs support
. Write grant for personnel / Fund . .
Recreatlon raise from local govts. No specrfic $
Development — Sept. 2004 amount
Develop program / Market program
5.1 . . recomm.
/ Educate public for a mlllage
Engage economic dev. corp.
Small Business Establish RLF Dec. 2004 $20,000
Initiative — 13.1 Benchmarking, study for incubator / March 2005 $40,000
Engage local university
Get the study done / Identify
Assisted Livin benchmark leader
9 Submit to USDA/ Possibly attach to July 2004 $10,000
18.10 . .
ER Cllnlc
VA interest-per XXXXX
-3/4 of participants in DASH Team I
Need to continue-Possibly add Continue or
Housing credit counseling assistance to Continuous expand
Advocacy — 18.7 volunteer training / DASH take present level
greater leadership /Need to create of support
countywide housing stratefiplan
Identify next steps with local New area of
20.4 university study I Engage _
ER Clinic xxxxxxx / Need additional June 2004 supp“ ”°
. . . $$ amount
Health Cllnlc emergency care study/ Investlgate
. . . recomm.
local umversrty as Chair
12 2 Possible charge-Need to complete
Kitchen land agreement w/ City & Raise No s ecific $
. money May 2004 p
Incubatlon recomm.

Small Farm Dev.

Farmers’ Market
Final bus. 8. land useglan

 

Program Admin.

 

On-going Progress Team

 

 

Per Director
recomm.

 

 

Other Progress Team recommendations from mid-term evaluation, but not part of Progress
Team “TOP 10" list above & Senior Survey-for volunteering base & director succession

 

158

 

APPENDIX E

159

APPENDIX E

Progress Team Evaluation Summary

July 20, 2004 — Nine respondents (out of 14).

On a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely agree), participants circled the
number that best corresponded to their opinion regarding that statement.

1)

2)

3)

4)

The content (presentations and activities) of the Progress Team meetings
matched my expectations made before attending those meetings.
AVERAGE: 4.22

COMMENTS:

-Benchmark summary sheets and data provided in the manual given
exceeded my expectations.

-Didn’t really know what to expect.

-I had made no expectations—l feel that is best.

-Was not expecting activities—liked them.

The goals of the Progress Team were clear—we knew what we were
supposed to accomplish.

AVERAGE: 4.11

COMMENTS:

-Didn’t seem clear for those who had no previous involvement with EC.
-Helping the group get answers on what direction was the way to go.

-It was pretty clear to me. However, my perception may be different from the
others. I would like to hear their responses.

The Progress Team was provided with enough information regarding the past
and current operation of the EC to make informed recommendations
regarding the program’s future.

AVERAGE: 4.78

COMMENTS:

-The vast amount of information was compacted nicely to be able to move
fonlvard and expand ideas without dwelling on the past.

-I think we had plenty—but having it before band could have helped to review
and understand better.

The Progress Team accomplished its goals.

AVERAGE: 4.33

COMMENTS:

-We’re never done—always room for improvement.

-I think we did—but time will tell.

-I feel we did a good job of looking at the needs of all Midwestern County
groups (diverse) and economic levels, but feel we could have more
participation from low income and single parent families.

160

5)

6)

7)

Appendix 8 (cont.)

-Having small groups helped the whole “GROUP” decide what should be on
the top of the list.

-I’m not sure —it seems like we processed a lot of information, but our
outcomes didn’t seem tangible.

I would be interested in serving on another Progress Team if this sort of work
was sponsored by the EC on a yearly basis.

AVERAGE: 4.77

COMMENTS:

-Very informative and inspiring. A great opportunity to be part of this
community.

-Yes, as long as it was all done in one day. If you do it yearly one day should
be enough.

-Very helpful to the county.

-This is very important to stay on course.

Scale-- 1= not useful - to- 5= very useful, participants circled number that
best indicated their opinion regarding the various components used during the
Progress Team meetings:

-SWOT Analysis (5/18) AVERAGE: 4.55
-EC Assets & Challenges Exercise (5/18) AVERAGE: 4.55
-Futuring Session (1970-80-90 and current trends) (5/18) AVERAGE: 3.80
-Revisit 8C Vision Statement (5/26) AVERAGE: 4.33
-Benchmark Summaries AVERAGE: 4.44
-Notebook’s Contents AVERAGE: 4.77
-Past Practice Review 8 Emerging Issues AVERAGE: 4.66
-Evaluation/Benchmark Summary Overview AVERAGE: 4.33
-SWOT Analysis AVERAGE: 4.22
-Trend Prioritizing (small groups-5/26) AVERAGE: 4.33
-Benchmark Categories Comparison AVERAGE: 4.44
-Next Steps Plan for Top 10 Priorities (5/26) AVERAGE: 4.22
-Benchmark Ranking System AVERAGE: 4.33

The best result of the Progress Team meetings was:
COMMENTS:

-Prioritizing benchmarks by examining the needs of the county.
-To realize how far the group has come and the re-focusing.
-Ranking the new benchmarks.

-Everyone worked together.

-Lunch and ice cream.

-Getting to know the participants.

-It was very helpful to refocus on the benchmarks and realize our current
needs.

-Setting the course for the future.

161

8)

9)

Appendix 8 (cont.)
-Determining where we stand currently.

The most disappointing result of the meetings was:

COMMENTS:

-Futuring session-though interesting it took too much time-songs of the past,
etc-not relevant.

-Too much time on the past, not enough time for the future.

-None.

-Too much in a short time.

-Needed more time.

-I couldn’t attend the full session due to other meeting conflict.

-The diversity of the group and time spent ranking the top 10 priorities.
-Some participants lack of vision.

-Lunch

lf future Progress Teams are sponsored, I would change the following:
COMMENTS:

-Give out survey at the end of each session.

-Get data out in advance—there was not time to review, consider, and
process.

-Make it one day.

-Extended session.

-Send (MCEC director) to ????? for several days! (???? was not legible, but
guess is that comment was of positive nature given other evaluation
responses from that individual).

-Give more advance notice of time and date of sessions.

-The diversity of the group.

-Make it one full day.

162

APPENDIX F

163

APPENDIX F

Milestones Total Points Per Category

 

MILES TONE

Benchmark leader named

Benchmark leader active

1-5 EC Board discussions

6-10 EC Board discussions

10 or more EC Board discussions

EC money allocated

1-49% EC money spent

50% or more EC money spent
Investigated potential partners or project

Facilitated activity (support letter, brainstorm
session)

Sub-contracted service
Feasibility/marketing/other plan created
Organizational meeting held
EC program staff served on Advisory Board
Committee/team formed 8 meets 1-4 times
Committee/team formed 8 meets 5 or more
Funding proposals written / Grants received
ln-kind received
1-5 local partners (funding or in-kind)
6 or more local partners
1-5 regional partners
6 or more regional partners
1-5 state partners
6 or more state partners
1-5 federal partners
6 or more federal partners
Short-term strategic plan identified
Short-term strategic plan created
Short-term plan implemented
Short-term evaluation plan created
Intermediate-term plan identified
Intermediate strategic plan created
Intermediate evaluation plan created
Long-term plan identified
Long-term strategic plan created
Other

TOTAL

Quality of
Life-
11 total
benchmarks

1

8

QQOOOGQ

MA
‘A

omooao0m>lcn53cncn>lslmoo

_L
00

OAOOOAUIOCDQ

Economic
Develop.-
11 total
benchmarks

10
1O
9
3

baamwsl

_. oo
(”cam—l-01810183034:-4>

dOlOOO-AOOO-bto

N
03

Family Self-
Sufi.-

20 total
benchmarks
1 3
1 2
10
7
4
14

oomfioofloacaoajmm

_s
O

Aooo—smowjaomo

259

 

164

REFERENCES

Adams, EN. 8 Steinmetz, SK. (1993). Family theory and methods in the
classics. In P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, 8 SK.
Steinmetz (Eds), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A
contextual approach (pp. 71-98). New York: Plenum Press.

Adler, PA. 8 Adler, P. (1994). Observational techniques. In N.K. Denzin and Y.S
Lincoln (eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Aigner, S.M., Flora, C.B, Tin'nizi, S.N., Wilcox, C., 8 Zimmerman, J.N. (1998).
82/80 initiative simulates economic progress in rural communities. Ames,
IA: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.

Aigner, S.M., Raymond, V.J., 8 Tinnizi, SN. (2001). Empowering rural
communities: A perspective after five years. A report from the
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Initiative Research Project.
Ames, IA: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa
State University.

Annie 8. Casey Foundation. (1997). Evaluating comprehensive community
change. Report of the Annie 8. Casey Foundation's March 1997 Research
and Evaluation Conference. Retrieved February 21, 2003, from the Annie
8. Casey Foundation Web site:
http://www.aecf.org/publications/evalgation/eval.pdf.

Armson, R., lson, R.L., Short, L., Ramage, M., 8 Reynolds, M. (2001). Rapid
institutional appraisal. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14(6) 763-
777.

Arseneau R. 8 Rodenburg D. (1998). The developmental perspective: Cultivating
ways of thinking. In D. D. Pratt and Associates (Eds.), Five perspectives
on teaching in adult and higher education (Chapter 6). Malabar, FL:
Krieger Publishing.

Bamette, J.J. 8 Wallis, AB. (2003). Helping evaluators swim with the current:
Training evaluators to support mainstreaming. New Directions for
Evaluation, 99, 51 -61.

Baumgartner, L.M. (2002). Living and Ieaming with HIV/AIDS: Transformational
tales continued. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 44-59.

Belbin, RM. (1981 ). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail. Cambridge,
MA: Butterworth Heinemann.

165

Birckmayer, JD. 8 Weiss, CH. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice:
What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407-431.

Bourdiew, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood
Press.

Bowling, A. (2001). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health
services. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Brookfield, S. (1991). Using critical incidents to explore assumptions. In J.
Mezirow and Associates (Eds), Fostering critical reflection in adulthood.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Brown, P. (1999). The role of the evaluator in comprehensive community
initiatives. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts,
methods, and contexts, volume 1, Washington DC: Aspen Institute.
Retrieved February 27, 2003, from Aspen Institute Web site:
http://wwwaspenroundtable.orq/vol1lbrown.htm.

Bulbolz, MM. 8 Sontag, MS. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P.G. Boss, W.J.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, 8 SK. Steinmetz (Eds.),
Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp.
419-448). New York: Plenum Press.

Candy, PC. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to
theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass Publishers.

Carr, W. 8 Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and
action research. Philadelphia, Deakin University Press.

Carroll, J.B. 8 McKenna, J. (2001). Theory to practice: Using the logic model to
organize and report research results in a collaborative project. Journal of
Family and Consumer Sciences, 93(4), 63-65.

Chavis, D. (2003). Looking the enemy in the eye: Gazing into the mirror of
evaluation practice. The Evaluation Exchange, Harvard Family Research
Project, 9(4), 8-9.

Christenson, J.A. (1989). Themes of community development. In J.A.
Christenson and J.W. Robinson (eds.) Community Development in
Perspective, Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Clark, CM. (1993). Transformational Ieaming. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, 57, 47-56.

166

Coffman, J. (2003). Michael Scriven on the differences between evaluation and
social science research. The Evaluation Exchange, Harvard Family
Research Project, 9(4), 7.

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MS: Harvard
University Press.

Connard, C. 8 Novick, R. (1996). The ecology of the family: A background paper
for a family-centered approach to education and social service delivery.
Portland: Northwest Regional Educational Lab.

Council of State Community Development Agencies (1997). Strategic alliances
for housing and community development: Creating and managing state
collaborations. Retrieved December 12, 2002, from the Council of State
Community Development Agencies Web site:
mpzllwwwcoscda.m/publications/SAHthm.

Creswell, J.W. (1998). Philosophical and theoretical frameworks. Qualitative
inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, Chapter 5.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cronbach, L.J. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation: Aims, methods,
and institutional arrangements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dangel, J. 8 Guyton, E. (2003). Expanding our view of teaching and Ieaming:
Applying constructivist theory to teacher education. Paper present at the
annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, New Orleans, LA, Jan. 24-27.

Daniels, 88. 8 Walker, GB. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The
collaborative learning approach. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

Davis, S. (2002). Social entrepreneurship: Towards an entrepreneurial culture for
social and economic development. Prepared for the Youth Employment
Summit, 9/7-11/2002. Retrieved Februrary 2, 2003, from ELDIS Web site:
http://www.vesweborg/QKr/res/bq.entreoculture.ps.doc.

Denzin, N. (1989). Participant observation: Varieties and strategies of the field
method. In the Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological
Methods. Third Edition, pp 156-181. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

167

Deshler, D. (1998). Measurement and appraisal of program success. In P.C.
Cookson (Ed.) Program planning for the training and continuing education
of adults: North American perspectives. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing
Co.

Dick, B. (1998). Action research and evaluation. Paper prepared for the
Innovations in Evaluation and Program Development on-Iine conference,
September 1998. Retrieved November 3, 2003, from the Action Evaluation
Research Institute Web-site:
http://www.aeoro.orq/inprintlconference/BDick.html.

Duignan, P. (2003). Mainstreaming evaluation or building evaluation capability?
Three key elements. New Directions for Evaluation, 99, 7-21.

EdIeson, J.L. 8 Bible, AL. (1998). Forced bonding or community collaborative:
Partnerships between science and practice in research on women
battering. Paper presented at the National Institute of Justice Annual
Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation: Viewing Crime
and Justice from a Collaborative Perspective, Washington, DC.

Emerson, R. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Sociological
Review, 27, 31-40.

Fisher, DD. (1991). An introduction to constructivism for social workers. New
York: Praeger Publishers.

Flora, CB. (2001) Rural EUEC/Champion communities: What happened after
application. Retrieved April 5, 2003, from the North Central Regional
Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University Web site:
http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/activities/ezec/ez-ec-cc.htm.

Flora, CB. 8 Flora, J.L. (2004). Rural communities: Legacy + change. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.

Flora, C.B., Gasteyer, S., Fernandez-Baca, E., Banerji, D. Bastian, 8., 8 Aleman,
S. (2000). Local participation in research and extension for conservation
and development of natural resource: A summary of approaches. Pa per
presented the International Farming Systems Association, North Central
Regional Center for Rural Development conference, November 30, 2002,
Ames, IA.

Flora, J.L., Sharp, J., Flora, CB, 8 Newlon, B. (1997). Entrepreneurial social

infrastructure and locally initiated economic development in
nonmetropolitan United States. Sociological Quarterly, 38(4), 623-645.

168

Foster-Fishmann, P.G., Berkowitz, S.L., Lounsbury, D.W., Jacobson, S., 8 Allen,
NA. (2001). Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A
review and integrative framework, American Journal of Community
Psychology, 29 (2), 241-261.

Fowler, A. (1995). How to build effective teams. People Management, 1(4), 40-
41.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Seabury.
Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Wellington House.

Gouldner, AW. (1976). The dialectic of ideology: The origins, grammar and
future of ideology. New York: Seabury Press.

Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems.
San Francisco: Jossey—Bass Publishers.

Green, G.P., Marcouiller, D., Deller, S., Erkkila, D., 8 Sumathi, NR. (1996). Local
dependency, land use attitudes, and economic development:
Comparisons between seasonal and permanent residents. Rural
Sociology, 61(3), 427-445.

Greene, JG. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise.
Chapter 33 in N.K Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Greenwood, DJ. 8 Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social
research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Griffore, R.J. 8 Phenice, LA. (2001). The language of human ecology: A general
systems perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hernandez, M. (2000). Using logic models and program theory to build outcome
accountability. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(1), 24-40.

Housing Assistance Council (2002). Taking stock: Rural people, poverty, and
housing at the turn of the 215' century. Washington, DC: author.

Hyman, J.B. (2002). Not quite chaos: Toward a more disciplined approach to
community building. Baltimore, MD: Annie 8. Casey Foundation.

169

Janesick, V.J. (1994). The dance of qualitative research design. In N.K. Denzin
and Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 209-219.

Johnson, R. (1996). Effective team building. HR Focus, 73(4), 18-24.

Joseph, M. 8 Levy, J. (2002). Voices from the empowerment zones: Insights
about launching large-scale community revitalization initiatives. Baltimore,
MD: Annie 8. Casey Foundation.

Junker, EH. (1960). Field work: An introduction to the social sciences. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.

Keith, J. (2000). Building and maintaining community coalitions on behalf of
children, youth, and families. Project Report: Community Coalitions in
Action, Institute for Children, Youth and Families (Bulletin - FLORR529).
Retrieved November 20, 2002, from Michigan State University Extension
Web site: http://www.msue.msu.edu/msue/imp/modfl/53900001.html.

Kingsley, G.T., McNeely, J.B., 8 Gibson, JD. (2001). Community building
coming of age. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Kretzmann, J. 8 McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A
path toward finding and mobilizing community assets. Chicago: ACTA
Publications.

Krueger, RA. 8 Casey, MA. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Kubisch, A.C, Auspos, P., Brown, R, Chaskin, R., Fulbright-Anderson, K., 8
Hamilton, R. (2002). Voices from the field: Reflections on comprehensive
community change. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.

Kumar, K. (1993). An overview of rapid appraisal methods in development
settings. In K. Kumar (Ed.) Rapid appraisal methods. Washington, DC:
The World Bank.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-
51.

Lin, M, Cook, K. 8 Burt, RS. (2001). Social capital: Theory and research. New
York, Aldine de Gruyter.

Loo, ID. (2002). The troublesome relationship between action Ieaming and
organizational growth. Journal of Workplace Learning, (14(6), 245-255.

170

 

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transforming dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass Inc.

Michigan Department of Treasury (2004). Michigan economic update: Office of
Revenue 8 Tax Analysis. Retrieved September 5, 2004, from the
Michigan Department of Treasury Web-site:
http://www.michiqan.qov/documents/MEU June 2004 Report 97582 7.pdf

Midwestern County Enterprise Community (1998a). Midwestern County (MI)
application for USDA EC/EZ program designation. A small city, MI:
Midwestern County Board of Commissioners.

Midwestern County Steering Empowerment Board. (1998b). Rural round ll
empowerment zone application and plan. A small city, Ml: Author.

Midwestern County Enterprise Community (2004). USDA Rural Development-
Midwestern County Enterprise Community single family housing annual
report, October 1, 2003-September 30, 2004. A small city, MI: Midwestern
County EC.

Midwestern County Parks and Recreation Department (2003). Comprehensive
survey report: Assessing the potential of parks and recreation for
Midwestern County and its residents. A small city , Ml: Midwestern County
EC.

Morse, J.M. (1998). Designing funded qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin and
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 220-235.

Patton, MO. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pratt, DD. (1998). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education.
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.

Putman, RD. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life.
The American Prospect, 13(35), 35-42.

Naumes, W. 8 Naumes, M.J. (1999). The art and craft of case writing. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Quigley, J.M. (2002). Rural policy and the new regional economics: Implications
for rural America. In The new power of regions: A policy focus for rural
America. Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Reid, J.N. (1999). Community empowerment: A new approach for rural
development. Rural Development Perspectives, 14(1), 9-13.

171

Reid, J.N 8 Flora, C. (2002). Advancing knowledge and capacity for community-
led development. Paper presented at Agricultural Outlook Forum,
February 22, 2002. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from New American
Communities Web site:
http://newamericancommunities.cmlresources/Ag Outlook Forum 02 pa
per submitteddoc

Reid, J.N. 8 Murray, KS. (2000). Empowering rural communities: A perspective
at the five-year point. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the Rural
Sociological Society, Washington, DC.

Rowden, R.W. (2001). The Ieaming organization and strategic change. SAM
Advance Management Journal, 66(2), 11-16.

Rossi, R.H., Freeman, H8, 8 Lipsey, MW. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sabatelli. RM. 8 Shehan, CL. (1993). Exchange and resource theory. In P.G.
Boss, W..J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, 8 SK. Steinmetz (Eds),
Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach
(pp.385-417). New York: Plenum Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of learning
organization. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group.

Shadish, Jr., W.R., Cook, TD, 8 Leviton, LC. (1991). Foundations of program
evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Stake, RE. (1975). An interview with Robert Stake on responsive evaluation. In
R.E. Stake (Ed.), Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach.
Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Stake, RE. (1980). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In
W.B. Dockrell and D. Hamilton (Eds), Rethinking educational research.
London: Hodder 8 Stoughton.

Stake, RE. (1986). An evolutionary view of education improvement. In 8. House
(Ed.), New directions in educational evaluation. London: Farmer Press.

Stake, RE. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications.

Tennant, M. 8 Pogson, P. (1995). Learning and change in the adult years. San
Francisco: Jossey—Bass Publishers.

172

Tukahashi, L.M. 8 Smutny, G. (2001). Collaboration among small community-
based organizations: Strategies and challenges in turbulent environments.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 141-153.

United States Census Bureau (1990a). Table DP-1 Profile of General
Demographic Characteristics: 1990, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Census Bureau (1990b). Table DP-2 Profile of Selected Social
Characteristics: 1990, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Census Bureau (1990c). Table DP-3 Profile of Selected Economic
Characteristics: 1990, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Census Bureau (1990d). Table DP-4 Profile of Selected Housing
Characteristics: 1990, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Census Bureau (2000a). Table DP-1 Profile of General
Demographic Characteristics: 2000, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Census Bureau (2000b). Table DP-2 Profile of Selected Social
Characteristics: 2000, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Census Bureau (2000c). Table DP-3 Profile of Selected Economic
Characteristics: 2000, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Census Bureau (2000d). Table DP-4 Profile of Selected Housing
Characteristics:2000, Geographic area: Clare County, MI.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2003). EZ/EC backgrounder: Rural
EZ/EC programs. Retrieved March 5, 2003, from the USDA Web site:
http://www.ezec.gov/About/backgrounder.html.

United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2004).
Measuring rurality: What is a micropolitan area? Retrieved September 1,
2004, from the USDA ERS Web-site:
http://wwwers.usdagov/Briefinq/RuraIitv/MicropolitanAreasl.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2003). Homeowners,
communities, and wildfire: Science findings from the National Fire Plan.
General Technical Report NC-231, Proceedings of the Ninth lntemational
Symposium on Society and Resource Management, Bloomington, IN June
2002.

Vermette, P., Foote, C., Bird, 0., Mesibov, D., Harris-Ewing, S., 8 Battaglia, C.

(2001). Understanding constructivism: A primer for parents and school
board members. Education, 122(1), 87-93.

173

 

Wadsworth, Y. (2001). Becoming responsive—and some consequences for
evaluation as dialogue across distance. New Directions for Evaluation,
92(4), 45-58.

Weiss, CH. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Weiss, CH. (1999). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based
evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and
families. In James Connell (Ed) New Approaches to Evaluating
Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington,
DC: Aspen Institute.

Weiss, OH. (2003). On theory-based evaluation: Winning friends and influencing
people. The Evaluation Exchange, Harvard Family Research Project, 9(4),
2-3.

WK. Kellogg Foundation. (1998a). Evaluation Handbook (Item #1203), Battle
Creek, MI: Collateral Management Co.

WK. Kellogg Foundation (1998b). Leadership: Building capacity to lead a
community-based process. Developing community capacity: Sustaining
community-based initiatives-module 1, chapter 1. Battle Creek, MI: author.

WK. Kellogg Foundation (2001). Logic model development guide. Item #1209,
Battle Creek, MI: author.

Wholey, J.S. (1977). Evaluability assessment. In L. Rutman (Ed.) Evaluation
research methods: A basic guide. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Wholey, J.S. (1983). Evaluation and effective public management. Boston: Little,
Bmwn

Wolff, T. (2001). The future of community coalition building. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 29(2), 263-268.

Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Yin, R.K., Bateman, P.G., 8. Moore, GB. (1983). Case studies and organizational

innovation: Strengthening the connection. Washington, DC: COSMOS
Corp.

174

 

   

llllllllllllllllllll