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 1‘ l r‘ .l I" " ' -__'g n C ‘ ‘ ‘ -' 1' I' I i 1 f U {a 4: I .1- I J ._r .- V 6/01 cz/CIRC/DateDuepBS-p. 15 D II. (I. PR EVIDENCE THAT COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPCs) USED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS By Vincent Boyd Richardson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Resource Development 2003 ..,",‘ «. g; ,3»).- ‘~u\ LL\\.. ff... "."'.,:An° . "Pu-\II: I ABSTRACT EVIDENCE THAT COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPCS) USED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES IN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS By Vincent Boyd Richardson The purpose of the study was to determine if the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) used the accepted Community Development Society (CDS) community development principles in their community engagement for capacity-building. These principles are based on good morals and ethics, which are considered best practice for community development practitioners. No seminal studies have discussed urban and metropolitan universities linking their community development processes and strategies to the tested, validated, and accepted CDS principles for community engagement. On February 25, 2002, a survey instrument was sent via e—mail and facsimile to the HUD-COPC leaders. Of the 109 surveys that were administered to the sample population, 78 could be used, creating a 72% return rate The data collected from the survey instrument was analyzed through the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS). The procedures used were descriptive statistics, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, One-Sample T-Test, crosstabulation, and a chi-square analysis. These tests were used to determine if a positive correlation existed for the 3 research hypotheses, and the 2 dependent variables varying levels of importance and agreement for the 5 research questions that were examined. Also, these tests looked at the relationships between and among the overall and individual mean scores for both the 1R 0 Ta. .t. Lu; ' Tr. pr ' l}. 1’ ; are I 91-.l research hypotheses and the research questions. The matrix in the study was analyzed to determine if there was a positive relationship between two variables proportionally and to assess the observed frequencies that emerged from the analysis. The major findings that arose fiom this study included: 0 There is a positive correlation among the HUD-COPC directors who recognized the importance of, and used the accepted (CDS) principles in their community engagement efforts. I Forty-five percent of the respondents indicated that they recognized and used the accepted CDS principles in practice. 0 There were no huge disparities among the overall mean scores for the respondents as a group, but there were several significant individual items that arose from the study in community relations, competency development and training, program evaluations, reward system for faculty and organizational structure for community engagement. As a result of these findings, the following conclusions were recommended: 0 The accepted CDS principles need to be adopted and implemented for professional practice by institutions of higher education in their community engagement services. 0 Universities need to redevelop their mission statements, reward system and vision plan to include their local communities as a major priority, and demonstrate more leadership abilities in addressing societal problems through mission-driven policies. Universities need to get more involved in reinvesting more of their funds through institutional support for community awareness and commitment. Copyright by VINCENT BOYD RICHARDSON 2003 DEDICATION First, I want to give praise to the Lord Jesus Christ for all his blessings and helping me to overcome many obstacles in my life in pursuit of this degree. Second, I want to dedicate this dissertation to two of the most important people in my life. They are my mother Mrs. Delfina W. Richardson, and my grandmother Mrs. Caroline T. Richardson, and I want to thank them for all their continuing love, support, and encouragement. ACKNOWLEDMENTS I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to a number of people who either directly or indirectly contributed to my educational goals at Michigan State University. This effort could not have been achieved without those persons involvement. First, I want to thank the former Chairperson in the Department of Resource Development, Dr. F rank Fear for giving me an opportunity to pursue a Ph.D in the department, and Dr. James Jay, the former Assistant to the Dean, in the College of Agricultural and Natural Resources for providing me with a Minority Competitive Doctoral Fund Fellowship. In addition, I want to give my sincere appreciation to the former Dean of Urban Affairs, Dr. Joe Darden, along with Dr. Bella Mody, and Dr. Maxie Jackson who gave me an Opportunity to pursue a minor degree in the Urban Afi‘airs Program. Second, my doctoral committee deserves a lot of praise for their positive constructive criticism, encouragement and patience, and I want to personally thank them all individually. Dr. George Rowan, who served as my Chairperson has guided me through this graduate process with a lot of support and compassion, and has become one of my positive role models. Dr. Rex LaMore has been very instrumental in my professional development as his graduate and teaching assistant on-campus. I had an opportrmity to work on various projects that involved community and economic development. My dissertation topic emerged from the work that I had done with him at the LeJon Building. Dr. June Thomas is another person whom I had the pleasure to work for as her graduate assistant. She has given me opportunities to work on some of her vi v, .1.‘ ~.. 3: T _r.‘d n-- .ih ’ 3" ...~ I‘ .« g», .r ; . .‘J\J-.' .l. . . r u. ‘1‘! ,"l ‘ N..qu .. s- I”; “P50 ' ‘1. “b... n. J .V‘ “M... lt‘ publications and receiving acknowledgment for the work I have done. I had an opportunity to work with her on the Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) Program at Wayne State University, in Detroit, Michigan, which gave me more insightful information pertaining to my dissertation topic. Dr. Eckhart Dersch has given me many good ideas in terms of my professional development and on publishing some of the work that I have amassed from my dissertation topic. I also want to thank him for his wisdom and the positive atmosphere that he has always provided me with concerning education. There are several other people that I want to also thank at this time such as the Chairperson of Resource Development, Dr. Scott Witter, who has giving me support, along with some of the staff in the department regarding my dissertation. My thanks are also extended to the former Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Dozier Thornton, and the Assistant Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Yvonne Smith for all their support. Also, I want to thank Dr. Marvell Lang whom I had the pleasure to work for as his graduate assistant. He was always helpful and attentive to my educational goals. Dr. John Schweitzer is another person who gave me some good advice regarding my dissertation, including Dr. Rene Rosenbaum for whom I have for work as his graduate assistant. I want to send a Special thanks to Fran Fowler, Center for Urban Affairs, for her humor and compassion, and to the Statistics Consultants (George Gibi and Fang Li), and Dr. Ira Washington, in the Office of Supportive Services for all their assistance. In addition, I want to thank Dr. James E. F ason and Dr. Kenrick J. Pierre for their fiiendship and astute advice, along with Marvin Cato, Reynard Blake Jr., and Emerson Sheffey. Finally, I want to thank Mary A. McGee for her friendship, humanity, and unconditional support. You were there when I needed you the most. Thank you very much! vii LYOFTAE .STDPFR; “233': l I Sums Rue; TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Statement'of the Problem Research Objectives Research Questions Research Hypotheses Rationale of Hypotheses Significance of the Study Assumptions Limitations of the Study Definitions of Terms CHAPTER H: REVIEW OF LITERATURE I Introduction The Early Evolution of Community Development The Emergence of Community Development Cooperative Extension Service Conceptual and Theorectical Foundations of Community and Economic Development Community Development Theory Assumptions Community Development Practice Assumptions ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Community Development Theory of Practice Assumptions" Community Development Practice of Theory Community Development Theory-Building Community Development Principles used as a Code of Ethics A Code of Ethics and Principles for Community Development Practice Community Outreach Partnership Centers Program (COPCS) and Community Development Principles (CDS)__,, Community and Economic Development and Capacity-Building Strategies Community and Economic Development and Evaluation Methods Summary viii xiii xvi 14 15 15 16 17 19 2O 20 25 27 27 29 31 34 35 37 38 39 44 45 46 50 53 57 I! ‘4— list. in Pr.- Edi? for E is It. CHAPTER 11: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11 Introduction The Historical Roles of the Federal Government in Higher Education, and the Public Philosophies of Land Grant Colleges and Universities and Metropolitan Universities The Historical Roles of the Federal Government in Higher Education Higher Education Act of 1965 Urban and Metropolitan Colleges and Universities ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, The Need for Urban Colleges and Universities to become Socially Responsible The Need for Metropolitan Colleges and Universities to become Socially Responsible Higher Education’s Past Community Engagement Efforts ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Community Engagement Higher Education Community Engagement and Applied Research in Practice Higher Education Community Relations Higher Education Dilemmas Higher Education Mission Background on the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPCS), along with its Mission, Goals and Objectives The Community Outreach Partnership Act Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of University Partnership (OUP) COPC Programs Involvement on an Institutional and a Community Level Summary CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY Introduction Instrument Development The Questionnaire Section 1: Member Affiliation Section II: Recognition Importance of the accepted Community Development Society (CDS) Principles ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Section 111: Community and Economic Development (CED) and Problem-Solving Methods Section IV: Capacity-Building Strategies Section V: Community Engagement Barriers Section VI: Open-Ended Question Reliability and Validity of the Instruments ix 63 65 65 69 69 70 7] 72 73 74 80 82 83 86 86 87 88 89 93 94 95 96 97 97 98 98 98 99 Sm? T'IDW‘. n. ”A F .‘ .55“ [L I University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects Research Questions Research Hypotheses Data Collection Research Sample and Selection of the Sample Population ,,,,, Dependent Variables Independent Variables Statistical Methods for Quantitative Data Analysis ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Methods for Qualitative Analysis Summary CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS Introduction Part 1: Member Affiliation Member Affiliation Recognition and Importance of the accepted CDS Principles Community Development Problem-Solving Methods ,,,,,,,,,,,, Capacity-Building Strategies Part H: Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Responses Capacity-Building Strategies Institutional Support Project Barriers Part 111: Research Questions Research Question I Findings Research Question II Findings Research Question III Findings Research Question IV Findings Research Question V Findings Research (Sub-Question) V(b) Findings Research (Sub.Question) Question (0) Part IV: Hypotheses Hypotheses I Findings Hypotheses II Findings Hypotheses III Findings Part V: Matrix Matrix Findings 100 100 100 101 102 103 104 104 106 107 108 110 110 111 116 122 129 129 129 131 132 133 134 136 139 141 144 146 148 150 150 151 152 153 154 nvlnTT KAI 11R “- ’7" J In;.\'. <21" (03 ‘3 u 3*: in ‘s ‘ . I. .w i-‘ “L. I ,\_ .u-‘D.“‘ “ IIV- &.l 1.x St.“ I‘. .a.“~ ._\\' ‘ k.‘ ”V- ‘tJII PM. "..l" . . -‘. \J 4.: 5 . CHAPTER V: Introduction Summary Purpose Methodology Hypotheses Matrix Assumptions and Limitations of the Data Major Findings and Conclusions Conclusions from Research Questions Research Question I Research Question H Research Question 111 Research Question IV Research Question V Research (Sub) Question V(b) Research (Sub) Question V(c) Conclusions from the Research Hypotheses SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEACH Research Hypotheses I Research Hypotheses 11 Research Hypotheses III Conclusions from the Matrix Implications of the Study Recommendations for Future Research APPENDD( A: AREAS OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION ,,,,,,,,,,, APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPC) FUNDING AVAILABILITY, FY 1997; NOTICE APPENDIX C: PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPENDD( D: COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPCS) (GRANTEES BY THE YEAR IN STUDY) APPENDD( E: CENSUS REGIONS AND DIVISIONS OF UNITED STATES APPENDD( F: URBAN SPRAWL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES FOR INNER CITIES xi 156 156 156 157 158 158 159 160 161 162 163 166 167 169 170 171 172 173 174 174 176 178 180 181 183 206 208 213 215 "79333 T... A "TV-firt- it" I. .‘J ‘u—a APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDD( APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDD( APPENDIX BIBLIOGRAPHY .7949??? 5? MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY/ CENTER FOR URBAN AFFAIRS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ' PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL AICP CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT ASA CODE OF ETHICS ASPA’S CODE OF ETHICS CODE OF ETHICS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . A CHRONOLOGY OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION AFFECTING PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION SECOND MORRILL ACT COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITIES: PROGRESS THROUGH TEACHING, RESEARCH AND SERVICE FIF TEEN UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGE DILEMMAS CAPACITY-BUILDING STRATEGIES ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SURVEY INSTRUMENT INTRODUCTORY LETTER COVER LETTER FOLLOW-UP LETTER SUMMARY OF SOLICITED COMMENTS REGARDING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE xii 217 219 225 264 267 301 306 308 311 313 320 322 324 325 331 TIBLE "RI ‘-1 “-4.1... FELT '13? t "WUL . o“v- .1 ‘NL . 1‘."- 1‘ "wt .. In l;J 6. TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE 12: 10: 11: LIST OF TABLES Matrix Box for Recognition and Use of the CDS Principles" Community Development Theory as a Function and Classification (Section II) Importance of the CDS Principles to the HUD-COPC Directors (Section III) Use of the CD Problem-Solving Methods by the HUD-COPC Units (Section IV) Implementation of HUD’s Capacity-Building Strategies (Section V) Barriers to on—campus and off—campus community engagement activities Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for the accepted CDS Principles Research Question I One-Sample T-Test of Recognized Importance - Individual Items Mean Scores Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for the accepted CDS Principles Research Question II One-Sample T-Test of the accepted CDS Principles for Use - Individual Items Mean Scores Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for CD Methods Research Question 111 One-Sample T-Test of the CD Methods - Individual Items Mean Scores TABLE 13: Reliability Analysis Scale of the HUD-COPC Required Capacity-Building Strategies Overall Mean Scores for Question IV xiii 16 42 112 115 119 125 134 135 137 138 139 140 141 ”me-l ’aE -m —' ‘— .Iq'lr‘ l; .T-JLE ~ 7.1M lb. Eli l" ELE ii WI 1r. . ”‘01. . b ‘. ,u“ '1' ‘4. I ~- -"F ‘ ' Q Li; ~. - Lair 1L I‘- "ll" w '- W. ~k “ TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: One-Sample T-Test: HUD-COPC Required Capacity-Building Strategies - Individual Items Mean Scores Reliability Analysis Scale Table: On-Campus and Off-Campus Barriers to Community Engagement Overall Mean Scores for Question V One-Sample T-Test of On-Campus and Off-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement - Individual Items Mean Scores Reliability Analysis Scale Table: Overall Mean Scores On-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement Research (Sub) Question (b) One-Sample T-Test of On-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement - Individual Items Mean Scores ,,,,, Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for Off-campus Barriers for Community Engagement Research (Sub) Question V (c) One-Sample T-Test of Off-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement - Individual Item Mean Score ,,,,,,,, The HUD-COPC Leaders Recognized the Importance of, and Used the accepted CDS Principles Hypothesis I The HUD-COPC Leaders Recognized the Importance of the accepted CDS Principles which had a direct and positive effect on their institutionalization efforts in community engagement Hypothesis II The HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS Principles related directly and positively to their institutionalization efforts in community engagement Hypothesis III Matrix Box for Recognition and Use of the accepted CDS Principles xiv 143 144 146 147 148 148 149 151 152 153 154 Lilli 25: TABLE 25: Chi-Square Tests of the Proportion of the HUD-COPC Leaders who Recognized Importance of, and used the accepted CDS Principles in Practice 155 XV TIRE f n~o '- -. I11 A-v‘.‘ .IA“ pl. .3: A4V»&\L, rm r '~~Iu_ N-‘. .. v... HI ‘-I a} 7., g J 'IV (31" FIGURE 1: FIGURE 2: FIGURE 3: FIGURE 4: FIGURE 5: FIGURE 6: FIGURE 7: FIGURE 8: FIGURE 9: FIGURE 10: LIST OF FIGURES HUD-COPC Distribution of Funded Schools by Regions (1994 — 2000) Member Affiliation Open-Ended Responses The HUD-COPC Directors recognized importance of the accepted CDS Principles The HUD-COPC Directors use of the accepted CDS Principles The HUD-COPC Directors use of Community and Economic Development Methods The HUD-COPC reported use of the required Capacity-Building Strategies The HUD-COPC Directors recognized their institutions’ community engagement barriers both on-campus and off-campus The HUD-COPC Directors recognized their institutions’ on-campus relationships as an important barrier as it relates to their community engagement activities The HUD-COPC Directors recognized their institutions’ off-campus relationships as it relates to their community engagement activities xvi 111 129 135 137 140 142 145 147 149 CHAPTER] INTRODUCTION Over the last four decades, America's central cities have experienced a major transformation in their populations and industries. In 1950, approximately “70 percent of America's 168 metropolitan areas population lived in 193 central cities” (Rusk, 1993, p. 5). During that time, many cities reached their highest population. Rusk (1996) stated that in 1990, “over 60 percent of the metrOpolitan population” resided outside of the central cities, and “between 1950 and 1990, the population density of America's 522 central cities dropped by one-half, from 5,873 people per square mile in 1950 to 2,937 people per square mile in 1990” (p. 1). Rusk (1993) also noted that the central cities’ ability to adjust to suburban population growth, and the development of low-density housing depends on how well cities adapt to their elasticity, by providing adequate services for new growth. Rusk (1996) defined elasticity as a city's ability to capture a large share of its suburban growth within its own boundaries. The conditions that determine elasticity are a large parcel of vacant land within the city or municipality boundaries, the city’s ability to annex adjacent land, and the city-county consolidation’s ability to expand its boundaries. An inelastic city is defined as a city that is unable to capture suburban growth, land, population and industries. Rusk concluded that inelastic cities in 1950 were limited due to historical, POHtical or legal reasons for non-growth and expansion of their municipal boundaries: 0 they had little or no vacant land to develop new, low-density, single-family home subdivision, 0 they failed to acquire additional vacant land for new I .. ~y-4 .L..v.t\l. \ . ..,. 1", 0 . -.c.: I... . U -., . faith... c"'~'\"n. u... U- {fa-1...: ‘ ' “ “‘~--~ 5. \‘v la- "‘- I _ ‘ ""hru.~ . fl.l‘\ u. ‘n '\- n'.. . W. .1 ~ n.9, ““-".. . 1.1.» a.“ _ t “D“. aJ“. b II~.' ., " '9‘ “‘ R5,. \. ‘ Sr". ' v ~ C ‘5‘. ‘ Yr ’ 0 Ag; ‘. ‘-Ih‘\c - -l~. hn‘ 3“ 7' \ s‘z. .-‘ ‘n... )It 1 " ’- .. ' I ‘5 V c .. _;¢ . ‘...' b: u ‘.- "I. T~_ . _‘_ subdivision development through annexation or city-county consolidations, and 0 they failed to incorporate newly built suburban communities into their municipality through annexation or consolidation (p. 7). Although some of the above factors have contributed to the decline of many America's central cities and their impoverished communities, they are not limited to those factors. The closing of manufacturing industries and evaporation of high paying and low-skill jobs in the city have resulted in businesses moving to the suburbs, central cities accompanied by increasing poverty, unemployment, crime, and decaying infrastructures. Tax revolts and cuts in federal resources have made economic development efforts hard for some cities to counter. These forces have resulted in persistence and expansion of low-income and deteriorating neighborhoods in central cities across the country. This leads to the growing need for both public and private sectors to address efforts for community development in urban areas (Ladd and Yinger, 1989). According to SRI International (1986), institutions of higher education play a vital role in addressing some of the nation's urban problems through teaching, research, and public service. Universities can participate in several broad areas of community engagement (see Appendix A). Hathaway, Mulhollan and White (1990) noted that most metropolitan and urban universities have a public service responsibility for addressing societal needs, including an array of social, economic, environmental and psychological problems. The authors concluded that universities could not afford to separate themselves from their immediate envrronments, or from society as a whole. Universities can best serve and address the ,w' —.., v.5 ”14..., .4 'l..u.- .. ‘.,fi , I "'7 3~ w -.h-‘s"\.' ...' . ‘.' l Cw sru“ \ . I ?v~o“v,. u... ,| ‘ . . !‘ 3. Ibrtli . " ,3...» ..| \' D VD cu. .' i'p‘. "" uh. . Iv ‘. I. . :_. ' 1 u i-‘l ‘.- lI . 4,. ~ 4 v“ “N- ~\ X‘- ‘ v o. .3-) \.. ' -- .‘ ‘ N r. s. ‘ .. .‘I .‘ r . Q m ",_. ~. . ’1‘ 1" y ‘ '.J -_ .- 3‘. c'i ‘: .0 \ . . " . ‘\. x b. ‘i ‘0: . .- u“: nation’s needs by assuming an active leadership role. Some universities have historic landmark phIIOSOphies and missions. For example, the Morrill Act of 1862, which was passed by the US. Congress and signed by President Abraham Lincoln after President James Buchanan vetoed the act in 1859, began the land college system. This act provided public lands for colleges to educate the citizens with coursework aimed at or related to agriculture, military tactics, mechanical arts, scientific and classical studies (American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 1995). During this period, a heavy educational emphasis was placed on developing an industrial society (Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System, 1995). The Morrill Act was the model used for the development of metropolitan and urban universities, which evolved out of the land grant university philosophy (Berbue, 1978). Metropolitan and urban universities serve a diverse and growing population (Royer, 1993). Both university systems have similar philosophies and missions, centered on addressing the problems and challenges of their surrounding communities. They also aim to provide access and education to the populations. Institutions of higher education serving urban areas have the potential to play an increasing role in revitalizing distressed communities (Cisneros, 1995). Conceptually, two theories are responsible for the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) creation of both the Office of University Partnership (0UP) and the Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC); a legislative intent, and a neighborhood planning intent. According to the Federal Register (1994), Congress passed the Community Outreach Partnership Act (COPA) in 1992, which set aside $7.5 wry flxfi‘fi _§.i ,i p 5‘ million for each year of the 5-year demonstration grant to address urban issues. This act stipulates that institutions of higher education awarded funding must create a COPC in their respective communities to address socioeconomic issues such as economic development, housing, neighborhood revitalization, education, job training, environment, crime prevention, health care and other related areas. The HUD-COPC legislative perspective reflects the land grant paradigm theory, which emphasizes community-driven projects through citizen participation for community development. This perspective amplifies part of the land grant idea in which the university is seen as a responsible social organization, researcher, teacher and change agent. Keys to their outreach efforts lie in the institutional support, developmental processes and the creation of an interactive linkage to address a litany of societal problems. This is done through collaboration on a community, state and national level with community groups, public and private agencies (Bonnen, 1998). The focus is placed on capacity-building strategies for community partnership. From a neighborhood planning perspective, the HUD-COPC methods resemble a comprehensive city planning paradigm theory stressing the importance of addressing all urban ecology: transportation, land use, housing, economy, culture, neighborhood and capital improvements (Jones, 1990). This approach is similar to the issues addressed under the land grant theory. Rohe and Gates (1985) noted that neighborhood-planning methods are generally more responsive in meeting the needs of local communities, as Opposed to traditional government-directed planning approaches. Planning methods involve active grassroots citizen participation, leadership development and access to government resources and political figures. Their projects focus more on neighborhood -'l . 't ' ' a... ”"1L‘1 hi”... u Bi; C‘s: '\ ‘\ a“. 4 ‘-~‘ilillli ‘; “1).- 7 N ‘ ‘.i v i 41;.ddn5‘vt LUUs-J "'r'fi‘fi‘ .1 In" 1‘ ' -~~~ as“); kit I I‘ll L; .24, ' I ".05.;Ai0n. Tnix d: .r..uflli135_ Bzzrbuc I l ...;\ in becom T' é- _ " 1": ".3' \ - ' 1 \ : M5 0er d ATIF )9} K. \ n.) " rig I? l inelastic phenomena will determine how much of the suburban-style growth the city will capture within its municipal boundaries (Rusk, 1993). Several studies have indicated that some urban and metrOpolitan universities have the capacity and resources to apply community-based, action-research in their community engagement activities. Bringle, Games and Malloy (1999) found discontinuity between the institutions’ mission statements and their community engagement activities for implementation. This flaw contributed to the failure of these institutions to become proactive in addressing some of the nation’s urban problems. Corrigan (1997) also noted that many institutions of higher education in urban areas have focused their attention on the means of education (i.e., credit hours, schedules, degrees, examinations, technology, interactive television, computers, and the intemet), while neglecting the ends of education. This approach has left some institutions disconnected from their respective communities. Berbue (1978) noted that land grant colleges and universities have enjoyed success in becoming major problem-solvers of agricultural related issues and in improving the lives of many rural farmers. The mission of the land grant colleges created by Congress over a century ago should be broadened or redirected to resolve problems in urban areas. The majority of the poor reside in inner cities; therefore, the government should establish a stronger national policy for metrOpolitan and urban colleges and universities to become more participatory in resolving some of the nation’s socioeconomic problems. For institutions of higher education to become proactive in addressing societal issues, they need to redefine their mission as engaged institutions. This can be achieved 11 :gsgai institution and“. .‘l‘;l.\>lt‘ll) ; tr and en 1 III: KcIIi ':' i': run camper ° II milsl I” studcm. . II 01051 6 action. r . II mils! I iorcfrnr. I0 3thch .1313” \5 1», . .‘- 4‘ Mrs. by institutions collaborating with local community-based organizations for capacity-building initiatives (Corrigan, 1997). The Kellogg Commission (1999) defined engaged institutions as those universities and colleges that have redesigned their historic outreach missions and public service responsibilities through teaching, research, extension and services to become relevant in their community engagements. The Kellogg Commission also reported that an engaged institution is made of three main components: 0 It must be organized and responsible to address the present and future needs of students. 0 It must enrich the students learning experiences through applied- and action- research in the curriculum to resolve urban issues. 0 It must place its critical resources, such as knowledge and expertise, at the forefront of community engagement. To advance community engagement, the Kellogg Commission noted that the following five strategies need to be implemented within the universities organizational structure: 0 Institutions’ service activities Should become a priority in their mission statement. 0 Institutions should develop an evaluation plan to measure responsiveness, respect for partners, academic neutrality, accessibility, integration, coordination and partnership. 0 Institutions need to promote interdisciplinary scholarship and research, teaching and learning Opportunities. 0 Institutions should promote and modify the faculty reward system to encourage engagement activities. 0 Institutions’ academic leaders need to secure funding resources for program stability. 12 E-zinil-flnfi of en; .7; be used as an . resins} dcx ci. Smngcrl 3‘ .1 innit; taxed 3;: Ixohc data c. 53's.:mumr} (lg. '22“ "H. Man and r [IF-(NIL Evaluations of engaged institutions’ mission-driven activities and educational curriculums can be used as an accountability method to determine the effectiveness of their competency development training, and their community-based research activities. Stringer (1996) acknowledged that action-research should be applied in community-based activities. Action-research employs an array of techniques and methods that involve data collection, theorizing, researching, analyzing and evaluating information for community development. This process also takes into account the history, culture, interaction and emotional lives of the targeted populations. It also must become: 0 democratic — to allow all stakeholders to participate in the process of investigation and acquiring information, 0 equitable — to respect the stakeholders’ knowledge, remarks and understanding of problem-solving, 0 liberating — to avoid conflict and disengagement from an oppressive condition, and 0 life enhancing — to enable the expression of stakeholders’ full human potential. These practices reflect the community development process for citizen participation, and community empowerment. No seminal studies have discussed urban and metrOpolitan universities linking their community deveIOpment processes and strategies, or methods (see Appendix G) to the tested, validated and accepted CDS principles in their community engagement. These principles are considered best practices for community and economic development (Community Development Society, Vanguard, 1986). The researcher had altered one of the principles in an effort to gain more information about the COPC community relations 13 ' -' 216;] a! 5.5.“, ffipflil'i C RDCJTCh :~ :MDfONTL 0 tthlf pnncrr Othellllf cf) i J. ' 0 tthl I 0 tthl'. Cl‘iédi}, ' 0 the lit I l‘fiéllt‘vr ”*3 pram.“ 44C. :LWL mL’ll’Jf 4. :»13d Pup 1“ to 1‘ \‘C\, aCCcp‘N. l0 4155C. ”1 [hill P [0 ‘1‘,\\\ d'i‘k-cl. ,. 9-, LL: . ‘ &5\'\\_ ”In > I “i def? .. l n-Linpri" .. l0 ‘1) \‘x F224, ~ «LN ’ in their respective communities. Research is needed to assess the following aspects of the practices employed by the HUD-COPC funded programs and centers at urban and metropolitan universities: the HUD-COPC leaders recognized importance of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement, the HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement, the HUD-COPC use of the community and economic development methods in their community engagement, the HUD-COPC reported use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local non-profit organizations, and the HUD-COPC community engagement barriers as they relate to their relationships both on-campus and off-campus. The preceding aspects were assessed as they related to the HUD—COPC leaders at land grant, metropolitan and urban universities, and community and technical colleges (the targeted population in the study). The research objectives of the study are: Research Objectives to assess the HUD-COPC recognized importance of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement, to assess the HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement, to assess the HUD-COPC use of the community and economic development methods in their community engagement, to assess the HUD-COPC reported use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local nonprofit organizations, and to assess the HUD-COPC community engagement barriers as it relates to their relationships both on- and off-campus. 14 TC” mur- ‘ .1 01 1 , DAU silk . in [1:12:17 r'-"'.‘-r" C¥unyl> 0 Ildthc} CCOIZOIT. “3‘4 _'..I~ "§U§\. b u 0 Hit a .L “‘t 540; Capacit‘l' nonrror' l As part of this study’s qualitative analysis, the five research objectives are addressed by the following research questions: Research Questions Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize the importance of the accepted CDS principles? Did the HUD-COPC directors use the accepted CDS principles in administering the programs and projects of their respective centers? Did the HUD-COPC directors use the community and economic development methods in their community engagement? Have the HUD-COPC reported the use of the required capacity— building strategies in collaboration with local nonprofit organizations? Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships both on-campus and off-campus as an important barrier to community engagement? For the purpose of a quantitative analysis, the following three hypotheses addressed the five research questions: Research Hypotheses The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of, and used the accepted CDS principles in their program operations. The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of the accepted CDS principles, which had a direct and positive effect on their institutionalization efforts in community engagement. The HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles relate positively and directly to their institutionalization efforts in community engagement. 15 '1" ' .- thine! r 3: matrix I Table 0 rccognn 0 recognn 0 no real: ° no mo: m, K ' +41 \L'tm B x 3%)?! l . .3- ‘P‘ 0...; __ > n : ~ the“ m . 1 -\ v. ‘ I‘ , ' L r * .Ll' . nix \v. .3... _ ' ~ I . ~i’ ‘ h‘ k h J\\ .- ~ . w. _ ' ‘\ .11 Wf‘. l “k The matrix (Table 1) below was developed to assess the HUD-COPC: 0 recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles, 0 recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles, 0 no recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles, and 0 no recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles. Table 1: Matrix Box for Reccgnition and Use of the accented CDS Principles UD—COPC Recognition of the importance No recognition of the importance of the accepted CDS Principles of the accepted CDS Principles Applying the accepted CDS recgnition and used no recognition, but used Principles into practice number = % number = % Not applying the accepted CDS recognition and non-use no recognition and PI‘mciples into practice non-use number I % number = % As part of the study’s quantitative analysis, the following statistical analysis was used to assess and measure the COPC responses in the above matrix (Table l"): frequencies, descriptive statistics, means, chi-square, Pearson Correlation Coefficient, crosstabulation, and One-Sample T-Test. These terms will be discuss further in Chapter III. Rationale of Hypotheses Several studies have discussed university-community relationships and their missions, particularly those universities located in urban areas. Bronwell (1993) noted that the metropolitan universities problems stem from their mission statements which 16 *5 i are :ncompitilt. ‘ ' u '\v Mitts-n}. unm Irranmcnul an. The llNll. 3:23:1er tr} to . rag‘arch-tntcnsix Cpl-Er, SUlL‘lTi-cn’ \ iii. ." .__u~uhl~.lridll'\ ‘U'T‘ I . a ‘3 ' -- «ordered be. r“ ,, - “mililillli‘r Dc; u” 5 r Cofl‘fifl a: Cite“; dr ‘ . dds, . A ‘1.“rl\ t... ‘3‘" a. rml g“. mmumh (a fink.“ ‘i‘l , i AW mm; 0‘.» 75mm ‘m mdn“ “HA 7‘,» \ed [0 “ {Fri 3'- ‘5 ._. m. ’ “w, , h . drill) le\ lel ’x ‘u.' . t k ‘ .1 I \ I‘m-{Mn .‘5 :\li\rd .5 14.. Pm, . mid) \ were incompatible with their planning and implementation for community engagement Nationally, universities are charged with addressing the vast economic, social, environmental and physical problems of urban areas with limited resources. The Institute for Research in Higher Education (1992) concluded that too many institutions try to enhance their reputations by emulating the work of other prestigious (research-intensive) universities and colleges. An institution needs to define a clear mission statement based on its own institution’s objectives and goals that are institutionally supported for community engagement. The accepted CDS principles are considered best practices for community and economic development activities (Community Development Society, Vanguard, 1986), which is synonymous with community engagement. Corbett and [cvine (1974) mentioned that many urban universities failed to idfintify and define their impoverished communities’ sc0pes and missions when planning their community engagement. Local stakeholders of the communities have defined and identified their own scopes and missions for problem-solving. This has created animosity between many urban communities and universities. Each group has its own mission, as oPposed to working collaboratively together in developing an urban agenda for community revitalization in urban areas. Universities have been seen by the communities as problem-generators, not problem-solvers, particularly in low-to-moderate income communities (Berube, 1978). Significance of the Study This study was significant for several reasons. It assessed the organizational l7 y. __..r] .0” v — n:g-w.,-;rwa~‘1““ ‘\. ”'l‘n on It. 124' t - h MU. i. Eider , ‘ His 0] d {5%, ’ I dil'l'i CT" . - ‘\\1 \ I “I. :hlui V'- I I “U ”39}. - stature tor can”: m are.» Tim fixation on ti .. :I‘IWI lthcor} 11‘. rectors recogn :. T.’.’.I.\i'ii‘tl rclcx arr .JD—COPC can"? . “.3. ,, \ vs- >3. 1.lell!0UlL0. ;T-7imunit) and ta. :imc prcx er.“ teacher mu 5 ‘ -135. related to .1 single \lULl'v Th“ \thlK , fly. \I .l. i _ :crkmn‘, ‘ x :11 On Structure for community engagement on a sample population of HUD-COPC located in urban areas. This research supplied public and private sector entities with evidential in formation on the relevance of the funded institutions’ intent as described in the COPA of l 992 (theory into practice). It also provided enlightenment of the HUD-COPC directors’ recognizing the importance of the accepted CDS principles. In addition, it furnished relevant evaluation information on the use of the accepted CDS principles in the HUD-COPC community engagement. Finally, it highlighted some of the HUD-COPC significant outcomes in their community engagements. This research will provide some solutions to the debate on urban issues such as community and economic development, business development, job creation, health, drug and crime prevention, and environmental policy in distressed communities. The researcher draws from the findings and combines them into a single correlation of several factors related to impoverished communities. The correlations of these factors are placed into a single study on a significant urban or metrOpolitan population that provides information on the impact that the HUD-COPC have on community empowerment. This study provides new information for those entities involved in federal, state and city governments, institutions of higher education, the public and private sectors, and for residents of disadvantaged communities. By understanding the HUD-COPC community engagement activities and their effectiveness as change agents, these practices will shed light on ways to revitalize poor communities, and to promote entrepreneurship. Decision-makers, including community groups, will be able to make better choices among various economic development programs, which may be apprOpriate for addressing their respective socioeconomic issues. 18 ll 15 :Luur‘ 3.;ulxed m comrt‘ nro'olcms. T; :tqmtion. app lllriliullfi.’ ‘ .Jt .,‘..:. i165 iOi wit“ ’94,; l \‘ . at 41".le! lCdth.’ hastens 0.! hi- _ . ‘ ".n ~. ,. . O 1, IT for com. Assumptions It is assumed that most urban universities and the HUD-COPC are proactively involved in community engagement to address their communities’ socioeconomic issues and problems. This is done through the creation of knowledge and the dissemination of information, applied in practice, for the betterment of society (Bender, 1988). Institutions of higher education are establishing partnerships in their respective localities for collaborative community engagement (Kellogg Commission, 1999) because they are expected to address their community’s problems (Cisneros, 1995). Institutions are linking teaching, research and service in their community engagement (Elliot, 1994). Institutions of higher education that recognize the importance of campus administrative support for community engagement are ofien successful in their action-research activities (03106 of University Partnerships, 2000). In contrast, Walshok ( 1998) noted that for some institutions the problems lie in their refusal to cater to community issues unconditionally. Some universities tend to stay iSOlalted from their respective community’s socioeconomic problems and prefer to engage in inllellectual dialogue among their peers (i.e., colloquia, seminars and conferences). universities and colleges have not done a good job including their intellectual knowledge and resources as part of their scholarship engagement for service because of their obsolete miSSion statements (Boyer, 1996). It is imperative that institutions of higher education adapt and connect their resources to societal needs. Past strategies are no longer effective for community engagement (Magrath, 1998). 19 i’t‘: - .1 Tl'llS slleL- mastered the 1 31:5: facultj or ~' trim-ed the ( isslcpmcnt Th. HLMOPC prut , :ggzmcm cribr‘ red similar Weloutcomc. ' lllC .‘Ufl ;‘ $5.21." r‘~ . .. “u“. A‘lm l ic. Limitations of the Study This study was limited to those persons holding the directorship of the unit that administered the HUD-COPC at their respective universities or colleges. The directors are either faculty or staff members. It should be recognized that the survey instrument emphasized the CDS’s Code of Ethics-principles for good practice of community development. The people who chose to respond to the questionnaire regarding the HUD-COPC practice of implementing the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement efforts may not have been aware of them. Their responses might indicate that they used similar practices, pertinent to their discipline’s Code of Ethics, to achieve their desired outcomes between and among the survey populations. The survey instrument was geared for informal communication via telephone, e-mail, facsimile, and US. mail, as opposed to an on-site visit for a face-to-face interview, due to time restraints and inadequate financial resources. Definition of Terms This section contains key definitions of terms used in this study: ACthn-research — A process of methods and techniques, which includes collecting data, analyzing the information, theorizing, researching and evaluating (Stringer, 1996). 5% — The act of restricting or hindering the mobility of free movement (Riverside webSter’s II Dictionary, 1996). Coxnege -— “(1) An institution of higher education usually offering only a curriculum in the llbel‘al arts and sciences and empowered to confer degrees or, in junior colleges, as.SOCiates titles; (2) a major division of a university (usually the division of arts and SCIeflees), especially one that requires for admission no study beyond the completion of secondary education” (Good, 1973, p. 1 14). 20 iiTMI‘Ih — "IX _‘_,____-—-o as. ant-mutton . :riin uh25h Il‘r. "vfl'mllnll" Blu- .a...i' «1 2i: sarcaxisiv' l‘- 1‘ v;“".l\!'i JUL “A.” {All | . is: schemes 1 \~. . l .. -~.-¢~ »\ mat-a. tel m '1‘ iv" a) ~9‘~ A “in s\ ullkdlg\ .... .14 i . . hi...- «all Outlet , ‘ l I ten amt» tr . :‘q-n.‘ ' l'\. D_10 are» lit, p147; iiirtmnul .1: . 337774"? -,. r ..1 I\ Fun“ W — "PeOple that live within a geographically bounded area who are involved in social interaction and have one or more psychological ties with each other and with the place in which they live” (Christenson, Fendley, and Robinson, Jr., 1989, p. 9). ngmunity Building — Is the process where a diverse group of community stakeholders who share a vision to plan for community-sustainable development. This is done through capacity-building and assets building, with improving the communities’ infrastructures and economies (Walsh, 1997). Community Colleges — This type of college is called various names by such as associate of arts colleges, two-year colleges, or technical colleges. These accredited colleges offer associates of arts as their highest degree, as well as extensive occupational programs that award certificates for completion of training. The colleges distinguish themselves from many adult educational centers, public vocational schools, business and trade institutions by their ability to award associate degrees (Cohen and Brawer, 1996). Community Devwment — "A group of people in a locality initiating a social action process (i.e., planned intervention) to change their economic, social, cultural, and/or environmental situation” (Christenson, Fendley, and Robinson, Jr., 1989, p. 14). Communig and Economic Developmen — A process implemented by community-based, community-focused and community-controlled groups or organizations. It presumes that community participation and autonomy are essential ingredients of the community and economic development process (Roth, 1985). Conflict A roach — (1) The formation or procedure of people getting together to express their needs and concerns for problem-solving; (2) to develop indigenous leadership and organize a viable action group, and (3) getting community groups together to confront each other through stimulating conversation about various issues and problems. (Christenson, 1989). Develogment — This term implies a change in growth. When used as a normative concept, Itis primarily concerned with improvement. This means that the social transformation of distributing social goods and services, should involve stakeholders in the decision-making Process. There are always trade-offs in development, and a gain for some communities will mean a loss for others (Christenson, Fendley, and Robinson, Jr., 1989). 21 ir1‘33ln~htst ..... 312111 confirm; :riirrtton. and .. :tsfrrtions cnri. i)’.'IJ’.10l'l\\illlC .. ‘351‘7151‘tt‘l0mr t 62;» 'ha! are app- 1532211 51:: .2. resume" 1 li ESTTTii Dcx :1 2.1.2324]: and t ' iii). 111 turn. cur *&;:rs"lSRl ln', 1. .'."‘ l l ' \, ‘2“Jl‘ .a.surde:rcc~ ~ 11..., L-- ‘L‘iyl‘ldrl-l ll \ r r... ' ' .1..\;:-.1. dial DlXC' 1.3., ,3 .. ._..... ~ -\ gs:- 1': at rscarch I t a n. ..~...;*_1§: :1 11:: came lilsll’Ut' 3“: .-. ,l .~l-:' 4 ’1 .lLrll. ,1le M W Institutions — “The engaged institution is committed to direct interaction with external constituencies and communities through the mutually-beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, expertise, resources, and information. These interactions enrich and expand the learning and discovery functions of the academic institution while also enhancing community capacity. The work of the engaged campus is responsive to (and respectful of) community-identified needs, opportunities, and goals in ways that are apprOpriate to the campus’ mission and academic strengths. The interaction also builds greater public understanding of the role of the campus as a knowledge asset and resource” (Holland, 2001, p. 24). Economic Development — "A process of innovation that increases the capacity of individuals and organizations to produce goods and services and thereby create wealth. This, in turn, can lead to jobs, income, and a tax base for communities, states and regions” (SRI International, 1986, p. x). Historical Black Colleges and Universities — An institution of higher education that offers bachelor degrees in liberal arts and sciences, including masters and doctoral degrees. More than fifty percent of the enrolled student bodies are black (Garibaldi, 1984; Turner, Rosen, and Dixon, 1979). Institute — “A separate institution or organization designed to establish a relatively limited area of research or education” (Good, 1973, p. 302). Institution of Higher Lcaming — “A college, university, or similar institution offering academic instruction suitable for students who have completed secondary schooling or its equivalent; also called institution of higher education” (Good, 1973, p. 304). Insti tutionalization — Institutions of higher education support community engagement efforts through their internal campus administration for in-kind and financial donations. The promotion of the campus mission statement and reward system for faculty, staff and students is applied action-research activities (Office of University Partnerships, 2000). “Land mm Institution — Universities or colleges devoted to science and liberal education as part of their service to society through: (1) educating and training professionals in various disciplines to address some of the nations' industrial, and increasingly urban and rural needs; (2) providing access to higher education for all Americans, regardless of wealth and social status; and (3) working to improve the quality of life for America's most dlsadVantaged groups, women and farmers (Nevins, 1962). Well - The US. Bureau of the Census (1991) defined metropolitan areas as: cities with populations of at least 25,000 or 100,000 people working within their limits; 22 .- I”. I “‘3 “in- d {'1‘- ,1 “ 3'33" b with WAN) ‘~ ['L‘lelCj 9 O CN‘C. ‘ one-th: {W‘Q‘W Clues) 11:". *9 "it-fan 1. ‘2‘. ___ :2: center 01‘: :17. 25114”), Tl 221' parenteral 2': Further. the. sirzctenstio re firm} of their . nits-grim to 1c 21.}-EdrClt‘CllCr'1C 0 cities with populations of at least 25,000, employment/residence ratios of at least 0.75, and out-commuting of less than 60% of residents employed workers; and cities with populations from 15,000 to 25,000 that are at least one-third as large as the largest central city and that meet the employment/residence ratios and out-commuting standards for cities with populations of at least 25,000 (p. 356). Metropolitan Universities — “Metropolitan universities are located in or adjacent to an urban center of a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) with a population equal to or higher than 250,000. These public and private universities’ missions include research, teaching, and professional service, and offer an undergraduate and graduate education in the liberal arts. Further, they serve a diverse population that reflects their demographic characteristics regarding age, ethnic and racial, and socioeconomic background with the majority of their students coming from urban communities. Their educational programs are designed to identify, address and respond to the regional needs, with an emphasis for national excellence” (Metropolitan Universities, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1993, p. 66). Principle — A comprehensive and fundamental law, rule, or code of conduct (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1990). P_Ublic Service Activities — Activities that can take place in a forum of direct participation Wlth various stakeholders. A public service activity can be that of researching and identifying a problem with citizen groups and organizations, sponsoring community conferences, seminars for private and public sector entities, and advising and providing community stakeholders with technical assistance (Heam, 1978). W — To know or acknowledge, and to perceive undoubtedly (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1990). Reliabiliy Analysi — A procedure used to study the items and properties that make up a measurement scale. It is also used in determining “the extent to which the items in your questionnaire are related to each other, you can get an overall index of the repeatability or internal consistency of the scale as a whole” (Statistical Package Social Sciences, 1999, p. 407) Self-He] A roach -— Emphasis is placed on people working collectively to achieve their goals democratically. The stakeholders determine which projects will be undertaken to address community issues, and they are taught how to achieve project tasks and goals for empowerment (Littrell, 1980). S takeholders — People or groups at risk, who are often disempowered, disenfranchised and directly involved in the problem-solving of issues and concerns (Guba and Lincoln, 1989). 23 tart-Tort ._ \13’:,\C\\ (Olly 7'3“" :3. \\\f\__. .5”, . A graces. .10 she: #2:.“th to. an inh. its Area - l“. error}. popular 0 place bOFOL: in the ~ Ctt‘lug . CCn‘Li‘ ‘? ' (Jill‘s ' I What. ‘2': l -n.- r J . i " LuiILr\1T N- ina? .3 ‘ l 1.“le ‘h RUSS : 3 5 CCC\\ .ikiflmirldllnnr P W — To promote the interests or cause of something through assistance (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, 1990). Technical Assistance Approach -— The provision of "programs, activities, and serv ices...to strengthen the capacity of recipients to improve their performance with respect to an inherent or assigned function" (Wright, 1978, p. 343). Urban Area — The US. Census Bureau (1990) defined an urban area as comprising all territory, population, and housing units in: 0 places of 2,500 or more persons incorporated as cities, villages, boroughs (except in Alaska and New York), and towns (except in the six New England States, New York, and Wisconsin), but excluding the rural portions of "extended cities;" 0 census designated places of 2,500 or more persons and; 0 other territory, incorporated or unincorporated, included in urbanized areas (p. a-l l). fiban University — A university that is obligated to serving the needs of the city's diverse cultures on all socioeconomic levels by: (1) providing the city with intellectual leadership; (2) educating skilled professionals and research on problem-solving; (3) increasing access and opportunities for the disadvantaged p0pulations who suffer from discrimination, poverty, and injustice in its academic programs and services; (4) recognizing and using ethnicity and cultural diversity in its academic programs to enrich the campus; and (5) adhering, listening and addressing their community needs through their public service mission (Bonner, 1981). 9% — The “act of using or employing for a specific purpose” (Webster’s Dictionary, 1986). 24 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW I Introduction The term “community development” has both a domestic and an international focus. For this study, the researcher concentrated on community development from a United States perspective regarding how it evolved and how it was initially used in practice. The underlying philosophy of community development is to help people become subjects, not objects, while democratically improving their socioeconomic conditions (Christenson, Fendley, and Robinson, Jr., 1989). A prerequisite of the community development process is capacity-building and helping people to become competent in addressing their community problems (De Beer and Swanepoel, 1998). Community development comes from community organization, emphasizing citizen participation in social planning to improve the community’s decision-making process and its standard of living. Second, it evolves from economic development, improving a community’s socioeconomic conditions. This includes balancing its distribution of goods and services, and increasing the productivity and efficiency of its community resources (Sanders, 195 8). Many scholars have defined community development differently. Christenson and Robinson, Jr. (1980) defined community development “as a group of people in a community reaching a decision to initiate a social action process (i.e., planned intervention) to change their economic, social, cultural, or environmental situation” 25 1p, 12'). This dc fire read that co Each area is bu Sistiomlized for year march on the pres . “h? pro-g; (p. 12). This definition mirrors what Sanders (195 8) mentioned earlier in this study when he stated that community development is a process, method, program, and movement. Each stage is built upon the other for planning and implementation, and is institutionalized among the affected stakeholders for community-building. For years, many social scientists have called for a renewed interest and more research on the gaps in the community development field to answer the following: 0 Why community development theories have not developed well, compared to prescriptive models in the field? 0 Why do most of the empirical literatures on community development consist of program descriptions, and not scientific studies to test and refine the theories? 0 What conditions do community development exists under and why? 0 Whether the differences among localities in history, ecology and socio-economics affect the community development process? (Wilkinson, 1989). The researcher found Wilkinson’s analysis to be true from a disciplinary perspective (i.e., instructional training, seminars, classroom settings designed to elicit a particular behavior or results), but not from a grounded-theory perspective. Some empirical and scientific data have confirmed and validated the grounded-theories in practice. Recent empirical literature found on community development capacity-building strategies and evaluation, including the community development principles and ethics, talked about their importance in practice. Information related to community development theories were lacking in terms of validated scientific testing from a disciplinary perspective, not from a grounded-theory perspective. Answering the earlier questions related to the community development process should provide closure on the research 26 ,‘t'i jlililrdl'l. 1"?“ ram-research t’ :2? creates opp = Lilli l BOUJ J," .7. ripen 3 pos: lilh sect] ._...r;ehee of th 1‘I 5 p 1 «3.. h ir ‘ nu P‘ llc. ‘\ .14 illit‘ K‘- 0 ‘ \|‘~rl vi; gap, and ensure the future of the field as a holistic one for community-building (W ilkinson, 1989). Practitioners can use theory to enhance practice through a set of ideas that encourages learning by thinking. That information can be used as a guide for action-research (Thompson, 2000). In addition, practitioners must advance the practice that creates opportunities to learn from field experiences through scientific research for validity (Boud and Walker, 1990). The literature review in the study supports Thompson’s position. The Early Evolution of Community Development This section highlights the early evolution of community development and the emergence of the Cooperative Extension Service in the United States. lnforrnation generated from these two elements will shed light on the impacts and contributions they both had on society, and how those elements could be further enhanced into the new millennium. The Emergence of Community Development. Some of the practices of community development have been around for centuries, even in early civilization. Many community groups (race, religion or creed) were formed to initiate self-help actions (i.e. food cropping, hunting, housing) for the benefit of the community (Midgley, 1986a). During the 18303, Alexis de Tocqueville toured the country and observed many Americans forming democratic associations to address their community’s concerns, which is part of the community development model (Tocqueville, 1966). 27 J ' "a a? 2.. .L ‘r"‘4 x0, ,‘4! " 1 BthCnS' jaslopmcnt eh llaj‘a estcm >131 FTTCIG‘ddlng tc. 1:; JUN emu-0.x JS'eic-pmcm ac: iigmmmt >Llll mater line“ 12; fig-- 4 .~ ‘ i--»- a: pfdgll'u " 25:; 1mm. 1: P' ’ micr. l. .. .:.-..jmunit‘. d, 4:, ,‘l ‘n in" 'i‘ - ”‘t anl cn‘. ..: mam object] . :‘,='i;‘YL‘ A I :” d Mtg-\- ’7'? FL. .hcr. 9 Brokensha and Hodge (1969) and Mayo ( 1975) noted that community development evolved out of agricultural extensions that were instituted in several Midwestern states in the 1870s, prior to the Hatch Act of 1887. This act was responsible for providing federal funding to the agricultural experiment stations at land grant colleges and universities. Funds were used to conduct research on community and economic development activities in rural communities (Rasmussen, 1989). The agriculture experiment stations were developed to research farming practices and techniques, and transfer knowledge to farmers. This was done so farmers could use more cost-effective farming practices to increase their crop production efficiency. They also promoted self- help initiatives in rural towns to improved their standard of living (Comwell, 1986). Phifer, List and Faulkner (1980) provided a different narration on the emergence of community development in the United States. They stated that community development emerged out of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Most of America’s earliest communities were governed under an authoritarian leadership, and survival was the main objective. Self-help activities are considered piecemeal projects or an activity geared for special interest groups. Community development includes a participatory approach (community stakeholders) with the intent being to improve communities through a democratic process. Further, the roots of community development stemmed from two major events responsible for the birth of rural development in the United States: 0 In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt’s Country Life Commission report recommended the US. Department of Agricultural (USDA), along with land grant colleges and universities, be charged with resolving the nation’s farm crisis and improve rural life. 28 0 ln 101‘ d6\cl‘ (Phil-er organ]. pro-«1m Act cc. dC‘sCh' f, fz'rurz’u' Eric True ( l9: .:f;.:ncc on C011 3'1““ r A' i “if ».&\I2\d dc‘ L n: pianiai out It :Mpstion fmr .:‘.:al:»p~:d it uh p Romu»; 1‘: '. “fitment l" i-‘a‘- 4" .‘. “ - ‘~H}(CICY\' ' .. K 0 In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Smith-Lever Act that led to the development of the Cooperative Extension Service in rural communities (Phifer et al, 1980). This movement aimed to establish community organizations for enhancing the lifestyle of rural citizens through educational programs and activities (Comwell, 1986). The theory under the Smith-[ever Act centered on each county being assigned a facilitator for leadership development and training for community empowerment (US. Congress, 1915). Cooperative Extension Service. True (1928) stated that the Cooperative Extension Service has had a huge influence on community development, primarily in rural areas. Extension Service emphasized developing programs to address various communities’ socioeconomic needs. He pointed out that extension agents could not address rural problems without active participation from political leaders, organizations and residents. Programs need to be developed with people, not for peOple. Rasmussen (1989) agreed, and cited several events that contributed to the development, promotion, expansion and impact that the Cooperative Extension Service had on society in his book, Taking the University to the. People: Seventy-five years of Cooperative Extension. First, in 1920, many farmers were experiencing both a decline in their depleted farm crops and their profits when over one million residents left the rural communities to join the military, or to migrate to the city to find work in the armed forces industries. This exodus placed a lot of pressure on extension workers assist farmers to increase their cr0p productivity and profits. Second, in 1917, President Wilson signed two major laws designed to stimulate agricultural growth and deveIOpment. As a result, Extension agents played a big role in the farmers’ production and marketing schemes. The laws were: 29 :I'A. 0 Thai AJni der o Tth ENCOL cumr Thh' C\pdf ThiLi :fishmnedcn fl’ T": m. l . gt. agenu. ammeofm -. p - \v_ . ' ;w£n\33d J (‘00?ch . «mgr r~ 1th '8‘ "in- 5; #1,.) pg“ 9“ n \- . ‘ “- up; E ‘t ‘ ‘ t -1 K‘bdltg‘l \ 41‘ k‘ k 5‘“ \‘- .. \fi - ‘~1j 5’T.\ u I :3- :3" " I?\ I “a =:va~ “‘14,..lr‘, o" '\ r x ‘E ‘ ~|§ '11,.» HM. 37“ ..';»‘y t 1-1; (””3 .‘J‘r .~ o The Food and Fuel Control Act authorized President Wilson to set-up a Food Administration, managed by Herbert Hoover, to regulate handling and food distribution guided by the extension agents. 0 The Food Production Act authorized the Department of Agriculture to encourage and increase production in commodities, distributing those commodities to the market, and conserving perishable goods for farmers. This law also provided extension services with emergency fimding to expand and increase their staff, resources, and organizational capacity. Third, the Cooperative Extensive Service programs had a positive influence on other home demonstration agents and club agents. These change agents carried out program agendas for governmental and private agencies when there was a labor shortage. These agents’ services were very diverse: they solicited for bank loans; began Red Cross drives for blood; headed salvage drives for paper, metal and other materials assisted in locating horses and mules for army use; and, conducted surveys for the Fuel Administration (FA) to identify materials that could be used for fuel; supplied the FA with the names of fiiel dealers and buildings for coal use; and enlisted support for different war programs and activities. Cooperative extension played a huge role in facilitating programs aimed at community development through community partnerships. Finally, World War I expanded the Extension Service program with increased personnel and funding. It provided the country with a common objective for diverse programming and goals. Extension agents began to receive greater recognition for their community deveIOpment efforts during the war crisis. Extension workers gained respect, and their acceptability grew among many Americans. Other scholars generally agreed with Rasmussen’s perspective on cooperative extension because it marked the importance of mutual collaboration in community 30 fixeljpmcnt. E fixation systm mitten agent a: an! and url his: {ceased 0:. .r'grl‘ Ciix.‘ The m“: r- .. _ lies-3213111 C E\ ,‘Lming and if .. .3 x ‘ w. thngc driL: 1.: b, , I . L \‘nc\‘ \\ C K .‘ :,.‘i.-' 1! k1“; ". . L‘ d \ ft e. ~ «fix 2" ‘. \t . - \-3. k i. development. During the 19405, Brunner and Yang (1949) asserted that the cooperative education system had a major impact on society, and it became the largest rural adult education agency in the world. C00perative Extension Service placed a heavy emphasis on rural and urban employment for rural adults. Years later, the Cooperative Extension Service focused much of its attention on community development as part of a national program effort for community-building (Phifer et al, 1980). The most important lesson derived from the early community development and Cooperative Extension Service was in their approach to community development planning and implementation. Cooperative Extension Service was able to gain the confidence and participation of various community groups and other local entities (i.e. businesses, civic organizations and charities) through networking and relationship-building. This was done to address the diverse community goals for community empowerment. The goal of community deveIOpment is to enhance the standard of living for residents. Emphasis is placed on community partnership (Christenson and Robinson, 1980). The next section explores the many fallacies of community development theory and practice. Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations of Community and Economic Development Empirical studies and literature on community development theory and practice are skewed due to a lack of a strong research base on the subject. Much of the literature in community development has focused on practice in the field rather than theory-buildin g. However, several books, articles and studies covered different variations of theory for social science in this section of the dissertation. 31 OflC btk' 9 tithcgmc a x : narrowing! tori aim-an) at" titer} and prntfz arson to enhint sperms Tht : ml and In: .«7- ...,iiilcd or rct :t can to exp-i. -2r2ntion.~ ill; new ,i-fiiICC ill [)er . diffi‘r‘d (hung, ,. tmumt} D "' \ . ~ 4 “Wilm‘f -\. Hi \-. Iv-YJ‘ . ”(A A . “UK [hat “1.55 ll sigh] \ I . ‘Km-i‘r ‘iij.I\ d,-.. - . s'\ \ \ t a... ‘:W) -" .~ RUM; —',. si‘V—hni“ I “wit Ih “ .‘A \. One book was Neil Thompson’s (2000), Theory and Practice in Human Services. In it, he gave a very comprehensive review on the concept of theory, theory and practice, and narrowing the gap between theory and practice. His research coincided with the work of many scholars and practitioners in the social science field. Thompson cited that theory and practice relates to thinking and doing. Thinking provided opportunity for theory to enhance practice. Practice provides opportunities to learn from personal or field experience. Thompson indicated that a theory could be formal (i.e., ideas presented in journals and textbooks) or informal (i.e., ideas derived from experience, but rarely identified or recorded explicitly as a theory). In both cases, a theory provides a framework of ideas to explain one or more phenomena. Practice can be viewed as a series of interventions that are applied and implemented in fieldwork as an action-research process for positive change (Hardcastle, Wenocur, and Powers, 1997). There are several problems associated with community development theory and practice. In Dan Chekki’s (1979) book, Community Development: Theory and Method of Planned Change, he cited the work of Lee Cary in his 1979 article, “The Present State of Community DeveIOpment: Theory and Practice.” Cary, a leading authority in the field, made a comprehensive distinction between the problems of theory and practice. He 1 pointed out that community deveIOpment theory is incomplete and obsolete for practice because it stems from past and limited experiences in small rural communities and towns. Community deveIOpment continues to grow slowly in the field. The practitioners lack a sound theoretical base to use as a guide in practice. These problems continue to exacerbate the “gap and lag between theory and practice,” and the development of a theory. 32 - 'm u'n - Thomp magic thcor) jflillCC. This 0 :f;:t2t10n2t~ in it‘.‘irflt-buiidin:' H more sup finance hem 22 grammars It ‘a” mist L'- Ikittmt [or #1:; serial of hi gimp .“.-_‘ ‘ ‘u {II-.Cr‘l' cm. 1‘ Cy Thompson (2000) agreed with Cary’s statements and asserted that the notion of mystique theory is one of the major reasons why there is a huge gap between theory and practice. This concept has become polarized in the work of academics and field practitioners based on their traditional values, beliefs and assumptions. Theory and theory-building tend to be associated with academia and both concepts are perpetuated as being more superior to practice. This style of elitism creates mistrust, barriers and distance between the two concepts. In contrast, practice tends to be associated with practitioners. It involves rejecting an intellectual approach to theories, believing they are not relevant to practice. Practitioners also believe that academics are removed from the real world of harsh realities because of their tedious involvement in the “Ivory Towers.” These factors have led academics to their blindness regarding the high demand for more field practice to address real world problems and issues. Thompson cited organizational pressures as another critical factor that may have contributed to the widening gap between theory and practice. Academics may be pressured to publish research, articles and books, fund development and develop theories while negating the use of practice in their work. Practitioners may take the time to reflect on their work and adopt a more suitable informed approach to their practice. This may be attributed to their heavy workload in the field. The mystique theory has failed both academicians and practitioners in recognizing that the concepts of theory and practice are related interdependently, not separately. This observation is further supported in the work of Lee Cary and Donald Littrell. 33 .” (Mir-stiff} Dbl Cmall‘ T1$UHK§JCR 0 fun. pnnc ficM: dcxcl Unpai than r racct ' SCCO" mcfi. Pdfihl ape. Pidt' con: i‘t‘il; a": . ‘Vf‘l Huh isan and u Q’Qh ‘c Community Development Theory Assumptions Cary (1979) stated that there are five major assumptions associated with community development theory: 0 First, community development theory is weakened by its inability to refine the principles of community development for practice. This is based on limited fieldwork experience in small communities such as rural areas. Community development practitioners do not find theory-building and empirical research important for practice. They tend to repeat the principles in practice rather than modifying them. The practitioners’ anti-intellectualism causes them to reject theories they view as not relevant in their work (Thompson 2000). 0 Second, some basic concepts of community development have proven to be ineffective in practice. Traditional concepts such as consensus building, citizen participation, and other related ideas have been practiced inappropriately, especially when applied to various community problems as absolute. Practitioners lacked the theory base and practice needed for them to address community problems correctly. Warren (1972) concurred with this assessment, believing that community development was overburdened with lofly goals and expectations. 0 Third, community development practice lacks a comprehensive theory. There is an omission on the important concepts in community development. How, and when they should be used in practice? (Cary, 1979). Most community development theory elements were established as principles and hardly any attention was given to application in practice or to research for modifications (Sanders, 1975). 0 Fourth, community development practice has evolved from fieldwork, as opposed to theory-building and research. This process created a gap between the community development theory and practice. Another gap exists between community development concepts and principles that coincide with the problems of practice (Cary, 1979). The paucity of literature on community development theory is not due to an absence of concern for the subject, but stems from an inability to formulate a theory. Since community development also derives from economic, social, and behavioral disciplines, it still lacks a core discipline with and the ability to develop a theory for the field (Blakely, 1980). 0 Fifth, community development lacks its own identity in practice. Most of the work in community development has centered on principles that are too prescriptive for practice. Again, this is due to the reluctance of theory-building in the field, regardless of its focus on citizen participation (Sanders, 1975). 34 II! .«|t‘t 2": 7mm" .t In the *1"! COTZmL-r‘i ° Fin m i 1m: Cary (1979) summarized the above points by stating that no attempt has been made to modify theory-building in community development for professional practice. As in any professional field, theory should provide guidance and insight for practical use, and the practice should modify the theory. When combined, the two would form community development theories and practices that would provide the field with the credence it is lacking. Community Development Practice Assumptions In the second section of the article, Cary (1979) listed five assumptions associated with community development practice: 0 First, citizen participation is seldom broad-based or inclusive. It usually results in practitioners working with minority or elite groups. Participation may be limited, based on the history of the community’s political leadership and its socioeconomic interests. 0 Second, the community development process results in minor changes or additions to current programs, rather than transferring autonomy from powerbrokers to community stakeholders on a local level. This is due to many communities having a limited power-base to make a significant impact locally. 0 Third, community development tends to ignore the political process and the implications it can have for a community’s decision-making process. Community development and the political process need to work together in practice. Together, they can both exert a lot of power in addressing community change. 0 Fourth, community development efforts tend to serve one public interest or goal. Other subgroups’ priorities may be ignored. This process will not receive a lot of support because it will not appeal to most community members. 0 Fifth, community development practice Operates on a consensus basis. Sometimes, a consensus agreement submerges or ignores the interests of various subgroups. The efforts required to achieve a mutual agreement and understanding may also be lacking in practice. 35 grass to gm." its} tampons Casts. ore tir 'i 1313550 1 lm iiiffiilfidl'} per in: it: Ihcone li‘simg.‘ I Elli. IT’TL‘m‘ u‘) “Til C‘fipi‘dt‘iit In contr ex , I s t r- , E “ Ir'mU-l. .~ :5 mi . . . LI prdk’d‘ ill-”v “n : "Ml l '\ . ”in! L'Cu‘ xx» , Cary concluded that community development lacks a systematic theory-buildin g process to guide field practitioners in their work. If community development is to become a key component in resolving community issues and problems, its practitioners need to devote more time to the research and development of a practice theory for the field. Wilkinson (1989) supported Cary’s analysis of the community development field from a disciplinary perspective, as do many other authors in related disciplines. He mentioned that the theories in the field are not formulated well because they lack scientific studies for theory testing. Thompson (1992a) called this process theoryless practice, as cited in his book, Theory and Practice in Human Services (2000), when practitioners draw their work off practice that is divorced from theory-building. In contrast to Cary’s writings, The Theory and Practice of Community Development: A Guide for Practitioners by Donald W. Littrell (197 I) discussed the theory of practice, values and beliefs, principles and the practice of theory. He studied this area from two perspectives: a community development profession and a university extension focus. Littrell emphasized that for community development to take place, several elements have to be present: 0 the targeted community stakeholders should participate and have a voice in the planning process; active citizen participation should be encouraged, and the community should have ownership over their project; organized self-help initiatives should address minor community issues; and, 0 the community should take a holistic approach, with all interested parties involved in the planning process, and should not be divided into subgroups. 36 ,iw.'- watches-v tun" -'-=- an" Some E or one In I in." 3273525 are issuance. 3r.- 5.2.32.3 t l‘tfi “It ' or. am dc“. fine?“- f‘::‘if" ' Uh .LIJEL-“ d‘ l 1.39".” i..ltl. It d1\‘| :vJ _. l ‘1»; “he CUINI‘ '1: 2. Some authors view community development as a human development process. Everyone in the community is invited to participate in the planning process. This way, members are allowed to create their own community plan with external technical assistance, and with the right to reject or accept various recommendations. Sanders (1958) indicated that community deveIOpment could be viewed in four ways: 0 as a process moving from one stage to another involving a progression of changes. It emphasizes what is happening to the community residents psychologically and socially; 0 as a method used to attain a goal, with the emphasis on the means to an end; 0 as a program that uses a set of guidelines whose contents are activities, and with an emphasis placed on these activities; 0 or, as a movement that becomes a campaign for positive change and progress, and institutionalized for support. Emphasis is placed on promoting community development initiatives. Finally, community projects and activities are not always considered to be community development. It depends on how the project is developed, by whom and for whom. It also depends on how the project relates to the welfare of the whole community, and who controls the project (Littrell, 1971). Community Development Theory of Practice Assumptions Littrell (1971) stated that assumptions tend to guide a profession or discipline in practice, especially in the infant stage of program development. These assumptions are valid, and they have a major influence on the practitioners’ work in the field. The assumptions associated with theory of practice are as follows: 0 people are competent and will work rationally, 0 human development behavior is a learned behavior, 37 o hunk o pCOP' their 0 p00? cnt it hi] 0f ill ‘ . an; control a rpmnt to ti. . CmmnnfitTh' Littrell . : anew attic. :3;ch scientit‘ still) comma. ‘|.‘h,)f.‘,' A -'~L\1J.i(lndl h ' LA ““51: situati Ii Italtt “ 1' let Q I‘m.” wLU . t " Lit Ari-”Tick . "is Mr. '3?" .- 0 human development behavior is encouraged and learned through interaction, 0 people have the capacity to direct their own behavior for the betterment of their community, and 0 people have the capacity to create and shape much of their living environment socially, politically and economically. All of these assumptions have indicated that community residents are capable of taking control of their community’s destination through a democratic process. This is important to the fundamental principles and methods in community development. Community Development Practice of Theory Littrell (I971) refuted the work of authors such as Cary, Wilkinson and others in various academic disciplines based on the notion that community development has lacked scientific research and tested theories for the field. Specifically, he mentioned that various community development methods have been adopted, revised or developed with “operational validity” for practice. This means that when those methods are applied in various situations, the community development principles in practice become a condition of reality for community stakeholders based on their validity through scientific research. Littrell approached and tested the practice of theories in various community settings from the perspective of a community deveIOpment professional (university extension with a community focus), as opposed to a discipline in academia. Each academic discipline tended to explain the behavior of a phenomenon differently as they are restricted to a Particular phenomena or event (Cook, 1994). Validation of his data in the study resulted in grounded theories. Littrell’s study reflected the work of Sanders who mentioned that community development could be viewed in four ways such as a process, a method, a 38 Lam .‘s i.- ‘1" .. - .- «I. “I" [or ptigflm and J :lernctranc P“ Littrell 2pm: tarp filter in prut‘nc csmuntt} dew " ilh case 5 situation and l tinmunit} tie. .‘iiihtf‘ug iii:- anor} and ¥fiamam tenure agrm 5553;“ mOSE‘ a! if??? [hmn d r‘ l t_ in‘ v ' . . ”Whirl, D". in an ’2' program and a movement. His work also emphasized citizen participation through a democratic process for community empowerment. Littrell concluded that community development theory and practice cannot be separated for practical use because they are so intertwined. They test and strengthen each other in practice. The practitioner can use both theory and practice as a guide for community development work and interaction with community residents. The outcomes from his case study illustrate how community members can be empowered through education and hands-on-experience in community-building. These efforts emphasize community development from a grounded-theory-base perspective. Although Cary and Littrell disagreed about the various assumptions associated with theory and practice, they both agreed with the notion of using theory and practice together as a tool to narrow the gap between the two concepts. Most authors in the literature agreed that both theory and practice could be used interchangeably. Others believe those areas of anti-discrimination within theory-building need to be addressed before theory and practice can be used to expand and advance further in the field. Community Development Theory-Building In an attempt to narrow the gap between theory and practice, several authors have offered many different opinions on the best ways to advance theory and practice in the field of community development. In the book, Community Development in America, by Christenson and Robinson’s, Jr., (1980), they cited the work of Edward J. Blakely in his 1980 article, “Building Theory for CD Practice.” In it, Blakely had noted that a theory could describe the relevance of a study, or prescribe either a course of action, or strategies to modify CXperimental conditions in a community. Blakely also asserted that theory- 39 2 h-l t —-_ - .r l“: .' mnm'fiV ailing m con n2! partition-c names 3NOCi. mined b} tn ssmunit) do stducntc appm teachers gut: gatuticd-thcrtrj Thump. tissue Pratt: 5517??“ prof-i. TRUE [0 ‘Ctl 71 idca of r25 "6 Techie Jr 5, building in community development is generated from its field practice. He mentioned that practitioners are in the best position to advance descriptive materials into prescriptive theories associated with social action in community development. This ideology is supported by the work of Patton (1997), who is one of the leading authorities in community deveIOpment evaluation. He noted that the user-focused technique is an inductive approach to generating research on theory-in-practice. This helps the researchers gain a better understanding for implementing both concepts in grounded-theory practice with external guidance. Thompson (2000) also supports the work of Blakely and Patton by noting that reflective practice is the process used by practitioners in professional practice to address complex problems. It involves combining and integrating the concepts of theory and practice to seek new solutions to resolved problems, as opposed to using old remedies. This idea of reflective practice supports Littrell’s argument from a grounded-theory perspective, and Blakely’s statements that field practitioners are more equipped to build a theory base for community deveIOpment practice. Unfortunately, many scholars in the field have not engaged in theory-building because they have assumed that a theory can only emerge from articles, books, intellectual thinkers, logic or academia, not from field practitioners. Academics in community deveIOpment tend to compile descriptive data, but neglect the provisions of prescribing and implementing better practices. Many scholars and practitioners in the field are incapable of choosing a specific theoretical approach, which may be suitable for their work. Most information derived from descriptive work such as case studies in books, Journals 01' monographs, usually are not organized substantially enough to make a usable 40 CNNIIOII OI nccnsis m “1 ggxffittitll} dc nits. Then in er»: the pm! Accord iii: if]! most trained b) th tannin: in 33 ldhif 2). ~.| 153‘. ‘ *I~.. ilp‘ 152cm: v I _... ,. _ However, in community development practice, the object is to improve the overall conditions of communities (i.e., socioeconomic, environmental, political). Practitioners need community development theory to provide them with the guidelines, prescriptions, or norms they need to direct their actions as well as providing a conceptual model for community use. Before a specific prescription or professional behavior for community action can be established, many questions need to be answered. Its theory classification and function explain community development theory. These theories are divided and organized into questions and categories that guide community development research in practice. They also attempt to answer the following questions based on the theory type (see Table 2). Table 2: Community Development Theory as a Function and Classification Type of Question [Function] Type ofTheory [Classification] 1. What is? Descriptive 2. Why is it? Explanative 3. What would happen if? Predictive 4. What would stimulate learning? Heuristic 5 . What should be done? Prescriptive L Cook, J. B. (1994). Community Development Theory. Retrieved on May 5, 2002 from the World Wide: http://muextensionmissouri.edu/xplor/miscpubs/mp0568.htm Researchers need to adopt a systematic approach in their inquiry for investigation t0 use in their analysis (Thompson, 2000). According to Abbott and Sapsford (1992), this approach iS called a research stance that provides the investigator with the necessary tools they need to make a good analytical judgment about a subject. Table 2 could be used as a 42 . 7: s"’“"' . 4 ;r A?!“ COP? .mcus £0le wag and “1 hmhi huh Thi‘l {“5331 : bCh gri'ticm-solx 1' ln rcl. 223235 ofcom " tensile» tha' ETIEUllll} )l. :t-zgar: and " dither 3.}:gzn SL5 . l _ :rtrUIX G I "Rv-no -. 1‘. ”W 1‘ r aduu.‘ 1‘; d. s 5.. .‘ ~‘.3\‘) \ o “»t.i\ '1'.‘ t \J, . - | . Ll \ngL model for community development practice based on the circumstance when addressing various community development (i.e. socioeconomic, health, environment), objectives and goals. This framework supports Littrell’s argument that theory and practice can be tested and validated through a grounded-theory perspective. Thompson (2000) noted that this can be done from a reflective practitioner position, based on the practitioner’s engaging both theory and practice concepts in their work when problem-solving. In reference to this study’s implications, the table also encompasses Sanders’ four views of community development as a process (descriptive, explanative, predictive, and heuristic) that involves brainstorming ideas and conducting research with local community stakeholders to discuss and identify the community’s problems. The methods, program and movement (prescriptive) come from designing the activities that may remedy the community’s identified problems. In addition, these concepts are also part of Michigan State University’s Seven Step Process for community development (see Appendix G), which includes Sanders’ four views, but also highlights program monitoring and evaluation. This allows for modifying the project for implementation or transferring the project into the community for program continuation. In explaining the community deveIOpment process and theory-building, Blakely ( 1 980) Stated that the community deveIOpment process is a theory construction for social action, which is emerging, evolving, changing and integrating in practice. Normative theory-building emerged from integration in field practice for social action, not from assumptions or concepts. Community deveIOpment theory comes from planned and o ' - . . . . rganized Interventions that enhance the standard of livmg for community stakeholders 43 ,Q ,5 ‘s i i “—4 "‘ ircugh mt. framed ti" wreath-1t 1. ' irritant} [.1 “FCC :ttzcs m f 0 \l 3 0 W a.» 0 W ((1 Com." ”-‘h‘it‘ilfii k ‘4” ‘ wi .. l W-qulun, r T ‘ lil'n 3 3‘ “into as "in - . LN ll“ni"\ C 13‘ {if AWO.'1 Afikv J‘- '7 . it“s}; through socioeconomic activities. Both of these conceptual models can be used as a framework for theory-building and practice in community development as well as for narrowing the gap and lag between theory and practice. Community Development Principles used as a Code of Ethics Three elements regarding the importance of community deveIOpment principles and ethics in practice will be discussed: 0 What are community development principles and ethics? 0 Why should community development practitioners and planners develop a code of ethics and principles for their planning activities? 0 What does this mean for the Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) program in their community revitalization efforts? Community development ethics are a set of guiding principles that regulates professional conduct in practice (Fear, 1984,). These ethics govern the relationships and transactions between the change agents and their clients. Fear also mentioned these guidelines as a moral imperative for governing conduct because they will help community development practitioners to distinguish what are considered acceptable and unacceptable practices for community development activities. Littrell subscribed to the importance of community development principles. He noted that the principles are a set of accepted rules that regulate the conduct and behavior 0f the practitioners in the field, and have evolved from working in various communities from a grounded-theory basis (1971). They guide their interaction with community Stakeholders in community development activities, and are essential for the practitioners’ Work. They are also designed to: 44 o incrcax ‘1 I PW” o axOldC . scCh Ir. 0 offer SQ ”I " ~_1.':""Ji‘ ‘ 1t.t.r\.‘\al\rL‘ )qlo‘.‘ ‘ mugs-«h. “ i. '5‘; tum). nun» ~\3h :ult. ..l.*..-3i. the it. u L"'"'\ V I“ .. ...: TOT U 7.3;} .. J“ , 1 fir. "r ‘ ‘-"en‘.3l“ ‘ _-3 h u.‘\‘:. n' “\\ _ , I:_ V "t“. ..‘ "‘ H I. . WONG" I“ : ll A‘V‘.‘ . '~.w T'h . l... ‘ \“ \‘i‘ I 7‘1"}. 1' .‘1 “A! u.\ "r .; ‘13 _ nut. in [\H'ir « l> \ l-. r |._ increase and promote citizen participation in the planning and implementation process; 0 avoid discrimination practices; 0 seek inclusion is from all community groups; and, 0 offer education and training to community stakeholders for empowerment. One of the most critical aspects of any field research and practice is that of avoiding discrimination and oppression (Thompson, 2000). An anti-discriminatory method for countering negative behavior is one with an explicit and open theoretical approach, whereas the common sense approach does not offer any alternatives to offset the negative behaviors in practice (Mills, 1970). In Littrell’s community development model, the inclusion of broad community representation in the planning process and training for community empowerment seems to reflect Thompson’s and Mill’s notion of good practice for community research and planning. A Code of Ethics and Principles for Community Development Practice During 1980 and 198], the Community Development Society (CDS), Professional Improvement Committee (PIC), conducted a survey among their members, asking the question: “What are considered good practice principles for the community development Profession?” The respondents were asked to identify the most significant principles for Community development activities around five areas: building relationships with Stakeholders, identifying the problems, selecting methods or activities for solution, implementing the plan, and ending a relationship (Firestone and Fear, 1982). The CDS deliberated on the survey results for a few years because of committee differences of opinions about what they considered good practice principles for the 45 gratunih dc sires] prim," lanai-:tpmcnt 1 .‘minin dt sinc-xxlcdgcd gird or other filial ii'ldl ll I) Jr. '31-? moral 1 stamina 213.2}. tilth id: 5.1353 (Xian Elihu (‘1’? t. ' "I”!!rUKIH !. in; "V II T \ \ 'V'n‘nvzl, This v 1733:5117 ,2 "~. I -' I ”Gigi-1“ T community deveIOpment profession. Then in I985, the CDS identified and adopted six ethical principles to be used as guidelines, criteria and standards for community deveIOpment practices (see Appendix C). The selected principles were similar to Littrell’s community development principles for practice, but more expansive. Fear (1984) acknowledged and defined the moral principles of ethical practice and the principles of good or effective practice which may enhance community development efforts. He also stated that it is essential for community development practitioners and planners to focus on the moral imperatives in their work because they define the ethics and good principles of community development. Both of these ideologies adopted the normative notion that deals with identifying appmpriate behavior in a given situation to yield the highest benefits (Mansfield, 1989). Ethical principles have centered on what practitioners and planners should do to encourage moral practice in their work to Optimize their effectiveness in community development activities. In addition, “a code can become a vehicle by which professionals communicate their fundamental convictions” (Fear, 1984, p. 1). Community Outreach Partnership Centers Program (C UPC) and Community Development Society Principles (CDS) This study used the 1986 CDS principles because the Community Outreach Partnership Act of 1992, Section I: E - Program Requirements reflect some of the principles. This includes promoting citizen participation, engaging citizens in problem solving, assisting the community stakeholders in developing and implementing a community plan, and increasing leadership competence ( see Appendix B). This is evident in the COPC grant guidelines: 46 IV 1m '3 .1 -u'll a-.n.‘ 1‘01 IIL': at. 0 l0 lid 1" These 123 conduct u {:3 Iii-Vii. l at, .‘L‘iu m" \ again. Alzh. 1.2M um" »:tiine It 1:? 1; . - “.101“th llmtfbm‘. 31"“ "9"“ 18;“. t . 0 to establish a community advisory committee comprised of representatives of local institutions and residents of the communities to assist in identifying local needs, and advise on the development and implementation of strategies to address those issues; and o to develop instructional programs, convene conferences, and provide training for local community leaders, when appropriate (Federal Register, 1997). These CDS ethics and principles can be used as a method to regulate the behavior and conduct of community development practitioners in field practice (Littrell, 1971; Fear, 1984). This is very important for the COPC community engagement activities and to avoid any conflict of interest with their local stakeholders in gaining community support. Although most of the COPC schools offer disciplines in areas of social science such as urban planning, sociology, public administration and social work, their ethics for working with the public are different from the C DS, which is a profession. The CDS ethics and principles form a participatory model for citizen participation and capacity-building, which is geared for community empowerment, governance, and independence. As an example, urban planners tend to honor the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct in their practice (see Appendix H). Under the planners’ responsibility to the public sector, the code is dominated by the planners focusing their attention to detail on themselves. However, a few of their responsibilities are comparable to the accepted CDS principles related to citizen participation, helping citizens and local leaders understand their community problems, including the planning process for community implementation, and avoiding conflict with community stakeholders. 47 ' 9 van-nun.“ I'm. . :i‘ '13 13 n". m ‘\.s :t l _ - 1"”. s...i.11dn:h‘ 5. ‘ Vi Cm. 3‘ C‘Y‘ ‘F n :43 ‘ 5 ‘\ ~ r».— ‘lk "':*1 0 .‘.:~4‘ p] E M 3'. .1. . H5 «7. \[f'v-a '\ . v 'n-t; 1" u ‘s.., "‘35 . , d\‘ ~l A. “‘41 3P ' $.le ,_ “I o A planner must strive to expand to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning issues to citizens and governmental decision- makers. 0 A planner must strive to give citizens the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development ofplans and programs. Participation should be broad enough to include people who lack formal organization or influence. 0 A planner must strive to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons, and must urge the alteration of policies, institutions and decisions which oppose such needs (American Institute of Certified Planners, 1991) Sociologists honor the American Sociological Association (ASA) Code of Ethics (1997), (see Appendix I). In both the general principles section and the ethical standards section, most of their code of ethics centered on professional competence, social responsibility, integrity, delegation and supervision, and to avoid conflict of interest in the workplace. In practice, only avoiding conflict of interest relates to the CDS model. There is no discussion about the promotion and neither encouragement of citizen participation nor an explicit statement of how research and training relates to the empowerment of local community groups. The ASA has placed a heavy emphasis on what their professional code of conduct should be in practice, as Opposed to the promotion of citizen participation or engaging community stakeholders in the planning process. The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), Code of Ethics (1994), under the Serve the Public Interest section (see Appendix J), clearly articulates a few ethical principles with relevance to the accepted CDS principles such as: opposing discriminatory and harassment practices; involving citizens in the decision-making process, assisting the citizens in their governmental affairs; responding to the public in a clear and articulate manner; and exercising fairness in their work. These ethical principles 48 manic \xith acoumging ci| atommunin' ; The X. Kalil the sect CDS principlt rating Ofco MSW Ethic F‘35‘t.‘=r15i‘o'i‘iiii coincide with the CDS promotion and representation of active citizen participation, encouraging citizen’s involvement in the planning and implementation of a community plan, and disengaging from conflict with community stakeholders. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics (1999), under the section of Ethical Principles (see Appendix K), resembles some of the accepted CDS principles in terms of citizen participation in the planning process, educating and training of community stakeholders, and avoiding conflict of interest. This appears in the NASW Ethical Principles pertaining to their public service and social justice responsibilities, respecting the opinions of their clients, promoting relationship-building, integrity and professional competence in practice. When comparing the above four disciplines to the CDS model, only the social work and sociology codes of ethics discuss the importance of recognizing community culture. This was not evident in the urban planning and the public administration’s code of ethics, especially since they both place emphasis on their professional code of conduct as a model for professional practice. Horton (1992) noted that during the Journal of the Community Development Society’s first 18 years of publication, they did not adequately address issues pertaining to minority communities, especially Black communities. This is evidenced by: the exclusion of these groups’ history and culture, issues associated with internal problems that are in direct control of the community such as community leadership and class stratification, and external problems that are outside of the community’s control such as racism and gentrification. Understanding these distinctions is very important for researchers and practitioners to better address issues associated with minority communities in their 49 1 IL—a'n v ..‘.. ‘A' I ’4'“. 1"". itii'iort. A? and ethics m. 211.11 msxlcl. prance. Fear TL. , 1151111151911 \ i. ‘.'fl1trufl:nl u fieldwork. Although cultural sensitivity was not emphasized in the 1986 CDS principles and ethics model as an important component in practice, it has been added to the revised 2000 model. These codes of ethics are very important for the COPC to adhere to in practice. Fear (1984) pointed out two important benefits associated with establishing a code of ethics: 0 an organization or agency would develop a mission for their community and economic deveIOpment practices; and 0 to make it a professionalized process, all involved parties are held accountable for their actions and practices in community and economic development activities. The mission statement and process should guide those interested parties in implementing capacity—building strategies with various communities groups. Community and Economic Development and Capacity-Building Strategies The development of capacity-building skills for community-based organizations is critical for community development efforts. These private and public non-profit organizations, especially those located in impoverished communities across the United States, have faced multiple socioeconomic problems in their respective communities. Dmevich (1995) states that community problems are diverse, but not limited to housing deterioration, drugs and crimes, and financial resources. Some agencies have tried to address these social issues by themselves. C ommunity-based organizations (CBO) cannot address these problems without competency development and relationship-building with both local and outside community resources (Walsh, 1997). Chaskin (2001) conducted a case study on the capacity-building processes implemented by various community development practitioners and other social service 50 games. the excel imp-or red is a 1‘11" II :c-mmumn t. Wailing . T‘ e 43'.) -' ~. 1.331» tiff ik’u r—. ,"f‘ _ _ A .‘Cl( "I .‘. s, ._.v.§11nll 1p .3 t n I” agencies, foundations, and academia, to find how they Operate in practice. He cited several important dimensions in his study with regard to capacity-building and how it is used as a principle to guide practice. They include the fundamental characteristics Of community capacity, levels Of social agency, functions Of community capacity, strategies for building community capacity, conditioning influences, and outcomes. There are four fundamental characteristics Of community capacity: 0 a sense of community is the degree to which community members recognize each other through community norms, values and vision to collectively address their shared Objectives and goals (McMillian and Chavis, 1986); 0 the level Of commitment relates tO individuals, organizations, and groups who are willing to take responsibility for community action; 0 the ability to solve problems includes being committed tO putting the community plan into action (Chaskin, 2001); and 0 access to resources economically, humanly, politically, and physically within and outside the community boundaries is important tO the infrastructure development of the community (Jargowsky, 1997; Halpren, 1995; and Teitz, 1989) A social agency has three components. First, the individual level is concerned with investing in the human development skills Of residents participating in the planning process as well as leadership development to mobilize the community for action (Becker, 1975; and Bass, 1990). Second, the organizational level focuses on the organization’s ability to deliver goods and services, collaborate with other service providers, and engage politically for community change (Glickman and Servon, 1997). Third, the network level is concerned with individuals, organizations and groups, as part Of the community structure, being connected with broader community and external resources to increase their social capital (Coleman, 1988; and Putman, 1993). 51 Ihcf enrunn1r to JCCL’» and fimtnnhii sardsacen iffifnyqxqt filkrII LI . .1. Iii-516.5111 1-. : . 15,3 i! .1 ." sIU1\Lu\\ \ :‘~"w ,. ' , “i“‘rfidnil'i \ The function Of community capacity entails the social engagement Of various community resources, interacting tO build the governance Of the community capacity to access and deliver goods and services (Chaskin, 2001). This includes the dissemination Of information, and mobilizing residents for community action. The strategies for building community capacity focuses on the means which they are built upon. Those efforts include a combination of four strategies: organizational development; leadership development; fostering collaboration with other resources; and, community organizing. An increased social network combined with a sense Of community cohesiveness and participation, encourages residential stability (Sampson, 1988, and 1991). The outcome level discusses the community-level outcomes that might be generated after the community’s initiative has been exercised to meet an end (Chaskin, 2001). The author concluded that successful capacity-building strategies in a community will increase its ability to produce goods and services, increase residents and organizations Opportunities, resources, improve social equity, influence public policy, and involve community leaders in the political process for community change. Glickman and Nye (2000) conducted a national study Of over 50 community development partnerships (CDP) that are involved in the capacity—building Of non-profit community development corporations (CDC). The study aimed to identify relationships or capacity-building strategies that would empower the CDC to become successful in rebuilding their communities. Five typologies Of the CDC capacity-building practices were examined: 52 The 4 sures: Ola - .‘l a l..l}' [0 IE 7111110113011 h ; illf'llltlllll‘ C Comt of?" .i;.1lunit“ a (7: P mist ‘Ll‘ ‘ I 1 . t, . \JIULIOI‘; C \- 33.. Mel. [I [k 1 1 - \v H ls -.7 r’n’ \ true 0 33.1,: .1; N ‘ 11143 \ l. On (,1. m J ‘ ‘ -v\l§l'; 1..| 0 resource — entails how well the corporation solicits and manages their funding from various resources; 0 organization — the corporation’s ability to manage the daily internal Operation, competence and skilled staff, and the board members’ involvement in the planning and development Of program Operations; 0 networking — the corporation’s ability to establish, work, and build relationships with other institutions and grant-funders both inside and outside Of the community; 0 programmatic - the corporation’s ability tO provide services for housing and business development, accounting, leadership development, education, and culture; and 0 politics — the corporation’s ability to represent and advocate effectively for community residents, beyond the community, and to command recognized attention and support (Glickman and Servon, I998). The authors concluded that qualified staff members are essential tO the growth and success Of a corporation. Corporations are only as good as their staff, and funders are unlikely to invest in corporations or businesses lacking a competent staff with a sound mission and vision (Glickman and Nye, 2000). Community and Economic Development and Evaluation Methods Communities have an urgent need for more effective program evaluation in community and economic development. As a society, the government cannot afford to squander funds on community and economic development projects that are not leading tO the solution Of a variety Of societal problems. Several community and economic develop- ment models for program evaluation should be considered. The researcher is going to concentrate on those models that have a community-based focus, as well as a solid emphasis on people with good ethics and skills for program evaluations. Worthen and Sanders (1987) suggest that evaluators should have at least some basic or formal 53 0' I‘?lw‘—j education at. 1 names \1 11h perfcm met In Str spirals the immunity-t 5:1 it tnxol. «jasmine 1" :cmuntt} ; ‘1‘i‘m" I . ».-lT...,nn1\, . trite 56th ‘ f l‘_ 3 'r‘n “--5t '1} l'N-l‘ education and skills in evaluation, along with professional training and experience that matches with the organization or related entity mission. Evaluators are expected to perform professionally and ethically in their community development work. In Stringer’s book, Action Research: A Handbook for Practioners (1996) he applauds the community-based and action evaluation model because it is commun ity-focused and participatory. His book discusses the collaborative model and how it involves an inquiry that allows community stakeholders tO participate in a systematic process for social action. This process helps participants resolve some community problems through research methods and techniques Of inquiry. It includes a community’s history, culture, and interactions with internal and external public and private sectors, and residents’ lifestyles. This evaluation process also encompasses some of the community development principles, and community development methods and strategies that were discussed earlier in the study. It encourages citizen participation, leadership development, collaborating with other community resources for planning, funding, and implementing a community’s plan, and avoiding conflict with community stakeholders. In addition, this evaluation Process is guided through a non-directive approach for planned change with the community Stakeholder who has ownership Of the project for planning and development (Batten and Batten, 1967). Stringer describes three main phases in community-based and action-research. The first phase is a basic action research process: 0 look - this involves the data collection, and it also describes the situation by bullding a picture; 54 0 11‘ at 0 a. Tht~ 1 her-3m front fiillllOI‘t I. 511113110“ 1. Thc~ 01v C11 ' er ' ‘C‘l. . CV 0 think - explore and analyze what is happening; 9 interpret and explain - how and why things are happening in a certain manner; and c act - plan, implement and evaluate the Outcomes. This process assesses and reviews the purpose of the evaluation and who will benefit from it. Also, it identifies the targeted population and who will receive the evaluation report. Finally, it asks what procedures will be implemented tO carry out the evaluation to measure its proposed Objectives and goals. The second phase of his action research process involves relationship-building: o promote feelings Of equality for all people involved; maintain peace and harmony among all interested parties; avoid conflicts with interested parties, discuss all concerns Openly and honestly, 0 accept people as they are and be sensitive tO their feelings; and 0 encourage and promote personal and cooperative relationships, as Opposed to non-participatory ones. This process is an inclusionary one that focuses on citizen participation and social equality for community empowerment and support. The third phase Of his action-research process discusses community participation: 0 community stakeholders are actively involved, assigned and performing tasks; ' empowering stakeholders through technical assistance, 0 encouraging tangible goals that the community can accomplish; and 0 establishing a personal relationship with the community stakeholders rather than power brokers. 55 Fr“?- Ih>ptoccs~ anambu sn~nhtnor S’ if: mum lithe-tit thg. 35:1: i0 113 1 .‘hllt-f if 1 ,1:th 131:. n." summit :E‘TECIFJUOI 3"? “ “Flt data 1 Q 9””... "i.‘l~14\‘l‘C-L f," 1:, . "i“we 0191 . kn?“ . . “*w-hittnr )7! il’ ..‘ . “min”, _ \K,l \ 7‘. A. h 39.1 . 1., "“1 ‘th 7] 5 R5 a g. l {r .1 ’4 ' This process focuses on community training and empowemrent tO enable residents and groups to become independent, as Opposed tO being dependent on extensive outside consultation- Stringer concluded that community involvement, trust, accountability and Open communication are the important elements in community-based and action-research. Without these characteristics, a community’s evaluation may lack the credence it needs to have a good product to base its decision-making process on for project planning. Another good point about Stringer’s evaluation model is that it also has three of the most popular evaluation models that were expanded upon - participatory, formative, and summative. Ewens (1990) mentioned that participatory evaluation involves citizens participation for community mobilization, support and ownership. Formative evaluation entails data collection and analyzing the data for dissemination to interested parties. Also, summative evaluation examines the programs’ overall Objectives and goals for success or failure over a given period Of time, and deciding if the project should be modified for continuation or discontinued. Lackey, Peterson and Pine (1981) noted that traditional program evaluation models have failed communities in community and economic development. The models have made many generalizations about communities. In a participatory model, the evaluators Primary concern is not in the generalization of the outcomes, but in the standardized form of how the results were Obtained. For an evaluation to be effective, it must be applicable tO the community under consideration. The evaluation must also Dreduce results that are compatible for that locale (Hall, 1977; Patton, 1 978; Cain, 1 977; Kidd and Byram,1978). 56 In pt snent lctcl. .; 3:311 let :1 apt-axing ;. reaction h inner; of t: react 01 cm. Ihc Lil-:Stmcnt 1" «.1 eels? tntt 7331811 and ill" 1 "I [I n *«dfi £01111? 5 Fat deal 1 — 5 ll 1 d tielllUtiaU life‘s... -_ .1 up,” .. ‘ “11‘. Li (1.139‘.‘ r .1 “\I: 1 . ‘dl rlb In project evaluation, it is very important tO view the processes on an individual or client level, a community level, an organization level, a system level, and a family or a group level. All these processes produce results that can be informative in temis of improving current conditions based on their impact for community-building. The interaction between and among the many processes also reveals the effectiveness or barriers Of their collaborative efforts since relationship-building is an important aspect Of community development (Kellogg Foundation, 1996). The government cannot afford to waste more tax dollars on big-name community investment programs that are not addressing or reducing some Of the nations’ decaying urban communities. That is why the government, nonprofits, and other related social service entities, along with community and economic development practitioners need to review and develop some effective policies for public and private partnership enterprises. A great deal can be learned from past community and economic development approaches, theories and practices, especially in local policy deveIOpment for more community-based implementation. Summary This chapter provided an overview Of pertinent literature related tO community and economic development. The five major areas included: (1) the early evolution Of community and economic development in the United States; (2) the conceptual and theoretical foundations of community and economic development; (3) community development principles used as codes of ethics; (4) community and economic 57 .57 t h ‘5“ 5' '1'“ ‘ “Interm‘l 3.515]??ch :fiuncsh" ECM'IF 11ml L Q Li CUt'liII’ [tyne the : :rnnnot' u'.‘ :,.m.na hid.Sanl.' As \ tastes ha. '\ ‘-‘ ‘ I t ,"ttfttcx It. . i F" . ‘ “‘P 1;“.\ I .. \“C h -\UI\1 development and capacity building strategies; and (5) community and economic development evaluation methods. The Early Evolution of Community Development in the United States. The concept Of community development has been part Of society for many centuries with regard to the growth and development Of numerous communities, villages, towns and cities. There was no consensus among the authors as to when it occurred or what contributed tO the emergence of community development in the United States. Despite the many definitions associated with community development by various authors, variation Of four fundamental elements of community development such as process, program, method and movement have become the foundation for planned change in the field (Sanders, 1958). As society demographics shifted from rural to urban, community development practices had to adapt to a litany Of socioeconomic problems, which affected the overall practices in the field. Emphasis was placed on developing a democratic process through a non-directive approach for creating social networks and partnerships that encouraged citizen participation and governance, as Opposed to self-help projects that were not holistic, but authoritarian. Most scholars in the literature agreed that community development has greatly impacted society through the advancement Of land-grant colleges and universities, and cooperative extension partnerships, along other community-based organizations for community-building. The aim Of community deveIOpment is tO reduce heavy dependency "P011 external consultation, and increase skill-building and leadership development for 58 20‘» 2111th C I t r.) h'liUU1555ili. [V lilht’t’I'iittl. Dr". t1" Wm ’ i his." I drastnpmc: ‘ Son: . embed 1 4 w .t. u. Iht’ “011 h it? A ,,= , ‘ with 0i 1.” 5;. ‘»\l_lp'.b1 .1] 1 . Jr.“ ‘ v.4 ' "AV-t . governance. Community development has demonstrated its ability to become a vital tOOl in addressing socioeconomic problems and issues in the United States. Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations of C omtnunity and Economic Development Many authors in the literature cited the lack Of scientific research in community development tO test and validate theories for practice from a discipline or an academic perspective. This lack of confirmation on the guiding principles for practice has placed the practitioners in the field Of community development in an awkward position to perform their jobs. Cary mentioned this in his research. Some authors cited that theories into practice have been tested, validated and researched from a grounded-theory focus. The principles that have evolved from research have been and will continue tO be used as guiding principles in practice. This was evident in the work Of Littrell, Cook and the Community Development Society (CDS). With theory and practice being integrated in field research, it may eliminate the burden Of the community development field becoming a theoryless practice field for theory-building. Both Littrell (1971) and Thompson (2000) expressed support for that type Of field research. In addition, many authors believe this approach will provide the field Of social science research, particularly the community deveIOpment field, with the credence that has not been recognized from a grounded-theory basis. Community Development Principles used as a Code of Ethics The work Of Fear and Littrell dominated the literature in this area. Both authors discussed and encouraged the need to use some Of the CDS guiding principles as a 59 tmdlld Oi '. ~r'2i.'~!\ Of a We; 11:1}3s101h . pzcnce.Fi\ te£h1pns flit”) lll [lit tlshldcr ittluton of hennnnat fihtmhke “ l ';~"“I' . Knight“ .1 5 5 3 504.1 ‘3' ShawnM . l‘.‘ ' ‘~ 1.. an D. m1. 3." 5;. " Av ;‘£x~.,r\] \‘ \ 'V-ns. ‘ ' A - 111.th 1' ‘» Him; 7‘11“. f'iml’ft: (q; I“:\J Mile; “1'. . ‘w.,1 . ._ . Nl“:\\ ”'3‘. , ‘ “ml at... -\“._I -l standard Of professional practice in community development. This is similar to the analogy of a theory foundation guiding the work Of practitioners in the field. More professions and disciplines need to honor their codes of ethics, or redefine them for practice. Fear (1984) cited the importance Of community development principles being used by practitioners and planners in their fieldwork. It promotes professionalism and ethics in the field, and can enhance the relationship between the practitioners and stakeholders. The accepted CDS principles are a model for citizen participation and the inclusion Of all community groups in the planning and implementation process, where discriminatory practices and gender-bias are unacceptable. Fear’s research mirrored some Of Littrell’s (1971) study on theory into practice for community development practitioners regarding how the CDS principles can govern the practitioners’ behavior in the field. Practitioners are held accountable for their actions in practice to ensure equity-planning, and by Optimizing their work and yielding the highest benefit to the community stakeholders. This is why other professions should consider adopting some Of these principles in their work because the practitioners are held accountable for their actions in practice. These elements are essential for capacity-building development, especially for the COPC in their community engagement efforts. Community and Economic Development and Capacity-Building Strategies. Capacity-building strategies are important to private, non-profit organizations. These methods determine the competency level Of an agency and tO what extent they can address their community’s socioeconomic problems. In most cases, an organization cannot solve a multiple number Of community problems and issues alone. They need 60 'J. In sin ,1 T ll“ kl knit q irtsrstttcat ,rrm ‘li’l‘r a com] Son :1»th sing :3711'11 and (“’11 ”1121111 . (on: mesh: 11:. "'l eh ' - n r. .l ' dike, 11- L' a- 41.51 (1111‘ 1 . I to bring more diversity into their organizational structure for planning and implementation. The literature acknowledges several different approaches for capacity- building, structured on fostering sustainable community development. These pertain to diversification Of community funding resources, organizational structure, networking, programmatic, and politics. Community-based organizations have to equip themselves with a competent staff in these areas to better serve their communities. Some authors noted that funders tend to award those organizations with a sound mission statement, vision and qualified staff. It is imperative for community organizations to Operate like firms with regard to their strategic visionary planning for community growth and development, and organizational diversity. Community and Economic Development and Evaluation Methods Community and economic deveIOpment program evaluation is a viable tOOl for assessing program outcomes for effectiveness. This tends tO be the most critical part Of evaluating an organization’s performance for capacity-building strategies used in their community. Other authors placed emphasis on the skills such as becoming culturally sensitive and adaptable to many communities’ environment since they are becoming more diverse in residents and their language. More importantly, an evaluation project has to be applicable to the community under consideration before it can be effective, and produce results compatible to the community. Stringer’s (1996) community-based and action-research model expands on the above aforementioned practices for project evaluation, including participatory, formative and summative evaluation models, which are considered the more traditional 61 allillton m :3);er '5' ill It‘lifCllOIl. Pl its-smiles m siren panic asztntuntt} ~ ircndent ft :tmmuntt {immtfllt‘af is: :lcpmcrx The HID-COM 9:1 ‘ 1w. 'cmcr. . . 11- wilthm \ - .“:~N!Lf ‘\_ l .:- J' Hut 0" L' .1-3‘“ \1‘ ‘.- ~. ntzntr ‘, “1171,11 K. 5 evaluation models. This model has a basic action-research process that assesses the program’s Objectives and goals, and how the project is going to be carried out for data collection, planning, implementation and evaluation. It promotes equity planning, and resembles many Of the CDS principles since it is an inclusionary one that focuses on citizen participation, community support and empowerment. It also focuses on training community stakeholders for skilled-building and governance, as Opposed to becoming dependent for external consultation. All Of these aspects of project evaluation subscribes to community involvement, trust, accountability, compatibility, monitoring, and Open communication for community program evaluation tO become effective in community development. The implications for this evaluation review have relevance pertaining to the HUD-COPC study. TO what extent did the HUD-COPC: (1) use some Of the grant requirements in their work? (2) use some Of Sanders’ four ideologies in their community engagement? (3) use the CDS principles in practice? and, (4) use community development methods and strategies for community planning, implementation, monitoring, and transferring the project into the community? 62 pressure am problems. h standary s {initiated CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE I] Introduction Institutions of higher education in the United States have come under extreme pressure and criticism for not being. proactive in resolvingsome of the nation’s urban problems. Harkavy (1996) stated that society has failed in many Of its primary and secondary school systems, especially in urban areas. Their property values have deteriorated with an increased in poverty and crime rates, shifts in the employment sectors and locations (urban to suburbs, even out of the country), poor economy, and other related problems. Conigan (1997) noted that these problems have been compounded by universities being disconnected from their localities (neighborhoods) and from society. Institutions of higher education have focused much Of their attention on the means Of an education (i.e., credit hours, schedules, degrees, examinations, technology, interactive television and . computers, and the intemet) and neglected the ends. Magrath(l998) echoed these sentiments by stating that institutions Of higher education need to adapt to the societal problems. Past approaches and strategies used for resolving community engagement issues are probably to inadequate to address present and future societal needs. The Kellogg Commission (1999) reported that many universities have begun to develop relationships with local non-profit organizations in their respective localities for social action and community-building through community engagement. 63 Brm met}; and : ensue suc< Wash and utzen panic mach pers; onedimensi. V13}? limiter ieir outreac. mites (i.e. We 5 EsauFlies t0g “Women 913% ' Bryne (1998) wrote that engagement is a partnership between the university and society, and it involves goal-setting, program planning and performance evaluations to measure success. Sharing expertise in resolving societal problems can evolve from both outreach and inreach by a university. Bryne advocates scholarly research, training and citizen participation for community engagement that encompasses both outreach and inreach perspectives because it is a two-dimensional approach. outreach is one-dimensional in disseminating new knowledge and technology transfer to its clientele. Many universities continue to use traditional‘extension practices (one-dimensional) in their outreach. efforts for community engagement, as opposed to including inreach services (i.e. applied-research, citizen participation and leadership development training). The scholarship of engaged institutions means connecting intellectual bodies of resources together to address the nation’s most pressing problems, but not limited to socioeconomics, politics, the environment and technology (Boyer, 1996). Engaged institutions need to commit themselves to the African proverb: “It takes a whole village to raise a child” (Corrigan, 1997, p. 17). This notion would be directed towards the need for more community collaboration between and among the public and private sectors in addressing a litany of societal problems. Section two of the literature review focuses on metropolitan universities: the historical roles of the federal government in higher education; the public-oriented philosophy of the land grant colleges and universities and metropolitan universities; higher education’s past community development efforts; institutions of higher education community relations; dilemmas; missions; and the Housing and Urban DeveIOpment (HUD), Community Outreach Program Centers (COPC). 64_ 37:5 Hsmn} The minions I Narional As The Historical Roles of the Federal Government in Higher Education, and the Public Philosophies of Land Grant Colleges and Universities and Metropolitan Universities The Historical Roles of the Federal Government in Higher Education The federal government played a major role in the creation of the nation’s institutions of higher education, especially the land grant universities. According to the . National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGU) (1996), several federal legislative laws provided for the development of public universities (see Appendix L). Several events emerged from those federal education acts. The first one was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which authorized the sale of public land to states for the purpose of education. This was an early beginning to the land grant principle. The actual birth of the land grant colleges of agriculture is attributed to Dr. Jonathan Baldwin Turner. Parker (1924) cites the following: Dr. Jonathan B. Turner was the real father of the Morrill Act of July 2, 1862; he was the first to formulate the land grant plan; and he also inaugurated the continuation of the bill that Congress passed. The land grant college system officially began in 1862 when the federal government established the Morrill Act on July 2, which was the second major act signed by President Abraham Lincoln. This act set aside public lands for eachistate to develop and maintain one or more colleges. Those colleges were to educate the public on coursework related to agriculture, mechanical arts, scientific and classical studies, and military tactics. The educational focus, at that time, was on the promotion of liberal and practical education for an industrial society (Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant 65 {-ww‘nxj- he. {Diversity 5 The facing racia mm non-minori fermions Nefiand (1' S . 3‘7“~fy wdcfiuonaj , 5.. l ‘dsfrom Emma University System, 1995). The Morrill Act of 1890 was enacted because many Black Americans were still facing racial discrimination when trying to gain admission for education at predominately non-minority universities. Also, the few Black universities that were granted status as land grant institutions in 1962 did not receive appropriate funds, when compared to non-minority land grant institutions. In the book, Historically Black Land Grant Institutions and the Development of Agriculture and Home Economics, 1890-1999, Neyland (1990) agrees that in 1890, Congress passed the second Morrill Act to provide educational opportunities for Black citizens in the United States. This act provided states with land grant funds where schools segregated Blacks and Whites. This act also withheld funds fi'om states that refused minorities’ admission to land grant colleges based on race, unless the state provided a separate institution for minorities to attend (Vaughan, 1999). Seventeen Historical Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) emerged from that law (see Appendix M). Their educational mission centered on teacher-training because of the need of Black educators to teach and train Blacks for professional careers or trades (Eddy, 1957). Neyland (1990) argued that the first Morrill Act of 1862 did not make any reference to race. Traditional southern laws and customs prevented Blacks from getting an education and HBCU from partnering with predominantly White institutions. Segregation excluded most Blacks from attending non-minority institutions, and HBCU were. the only educational institutions that would allow Blacks to pursue an education (Barthelemy, 1984). The original Morrill Act (1862) had no provisions for HBCU, but three HBCU still received educational funding under the act. Alcorn State University in 66 9".- ‘YH LIC'TIOW fl”— 'Ik“! ..- n‘ . barman 5“ (Min L'm'x 1596. Ham; 1920. Both 1 he has be fourth HBC 1133‘ ersities moms Ce Lorman, Mississippi became the first HBCU designated as a land grant college in 1871. Claflin University in Orangeburg, South Carolina was a land grant college from 1872 to 1896. Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia was a land grant college from 1872 to 1920. Both Claflin University and Hampton University lost their land grant status over the years because of state politics. Kentucky State University in Frankfort, Kentucky, the fourth HBCU, did not begin to receive funds until 1897. Their fimds were disproportionately small compared to what most non-minority land grant colleges and universities received (N eyland, 1990). Neyland concluded that many HBCU were forced to have their educational missions centered on training teachers for elementary and secondary education because there were not many Black high schools in operation. They could not produce the large demand of students until more teachers were in the field teaching Black children. This changed in the 19205 because many of the HBCU were able to offer Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degrees in agricultural, mechanical and industrial arts, and other fields. Since many Blacks in the south worked in the fields during slavery, liberal arts became the hallmark major for most of them, and they sought opportunities in teaching and agricultural. Although the Morrill Act of 1890 prevented the exclusion of those schools and others from receiving federal funds, it also created a problem because as more HBCU gained educational status under the act, their funds decreased. This financial obstacle did not stop the HBCU from becoming viable schools. They received aid from philanthropic foundations to get the financial support they needed for personnel, facility expansion and curricula development. This financial backing helped many HBCU to become sound institutions. 67 | Sen | WEEDS. | [ms-mine; Fault}- and . | 5:312 Lm‘re \ Michigan’s‘ Michigan ( Merrill Act simmer} fmers in z Mformec mm L Several contributions emerged from the land grant institutions. Duririg the mid-1800's, Michigan State University became one of America's premiere land grant Universities. In Arthur’s (1991) dissertation, Public and Community Service Activities of Faculty and Academic Stafl Members at a Land Grant Institution: A Study of Michigan State University, she cited Eddy (1957, p. 16) who mentioned that in 1855 the State of Michigan’s Legislature became the first in the nation to create an agricultural college. The Michigan Agricultural College was the first university to benefit from the passing of the Morrill Act in 1862. It was also the first college-to disseminate new knowledge and information through agricultural experimental stations and extensions to empower farmers in their agricultural practices (Kuhn, 1955). Michigan Agricultural College transformed into Michigan State University and it did not become a designated land grant institution until 1863 (Michigan State University, Mission Statement, 1982 p. 1). The American Association of Community Colleges (1997) nOted that Morrill Act of 1862 was also responsible for the creation of Joliet Junior College, which is synonymous with a community college. This college was founded by William Rainey, President of University of Chicago, in 1901, and was the first of its kind. The mission of the college focused on providing college-level courses to high school graduates, for the transfer to four-year institutions and programs leading to careers and job placement. Eddy (1963) also mentioned that there were several major contributions by land grant colleges and turiversities, including the 1890 HBCU. They include: expanding educational opportunities to low-moderate income householders, creating vocational education worldwide, applied research for scientific discoveries, connecting research, 68 , . J .v— reading an developme assistance Nev: | the nations’ coIEeges an‘ SU‘VlCC t0 practice to tE‘ii'onm. teaching and community service to rural society, developing programs for community development, offering military training in ROTC classes, and providing technical assistance to international countries globally. Nevins (1962) stated that the land grant universities and colleges became one of the nations' most unique public university movements in the 19th century. He cited these colleges and universities as being devoted to science and liberal education as part of their service to society. These efforts made them the nation’s leaders in applying theory into practice to meet and address some of the infrastructure (i.e., transportation, housing, environmental and economy) problems associated with society. Higher Education Act of 1 965 In Rowley’s (1999) dissertation, The Public Service Mission of Urban and Metropolitan State Universities: An Analysis of Mission, Policy, and Practice, he cited Title XI of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Urban Community Service Program, which has enabled urban and metropolitan colleges and universities to participate in community engagement. This program aimed to promote institutional collaboration with local public and private agencies (i.e., federal, state and local entities) to address community issues. Institutions of higher education located within a metropolitan area of 350,000 or more persons, or as part of a consortium of institutions that meet the program requirements, are eligible to apply for funding. Urban and Metropolitan Colleges and Universities For this study, the researcher refers to urban and metropolitan interchangeably since they both are located in cities. Colleges and universities in those areas tend to 69 sent simil: colleges ant incarnate Censs 19 . .1, ‘ put-ration lire Need] Uri mnmumn 3111’: health ‘M‘loy “’ml‘elfnc serve similar populations with contrasting missions, and are influenced by the land grant colleges and universities mandate. Urban colleges and universities are concentrated in incorporated areas with a population of 2, 500 or more persons (U .S. Bureau of the Census, 1990). Metropolitan colleges and universities located in incorporated areas with a population of 250,000 persons or more. The Need for Urban Colleges and Universities to Become Socially Responsible Urban colleges and universities should have a mission that promotes sustainable community development in housing and business creation, environmental degradation and health issues, and improving other related problems such drugs and crime, and unemployment. Their mission needs to include enhancing human resource and competency development through education and training (Elliot, 1994). Rowley (1999), in his seminal dissertation research, cited Kinnick and Ricks’ (1990) lO—year study of urban colleges and universities developmental trends. The authors did not examine the public or community engagement missions of their sample populations (institutions). However, their research supported Elliot’s notion that urban universities are in a great position to address various community needs. Urban universities and colleges are unique and serve a large number of students (primarily part-time). These institutions are committed to undergraduate education, offering doctoral programs, and providing urban residents access to higher education. These institutions also have a wider diversity of development patterns, institutionally (research fmrds, tmdergraduate and graduate studies), based on their engagement services and ability to link theories into practice. In addition, communities across the nation depend on 70 these colleges and universities to coordinate and connect their resources, expertise, research and services to address the diverse problems associated with society (Ryan, ' 1993). The Need for Metropolitan Colleges and Universities to Become Socially Responsible Metropolitan universities are the land grant universities of the future. Over 80 percent of the population and challenges faced by society are urban focused. Although higher education collectively must address these problems, metropolitan universities are at the fiont line (Legg, 1 994, p. 92). The presidents of metropolitan universities honored the Declaration of Metropolitan Universities that focused on three major principles: the transmission of knowledge; dissemination of resources; and to enhance community leaders’ skills through capacity-building, education, research and professional service. These institutions serve a diverse population that reflects their demographic characteristics regarding age, ethnicity and socioeconomic background with the majority of their students coming fiom urban communities. Their educational pro grams are designed to identify,‘address and respond to regional needs, with an emphasis on national excellence (Metropolitan Universities, 1993). - These facets are essential to the economic infrastructure development of the nation if we are to compete in an advanced technological, competitive and global ecOnomy. It is critical that these institutions build capacities and programs appropriate for their missions and capabilities, rather than relying on external forces (federal cuts and demands by the legislature) to impose public policies, which may be inappropriate and undesirable for their missions Royer (1993). There are several major forces that shape the 71 nu} nempolit; make any : address the metropolitan regions, and if the public and private metropolitan universities are going to make any contributions in resolving some of our societal needs, they must understand and address the following: the continuing growth in structural cost of state and local government; the growing isolation of people in our country, by race, class, and culture; the grong mismatch between the geography of our urban problems and the geography of our attempts at solutions, mostly through the public - sector; and the continuing anti-politics, anti-govemment feelings still running so deeply through American life, almost paralyzing large scale innovation, especially with regard to those issues requiring trust in government and large public investments. (Royer, 1993, p.25) Both urban and metropolitan colleges and universities evolved out of the land ' grant universities, policies and philosophies. These institutions of higher education are charged with becoming active players in the redevelopment of the nation's city, state and regional economies. SRI International (1986) indicated that these institutions have an array of knowledge-based resources and expertise such as economic analysis, research and development, capacity-building, human resource development, transferring technology to industries, technical assistance to business development, stimulating entrepreneurship, and basic and applied research on new products and production - processes. With this knowledge base, expertise and resources, these institutions need to transfer their scientific research theories into practice for the betterment of the nation. Higher Education’s Past Community Engagement Efforts Institutions of higher education must do more than provide rhetoric when discussing the needs of their urban areas and how some of those socioeconomic issues and problems could be resolved. The Kellogg Commission (1999) reported that universities and colleges need to do more than outreach and public service work. These 72 initinzt gentrifi then to objectix held by CCID'ITI U1 Csmmu, institutions are obligated to address a litany of urban problems and issues that have gentrified the nation’s cities. They must collectively develop or rebuild relationships with their community stakeholders. The community plans need to reflect shared ideas, objectives, and goals among the interested parties, but ownership of the plan should be held by the community stakeholders. Areas of community engagement, university community relations, dilemmas, and missions will be explored further. Community Engagement Votruba (1996) pointed out that community engagement involves service activities that are part of the mission for institutions of higher education. This includes their ability to create, apply and transfer knowledge into practice for the benefit of local community stakeholders. Bringle, Games and Malloy (1999) argued that faculty members participate in community engagement activities related to teaching, research and service. They include teaching and distance learning classes (via satellite), community action-research projects guided by local stakeholders and engaging students in community service activities. Also, community engagement is a good avenue for institutions to participate and provide capacity-building strategies to their localities (i.e., civic organizations, community groups) for community empowerment. Hollander (1999) questioned the institutions level of intent, competence and commitment to engagement. Their motives are challenged and dictated by structural changes in the economy, technological advances, urban problems and issues, and internal funding resources fiom the schOol. This is why institutions of higher education need to 73 make community engagement part of their mission, with the appropriate resources and institutional commitment to advance society further (Boyer, 1996). Higher Education Community Engagement and Applied Research in Practice Institutions of higher education have not received many accolades for - some of their early community engagement activities. The Montana Study is one such effort whose duplication would bring great benefits to many of these institutions. One of the early-engaged institution community engagement efforts that received high praise was the Montana Study, 1944 tol947. Poston (1950) noted in his book, Small Town Renaissance, that the Montana study was part of Montana State University’s Chancellor, Dr. Ernest Melby’s, vision. He wanted to see the university as a humanity program that extended its educational and cultural services-to every village, town, and rural area in the state. By humanity, Melby was not referring to the arts, literature, languages, philosophy or history, but to anything that related to human life and value. Many state politicians were not ready for a paradigm change regarding reorganization in the university system (i.e., revise the state university curriculum, eliminate inefficiency, and unify the university’s six units) or the university’s involvement in community development. For many, the study was considered a waste of time, effort and investment, and also the researchers did not have a track record of accomplishments for completing this type of research. Despite much opposition statewide, primarily from the legislatures, Poston and his colleagues continued to push their research further by obtaining funds from various grant foundations. The Montana study had several objectives: to get universities involved in community development activities in their communities and 74 stateside through j lexel of a noisier: of applie milked [ statewide, to improve the quality of living in rural communities and to stabilize the family through job creation and education, offsetting migration to other areas, and to raise the level of appreciation for their community’s culture and spiritual inspiration by collaborating their community development efforts with local churches. This study attempted to transform the university from a place of education to one of applied-research with the ability to apply theory into practice to resolve socioeconomic issues, which mimic Boyer’s (1996) “scholarship of engagement.” This process also evolved out of the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 that became responsible for land grant institutions involvement in community engagement in their communities for problem-solving, aside from educating the public (Rasmussen, 1989). Nelson (1999) echoed Poston’s remarks by saying universities were called upon to take active leadership roles in their local community engagement. Many small towns in the state had an array of socioeconomic conditions that needed to be addressed. They included: reversing the decline in timber industries, improving the families’ lifestyle, increasing the communities’ appreciation for cultural heritage, and creating recreational opportunities for residents’ participation. He also highlighted several notable outcomes that emerged fi'om the Montana Study. Baker Brownell and Richard Poston, professors at the University of Montana, were responsible for reversing the economic downfall trends in some of the state’s rural towns. This occurred through the development of research committees and advisory groups collaborating with local residents and businesses. Value-added timber industries such as planning mills were developed to offset the economic decline in some timber towns. Civic groups disseminated information to various towns about current events that included political and community development 75 issues. C C031. rLlll. economn Connect: issues. Citizens organized town beautification movements to clean up areas around the community hall. The transportation system was improved to provide better access to local V resources in and around nearby towns. All of these things lead to towns becoming economically viable. In the SRI International book, Higher Education Economic Development Connection: Emerging Roles for Public Colleges and Universities in a Changing Economy (1986), the authors stated that urban colleges and universities are responsible for addressing community needs similar to the findings in the Montana Study. For example, Cleveland State University (CSU) in Cleveland, Ohio, best describes what an urban university mission is and what kinds of services can be provided to local communities. Cleveland State University centers its urban focus on three areas: education, research and business development and job creation, and promoting public- service programs and assisting the government in developing meaningfirl economic development principles. Further, this university, founded in 1965, developed its educational mission through curricula and program schedules that catered to the needs of their urban population, including local community colleges. They also designed special programs .to encourage students to remain enrolled in college, or to re-enroll if they had dropped out of school. Moreover, during the 1980s, the university expanded its research and development efforts, especially in public service programs, through their Center for Urban Affairs, and their engineering and business programs. The university's Urban 76 hairs Pr of an Um Sir gem cernrnuml was It CSL' has 2 helping J1 mount teal); ele. anemic for local a mining Menu Affairs program was instrumental in helping the state of Ohio to implement the objectives of an urban mission for its urban universities. Since 1977, CSU has acted as an advocacy facilitator for local communities and organizations. CSU faculty and staff have provided training and technical assistance to community-based organizations, local governments, and industries, with economic analysis to further expand community and economic development in their localities. CSU has also concentrated on research and development efforts to continue helping their local and regional economies (constituents) to understand the shifts in their economic and manufacturing industries. Some CSU strategies consisted of providing locally elected government officials and administrators with training for community and economic development projects. This included creating and developing a broad database for local and regional economies by examining population trends and labor markets, analyzing local business retention, and by expanding economic development program productivity. The authors of SRI International concluded that the CSU Center for Urban Affairs - program focused its attention on economic research and analysis through data collection, industry analysis, and strategic planning and development. The end results were supposed to provide local government, industries and community groups with better information, and improve their decision-making processes and strategies for planning and development. Institutionally, this benefited the University's public-service mission and community image while providing urban students with more opportunities for community service, research experience and employment. 77 Shirley 3r engagemc Liam cox In Lenin Kentuclj. ln ‘nth 81.5 mm. contribun c-snmun: b) lilll'. ('2' Willie-:7" rem - w”! T} In the book, Building Community: Social Science in Action by Nyden, Figert, Shibley and Burrows (1997), several effective collaboration models of “scholarship engagement” were highlighted. The book is a compilation of best practices, one of them covered in the study is an article called, “University-Community Collaboration in low-Income Housing Projects and Neighborhood Revitalization in Louisville, Kentucky” by Gilderbloom, Mullins, Sims, Wright, and Jones (1997). In 1993, the US. Department of Education awarded the University of Louisville with $1.5 million for their Housing and Neighborhood Development Strategies (HANDS) program. This program also received over $750,000 in local matching funds and in-kind contributions. HANDS evolved out of a series of meetings with local businesses and community groups, non-profit organizations, and government agencies brought together by university representatives to discuss redevelopment efforts for the Russell community (Gilderbloom, et al., 1997). Over half of the residents of this African American community were living at the poverty level, and one-fifth of them were unemployed (US. Department of Commerce, 1990). The goals of HANDS were twofold: to build the capacity of individuals and organizations in revitalizing the Russell community, and to leverage limited local funds and grants for access to venture capital in the community. HANDS served as the broker between the university and the community. A community advisory group was created to oversee the deveIOpment and planning of the project and provided input and changes, where needed, in their evaluation. This partnership brought the university closer to the community, while fulfilling part of its urban mission. 78 5 ll ~ no“ 0 v. i l‘n .1.me n m . M»: 74 1 n. lettu. . Mink» u I N w rfin. via K The results of the university’s partnership efforts in the Russell community are as follows: crime rates have fallen in areas undergoing new housing development and revitalization; imprudent development has been slowed down by redeveloping the existing infrastructure of roads, sewage, utilities, and buildings; many non-profit and for-profit developers have rehabilitated some of the abandoned housing units; the community’s tax base has begun to increase, which will provide funds to improve the area’s quality of services; a few small businesses were created in the area; many residents began to earn their GEDs; a new park and a new traffic patterns were developed to make the community more visible; and the community revitalizing efforts attracted more moderate-income families back to the area (Gilderbloom, et al., 1997). The authors also noted that in the early 19903, with so much positive development in the community, the University of Louisville established the Center for Sustainable Urban Neighborhoods (CSUN). This center is aimed to expand the vision of the HANDS program and to revitalize other impoverished commrmities in the city. The program components included economic development, home ownership, crime prevention and human development. The US. Department of Education has awarded the CSUN $1.6 million over a three-year period. The center also received about $600,000 in local funds, bringing their total to $2.2 million. The HANDS project demonstrates what an urban university can do regarding its urban mission through their" institutional commitment, technical assistance and resources. 79 The Unit“ on solutic 11 let exam relieved l graduate s and theory itltmal an addressing ironed L 3’33 rim-i; “Menu ill-l MEI? .1434 “55,16, Eu if} - mt - I N I k,- . l LLEL‘IBP, The University of Louisville has become one of the leading urban universities in working on solutions for neighborhood revitalization in impoverished communities. These community engagement efforts by institutions of higher education are just a few examples of how some schools can meet their commrmity’s needs. This cannot be achieved without three things occurring: a change in campus culture, faculty and graduate student capacity-building strategies, and the development of applied research and theory into practice (Lerner and Simon, 1998). Changes in campus culture mirror the internal and external integration of tested methodologies in practice for validity when addressing socioeconomic issues. Campus culture also adapts to community culture when involved in community engagement. Community stakeholders are trained to understand their environment, while learning how to become better planners through hands-on experience. This effort teaches the stakeholders community governance, not dependency for leadership development and community sustainability (Schein, 1992). Higher Education Community Relations According to Parsons (1967) and the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1972), urban universities growth and development accelerated after passage of the 1949 National Housing Act (urban renewal) for reapproachment, and grew even more with the Section 112 amendment that passed in 1959. For every one dollar the university spent on property acquisition and building for educational purposes, the federal government would contribute two to three dollars. These laws granted universities the authority and political autonomy to purchase land without opposition. When institutions expanded their campuses through urban renewal, it usually took them generations before they could 80 restor event during @0th ECUilSi Grease P" “v — restore good relations with their respective communities. Mazey (1995) supported the previous statements by Parsons and the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, and added that before the19503, most communities lacked the organizational structure to effectively combat those efforts. In the book, The Urban University in America, Berube (1978) explained that during the 1960s, another urban university crisis resulted fi'om a lack of community trust, involvement and commitment by the public and private sectors. Many community activists and students perceived the university as part of the nation’s urban problem, as opposed to the solution. AmOng the negative factors: the universities were economic barriers to the urban poor, including students of color; they displaced poor residents for university expansion and development; and their urban policies catered to established institutions and governmental agencies. Urban universities failed society by not developing policies to address urban issues such as race and gender equality, or residents’ access to colleges. Moreover, Berube also stated that the second urban university crisis occurred in the 19703, as these universities attempted to address some of their communities’ socioeconomic problems. Government cutbacks in public education limited the scope and mission of urban universities. This further intensified the tension between universities and communities (The Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, 1970). With continued population migration and business growth during the 19805 and 1990s, Royer (1993) asserted that America cities had transformed into a nation of metropolitan cities, with over 50 percent of the nation’s population residing in 81 39 metre higher 6 decline i neropol nations In 39 metropolitan areas. This era has seen stunning financial changes in the higher education system. Many universities were experiencing economic decline in their revenues, in proportion to state budgets. These factors limited metropolitan and urban universities and colleges resources for resolving some of the nation’s urban problems and issues (McClenny, 1993). Many community leaders perceived universities as intellectual “carpetbaggers.” They proposed to address various social and economic problems of the cities through grant funding to further their research. This process resulted in justification for additional monies for research and salaries, with cities receiving nothing in return (Reardon, Welsh, Kreiswirth, and Forester, 1993). Higher Education Dilemmas In the book, The University and the City, Nash (1973) reported a number of reasons why urban universities and colleges had dilemmas in dealing with urban issues and problems: urban problems were too broad for isolated universities to address; universities and colleges were involved in many activities on and off-campus (e.g., education, training workshops, and consulting with the private sectors) before the urban crisis; most urban problems were not restricted to urban universities and colleges or large cities; and universities had internal problems on-campus when trying to deal with urban problems. These issues limited their ability to play an active role in providing community engagement activities and resources to their communities. Nash pointed out four major fundamental areas of urban involvement for universities and colleges: First, these institutions could make their educational efforts 82 u.“ '\~.. 5" - I' | .‘s “'1'.” diverse in nature for the people and communities they serve. Access to education would be available to all residents, with studies relevant for the training and experience needed to address urban issues. Continuing and extension education could also be enhanced by providing educational opportunities for public officials and individuals, as well as for non-traditional students who plan to pursue a college degree. Second, efforts need to be made to revitalize their communities. Third, research should be geared towards problem- solving for urban issues. Fourth, these schools should serve as role models for the nation toward solving an array of socioeconomic problems in urban cities and communities. Nash also acknowledged that universities and colleges must modify their policies and procedures when addressing the needs of urban cities and communities. He cited and categorized the fifteen dilemmas into four areas: problems associated with social _ sciences, problems in race relations, problems associated with funding, and other types of dilemmas and assumptions (see Appendix N). Nash concluded by saying that university leadership is the key to any institution’s community and economic development success. Leaders are the ones who set the university’s agendas, goals, missions, resources, and reward systems. Each institution should only undertake activities when they have both the ~ organizational capacity and support from the university to participate in community endeavors. Higher Education Mission The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1972) reported that universities, colleges, counties, cities, states and the federal government needed to revise their activities, programs, and missions for the future enhancement and development of urban 83 societies. oftheurb U'alb‘pOt’lE Bi societies. These public and private sector agents have done a poor job of resolving some of the urban communities most pressing needs in physical infi'astructure development, ’ transportation, pollution, public education, job skill provisions, and more. Bronwell (1993) agreed with the Carnegie Commission observations. He stated that many metropolitan universities have ignored the needs of their immediate I communities, while they improved the conditions of local government. These universities will need to become more active in addressing some of the country’s needs through their teaching, research, and technology transfers to advance society. On a national level, no federally supported university programs such as the Morrill Act of 1862 are funding urban universities, compared to land grant universities and colleges serving rural populations and extension agencies. With the lack of federal, state and local funds to promote community and economic development in urban communities, many universities and faculty members are not investing in nor committing much of their time to resolving urban problems. It is not a high priority for them (Grobman, 1988). . Legg (1994) reported that before urban institutions could move forward, they must address how their faculty members are going to be rewarded for their work in urban communities and cities. Currently, they are rewarded only for scholarly research (i.e., grant proposals, published articles and books), but not applying theory into practice for problem-solving. This mindset needs to be rectified so that it reflects their mission for community engagement. In 1994, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) 84 surveyr andlS scorer in com SCBICE metrOpe COIL'HUJ mission ririmiz students bill?! W; surveyed approximately 290 member institutions located in urban or metropolitan areas and 186 of them responded to the questionnaire (ASSCU, 1995). Forty-two percent of the respondents noted that the following are institutional barriers for community and economic development: a lack of support and adequate resources for faculty participation in community development; and a lack of institutional support for recognized community service as a scholarly engaged activity. The study concluded that institutions of higher education in urban and metropolitan areas need to align their priorities with local community organizations for community collaboration. This adaptation would reqmre these institutions, to update their mission statements, revise their reward system for promotion and community service, minimize institutional barriers for community service involving faculty, and encourage students’ participation. Their survey supports Legg’s notion that institutions need to find better ways of rewarding their faculty for community service and scholarly research. Holland (1997) stated that when these schools received institutional support for the articulation of scholarly work, with promotion of community engagement as part of the faculty reward system within their mission, they tend to have very clear objectives and goals campus-wide, with an organizational structure. These policies have helped universities in their recruitment and retention of faculty. Opportunities for service learning, faculty consulting with commrmity groups, publications and community networking are enhanced through these mechanisms. In addition, this includes a reflective critique that involves a careful deliberation of thoughts and ideas for planning and implementation, according to Glassick, Huber and Maeroff (1997). 85 LEE-“m Dre C and ch deem Elixir; As organizational structures and patterns change in higher education, so do their level of commitment for community engagement services. As the level of commitment gets higher, so does the level of community relevance with full integration from the tmiversity (Holland, 1998). Background information on the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPCs) is provided along with its Mission, Objectives and Goals The Community Outreach Partnership Act In 1992, Congress passed the Community and Outreach Partnership Act (COPA), and charged the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with carrying out a 5-year demonstration act, with a $7.5 million budget, annually. Initially, in 1994 and 1995 grants allocated under the act were for two-years, but since 1996 they are for three-years. The minimum grant size was $250,000 and the maximum was $750,000 (Cox, 2000; Federal Register, 1994 and 1996). Awards were given to two-and four-year institutions of higher education to create and establish a Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) with their local organizations and agencies, for community engagement (Cox, 2000). Under this mandate, these institutions were instructed to conduct basic and applied-research in collaboration with their local community-based organization (Federal Register, 1994). Their research also needs to clearly define real-life urban issues, including the designing of a comprehensive community and economic development plan with strategies for addressing urban problems (i.e., community development, health care, crime and drug prevention), according to Cox (2000). In addition, LaMore (1996, 1997, 1998), stated that there are several forms of capacity-building strategies that could be used for 86 cornmu Append Partners the fill was 100 of the H he Fede tended ”3"“. flaw ._ - d. 9'“ “the.“ _ Nil,» e community engagement by public and private entities, including universities (see Appendix 0). The COPC are administered through HUD and the Office of University Partnerships (OUP). All of the eligible and ftmded COPC grantees were selected through the HUD rating and selection criteria factors. The maximum score a COPC could receive was 100 points and the minimum was 70 points, which is outlined in Section H - A and B of the HUD-COPC Selection Criteria and Rating Factors (see Appendix B), according to the Federal Register (1997). Although there was a slight alteration in the section criteria standards fi'om 1994, it did not vary much in detail. . Some of the community development principles such as promoting and engaging citizen participation in identification of the problem, assisting in planning, designing and implementing an action plan for the community, and providing leadership development training are reflected in the HUD-COPC Selection Criteria and Rating Factors. One of the assumptions in this study is that the HUD-COPC are familiar and using the practices of the community development principles. Their work should reflect the normative theory, which states that one ought to do what is appropriate to resolve a given situation or circumstance (Mansfield, 1986). Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of University Partnerships ( 0UP) The Office of University Partnerships (2000) mentioned that HUD and the 0UP played an important role in providing human, technical and financial resources to assist the universities and colleges in their capacity-building initiatives with various community organizations and groups. They nurtured and maintained these movements for the 87 derelo amdin< aehieu development of community engagement. They also mobilized community stakeholders and institutions to combine their efforts for community revitalization. This was achieved through: 0 raising awareness of the importance of community revitalization, and fostering a positive community partnership between institutions and their local communities for urban revitalization; 0 providing financial support for various program initiatives; 0 disseminating successful community partnership models and lessons for community revitalization; ' - encouraging the training of urban. and community leaders for leadership development; and 0 channeling a vast amount of resources into applied research for community engagement. COPC Programs Involvement on an Institutional and Community Level Cox (2000) noted that universities received many benefits under this HUD-COPC program initiative in terms of adhering to their mission of teaching, research and community engagement. They provided graduate and undergraduate students with opportunities to gain academic enrichment through engaged activities for competency building. Faculty could produce papers for publications as part of their reward system. On the community level, residents were trained and educated to better understand and address their community issues and problems. Other benefits included raising the quality of community life, and increasing and enhancing community organizations and groups with capacity-building skills (i.e., competent staff, grantsmanship writing, marketing, accounting, organizational structure) are enhanced for community engagement. The key element to this partnership is community and sustainable development. Too often 88 euunun usually 5 asistrnc lure a lc l0 lighe] and publ urn‘ersit 'lli llous I’COPC). ll“ H15; -—4 community organizations are provided with seed funds to start—up a project, which usually stumbles when the funds are exhausted, without much support for technical assistance or training. These forged relationships are aimed at ensuring local stakeholders have a long-term, viable and stable community, without fearing gentrification. Summary This section provides a synopsis of three critical elements just reviewed pertaining to higher education: the historical roles of the federal government in higher education, and public philosophies of land grant colleges and universities and metropolitan universities; higher education’s past community engagement efforts; and background on the. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Outreach Partnership Centers (core). The Historical Roles of Federal Government in Higher Education The federal government has had the biggest impact on the creation and development of the nation’s institution of higher education through many laws such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which encouraged the acquisition of property, and the development of those institutions to be manifested. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 have greatly influenced the development of land grant universities and colleges, including the HBCU. The Monill act of 1862 is responsible for the birth of land grant colleges and universities, along with a few HBCU. This act set aside land for the development of land grant universities and colleges that placed educational emphasis on agriculture, the military, mechanical arts, scientific and classical studies for an industrial society, and the inclusion of an education for non-elite citizens. The Morrill Act of 1890 89 presides access if the treat between initiative neuritic many co: “Glued 31”: com nation’s - domestic Higher E T Wm 5min. provided educational opportunities for Blacks and other minority groups that were denied access to an education by White institutions. . Other laws such as the Hatch Act of 1887 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 led to the creation of experiment stations for applied scientific research, and to a partnership between cooperative extension and the land grant institutions for capacity-building initiatives in rural communities. The Bankhead-J ones Act of 1935 provided land grant institutions with more funding for educational purposes. These institutions have made many contributions to society. The success of land grant colleges and universities evolved fi'om the land grant idea, based on a democratic process. Land grant institutions are committed to applying research and scholarship to resolving a specific set of this nation’s problems, with a major emphasis on agricultural and sustainable development, domestically and internationally. Higher Education ’s Past Community Engagement Eflorts The Higher Education Act of 1965, known as the Urban Community Service Program, has enabled urban and metropolitan colleges and universities to engage in community development. This pro gram funded researchand promoted collaboration between and among institutions of higher education with federal, state and local agencies, including private and public non-profit organizations to address community issues. This program evolved out of the land grant philosophies and has applied their research, teaching and services for community engagement in resolving urban problems. According to several authors in the literature, they cited these institutions as having failed society by not developing policies that center on resolving urban issues, 90 includlr mission busines: ms. these in sub ur’r k including the needs of the urban poor and minorities. Their institutional support and missions were catered to established institutions and government agencies, and businesses, with no reward system for tenure that encourage their faculty to work in urban areas. . Other authors noted that the US. Congress still needs to adopt and transform the land grant philosophy into one for urban and metropolitan universities and colleges since these. institutions serve a very diverse population and faced complex problems associated with urban areas. The relationship between universities and communities will continue to end up in a bad divorce or separation if they cannot establish a common ground for mutual cooperation, respect and commitment for community engagement. That is why it is imperative for engaged institutions to adopt Boyer’s notion of connecting their intellectual resources to the nations’ most pressing problems associated with the deterioration of urban communities and cities. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Qfice of University Partnership ( 0UP) According to the literature, in 1992, Congress passed the Community Outreach Partnership Act. The Department of Urban and Housing Development was charged with stimulating community engagement between institutions of higher education and their respective local organizations and agencies for social services, business and housing development, improving environmental quality, and more. Most eligible institutions received funding for three-years to promote and connect their applied research, teaching and services with their respective communities for capacity-building. It included but was t not limited to the following: fostering a positive relationship with local community 91 groups providi des'elo; stakehc partner COPC, groups for social services and raising awareness about community empowerment; providing technical assistance and support for program initiatives for sustainable development in their engaged activities; encouraging and training community stakeholders for leadership development; and disseminating information on successful partnerships initiatives and models for community engagement. COPC programs involvement on an institutional and community level This partnership is considered a ‘inn-win” situation for all parties. On the university level, faculty and students are given opportunities to apply their theories into practice through research, teaching and service. Students have the opportunity to gain hands-on experience for their academic enrichment and for competency development. Faculty members can write grants and submit papers for publications as part of their reward system. On a community level, residents become educated about community and urban problems and how the two are linked together, to better address their local needs, to raise their community’s living standards, and to increase their capacity-building skills (i.e., competent staff, accounting, organizational structure, grantsmanship, marketing). On a societal level, this activity addresses and reduces some of the nation’s symptoms and could become a blueprint for other communities to model for community engagement. Community organizations are often awarded seed funding to tackle urban issues, but they usually stumble due to exhaustion'of program funds combined with not enough technical support and training. Relationships with the COPC are aimed at ensuring that local stakeholders have an opportunity to build a viable and sustainable community without fearing gentrification. 92 the ace: HIDC assess tl 00mm: Capacit} if) to a relation CHAPTER III Methodology Introduction This chapter focuses on the methods used to analyze and answer the following research objectives of the study: (1) to assess the HUD-COPC recognized importance of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement; (2) to assess the HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement; (3) to assess the HUD-COPC use of community and economic development methods in their community engagement; (4) to assess the HUD-COPC reported use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local non-profit organizations; and (5) to assess the HUD-COPC community engagement barriers as it relates to their relationships both on-campus and off-campus. As part of this study’s qualitative analysis, five research questions were developed to address the above research objectives from a descriptive analysis. This was done to identify and describe the HUD-COPC directors’ perception of their community engagement activities. These questions included: (1) Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize the importance of the accepted CDS principles? (2) Did the HUD-COPC directors use the accepted CDS principles in administering the programs and projects of their respective centers? (3) Did the HUD-COPC directors use the commrmity and economic development methods in their community engagement? (4) Have the HUD- COPC reported the use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local non-profit organizations? and (5) Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships both on-carnpus and off-campus as an important barrier in 93 for . cor: l0 C( and‘ Sub} i") ll: quart their community engagement? This study was designed to examine some of the research and outreach activities for community engagement that have practical application for problem-solving: community development planning, capacity-building, and dissemination of information to community stakeholders and institutions. In addition, this chapter includes a description of the following: (1) instrument development, (2) questionnaire, (3) reliability and validity of the instruments, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, (5) data collection, (6) research sample and selection of the sample population, (7) dependent variable and independent variables, and (8) statistical methods for quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Instrument Development For the purpose of this study, the researcher gathered information from various related resources in the development of the community engagement survey instrument for reliability and validity. In the survey design, the researcher drew information from the following sources: 0 Arthur (1991), dissertation on The Public and Community Service Activities of Faculty and Academic Staff Members at a Land-Grant Institution: A study of Michigan State University. 0 Holland (1995), unpublished dissertation on The Characteristics of Distinctive Institutional Missions. 0 Rowley (1999), dissertation on The Public and Community Service Mission of Urban and Metropolitan State Universities: An Analysis of Mission, Policy, and Practice 0 SRI International (1986), Higher Education Economic Development Connection: Emerging Roles for Public Colleges and Universities in a Changing Economy. 94 thes Thee Econ Deve Cnhn Educ: aniii ehhru Eduea flruh} lbfiset 0 American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (1995), Urban Community Service at AASC U and NASULGC Institutions: A Report on Conditions and Activities. Also, information from the literature review highlighted several important areas in the study: (1) The Early Evolution of Community DevelOpment; (2) Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations of Community and Economic Development; (3) Community and Economic Development and Capacity-Building Strategies; (4) Community and Economic Development Evaluation Methods; (5) Background on the HUD-COPC and the Selection Criteria for Funding; (6) the Historical Roles of the Federal Government in Higher Education and the Public Philosophies of the Land Grant Colleges and the Universities and Metropolitan Universities; (7) Higher Education’s past Community Engagement efi‘orts (Land Grant, Metropolitan and Urban Universities and Colleges); (8) Higher Education - Community Relationships; (9) Higher Education Dilemma's (i.e., financial, faculty reward systems); and (10) Missions. The survey instrument was designed around these ten important elements. The Questionnaire For this study, a rating scale known as the Likert scale was used to ask the respondents to indicate their level of degree for various categories that five alternatives for agreement or importance for each item. The scale for agreement consisted of: (0)1mdecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly disagree. Another scale consisted of items for importance: (0) undecided, (1) not important, (2) of little importance, (3) important, and (4) very important. This type of rating scale 95 Mesh “Bis a! such Ms “AV ,0 CU. :\ l. . r l 4. h 14 .u N i» L‘ l- .11.. win “measures the magnitude” of the respondents opinion, not their direction (McBurney, 1988) The Likert scale has a few drawbacks such as not capturing the data it generates and all the intricacies of the beliefs or attitudes they measure (Michie, 2001), or the reproducibility of_the data (Anderson, Basilevsky, and Hum, 1983). Despite these weaknesses in the Likert Scale, it also has many advantages: easy to use, it makes few assumptions about the data, and standard techniques can be used to evaluate their items such as reliability or factor analysis (Anderson et al., 1983). This scale has become the standard research instrument in social science based on its ability to measure attitudes (Michie, 2001). The survey instrument was created in an e-mail and printed form for computer input and analysis. It included an introduction statement that explained the survey purpose and instructions for completion. The survey consisted of 46 questions, which were divided into six sections (see Appendix P). The questionnaire covers six areas: membership affiliation, concepts of community development, community development processes, capacity-building strategies, project barriers to community engagement, and an open-ended question pertaining to the community engagement questionnaire. Images in this dissertation are presented in color. Section 1: Member Affiliation The member affiliation questions were used to assess the broad range of organizations in which the HUD-COPC leaders are members, and to which most of them belonged. The choices were: American Institute for Certified Planners (AICP), American Society for Public Administrators (ASPS), American Sociological Association (ASA), 96 Ce Community Development Society (CDS), National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and Others (a blank space was provided to list other memberships). Information from this section would shed some light on how the HUD-COPC leaders answered the survey questions based on their membership backgrounds. Section II: Recognition Importance of the accepted Community Development Society (CDS) Principles The recognition importance questions consisted of eight examples of the accepted CDS community development concepts and principles. The HUD-COPC leaders were asked to indicate how they perceived the level of importance of the principles as it related to professional practice for community engagement. A rating scale that ranged from 0 to 4 was incorporated into the survey, with (O) undecided, (1) not important, (2) of little importance, (3) important, and (4) very important. This information would shed light on the HUD-COPC leaders’ understanding of the accepted CDS community development principles. Section 111: Community and Economic Development (CED) and Problem-Solving Methods Questions for this section consisted of seven examples of CED problem-solving methods for community development processes. The HUD-COPC leaders were asked to indicate their perceived level of agreement with the seven CED problem-solving methods. A five-point rating scale that ranged from 0 to 4 was incorporated into the survey: (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. Information generated from this section revealed the methods used in the HUD-COPC community engagement. 97 Still! Section IV: Capacity-Building Strategies Questions for this section consisted of fourteen examples of capacity-building strategies. The HUD-COPC leaders were asked for their perceived level of agreement with the fourteen capacity-building strategies. A five-point rating scale that ranged from 0 to 4 was incorporated into the survey, with (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, undecided, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. Information from the HUD-COPC in this section would identify the practices that they were more likely to be used for program sustainability in their community engagement. Section V: Community Engagement Barriers The recognition of important questions consisted of nine examples of barriers for community engagement. The HUD-COPC leaders were asked to indicate their perceived level of importance for barriers that have hindered their community engagement relationships both on-campus and off-campus. A five-point rating scale that ranged from 0 to 4 was incorporated into the survey, with (O) undecided, (1) not important, (2) of little importance, (3) important, and (4) very important. Information from this section would reveal if some of the HUD-COPC experienced project barriers or received institutional support within the university structure, and support from local businesses and community stakeholders in their respective communities. Section VI: Open-Ended Question The HUD-COPC leaders were asked to provide their comments or suggestions regarding the survey instrument for the study. A rating scale was not used for this analysis since the respondents were free to comment on any aspect of their COPC 98 m» oh e whole ‘mpl QIL‘ ,. . M". ‘53 involvement or the survey in general. information obtained from this section may highlight some of the common themes or similarities that the COPC are experiencing as a whole in their community engagement. Reliability and Validity of the Instruments F raenkel and Wallen (1990) in their book, How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, the authors mentioned that the quality of research instruments used in a survey questionnaire is very important regarding the conclusions that the researcher will obtain from the survey data. Also, the inferences from the data collected need to be checked for validity and reliability. They stated that validity is defined as "the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific inferences researchers make based on the data they collect" (p. 127). The content-related evidence of validity refers to the nature of the content included in the survey instrument and specifications that help the researcher to formulate a research design. This element of the content-related evidence of validity evolved out of an extensive literature review on higher education involvement in public service activities. The relevant findings of the literature review support the questions that are included in the survey instrument that are aimed at higher education public service activities in their respective communities. Reliability deals with the consistency of scores obtained from a survey instrument. It also focuses on how consistent the data is for one individual or group from one administration to another and from one set of items to another. In short, reliability is trying to ascertain the same scores for two different time-periods. 99 R5363: University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects On October 12, 2001 , the researcher received permission from the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) to conduct the study through: US. mail, email, facsimile, and telephone interviews. The main focus was to determine if HUD-COPC recognized and used the accepted community development principles in their community engagement. This was done through the examination of five research questions and three research hypotheses listed below: Research Questions: 1. kl! Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize the importance of the accepted CDS community development principles? Did the HUD-COPC directors use the accepted CDS principles in administering the programs and projects of their respective centers? Did the HUD-COPC directors use the community and economic development methods in their community engagement? Have the HUD-COPC reported on the use of the required capacity- building strategies in collaboration with local nonprofit organizations? . Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships both on-campus and off-campus as an important barrier to their community engagement? Research Hypotheses: l. The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of, and used the accepted CDS principles in their program operations. The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of the accepted CDS principles, which had a direct and positive relationship to their institutionalization efforts in community engagement. 100 DO lfl I10 li’t used ‘ l3l de lhlcr lll-es: 3. The HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles relate positively and directly to their institutionalization efforts in community engagement. A matrix box was developed to assess the HUD-COPC on the following: recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles no recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles no recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles (see Table 1) As part of the study’s quantitative analysis, the following statistical analysis was used to assess and measure the COPC above matrix statements: (1) frequencies, (2) descriptive statistics, (3) means, (4) chi—square, (5) Pearson Correlation Coefficient, (6) crosstabulations, and (7) One-Sample T-Test. Data Collection After UCRIHS gave its approval, the Michigan State University (MSU) Department of Resource Development assisted the researcher in administering the questionnaire via e-mail and facsimile to the 109 HUD-COPC directors that were part of the sample population from 1994 to 2000. Dillman (2000) suggested that before administering a survey, the research should send an introductory letter to the targeted population that explains the purpose of the study and the importance and their participation. A week later, a cover letter with the survey instrument should follow the initial letter. After approximately three-weeks to one month, a new cover letter and survey should be sent to all the respondents who did not complete their questionnaires. On February 18, 2002, an introductory e-mail letter was sent to all of the identified HUD-COPC directors. Initially, about 109 letters were sent by e-mail that 101 expla the st respo were hope Iii-’7.» Vslb l J instn letter sum Mu lOL'rl not 1 C01: . p “f ~AA V ;‘. er”: explained the purpose of the community engagement survey, why they were selected for the study, as well as assurance of anonymity that is required by UCRIHS. The respondents were given an identification number in place of their names. All respondents were advised that the survey instrument would be forthcoming in a couple of days (see Appendix Q). On February 25, 2002, the survey instrument was sent via e-mail with a cover letter and an attached questionnaire (see Appendix R). The cover letter explained the instructions for filling out and returning the attached questionnaire. Three weeks after emailing the initial survey, on March 18, 2002, a follow-up letter was sent via e-mail and facsimile to those respondents who had not returned their surveys (see Appendix S). Initially, about 109 surveys were sent via e-mail to the sample population. Eighty-one surveys were returned via e-mail, facsimile or US. mail. Of that total, only 78 of the surveys were used for the study and the remaining three surveys were not usable because they were incomplete. Those returns yielded a response rate of 72%. Although some of the HUD-COPC are working collaboratively in their HUD initiatives when they submit their annual reports to HUD-OUP, only the lead HUD-COPC between or among the COPC will submit a report on behalf of their collaboration. In addition, the CU? provided the researcher with vital information on some of the HUD-COPC community engagement activities in their respective communities. Research Sample and Selection of the Sample Population This sample population includes the directors of 109 HUD-COPC, 52 of these centers (48%) are located in metropolitan areas. Fifty-seven (52%) are non-metropolitan; 102 22 Land Grant Universities and Colleges, two HBCU, five Community Colleges, one Institute, and one Trade-Technical College. The study population has been determined by HUD through their Community Outreach Partnership Center Act (COPC) of 1992, and their grant criteria. This act provides COPC with $7.5 million each year as part of a five-year demonstration program for community outreach partnership centers. In addition, this act stipulates that grants are given to those public and private institutions of higher education to establish and operate community outreach partnership centers in their respective communities (Federal Register, 1994). The researcher chose to use the schools identified by HUD as the targeted population to study the community engagement practices of those institutions of higher education in their respective communities. The researcher also sought to gain insights on the perceptions of those HUD-COPC involved in community engagement. This is the broadest population of schools across America participating in public service activities sponsored by HUD. In addition, the researcher had access to the names and business addresses of each COPC director through the Office of University Partnership. Dependent Variables The two dependent variables for this study are importance and agreement. The level of importance depends on the HUD-COPC recognition of the accepted CDS community development principles in their community engagement. The researcher used a Likert scale to rate and record the responses to each item on the survey questionnaire. 103 loo Get cor be ill Fer L 5.5, ‘ ‘leLlI‘ Independent Variables The five major independent variables for this study were: (1) the HUD-COPC leaders’ member affiliation, (2) the HUD-COPC use of the required capacity-building strategies in their community engagement, (3) the HUD-COPC use of community and development problem-solving methods, (4) the HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS community development principles and (5) the HUD-COPC recognized important barriers in their community engagement. These five variables will determine the HUD-COPC level of community engagement as it relates to the institutionalization of their programs. Statistical Methods for Quantitative Data Analysis In tabulating and analyzing the quantitative analysis of the HUD-COPC leaders’ responses to the questionnaire for Section I through VI, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X) was used to analyze and summarize the data. Frequencies, descriptive statistics, and means were used to compute the scores and averages of how the HUD-COPC leaders answered the survey based on their perceptions regarding the practices they considered important and used in their community engagement in Section I through Section V. The study’s five research questions were analyzed through Pearson Correlation Coefficient, and One-Sample T-Test to find out whether the variables were significant. For the three research hypotheses, which were all relational (comparison) between two or more variables, the Pearson Correlation Coefficient was used to compute and compare 104 the me relatior the means and correlations of two or more variables to assess the strength of the relationship between the variables. The matrix was analyzed through the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, Chi-Square, and Cross-Tabulation to find out to what extent the HUD-COPC recognized the importance of, and use of, the accepted CDS principles in practice. The following statistical techniques were used in analyzing the data: Descriptive Statistics -- a method used for the “summarization and description of a data set by a 1) presentation of tables and graphs, 2) examination of the overall shape of the graphed data for important features, including symmetry or departures from it, 3) scanning the graphed data for any unusual observations, which seem to stick out from the major mass of the data. Computation of numerical measures for: 4) a typical or representative value that indicates the center of the data, and 5) the amount of spread or variation present in the data (Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977, p. 12). Pearson Correlation Coefficient — “a correlation coefficient measures the strength of a linear association between two variables” (Statistical Package Social Sciences, 1999, p. 177). Frequencies — a procedure used that provides various statistical counts and graphs to describe the data. This includes, but is not limited to: fiequency totals, percentages, means, “median, mode, sum, standard deviation, variance, range, minimum and maximum values, standard of error of the mean, skewness kurtosis (both with standard errors), quartiles, user-specified percentiles, bar charts, pie charts, and histograms” (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, 1999, p. 213). Means — a measure of interval data for an average score or value that is central to the data distribution (Wright, 1986). Chi-Square - an inferential statistic that measures the distribution of scores and determines if they differ significantly (Wright, 1986). Crosstabulation - a procedure used to measure the forms of two-way tables or multiple tables for a variety of measurements and tests for association between and among various tables (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, 1999). One-Sample T Test - A procedure “tests whether the mean of a single variable differs fiom a specified constant” (Statistical Package Social Science, 1999, p.258) 105 .ilt’ll V1: t cont anal; weal code in a 5 they ; Clams l 5111 Methods for Qualitative Analysis The methods used for tabulating and analyzing the qualitative analysis in Section VI: Open-Ended Question answered by the HUD-COPC leaders to provide their comments or suggestions regarding the survey instrument was a fi'equency statistical analysis (see Appendix T). The other methods included an iterative design, theoretical saturation, and triangulation. These methods were incorporated into the study because of the identified weaknesses in using an open-ended question format. The questions are too difficult to code since they are in a narrative form, the data has to be categorized for summation, and they require some effort fiom the respondents to reply (McBurney, 1998). Other disadvantages include responses that are too inconsistent in content and length, and because more clarification may be needed to understand the questions or responses that could lead to misinterpretation of the data (Fraenkel and Wallen, 1990). The authors also mentioned that the open-ended questions have some advantages in a survey such as allowing the respondents more freedom to write out their comments, they are very easy to develop, and follow-ups can be done by an interview for more clarity. In addition, this process allows for the respondents to answer the questions in a unstructured manner, which may reveal some unique ideas (McBurney, 1998). In order for the data to be understood and clearly defined, the iterative design was used to analyzed and winnow the data (questions) down into various categories for summation based on the common themes (Rubin and Rubin, 1995) that are repeated throughout the theoretical saturation process (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). These methods enabled the researcher to triangulate the data (questions) responses to the review of 106 literati data it. hasbe can U5 uteri that hes ’4 A) -v -. literature in the study as well as the quantitative methods once multiple similarities in the data have been exhausted. This is done through data source triangulation to see if what has been observed and reported is found under other circumstances. Also, a researcher can use methodological triangulation that involves comparing what has been observed to a review of primary or secondary records, or literature, to increase the confidence level of what has been interpreted (Stake, 1995). Summary An overview of the methodology used for the study was highlighted, along with the survey instrument used, data collection methods, survey response rates and the statistical analysis used to examine the data results will be explored in Chapter IV. 107 "r 1;, hvsz CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS Introduction This chapter is divided into 5 parts: Part 1 contains an analysis of the 40 survey items in the questionnaire (see Appendix F). The data collected on the sample population were analyzed through frequencies and percentages. This analysis sought to determine how each item was scored for comparison and contrast between and among the sample population. The questions have been subdivided into 6 parts: the HUD-COPC membership affiliation; the recognition and importance of the accepted CDS principles by the HUD-COPC directors; the use of the community and economic development problem-solving methods by the HUD-COPC directors; the HUD-COPC reported use of the required capacity-building strategies; recognition by the HUD-COPC directors of the importance of project barriers, both on-campus and off-campus, as it relates to their community engagement; and the HUD-COPC directors’ open-ended questionnaire. Information from these parts will shed light on individual items in the questionnaire based on the frequencies and percentages that have relevance to the study. Part 2 is a summary of the HUD-COPC open-ended responses to the questionnaire. The researcher thought it was necessary to summarize the respondents’ cements through iterative design, and theoretical saturation and triangulation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Rubin and Rubin, 1995; and Stake, 1995). This process allowed the researcher to draw some conclusions on the common themes repeated throughout this part of the questionnaire, and of similarities between and among the survey 108 ill ho] population based on their community engagement experiences. Part 3 is an analysis of the study’s five research questions. Information obtained from the descriptive statistics and means will reveal how and to what extent the HUD-COPC directors perceived the research questions and to what extent. Two rating scales were used in the survey with responses to the items ranging from 0 to 4. Both categories for each scale were different from one another. The first rating scale categories included: (0) undecided; (1) not important; (2) of little importance; (3) important; and (4) very important. This scale covered the items in the survey that pertained to Section II, the HUD-COPC directors’ recognition of the importance of the accepted CDS principles; and Section V, the HUD-COPC directors’ recognition of the importance of project barriers, both on-campus and off-campus, as they relate to their community engagement. The second rating scale categories included: (0) undecided (1), strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. This scale covered the items in the survey that pertained to Section III, the use of community and economic development problem-solving methods by the HUD-COPC directors; and Section IV, the HUD-COPC reported use of the required capacity-building strategies. Part 4 is an analysis of the three research hypotheses. Those hypotheses will be analyzed using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient, means, and chi-square analysis to determine if there is a positive (linear) relationship between two or more variables. Part 5 contains an analysis of the matrix to identify how many of the HUD-COPC leaders recognized and used the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement. A combination of the Pearson correlation coefficient, 109 chi-sq peree: Where lien Hll othe- Cer Am chi-square, and crosstabulations were used to analyze those associations. Those items showing a huge disparity between and among the frequencies, percentages and means will be explained. Those items that were not significant, but where the data indicated an important relevance to the study, will be discussed further. Part 1: Member Affiliation Membership Affiliation Figure 2 breaks down the various membership affiliations among the HUD-COPC directors. Of the 78 survey responses, 29 (37%) of them were members of other organizations outside of the four disciplinary areas: the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), the American Society for Political Science (ASPS), the American Sociological Association (ASA), and the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). The Community Development Society (CDS) is a professional organization for community development practitioners. The ASPS and the ASA each had 11 responses (14%) for a total of 22 responses, or 28%, which represented the majority of disciplinary memberships of the survey population. There were 4 members for the AICP and only one member each for the CDS and NASW. Over half of the HUD-COPC survey population has membership with other professions or disciplines. Although the survey instrument has a CDS focus, the results from the data analysis were influenced or dominated by disciplines such as sociology and political science, and the other Category, which are consists of other disciplines and non-disciplines. Also, fifty-seven (73%) of the respondents for this category are accounted for, while 21 (26%) of the data are missing. In addition, these results will provide the researcher with more insight as to 110 how their Re: fro: and Pun (lete “ha their how the HUD-COPC directors viewed the practices of community development fi'om their academic and training backgrounds. Figure 2: Membership Affliation IACIP IASPS DASA E! CDS I NASW I Other I M. Data ACIP - American Institute of Certified Planners ASPS - American Society for Public Administrators ASA - American Sociological Association CDS - Community Development Society NASW - National Association of Social Workers OTHER -— Other (Organizations) M. DATA - Missing Data Recognition and Importance of the accepted CDS Principles There are 8 items in this section. The rating scale scores on these items ranged fiom 0 to 4, with (O) undecided, (1) not important, (2) of little importance, (3) important, and (4) very important. Those 8 items represent the concepts of the accepted CDS principles, which are considered best practice for community development. By determining the percentage scores for each item, the researcher was able to ascertain to what extent the HUD-COPC directors demonstrated the importance of these methods in their community engagement activities (see Table 3). 111 Table 3. (Section II) Importance of the accepted CDS Principles to the HUD-COPC Directors Item ot f Little ortant ortance Undecided Important 1. To promote citizen N=l participation ( 1 .3%) N=l (1.3%) N=12 (15.4%) ery ortant N=64 (82.1%) Missing Data Total N=78 (100%) 2. To engage community N=5 N=5 members in focus groups (6.4%) (6.4%) N=8 (10.3%) N=3] (39.7%) N=29 (37.2%) N=78 (100%) cornrnunrty N=2 N=6 understanding (2.6%) (7.7%) community problems N=8 (10.3%) N=36 (46.2%) N=23 (29.5%) N=3 (3.8%) N=78 (100%) 4. To allow community N=1 N=3 members to democratically (1.3%) (3.8%) influence their decision- making process N=3 (3.8%) N=23 (29.5%) N=48 (61.5%) N=78 (100%) 5. To assist community N=2 members in the development (2.6%) and implementation of their ‘ orrrmunity lan N=4 (5.1%) N=24 (30.8%) N=47 (60.3%) N=l (1.3%) N=78 (100%) 112 Com lab} C012». (‘u Continuation: Table 3. (Section H) Importance of the accepted CDS Principles to the HUD-COPC Directors Item Not Of Little Undecided Important ery Missing Total ortant importance ortant Data 6. To assist and encourage N=1 .3 N=7 .7 N=10 N=24 N=33 N=4 N=78 community (members to (1.3%) (7.7%) (12.8%) (30.8%) (42.3%) (5.1%) (100%) work within their (organizational capacity 7. To disengage from N=1 N=13 N=25 N=15 N=22 N=2 N=78 community conflict (1.3%) (16.7) (32.1%) (19.2%) (28.2%) (2.6%) (100%) 8. To increase local leadership N=l N=3 N=13 =60 N=1 N278 capacity skills (1.3%) (3.8%) (16.7%) (76.9%) (1.3%) (100%) As Table 3 indicates for item 1, 82% of the respondents found the promotion of citizen participation to be very important for community engagement. A large majority of the respondents (97%) believe citizen participation to be an integral part of the community engagement process. For item 2, 39% and 37% of the respondents, respectively, found engaging community members in focus groups to be important or very important. Thus, when these responses are combined, approximately 76% of the respondents perceived this concept to be significant for community engagement. In item 3, 46% of the respondents indicated helping community members to better understand their community problems was important, with another 29% finding it to be 113 sets it come to intl more eomh very important. When both scores are combined, 75% of the respondents identified this concept as being critical in their work. For item 4, 61% of the respondents indicated community members being allowed to influence their decision-making process democratically was very important. This is more than twice the respondents (29%) who indicated that this idea was important. When combined, these figures accounted for 90% of the respondents. In item 5, 60% of the HUD-COPC directors identified assisting community members in implementing a community plan as very important. This doubles the percentage of respondents (30%) who reported the concept to be important. Thus, 90% of the respondents saw implementation of a community plan as being relevant for community engagement. In terms of community members working within their own organizational capacity, about 42% of the respondents identified this element as very important and another 30% perceived it as important for item 6. Over 70% of the respondents recognized this item as either important or very important. Although 47% of the respondents found disengaging from community conflict as either very important (28%) or important (19%), another 32% of the respondents were undecided, and this is very high for item 7. This figure is significant because almost 80% of the respondents either see disengaging fi'om community conflict as an important-to- very-important item. The remaining 17% of the respondents indicated this was of little importance to not important. This item will be looked at further in Part 3 of the analysis. Over 70% of the respondents recognized the practice of increasing local leadership capacity skills as a very important tool for community empowerment for item 114 8. Am the re: deteh 8.51011 consi '1. lie com issues Cite: Rain 8. Another 16% of the respondents identified it as being important. Ninety-two percent of the respondents agreed that increasing local leadership capacity skills are critical to the development of community leaders. For most of the items, there was a strong consensus among the HUD-COPC directors in this section. The majority of the items were considered either important or very important for community engagement, except item 7. Table 4. (Section III) Use of the CD Problem-Solving Methods by the HUD-COPC Units Item Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree Missing Data Total 1. Identify community issues, apacities, (1 needs? N=l (1.3%) (1.3%) N=l9 (24.4%) N=57 (73.1%) N=78 (100%) 2. Identify community stakeholders and create a project dvisory corrrrnittee? N=2 (2.6%) N=6 (7.7%) N=l4 (17.9%) N=56 (71.8%) N=78 ( 100%) 3. Discuss and examine ltemative trategies to ddress ommunity 'ssues and roblems? N=4 (5.1%) N=2 (2.6%) N=29 (37.2%) NdZ (53.8%) N=l (13%) N=78 (100%) 115 Table 4. (Section HI) Use of the CD Problem-Solving Methods by the HUD-COPC Units Item Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly 4. Identify and mobilize resources to implement a community development plan? N=l (1.3%) N=6 (7.7%) N=5 (6.4%) N=25 (32.1%) N=38 (48.7%) Agree Data Missing Total N=3 (3.8%) N=78 (100%) 5. Involve community stakeholders in the program implementation phase of the project? N=5 (6.4%) =1 (1.3%) N=26 (33.3%) N=45 (57.7%) N=l (1.3%) N=78 (100%) 6. Conduct formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts? N=l (1.3%) N=7 (9%) N=l6 (20.5%) N=36 (46.2%) N=l4 (17.9%) N=4 (5.1%) N=78 ( 100%) 7. Modify or transfer the project into the community for implementation? N=2 (2.6%) N=5 (6.4%) N=ll (14.1%) N=27 (34.6%) N=23 (29.5%) N=10 (12.3%) N=78 (100%) Community Development Problem-Solving Methods There are 7 items in this section. The rating scale scores range from O to 4, with (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. Seven of the items represent the concepts of community and economic development problem-solving methods. These methods are also best practices for community development because they entail some of the accepted CDS principles for 116 problem-solving. The findings in Table 4 reveal information on the following: To what extend did the HUD-COPC directors agree or disagree with administering the seven problem-solving methods in their community engagement? 9 Table 4 shows that there was a high consensus among the respondents at 73% who strongly agreed with identifying community issues, capacities, and needs as a method for community development for item 1. This is three times the percentage of respondents (24%) who indicated this method was important. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents indicated that they have used this method in practice. For item 2, 71% of the respondents strongly agreed that they were responsible for the development of a community project advisory group, which was four times greater than 17% of respondents who agreed to do the same thing. Over 85% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed with the strategy of identifying and creating a community project advisory group for community planning. For item 3, 53% of the HUD-COPC strongly agreed with examining alternative resources and strategies to address community problems. The second highest percentage was 37% for those respondents who agreed to using those methods for community engagement. The majority of the respondents at 90% either strongly agreed or agreed with using those methods for problem-solving with local nonprofits. For item 4, 48% of the respondents strongly agreed to identifying and mobilizing community resources to implement a community plan. Another 32% of the respondents agreed that those methods should be part of the community development process. This represented 80% of the respondents who either strongly agreed or agreed to using community resources to implement a community plan. 117 com agre are U For item 5, 57% of the respondents strongly agreed with the notion of involving community stakeholders in the program implementation phase, and 33% of respondents agreed with this idea as well. Ninety percent of the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with using those practices in their community planning activities. In the previous 5 items, the HUD-COPC directors agreed or strongly agreed with using some of the methods for problem-solving. Over half (63%) of the respondents either agreed (46%) or strongly agreed (17%) with using those evaluation methods to assess program impacts. However, 20% of the respondents were undecided, which was higher than the percentage of respondents (17%) who indicated they strongly agree with using those methods in their outreach activities. This is a surprising figure, especially after reviewing the previous responses to items 1 that deals with identifying community issues, capacities, and needs, and item 2 that examines alternative strategies to address community issues and problems, respectively. For those COPC that chose to respond undecided, it would appear this kind of program evaluation was not a high priority. This item will be discussed further in Part 3. For item 7, majority of the respondents (63 %) agreed to administering a project for modification or transfer into a community. Thirty-four percent of the respondents agreed and 29% strongly agreed to doing this task in their community engagement. 118 Table 5. (Section IV) Implementation of HUD’s Capacity-Building Strategies Item trongly Disagree Undecided rAgree Strongly Missing Total isagee Agree Data 1. Establish a relationship N=1 N=2 N=15 N=58 N=2 N=78 ith local Ebmmunity (1.3%) (2.6%) (19.2%) (74.4%) (2.6%) (100%) esources? 2. Establish a cormnunity N=2 N=2 N=20 N=53 N=1 N=78 advisory committee (2.6%) (2.6%) (25.6%) (67.9%) (1.3%) (100%) comprised of community members and local institutions? 3. Employ applied N=5 N=4 N=19 N=48 N=2 N=78 research and outreach (6.4%) (5.1%) (24.4%) (61.5%) (2.6%) (100%) resources to help the community to design a plan to resolve specific community issues? 4. Use part of your funds to N=9 N=2 N=22 N744 N=1 N=78 provide technical (11.5%) (2.6%) (28.2%) (56.4%) (1.3%) (100%) assistance to community membersin resolving community 'ssues? 119 Continuation: Table 5. (Section IV) Implementation of HUD’s Capacity-Building Strategies Item Strongly Disagree ndecided Agree Strongly Missing Total Disagee Agree Data 5. Improve the local agencies N=2 N=8 N=22 N=21 N=23 N=2 N=78 organizational structurefor (2.6%) (10.3%) (28.2%) (26.9%) (29.5%) (2.6%) (100%) competency development? 6. Increase citizen N=1 N=5 N=1 1 N=24 N=35 N=2 N=78 participation in cormnunity (1.3%) (6.4%) (14.1%) (30.8%) (44.9%) (2.6%) (100%) activities and meetings? 7. Develop instructional N=1 N=6 N=5 N=26 N=39 N=1 N=78 programs, seminars, and (1.3%) (7.7%) (6.4%) (33.3%) (50%) (1.3%) (100%) training for local community groups and leaders? 8. Traina community N=7 N=25 N=19 N=16 N=9 N=2 N=78 advisory committeein (9%) (32.1%) (24.4%) (20.5%) (11.5%) (2.6%) (100%) assessing, monitoring and evaluating their project outcomes for modification or project continuation? 120 for Tat I F}! t I f" 6‘ - . (1. <5 A 4 k?" I? z , (....7 87 I .“a Continuation: Table 5. (Section IV) Implementation of HUD’s Capacity-Building Strategies Item Strongly Disagree ndecided Agree Strongly Missing Total Disagge Agree Data 9. Act as a clearinghouse N=2 N=13 N=3 N=29 N=28 N=3 N=78 for issemination (2.6%) (16.7%) (3.8%) (37.2%) (35.9%) (3.8%) (100%) of information with other local community- based organizations d ngemments? 10. Involve dergraduate N=17 N=6O N=1 N=78 d/or graduate tudentsin (21.8%) (76.9%) (1.3%) (100%) your center’s community engagement eflorts? ll. Assist bommunity N=8 N=5 N=27 N=37 N=1 N=78 takeholders in eveloping and (10.3%) (6.4%) (34.6%) (47.4%) (1.3%) (100%) ' lementing roblem- olving techniques? 12. Transfer the project into N=2 N=12 N=15 N=21 N=19 N=9 N=78 the community? (2.6%) (15.4%) (19.2%) (26.9%) (24.4%) (11.5%) (100%) 121 Continuation Table 5. (Section IV) Implementation of HUD’s Capacity-Building Strategies Item Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Missing Total Disagree Agree Data 13. Receive matching funds N=3 N=9 N=4 N=18 N=43 N=1 N=78 fromyour institution? (3.8%) (11.5%) (5.1%) (23.1%) (55.1%) (13%) (100%) 14. Receive external N=3 N=7 N=2 N=20 N=43 N=3 N=78 funding from non-COPC (3.8%) (9%) (2.6%) (25.6%) (55.1%) (3.8%) (100%) programs? Capacity-Building Strategies There are 14 items in this section. They involve the use of the HUD required capacity-building strategies for community engagement. The rating scale ranged from O to 4 for the following categories: (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. Several of the items in this section also reflect the accepted CDS community development principles. Information obtained for this section allowed the researcher to identify to what extent the HUD-COPC agreed or disagreed with administering HUD’s required capacity-building strategies in their outreach services. As Table 5 indicates for item 1, 74% of the respondents strongly agreed with establishing a relationship with local community resources. Another 19% agreed with this notion. Overall, 93% of the respondents found this process to be vital in their community engagement. 122 In item 2, 68% of the respondents strongly agreed with establishing a community advisory group comprised of community members and local institutions. Twenty-six percent of them agreed with creating a community advisory group. Thus, 93% of the respondents either strongly agreed or agreed with using that capacity-building strategy in practice. In item 3, 86% of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed with employing applied-research and outreach resources in assisting their local nonprofits to design a community plan. That percentage included 62% who strongly agreed and 24% who agreed with using this strategy in their outreach services. For item 4, there was a consensus of 86% among the HUD-COPC for using part of their funds to provide technical assistance to community members for problem-solving. The consensus included 56% of the respondents who strongly agreed and 28% who agreed to using their own funds for technical assistance support. In item 5, 56% of the respondents reported that they had improved the organizational structure of their local nonprofits for competency development. This percentage (29%) included those respondents who strongly agreed and 27% who agreed in this category. However, 28% of respondents were undecided about improving their local nonprofits’ organizational structure. This figure ranks between strongly agree 29% and agree at 27%. For item 6, 76% of the respondents strongly agreed (45%) or agreed (31%) with increasing citizen participation in community activities and meetings. For item 7, 83% of the respondents strongly agreed (50%) or agree (33%) with developing instructional programs for training local community leaders in this category. 123 reSpc evalt that s unde the r CCU“, 185p: [Om The responses given to item 8 showed an imbalance of scores among the respondents regarding the training of a community advisory group to do program evaluations and project modifications. For example, 25% of the respondents indicated that strategy was of little importance, while about 24% of them indicated that they were undecided in terms of using that strategy in their outreach practices. In addition, 21% of the respondents agreed and 12% of them strongly agreed with using the strategy for community empowerment in training their community advisory groups. This clearly says that respondents as a whole were divided in using this method in their outreach services, with 24% of them undecided. This item will be addressed in Chapter 5. Item 9 asks the respondents about acting as a clearinghouse for local community-based organizations and governments. Seventy-three percent of the respondents strongly agreed (36%) or agreed (3 7%) with using this concept in their community engagement. Item 10 is concerned with the involvement of undergraduate and graduate students in the HUD-COPC outreach services. Overwhelmingly, 98% of the respondents have used students in their outreach activities for community engagement. Item 11 of the questionnaire is concerned with assisting community stakeholders in implementing a community plan. Eighty-two percent of the respondents strongly agreed (47%) or agreed (35%), respectively, to assisting their community stakeholders in implementing a problem-solving plan. The responses to item 12 involve the transfer of the project into the community. Fifiy—one percent of the respondents agreed (27%) or strongly agreed (24%), with having the project transfer into the community. Another thirty-four percent of the 124 inst (lo 54’ K') in pro €11 respondents answered either undecided (19%) or of little importance (15%). Item 13 is concerned with HUD-COPC receiving matching funds from their institutions for community engagement. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents either strongly agreed (55%) or agreed (23%) with receiving matching funds from their institutions. Item 14 asks whether HUD-COPC received funding from non-COPC programs. Eighty percent of the respondents stated that they have received funding from external non-COPC resources to avoid dependency on the HUD-COPC programs. Table 6. (Section V) Barriers to on-campus and off-campus community engagement activities Item Not Of Little Undecided mportant Very Missing Total Important Importance Important Data 1. Lack of cooperative N=14 N=23 N=2 N=19 N=15 N=5 N=78 relationship between university (17.9%) (29.5%) (2.6%) (24.4%) (19.2%) (6.4%) (100%) and their community stakeholders 2. Lack of cooperative N=12 N=3 1 N=9 N=19 N=4 N=78 relationship with businesses/ (15.4%) (39.7%) (11.5%) (24.4%) (5.1%) (100%) industries 3. Lack of cooperative N=22 N=3O N=6 N=12 N=5 N=3 N=78 relationship {tween university (28.2%) (38.5%) (7.7%) (15.4%) (6.4%) (3.8%) (100%) nd city officials 125 TI. _ r; _t~ruum¢ .\ . rill» .muu «U f rum EL . 1h. -51! ‘ BE. .u. 9 .NJK NV.- Nude ~ \ 3h \ Table 6. (Section V) Barriers to on-campus and off-campus community engagement activities Item Not Of Little Undecided Important ery Missing Total Imrtant Importance ortant Data 4. Lack of commitment from N=16 N=24 N=6 N=14 N=13 N=5 N=78 university leaders andtrustees (20.5%) (30.8%) (7.7%) (17.9%) (16.7%) (6.4%) (100%) 5. Lack of resources and time N=7 N=11 N=13 N=26 N=19 N=2 N=78 for faculty to get involved to the (9%) (14.1%) (16.7%) (33.3%) (24.4%) (2.6%) (100%) extent necessary to solve socio- economic problems 6. Lack of recognition of N=6 N=14 N=1] N=30 N=14 N=3 N=78 community service for facultyasa (7.7%) (17.9%) (14.1%) (38.5%) (17.9%) (3.8%) (100%) scholarly activity 7.Disagreement about priorities for N=12 N=23 N=8 N=22 N=9 N=4 N=78 service within the institution (15.4%) (29.5%) (10.3%) (28.2%) (11.5%) (5.1%) (100%) 8. Lack of organization within N=12 N=23 N=7 N=23 N=9 N=4 N=78 the institution of variouscomrnunity (15.4%) (29.5%) (9%) (29.5%) (11.5%) (5.1%) (100%) service activities 9. Lack of students and volunteers to N=24 N=23 N=7 N=15 N=2 N=7 N=78 participate in appropriate (30.8%) (29.5%) (9%) (19.2%) (2.6%) (9%) (100%) ctivities Item 1 in Table 6 deals with a lack of cooperative relationships between universities and their community stakeholders. The respondents were divided regarding how they felt about this element as a barrier to community engagement. F orty-seven 126 116 in th ‘ I (I! percent of them considered this subject matter not important (18%) and of little importance (29%), while forty-three percent of the respondents indicated this matter to be important (24%) or very important at (19%). This item will be explored in Chapter V. Item 2 deals with a lack of cooperative relationship with businesses and industries. F ifty—five percent of the respondents indicated that this element was either of little importance (40%), or not important (15%). Twenty-nine percent of the respondents indicated this matter was either important (24%) or very important (5%). This item will be reviewed again in Part 3 of the analysis. Sixty-six percent of the COPC viewed their relationships between the university and city officials as either of little importance (38%) or not important (28%), while 21% indicated that it was either important (15%) or very important (6%) for item 3. The first three items dealt with the HUD-COPC off-campus relationships as a possible barrier to their community engagement. All three of these elements will be discussed further in Part 3 of the analysis. The remaining items from 4 through 9 deal with on-campus barriers as they relate to the HUD-COPC community engagement activities. Item 4 focuses on a lack of commitment from university leaders and trustees. Approximately 51% of the respondents considered this subject to be either of little importance (31%) or not important (20%). Thirty-four percent of the respondents viewed it as either important (17%) or very important (16%) for this subject. Item 5 involved the lack of resources and time for faculty to get involved in community engagement activities. This item was considered important by 33% of the respondents and very important by another 24%. However, 57% of the respondents 127 indt 5113 “ill for 0 F C3 indicated that they lacked the resources and time to engage into problem-solving strategies with local nonprofits. In addition, 16% of the respondents were undecided, while 14% of them indicated this subject to be of little importance. This item is critical for faculty community engagement activities. Item 6 deals with the lack of recognition for community service as a scholarly activity for faculty. Fifty-six percent of the respondents identified this matter as either important (3 8%) or very important (18%). Only twenty-six percent of the respondents indicated this activity was either of little importance (18%), or not important (8%). Fourteen percent of the respondents were undecided for this subject. Item 7 is concerned with institutional disagreement about priorities for community service within the respective institutions. The responses for this item were very close to each other as a whole with regard to the overall percentages for the item categories. Forty-four percent of the respondents indicated this item to be either of little importance (29%) or not important (15%). Thirty-nine percent of respondents indicated this matter was either important (28%) or very important (11%). Ten percent of the respondents were undecided about this item. Forty-three percent of the respondents have indicated that the disagreement about priorities for community service was not important or of little importance in their community engagement. Another 39% indicated that there was no bearing on their outreach services. For item 8, it deals with a lack of organization with in the institutions with regard to various community services activities; most of the respondents were divided on this subject. Responses on this subject were similar to those for item 7. F orty-four percent of the respondents indicated that they found this matter either of little importance (29%) 128 or not important (15%). Item 9 deals with the lack of students and volunteers to participate in appropriate activities. Sixty percent of the respondents indicated this item was either not important (30%) or of little importance (30%), while 19% of respondents viewed it as important. PART II: Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Responses Figure 3 indicates that of those 78 respondents who returned their surveys, only 20 (26%) of them answered the open-ended questions pertaining to their community engagement involvement. This population total represents about a third of the respondents (see Figure 3). HUD-COPC Those items that were similar have been combined and summarized for common themes through an iterative design, and theoretical saturation for triangulation among the COPC. These items included three areas: capacity-building strategies, institutional support and project barriers. Capacity-Building Strategies Some of the respondents found the survey to mirror the HUD-COPC philosophy and capacity-building strategies for community engagement that is reflected in HUD 129 .Li a\ grant requirements (see Appendix B). However, many of them used different approaches in their problem-solving methods for community engagement. When engaging community members into dialog to identify some of their cormnunity’s problems, one of the HUD-COPC stated that they did not use the traditional focus groups, but managed to assist the community on identifying their community’s socioeconomic problems. Other HUD-COPC reported the use of local community-based organizations to promote dialogue and interaction between the university and community stakeholders. This process differed in many accounts. Some of the HUD-COPC that have developed advisory committees had little or no communication or interaction with their local community members. This is why some of them relied on their local community organizations to lead meetings and discussions between the university and the community members. Other HUD-COPC felt it was not their place to lead a meeting or dictate to their respective communities. They wanted to serve as technical assistant providers and maintain their creditability with other community resources that have the capacity to perform leadership. Some schools directed their communication not to their community- based organizations, but to community members. Many of the HUD-COPC used the services of their community partners or organizations to lead those discussions, primarily because of their relationship with the community. Most of the HUD-COPC worked extensively with their local organizations, providing them with technical assistance in the implementation of their community plans for problem-solving. In some cases, the HUD-COPC were working with two or more agencies in their respective communities. Members of their faculty and staff also served on the community boards of various community groups, including their 130 local school districts. One of the HUD-COPC mentioned that their evaluation process was ongoing, and was also part of their program operation for community engagement. Institutional Support The HUD-COPC who responded to this section of the questionnaire had different and unique experiences concerning their institutional support or project barriers. Some stated that their experiences regarding the notion of receiving institutional support from their respective institutions or community institutions were more traditional. Some of the HUD-COPC saw their community engagement efforts as an opportunity to renew their university relationships with local community organizations and stakeholders. This was also an opportunity for undergraduate and graduate students to gain valuable work experience, above and beyond the university’s community relations efforts. In addition, one of the HUD-COPC noted non-cooperative attitudes of city officials toward various community groups. The city’s behavior helped the HUD-COPC develop a good working relationship with their community stakeholders. Some of the HUD-COPC mentioned that their community stakeholders had received the training and skills they needed for program continuation once federal funds were exhausted. This was done to help community organizations and groups become empowered and, in turn, be less dependent on external consultation for community planning and implementation of their projects. Some of them reported no project barriers, while receiving great support from their university’s administration. This effort helped them to develop good community and civic relations in their respective communities. 131 tht C0 :0“ n _ - LIU . Only one HUD-COPC asserted that their involvement was established through legislation. With or without COPC funds, their program would continue to be supported and their administrative unit would continue to provide technical assistance. Project Barriers In contrast, a few of the HUD-COPC experienced some project barriers and a lack of institutional support in their community engagement efforts. None of their experiences were the same, and therefore presented some new issues for discussion in Chapter V. These areas include community leaders, cooperative relations, administrative unit, and HUD-COPC requirements. One of the HUD-COPC stated that their community engagement experience was a difficult one fi'om a university perspective. Community leaders squabbled among themselves, making it very hard to work with them on various community projects. Another school cited a lack of cooperative relations between the university and their community stakeholders, businesses and city officials. Some of the other HUD-COPC perceived their administration’s relationship as a barrier to their community engagement involvement. There seemed to be a gap between implementing program activities and receiving university support, thereby stalling the HUD-COPC progress in community planning and implementation. Academic departments have become unresponsive to community needs, and this has affected some schools in recruiting students and connecting them with the community. In such cases, the university wanted to be perceived as an engaged institution for community engagement. Support from the university tended to be limited to verbal politics for community relations, without financial backing for project commitment. 132 Finally, another COPC perceived the HUD mandate as being overly ambitious. They stated that the short time frame needed to complete a minimum of three urban issues had stalled some of their community engagement activities, and HUD requirements and guidelines were considered unrealistic. HUD underestimated the institutional and the community agency’s turnover rates, which also affected their community engagement efforts. PART III: Research Questions The questionnaire (see Appendix P) used in this survey had an emphasis on the community development principles, including the five research questions that overlapped in Sections H, III and IV of the survey. Those items that were relevant to the question were selected and analyzed, based on their mean index and overall scores from the reliability analysis. The alpha reliability coefficient number was used to assess the strength of the data, and it only counted those respondents whose scores were valid. Throughout the literature on community engagement, many authors have discussed the importance of universities establishing a working mutual relationship with their local community organizations and groups for community and economic development. As stated in Chapter I, no seminal studies have discussed how urban and metropolitan universities linked their community development processes and strategies to the tested, validated, and accepted CDS principles in their community engagement (see Appendix C). The community development principles are considered best practices for community and economic development (Littrell, 1971; Community Development Society, Vanguard, 1986; and Fear, 1984). 133 Ill filfi glui- 4‘ .\. 1h... ~... . . In analyzing all five research questions, a descriptive statistic and reliability analysis was run to determine the level of importance or the level of agreement for the two dependent variables in this study. A t-test procedure was used on the mean score of those individual items and the average mean score to test for equality. This procedure will determine if the individual mean item score differs significantly from the average score. Research Question 1 Findings: Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize the importance of the accepted CDS principles? In determining the level of importance for the selected 8 items in Section II of the questionnaire, the following categories were included as part of the analysis for this question: (0) undecided, (1) not important, (2) of little importance, (3) important, and (4) very important. The overall reliability mean for the group was 3.1 with an alpha score (mild) of .51, and a .31 variance among the scores in Table 7. Table 7. Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for the accepted CDS Principles Question Mean Std. Dev. 1. Sec2.l 3.7 .6279 2. Sec2.2 2.9 1.2455 3. Sec2.3 2.8 1.2480 4. Sec2.4 3.4 .9598 5. Sec2.5 3.3 1.0602 6. Sec2.6 2.9 1.3659 7. Sec2.7 2.0 1.6404 8. Sec2.8 3.6 .8907 Overall Mean for 8 Items No of Reliability Cases Mean Variance Coefficient (Alpha) 69 3.1 .3146 .5100 134 The reliability mean score of 3.1 indicates that the HUD-COPC directors recognized the importance and use of the accepted CDS principles as an element in their community engagement efforts. Majority of the items mean scores were close to 3.0 (important) and up to 3.7 (very important). See Figure 4. importance of the accepted CDS Principles yc—4 ' j...— ft‘“ 7 t Figure 4: The HUD-COPC Directors recognized t t t t . ’—‘ i.___.. O-KNw-h n? '15” '9 ’13" (13’ a? '19 (15’ 90° 90° 90° 90° 98° 90° GPO 90° Figure 4 also revealed 4 individual mean items (Sec2.2, Se02.3, Se02.6 and Sec2.7) that had a mean score lower than the overall mean of 3.1. The One-Sample T-Test was used on each individual item separately to see if its individual mean score differed significantly from the average mean score of the group (see Table 8). Table 8. One-Sample T-Test of Recognized Importance Individual Items Mean Scores Item . t (if Mean 95 % Confidence .05 (2-tailed) Test Diff. Lower Upper Value SecZ.2 -1.489 68 -1.59 -3.738 -.54 .141 O Sec2.3 -2.555 68 -2.29 -4.08 -.50 .013 Sig. O Sec2.6 -1.147 68 -1.25 -3.42 .92 .256 O Sec2.7 -5.943 68 -8.78 -11.73 -5.83 .000 Sig. 0 Among the 4 individual items, only two items (Sec2.3 and Sec2.7) were significant at the .05 (2-tailed) under the One-Sample T-Test. Sec2.3 involves assisting community stakeholders in understanding their community’s socioeconomic impacts 135 associated with alternative solutions for problem-solving, and a t-test of 0.13. Sec2.7 dealt with avoiding community conflict that could affect community support for project planning and implementation. This item also had a very high percentage rate of 32 for respondents who indicated that they were undecided on recognizing this element as important or very important for practice (see Table 3, Section H). This item mean was considered of little importance, and it had a t-test score of .00, which is very significant at the 05. t-test level. Both of these items are critical in community engagement for community support and empowerment. Research Question 11 Findings: Did the HUD-COPC directors use the accepted CDS principles in administering the programs and projects of their respective centers? This question has the same relevance as the first one, but it is focused on the HUD-COPC level of agreement for use of the accepted CDS principles in practice. Seventeen items were selected from Sections H, 111 and IV of the questionnaire that pertained to this subject. The overall mean score for the following categories, (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree, determine the degree of the HUD-COPC using the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement. The overall reliability mean score for this question was 3.0, with an alpha score (good) of .70, and there was .31 variance among the scores (see Table 9). 136 Table 9. Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall mean scores for the accepted CDS Principles Question Mean Std. Dev. 1. Se02.7 2.0 1.6834 2. Sec3.l 3.6 .6798 3. Sec3.2 3.4 1.1374 4. Sec3.3 3.3 .8641 5. Sec3.4 3.1 1.1713 6. Sec3.5 3.4 .6464 7. Sec3.6 2.4 1.3759 8. Sec3.7 2.7 1.3836 9. Sec4.2 3.5 .8405 10. Sec4.3 3.4 1.0933 1 1. Sec4.4 3.3 .9426 12. Sec4.5 2.2 1.6365 13. Sec4.6 2.9 1.3546 14. Sec4.7 3.1 1.1527 15. Sec4.8 1.8 1.3242 16. Sec4.9 3.0 .9702 17. Sec4.11 3.1 1.0786 Overall Mean for 17 Reg No of Reliability Cases Mean Variance Coefficient (Alpha) 62 3.0 .3148 .7028 The reliability mean score is 3.0, which indicates that the HUD-COPC agreed on using the accepted CDS principles (see Figure 5). V *3,“ Figure 5: The HUD-COPC Directors use of the _ I accepted CDS Principles Several individual items mean scores raised some questions regarding the 137 HUD-COPC level of commitment: - Section H (2.7) - disengage from community conflict that may adversely affect community support (mean score 2.0); 0 Section III (3.6) - conduct formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts (mean score 2.4); 0 Section III (3.7) - modify or transfer the project into the community for implementation (mean score 2.7); 0 Section IV (4.5) - improve the local agencies organizational structure for competency development (mean score 2.4); and 0 Section IV (4.8) - train a community advisory committee in assessing, monitoring and evaluating their project outcomes for modification or project continuation (mean score 1.8) Although the overall mean score of 3.0 indicated that the HUD-COPC agreed on using the accepted CDS principles in practice, these 5 items could hamper the HUD-COPC relationships with local groups and community stakeholders. Most of the mean scores for those items fell between strongly disagree and disagree, with the exception of item (Sec3.7) mean score of 2.7 leaning towards agree. Figure 5 showed 5 individual mean items (Sec2.7, Sec3.6, Sec3.7, Sec4.5, and Sec4.8) with mean scores lower than the overall mean of 3.0. The One-Sample T-Test was used on each individual item separately to see if its individual mean score differed significantly from the average mean score of the group (see Table 10). Table 10. One-Sample T-Test of the accepted CDS Principles for Use - Individual Items Mean Scores Item t df Mean 95 % Confidence .05 (2-tailed) Test Diff. Lower Upper Value Sec2.7 -4.624 61 -16.24 -23.27 -9.22 .000 Sig. O Sec3.6 -3.308 61 —8.84 -14.18 -3.50 .002 Sig. 0 Sec3.7 -1.945 61 -5.00 -10.14 .14 .056 Sig. 0 Sec4.5 -4.074 61 -12.95 -19.31 -6.59 .000 Sig. O Sec4.8 -7.389 61 -19.26 -24.47 ~14.05 .000 Sig. O 138 For this section of the survey, all 5 items are significant at the .05 (2-tailed) t-test. These items violated the accepted CDS principles for practice, and these results will be explored further in Chapter V. Research Question 111 Findings: Did the HUD-COPC directors use the community and economic development methods in their community engagement? As part of the analysis in answering the above question, the 7 items were selected from Section III of the questionnaire. The overall mean score will be used to determined the groups level of agreement ranging from 0 to 4, which are as follows: (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. This analysis displayed some of the commonalities that the HUD-COPC have as a group when using some of the community and economic development methods in practice. The overall reliability means score for the above question is 3.1, with an alpha (modest) score of .64, and a variance score of .18 among the respondents in the analysis (see Table 11). Table 11. Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for CD Methods Question Mean Std. Dev. 1. Sec3l 3.6 .6641 2. Sec32 3.4 1.1112 3. Sec33 3.3 .8502 4. Sec34 3.1 1.1447 5. Sec35 3.4 .7662 6. 86036 2.4 1.3839 7. Sec37 2.6 1.4030 Overall Mean for 7 Items No of Reliability Cases Means Variance Coefficient (Alpha) 66 3.17 .1861 .6463 139 it: The reliability mean score was rounded off to 3.2, which indicates that the HUD-COPC as a group agreed to using some of the community and economic development methods in practice (see Figure 6). Figure 6: The HUD-COPC Directors use of Community and Economc Development Methods (a) o‘cn-sinm'oiwinh N _n O Figure 6 shows 2 individual mean items (Sec3.6 and Sec3.7) with mean scores lower than the overall mean of 3.1. The One-Sample T-Test was used on each individual item separately to see if its individual mean score differed significantly from the average mean score of the group (see Table 12). Table 12. One-Sample T-Test of the CD Methods - Individual Items Mean Scores Item t df Mean 95 % Confidence .05 (2-tailed) Test Diff. Lower Upper Value Sec3.6 -4.839 65 -4.85 -6.85 -2.85 .000 Sig. 0 Sec3.7 -3.723 65 -3.36 -5.17 -l.56 .000 Sig. 0 Both of the items are significant at the .05 (2-tailed) t-test and the results indicated that the HUD-COPC as a group are not performing the following: 0 Section III (3.6) - conduct formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts; and 140 0 Section III (3.7) - modify or transfer the project into the community for implementation. These items have appeared again as in the previous analysis, and the data indicate that this could be a severe problem among some of the HUD-COPC. In Table 10, both of these items mean scores fall in the range of “disagree” although they’re means were close or slightly above 2.5. Some of the HUD-COPC did not find this element as a high priority, based on their individual mean item scores. These items are very important for community engagement. Research Question 1V Findings: Have the HUD-COPC reported on the use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local nonprofit organizations? Nineteen items were selected from Sections 111 and IV of the questionnaire to answer research question IV, which pertains to the HUD-COPC reported use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local nonprofit organizations. These item scores ranged from 0 to 4: (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. The overall reliability mean score was used to determine the level of agreement that the HUD-COPC have chosen, based on their collaboration with local nonprofits. The overall reliability mean score for this question was 3.1, with an alpha (good) score of .79, and a .27 variance score (see Table 13). Table 13. Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for the HUD-COPC Required Capacity-Building Strategies Question Mean Std. Dev. 1. Sec3l 3.6 .6798 2. Sec32 3.4 1.1374 3. Sec33 3.3 .8673 4. SecB4 3.1 1.0943 5. Sec35 3.4 .7780 141 Continuation: 6. Sec36 2.5 1.3640 7. Sec37 2.7 1.3691 8. Sec41 3.6 .8145 9. Sec42 3.5 .8431 10. Sec43 3.3 1.0918 11. Sec44 3.3 .9399 12. Sec45 2.2 1.6339 13. Sec46 2.9 1.4127 14. Sec47 3.1 1.1384 15. Sec48 1.8 1.3488 16. Sec410 3.8 .3983 17. Sec4ll 3.0 1.1410 18. Sec412 2.4 1.4556 19. Sec414 3.2 1.0428 Over Mean for 19 Items No of Reliability Cases Mean Variance Coefficient (Alpha) 62 3.1 .2736 .7982 The reliability mean score of 3.1 indicated that majority of the HUD-COPC have agreed and reported on the use of the required capacity-building strategies in their collaboration with local nonprofit organizations (see Figure 7). Figure 7: The HUD-COPC reported use of the 4 required Capacity-Building Strategies 1 l 3.5 «4" _ ." l l l '1 'I Means , 3-...‘7..._.1A.__.:_.I1_.~.. in. »_—.41___4 . 1‘ 7' Tu 2.5e1w-«i'mifi ._.. '_"__ :1” ‘fiifl T 2 .|.—17v A... Mi i_._._i h...— _ >—— ...-__i V._._ *— 5“ 'p—n—a *j 1*“ _._.~ #4 r——4 . 1......4 ».1 t a . n ‘( a 7 ~ 1.5 .4..— 1———J ',_.._. “—4 __——. '>—-< .* w i._..4 W M- F‘" r.__. ,—.—.i _—-—4 .__l >——-——< —._4 , .—-4 .. ' .1 . . 1 .11... ' ..__4 >——— ‘._.- .4... .—.—4 h—.—( . M, .._—4 >——--4 __ ~—4 )-——-—‘ I >——- y...— _._4 . t.— p... 0.5w‘mw A—a'Ir—w.th‘h._¢-‘M ....... M W‘M‘Hfi M... ..._ t_.__;i._....m.._.,t a... r1 o if: .5. .. fiyabea wauaeae 69.0.91 90390:??‘28’ 90 9Oépefieeficy‘gficngcychygé‘yean0Cyl (P QC}; QC? 0:?“ (P 1 Items 60%0 142 Several items listed below had mean scores less than the overall mean score of 3.1. Four of the above 5 items mean scores reflect the HUD-COPC disagreement with reporting the use of the required capacity-building strategies with their local nonprofits, with only 1 item in the strongly disagree category (Section IV, 4.8). Also, four of these items, Sec3.6, Sec3.7, Sec4.5 and Sec4.8, appeared significant under the t-test for research questions H and HI analysis, respectively. 0 Section 111(3.6) - conduct formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts (mean score 2.5); 0 Section III (3.7) - modify or transfer the project into the community for implementation (mean score 2.7); 0 Section IV (4.5) - improve the local agencies organizational structure for competency development (mean score 2.2); 0 Section IV (4.8) - train a community advisory committee in assessing, monitoring and evaluating their project outcomes for modifications or project continuation (mean score 1.9); and 0 Section IV (4.12) — transfer the project into the community (mean score 2.4) Figure 7 displayed 5 individual mean items (Sec3.6, Sec3.7, Sec4.5, Sec4.8, and Sec4.12) with mean scores lower than the overall mean of 3.0. The One-Sample T-Test was used on each individual item separately to see if its individual mean score differed significantly from the average mean score of the group (see Table 14). Table 14. One-Sample T-Test of the HUD-COPC Required Capacity-Building Strategies - Individual Items Mean Scores Item t df Mean 95 % Confidence .05 (2-tailed) Test Diff. Lower Upper Value Sec3.6 -3.695 61 -11.13 -17.15 -5.11 .000 Sig. O Sec3.7 -2.572 61 -7.15 -12.70 -l.59 .013 Sig. 0 Sec4.5 -4.642 61 -16.65 -23.82 -9.47 .000 Sig. 0 Sec4.8 -1.109 61 -3.16 -8.86 2.54 .000 Sig. O 143 ' 1J3! Continuation: Sec4.12 -4.123 61 -12.66 -18.80 -6.52 .000 Sig. 0 All 5 of the individual items are significant at the 0.05 (2-tailed) t-test and the data suggests that the HUD-COPC are having problems as a group performing the above tasks that are part of the HUD-COPC grant guidelines for increasing community empowerment. Research Question V Findings: Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships, both on-campus and off-campus, as an important barrier to their community engagement? All 9 of the items from Section V were selected from the questionnaire and used as part of the data analysis to answer the above research question. Each item score ranged from O to 4 based on the following: (0) undecided, (1) not important, (2) of little importance, (3) important, and (4) very important. The overall reliability score was used to assess the level of importance that the HUD-COPC had experienced regarding their perception of both on-campus and off-campus relationships as a barrier to their community engagement. The overall reliability mean score for this category was rounded-off to 2.2, with an alpha (good) score of .76. There was a low variance score of .08 (see Table 15). Table 15. Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for On-Campus and Off-Campus Barriers to Community Engagement Question Mean Std. Dev. l.Sec51 2.4 1.1185 2. Sec52 2.0 1.0532 3. Sec53 1.8 1.0641 4. Sec54 2.2 1.2218 5. Sec55 2.5 1.3707 6. Sec56 2.5 1.2640 144 Continuation: 7. Sec57 2.1 1.1802 8. Se058 2.2 1.0970 9. Sec59 1.7 1.0112 Overgfl Mgn for 9 Item_s_ No of Reliability Cases Mean Variance Coefficient (Alpha) 65 2.2 .0823 .7610 When combining both scores for the HUD-COPC relationships on-campus and off-campus with various constituents, their reliability mean score of 2.2 indicated that the HUD-COPC saw this aspect of their community engagement as being of little importance. For this question, the majority of the scores were either in the “little importance” or “not important” categories (see Figure 8). r _ Figure 8: The HUD-COPC Directors recognized their institutions' ”“1 ‘ community engagement barriers both on-campus l f and off-campus ‘ l t 3 -.- t l 2-5 .7 __ __ II Means 1,1 t 2 e. g _. : ___ » ___-___’ 1.5 = 1 ‘ « ‘ f w 51 . 1 __." .r , . . :g__ l 0.5 +- " 7 ' ‘ ' - l h 0 T 7 T a»: r in“: r iv‘ 4 T 1‘ ‘1’ “.5 it ‘9 i3 ’.\ 9 9 t i e06? 9060 too“? a“? “(13 (beg) 033 9063 906) l L Item | There were three items with mean scores slightly higher than the overall mean score for this category in Figure 8: 145 0 Section V (5.1) Lack of cooperative relationship between university and their community stakeholders (mean score 2.4); 0 Section V (5.5) Lack of resources and time for faculty to get involved to the extent necessary to solve socioeconomic problems (mean score 2.5); and 0 Section V (5.6) Lack of recognition of community service for faculty as a scholarly activity (mean score 2.5). These items are significant at the 0.05 (2-tailed) t-test, and they had a major impact on the HUD-COPC relationships, both on-campus and off-campus (see Table 16). Table 16. One-Sample T-Test of On-Campus and Off-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement - Individual Items Mean Scores Item t df Mean 95 % Confidence .05 (2-tailed) Test Diff. Lower Upper Value SecS.1 2.331 64 2.31 .33 4.29 .023 Sig. O Sec5.5 2.498 64 2.86 .57 5.15 .015 Sig. 0 SecS.6 2.240 64 2.86 .31 5.41 .029 Sig. O The data results indicated that the HUD-COPC are experiencing some obstacles in their community engagement activities on-carnpus and off-campus, although the reliability analysis in Table 15 does not illustrate that since the data fall in the range of little importance for this category. Research Question V (b) Findings: Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships on—campus as an important barrier to their community engagement? Five items were selected from Section V of the questionnaire as part of the analysis to examine the research question. The overall reliability mean score was 2.2, with an alpha score of .72, and a variance of .07 (see Table 17). The reliability mean score for this question falls in the same category as research question V(a) of little 146 importance. The same assessment could apply to this question since items (Sec5.5) and (Sec56) in the aforementioned are prominent in this category as well (see Figure 9). Table 17. Reliability Analysis Scale: Overall Mean Scores for On-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement Question Mean Std. Dev. 1. Sec54 2.1 1.2431 2. Sec55 2.4 1.3947 3. Sec56 2.4 1.2916 4. Sec57 2.1 1.1755 5. Sec58 2.2 1.0890 6. Sec59 1.7 1.0041 Overall Mean for 9 Items No of Reliability Cases Means Variance Coefficient (Alpha) 66 2.2 .0775 .7222 Figure 9: The HUD-COPC Directors recognized their institutions' on-campus relationships as an important barrier as it relates to their community engagement activities El Means 147 In Table 18, items Sec5.5 and Sec5.6 are also significant at the 0.05 (2-tailed) t-test, and both of these items appear as significant in research question 5 (b) analysis. Both analysis in research questions 5 (a) and (b) indicate that some of the HUD-COPC are not receiving institutional support for those items, respectively. Table 18. One-Sample T-Test of Recognized On-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement - Individual Items Mean Scores Item t (if Mean 95 % Confidence .05 (2-tai1ed) Test Diff. Lower Upper Value Sec5.5 7.635 65 8.92 6.59 11.26 .000 Sig. 0 Sec5.6 7.157 65 8.92 6.43 11.41 .000 Sig. 0 Research Question V(c) Findings: Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships off-campus as an important barrier to their community engagement? Three items from Section V of the questionnaire were used in this analysis. The overall reliability mean score was 2.0 with an alpha (mild) score of .57, and a variance of .09. There was a considerable deviation among the scores (see Table 19). Table 19. Reliability Analysis Scale Table: Overall Mean Score for Off-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement Question Mean Std. Dev. 1. Sec51 2.4 1.0992 2. SecSZ 1.9 1.0673 3. Sec53 1.8 1.0251 Overall Mn for 9 Items No of Reliability Cases Mean Variance Coefficient (Alpha) 72 2.0 .0977 .5720 148 The reliability mean score falls in the category of little importance. None of the items (5.1, 5.2, and 5.3) was identified as being an important factor in the HUD-COPC off—campus relationships as a barrier to their community engagement activities as a group (see Figure 10). Those scores ranged between not important and of little importance. [7 W A FigrfieflOTTfieiHUD-COPC pTchnzecognEJTHeTir 7 l institutions' off-campus relationships as an important barrier to ~ their community engagement activities ‘ l l However, using the t-test for item Sec5.1 which had a mean score of 2.4, which was higher than the overall mean, proved to be significant under the 0.05 (2-tailed) test, and the test revealed that some HUD-COPC are having problems in their off-campus relationships, with community stakeholders (see Table 19). Table 20. One-Sample T-Test of Off-Campus Barriers for Community Engagement - Individual Item Mean Score Item t df Mean 95 % Confidence .05 (2-tailed) Test Diff. Lower Upper Value Sec5.1 4.700 71 1.07 .62 1.52 .000 Sig. 0 149 PART IV: Hypotheses In order to test the three research hypotheses for this study, the researcher had selected various questions from different sections of the questionnaire (see Appendix M), and used their means to be computed through Pearson correlation test. The results from this test will reveal if the three research hypotheses listed below are statistically significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) test. Hypothesis 1 Findings: The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of, and used, the accepted CDS principles in their program Operations. In answering Hypothesis 1, all 8 items in Section II (recognized) overall means were compared to the combined overall means of all seven items in Section III (community and economic development methods), and the selected items in Section IV (capacity-building strategies) (4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.11, and 4.12) of the questionnaire. A Pearson correlation test was computed to determined if the above means were statistically significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) test. This analysis yielded a correlation of .01 that is significant at the .05 level with a reliability coefficient of .4456 for 78 cases. There was not much variation between the two means, including their standard deviations (see Table 21). 150 Table 21. Hypothesis 1: The HUD-COPC Leaders Recognized the Importance of, and Used, the accepted CDS Principles Pearson Reliability Items N Means SD Correlation Coefficient .05 (2-tailed) 1. Hypotheses I: Recognized/ Importance of the CDS Principles 78 3.1 .54 .287 .4456 .01 Sig. Used the CDS Principles 78 3.0 .53 .287 .4456 .01 Sig. This analysis indicated that there is a significant positive correlation among the HUD-COPC leaders recognizing the importance of, and using the accepted CDS community development principles in their program operations. These principles are considered good practice for practitioners to use in their community development work. Therefore, Hypothesis I is not rejected, because it is significant for community engagement. Hypothesis II Findings: The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of the accepted CDS principles, which had a direct and positive effect on their institutionalization efforts in community engagement For Hypothesis II analysis, all 8 items in Section II (recognized) overall means were compared to the overall means of the selected items in Section V (on-campus barriers) such as (5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9) of the questionnaire. A Pearson correlation coefficient test had yielded a correlation of .325 that was not significant at the .05 level with a reliability coefficient of a -.2401 for 78 cases. There was considerable variation 151 between the two means by almost 10 points, including their standard deviations with a spread of 26 points (see Table 21). Table 22. Hypothesis II: The HUD-COPC Leaders Recognized the Importance of the accepted CDS principles, which had a direct and positive effect on their institutionalization efforts in community engagement Pearson Reliability Items N Means SD Correlation Coefficient .05 (2-tailed) l. Hypothesis II: Recognized/ Importance of the CDS Principles 78 3.1 .54 -114 -.24 325 Not Sig. On-Campus Barriers 76 2.1 .79 -.114 -.24 325 Not Sig. Hypothesis II was rejected because there was no relationship among the HUD-COPC leaders recognizing the importance of the accepted CDS principles regarding their on-campus institutionalization efforts for community engagement. In addition, it had no significant bearing on their on-campus relationships. Hypothesis III Findings: The HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles relate positively and directly to their institutionalization efforts in communlty engagement For Hypothesis III analysis, all 7 items in Section 111 (community development methods) overall mean were combined with the overall means to one item in Section II (2.7) and the selected items Section IV (capacity-building strategies) such as (4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.11, and 4.12) compared to the overall mean for Section V (on-campus 152 barriers) such as (5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9) of the questionnaire. A Pearson correlation test had yielded a correlation of .268 that is significant at the .05 level, with a reliability coefficient of a .2107 for 76 cases. There was considerable variation between the two means by almost 8 points, including their standard deviations with a spread of 28 points (see Table 22). Table 23. Hypothesis III: The HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles relate directly and positively to their institutionalization efforts in community engagement Pearson Reliability Items N Means SD Correlation Coefficient .05 (2-tailed) 1. Hypothesis IH: Used the CDS Principles 78 2.9 .51 129 .21 .268 Not Sig. Pearson Reliability Items N Means SD Correlation Coefficient .05 (2-tai1ed) On-Campus Barriers 76 2.1 .79 129 .21 .268 Not Sig. Hypothesis III was rejected because it had neither correlation nor a significant impact or bearing on the HUD-COPC leaders using the accepted CDS principles in their on-campus institutionalization efforts for community engagement. PART V: Matrix This aspect of the community engagement analysis is related to the HUD-COPC directors’ recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles in practice, which are 153 reflected in HUD guidelines (see Appendix B). The matrix (Table 24) below was developed to assess and measure the HUD-COPC through cross-tabulation and chi-square on the following: o recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles 0 recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles 0 no recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles 0 no recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles Matrix Findings (see Table 24): Table 24. Matrix for Recognition and Use of the accepted CDS Principles HUD-COPC Recognition of the importance No recognition of the of the accepted CDS Principles importance of the accepted CDS Principles Applying the accepted CDS recognition and use no recognition. but use Principles into practice 35 = 44.9% 5 = 6.4% Not applying the accepted recognition and non-use no recogm'tion and CDS Principles into practice non-use 20=25.6% 18=23.1% As indicated in Table 24, close to 45% or 35 of the HUD-COPC recognized and used the community development principles in their community engagement efforts, which was the highest score among the 78 reported cases. Twenty-six percent or 20 of the respondents, recognized the principles, but did not use them in practice, which was the second highest score. Twenty-three percent, or 18 of the respondents, did not recognize or use the principles in their outreach efforts, and another 6.4% or 8 of them did not recognize the principles but used them in practice. In addition, about 70.5% or 55 of the 154 respondents recognized the principles, while 29.5% or 23% of them did not recognize the principles. In terms of using the principles in practice, about 51.3 % or 40 institutions used the principles, and 48.7% or 38 of them, did not used the principles in their community outreach practices. Table 25. Chi-Square Tests of the Proportion of HUD-COPC Leaders who Recognized Importance of and used the accepted CDS Principles in Practice. Source Value df .05 (2-tailed) Pearson Chi-Square 1 1.395 1 .001 Table 25 indicates that there is a positive relationship between recognizing the accepted CDS principles and using them in practice. This chi-square test was found significant at the .05 (2-tailed) test. As indicated in Table 24, the crosstabulation shows a difference of scores as they related to the accepted CDS principles: (1) recognition and use, (2) recognition and non-use, (3) no recognition and use, and (4) no recognition and non-use. Both of these tests are not only significant but they show a positive correlation between recognizing and using the accepted CDS principles. 155 “fl 4 . r Chapter V Summary, Conclusion, Implications and Recommendations for Future Research Introduction This chapter contains information that pertains to a summary of the purpose, methodology, and hypotheses used in the study, along with the assumptions and limitations of the data. The major findings of the research questions, hypotheses, and matrix are presented, including their conclusions. The chapter concludes with implications of the study, and recommendations for future research. Summary Purpose The purpose of the study was to determine if the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) used community development principles in their community engagement for capacity-building. No seminal studies have discussed urban and metropolitan universities linking their community development processes and strategies to the tested, validated, and accepted CDS principles in their community engagement. The community development principles are considered good practices for community and economic development (Community Development Society, Vanguard, 1986). Also, this research needed to assess the following aspects of the practices employed by the HUD-COPC funded programs and centers at urban and metropolitan universities: 156 o HUD-COPC leaders’ recognized importance of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement; 0 HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement; 0 HUD-COPC use of the community and economic development methods in their community engagement; 0 HUD-COPC reported use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local non-profit organizations; and o HUD-COPC community engagement barriers as it relates to their relationships both on and off-campus. Methodology A sample of 109 out of 132 HUD-COPC (institutions) that participated in the HUD sponsored programs from 1994 to 2000 was surveyed. The Office of University Partnerships (OUP) predetermined this population, which is a part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), based on the grant guidelines for funding. The questionnaire was developed through the review of literature relating to universities and colleges involvement in community engagement or public service activities. It was administered via e-mail and facsimile to the above sample population on February 25, 2002. Prior to the distribution of the survey to all participants, an introductory letter was sent approximately one week before the survey was disseminated. A follow-up letter was sent two-weeks after the survey was distributed to all the individuals who had not responded to the questionnaire. Of the total 109 survey instruments disseminated, 81 surveys were returned, and only 78 of them were useable for a 72% response rate. The primary data fi'om the survey were transferred and recorded into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS-X), which computed and analyzed the 157 data through various tests: descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, chi-square, and the One-Sample T-Test. These tests highlighted the distribution of scores, relationships and significance between and among the sample population. For this study, schools that received funding twice were counted once. Hypotheses This study was designed around two dependent variables (important and agree) on the Likert scale. Both of the rating scales for the variables ranged from O to 4. The important scale included: (0) undecided, (1) not important, (2) of little importance, (3) important, and (4) very important. The agree scale was composed of: (0) undecided, (1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree. These scales provided the researcher with the varying levels in the respondents’ answers to survey questions regarding importance and agreement. The respondents’ overall mean scores and individual items mean scores were used in this analysis. In answering the three research hypotheses in the study, a Pearson correlation and chi-square were used to test their level of significance. Individual questions were considered significant if they met the chi-square significance values at .05 (2-tailed) or lower. Matrix The study also included a matrix design that has four categories aimed to reveal the percentage rate of the HUD-COPC leaders using the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement. The HUD-COPC: a recognition and used the accepted CDS principles, 158 o recognition and non-use the accepted CDS principles, 0 no recognition, but used the accepted CDS principles, 0 no recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles. A Pearson correlation coefficient and a chi—square analysis were used to assess the significance level at the .05 (2—tailed) test. In addition, this analysis also showed the divergence of scores among the HUD-COPC. Assumptions and Limitations of the Data There were several assumptions made from the generated data in the study that may have influenced the researcher conclusions. First, it was assumed that the respondents in the study were aware of the accepted CDS principles and used them in practice, since they reflected the HUD-COPC grant requirements and guidelines. Second, the predetermined survey respondents’ opinions and perceptions may differ from those of persons who did not participate in the survey. Their respective backgrounds, disciplines and training are different from each other, and it could have a bearing on how they perceived and responded to the survey questions. Third, there was no effort made to interview or survey the colleagues of the HUD-COPC leaders to gain a more accurate response or conclusion to the various questions in the survey. The survey population may not be representative of everyone’s opinions or perceptions regarding their involvement in the HUD-COPC program. Fourth, both of the Likert scales rating scores for the two dependent variables important and agree were recoded from 1 to 5, to 0 to 4. The previous two rating scales could have skewed or influenced the survey data results, if it had not been recoded because the undecided category was initially given a value of 3, but it was then recoded 159 to a value of 0. According to Pedhazur and Schmelkin (1991), it was appropriate to recode the data as long as recoding did not adversely affect the data scores, but gave it a true score as it related to the subject matter. Fifth, there were other procedures in the survey that could have influenced the respondents’ results. Part of the survey instrument was designed around the HUD-COPC grant requirements and guidelines. Some of the respondents used the space provided in the open-ended section of the questionnaire to provide their criticism. Many of them thought the survey instrument was poorly designed because it did not reflect the work of the community engagement activities of their programs. In regard to the assumptions and limitations of the primary generated data in the study, the major findings and conclusions are not indicative of the attitudes of every person who participated in the HUD-COPC programs, but are offered as an informative tool for policy-makers. Major Findings and Conclusions The first section of the questionnaire pertained to member affiliation, it provided some background information on the HUD-COPC leaders regarding their professional membership i.e., American Institute for Certified Planners (AICP), American Society for Public Administrators (ASPA), American Sociological Association (ASA), Community Development Society (CDS), National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and others. The questionnaire was community development-based, and it included the accepted CDS principles and some of the HUD-COPC grant requirements for capacity building. 160 Responses to this section revealed that 29, or 37%, of the respondents had memberships with other organizations outside of the above-mentioned ones. As for the four disciplines (Public Administration, Sociology, Urban Planning, and Social Work), 22 or 28% of them had membership with two professional organizations such as the ASPA (11 or 14%) and the ASA (11 or 14%). The remaining disciplines had membership affiliation with the AICP and NASW at 5% or less. Only one of the HUD-COPC leaders had a membership affiliation with the CDS, which was at 1%. Although many of the respondents did not have a moderate or high membership rate for the CDS, their answers were indicative of their professional training and background in community. In addition, it did not accurately represent the colleagues of HUD-COPC leaders that were involved in the programs at their respective centers. The questionnaire was designed to get the leaders’ perceptions of their community engagement experiences. Conclusions from Research Questions As part of the research methodology, five research questions were designed to describe the HUD-COPC leaders’ recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles, the use of their community and economic development methods for problem-solving, use of the required capacity-building strategies, and potential barriers to both their on-campus and off-campus community engagement activities. Some of the questions were also designed to get the HUD-COPC leaders’ perceptions of their community engagement involvement, which centered on varying levels of importance and agree. Also, an open-ended question was included in the survey to gain more insight on the HUD-COPC leaders outreach service experiences. 161 Research questions I through IV, all incorporated the accepted CDS principles, aside from the HUD—COPC grant requirements and guidelines. The respondents’ answers to those questions provided the researcher with more insight, aside from their perceived notion about various questions. Attention was also given to those items that proved to be significant under the One-Sample T-Test from Chapter IV. Research Question I: Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize the importance of the accepted CDS principles? Yes, although there was only one HUD-COPC that had a member affiliation with the Community Development Society (CDS), it was assumed for this study that all the HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of the accepted CDS principles. These principles are reflected throughout the HUD-COPC grant requirements and guidelines. The accepted CDS principles are considered good guidelines to govern the practitioners’ behavior both moral and ethnical, when working with public (1984). One of the major themes of the community development principles is to work democratically with community stakeholders. These principles also promote citizen participation through a democratic process while increasing citizens’ skills, assisting them in the planning and implementation of their community plan and avoiding conflict with stakeholders (Community Development Society, Vanguard, 1986). Among the 8 items for this question, a majority of the directors agreed and recognized the community development principles as being an important element for community engagement as a whole. There were two individual mean items that appeared in the of little importance category on the survey scale that proved to be significant. 162 These two areas of concern are: to help community members to understand their community’s socioeconomic impact with alternative solutions, and to disengage themselves from community conflict that may affect community support as it relates to their community engagement efforts. This type of apathy and indecisiveness towards both questions are unacceptable for community engagement practices. They both violated the accepted CDS principles as well. Some authors in the literature noted that institutions of higher education have had a bad relationship with their local communities for decades. Magrath (1998) reported that past approaches and strategies used for community engagement are probably too inadequate to resolve present community issues. The accepted CDS principles should be emphasized more in community planning because it deals with ethical principles regarding what practitioners and planners should do to encourage morality in their work. The theory behind this notion is that good practice encourages practitioners and planners to optimize their effectiveness in community development activities (Fear, 1984). When these principles are incorporated into practice they promote citizen participation with broad representation through a democratic process, they avoid discriminatory practices, and offer education and training to community stakeholders for empowerment. In addition, they regulate the conduct of practitioners and planners when working with the public on various community projects (Littrell, 1971; and Fear,1984). Research Question 11; Did the HUD-COPC directors use the accepted CDS principles in administering the programs and projects of their respective centers? 163 Yes. Inherent in this study is the notion that the HUD-COPC are implementing some of their grant requirements and guidelines for community engagement activities, which are reflected in the accepted CDS principles. This ideology follows Mansfield’s (1989) normative process of what should be done to yield the highest benefits to community stakeholders. For the 17 items in this question, the HUD-COPC agreed to using the accepted CDS principles in practice as a group. However, there were 5 items that surfaced as significant since many of the respondents disagreed to perform the following tasks: 0 to disengage from community conflict, 0 to conduct formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts, 0 to modify or transfer the project into the community for implementation, 0 to improve the organizational structure of local agencies, and o to train a community advisory committee in assessing, monitoring and evaluating their project outcomes for modification or project continuation. With regard to item 1, this question concludes that some of the HUD-COPC disagreed with disengaging from community conflict, which is a very important element in corrnnunity development. As noted in the open-ended portion of the questionnaire, some of the HUD-COPC have delegated a few of their duties to a local organization to initiate dialog and community meetings for intervention, and many of the HUD-COPC served primarily as a technical assistant consultants. Another respondent mentioned that most of their communication was with the local organization operating the meeting, not with the community stakeholders. This behavior goes against the democratic process of working with community stakeholders and the accepted conduct for practitioners and planners, which is to govern morally in 164 their community development principles in their commrmity engagement efforts (Fear, 1984; and Community Development Society, Vanguard, 1986). Items 2 and 3, which entail conducting and implementing evaluation methods, and modifying or transferring the project into the community for implementation, are also very important for community engagement. Both items are similar to one another, and conducting a formative and a summative evaluation to assess a program’s strength and weaknesses have been cited by Ewens (1990) as imperative for practitioners. This process assists them in determining what community project may be appropriate for an organization to undertake based on their objectives and goals for community development. That is one of the HUD major requirements and guidelines for their recipients to honor in their community engagement. HUD knows how critical these services are for program planning and implementation. Items 4 and 5, dealt with improving local agencies’ organizational structure and training their advisory groups, were important because they entail competency development and program sustainability. Accountability, method of operation, strategic planning, dissemination of information, building alliances and partnerships, and collaborating with community stakeholders are essential elements for community and economic development. Qualified and skilled staff and board members are vital to the grth and success of community-based organizations (Glickman and Nye 2000). In addition, community stakeholders are taught how to better understand their environment so as to become better planners through hands-on experience. This effort teaches them community governance, not dependency for leadership development and community sustainability (Schein, 1992). Some of the respondents did not perceive 165 many of these items as a high priority in their community engagement. Research Question [11: Did the HUD-COPC directors use the community and economic development methods in their community engagement? Yes. This question has the same relevance as the previous one, but it is focused on the HUD-COPC of the community and economic development methods in their outreach services. Most of the HUD-COPC agreed to using some of the community and economic development methods in their community engagement as a group, among the 7 items for this question. There were two items that emerged fi'om this section of the questionnaire as being significant. Some of the HUD-COPC disagreed with the idea of conducting formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts, and modifying or transferring the project into the community. Lackey, Peterson and Pine (1981) have noted that traditional program evaluation models have failed many communities in community and economic development. Some of those models were not applicable to the community under consideration, and that is why it is very important to conduct an overall program evaluation to assess program feasibility and modification before or during implementation. Another factor that could have played a critical role in this scenario is that of program delegation responsibilities. Some of the HUD-COPC have reported on collaborating with various community-based organizations and have elected to allow those agencies to become the lead change agent, because of their relationship with the community. Their participation will be on an as-needed basis for technical assistance. More effort is needed from some of the HUD-COPC in this area of emphasis for program development and sustainability. 166 Research Question IV: Have the HUD-COPC reported on the use of the required capacity-building strategies in collaboration with local nonprofit organizations? Yes. This question pertains to the HUD-COPC guidelines for implementing the required capacity-building strategies in practice. It is assumed that those institutions have reported on the use of those guidelines in their collaborative work for community empowerment. Although the HUD-COPC agreed to reporting their use of the required capacity building strategies, there seemed to be some serious concerns regarding the items that appeared as problems that could impact the work of the HUD-COPC. Again, for this question, out of 19 items there were 4 items on which some of the respondents’ disagreed on reporting such as the following: o to conduct formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts, 0 to modify or transfer the project into the community for implementation, 0 to improve the local agencies organizational structure for competency development, and o to transfer the project into the community. Only 1 item was in the strongly disagree category for this question, to train a community advisory committee in assessing, monitoring and evaluating their project outcomes for modifications or project continuation. As stated earlier by Ewens (1990), and by Lackey, Peterson and Pine (1981), it is very important for practitioners to conduct and assess a program’s strengths and I weaknesses for feasibility, modification, or implementation. This assessment will detemrine what objectives and goals are appropriate and applicable for community and economic development projects. 167 Glickman and Servon (1998) cited several capacity-building elements that could be used to enhance a community-based organizational level of competence: 0 resource — the organization solicits and manages its funding from various resources; 0 organization — the ability to operate daily business with a competent and skilled staff, and board members’ who are involved in the planning and development of program operations; - networking — the organization’s ability to establish and build relationships with potential funding resources inside and outside of the community; 0 programmatic — the organization’s ability to provide services for housing and business development, accounting, leadership development, education and culture; and 0 politics — the organization’s ability to represent and advocate effectively for community residents inside and outside of the community and to command recognized attention and support. Both of these evaluation models represent Stringer’s (1996) community-based and action-research processes because they: encourage citizen participation, take into account the community’s culture and history, leadership development, collaborating with community resources for support and fund development, and avoiding confrontations with community stakeholders. These community empowerment elements are critical in ensuring an agency’s ability to maintain its organizational capacity for planning and development. They also reflect the accepted CDS principles. Unlike the earlier questions that center on community development focus with some overlapping into HUD regulations, the question for this section stems directly from the HUD-COPC grant requirements and guidelines. Some of the same items are once again reappearing in the study as problem items. There seems to be no accountability involved on the grantor’s behalf with so many items of concern in the study, thus far. 168 Research Question V: Did the HUD-COPC directors recognized their institutions’ relationships both on—campus and off-campus as an important barrier to their community engagement? No. For this study, it is assumed that the HUD-COPC have received institutional and community support in their community engagement and are not experiencing any major obstacles that may stagnate their outreach services with local organizations. Among the 9 items, the HUD-COPC did not indicate their on-campus and off-campus relationships to be a barrier for them since many of them cited this section of the questionnaire to be of little importance. This indicates that many of them felt they were receiving institutional and community support among the items for this question. However, there were 3 items that drew much concern in the area of on-campus and off-campus community barriers. They were: a lack of cooperative relationship between the university and their community stakeholders, a lack of resources and time for faculty to get involved in solving socioeconomic problems, and a lack of recognition for community service as a scholarly activity. In the literature, these 3 items have always been problem-prone areas for institutions of higher education, either directly or indirectly; in particular, the lack of a cooperative relationship with their community stakeholders has impeded the relationship-building efforts between the two entities. According to the Berbue (1978), universities historically have had a bad relationship with their local urban communities because they failed to prioritize them as a necessity for growth and development. Many community stakeholders view universities “as problem generators, not problem-solvers.” In 1994, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) 169 and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Universities of (NASULGC) conducted a survey on various universities across the US. pertaining to outreach service barriers. Forty-two (42) percent of the survey respondents had indicated a lack of institutional support for their involvement in community development projects and no support for their research in urban areas as a scholarly activity. The priorities of those institutions were not aligned with the communities with which they were collaborating on various community projects (AASCU, 1995). Legg (1994) mentioned that before urban institutions could move forward into the future, they must first address how their faculty members can be supported and rewarded for their work in urban communities as part of their institutions’ mission statement for community engagement. This element could explain part of the reason why some of those institutions had done so poorly in their community relations, and the continued problems they have in their mission statements not supporting urban research as a scholarly activity. Research Question V(b): Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships on-campus as an important barrier to their community engagement? No. The HUD-COPC have indicated this subject matter to be of little importance among the 6 items selected for this question. There are 3 items that have evolved as potential barriers for on—campus relations. They are: a lack of faculty support for community involvement, a lack of support for urban scholarly research, and a lack of organization within the institution of various community service projects. Two of the items for this question coincide with the previous analysis regarding faculty receiving a lack of support in their community engagement efforts, and their respective schools 170 do not look upon their urban scholarly action-research activities favorably. For item 3, Hollander (1999) questioned the institutions’ level of intent, competence and commitment to community engagement. Their motives are challenged and dictated by structural changes in the economy, technological advances, urban problems and issues, and internal funding resources from their schools. This is another reason why many of these institutions of higher education need to make community engagement part of their mission statements, with the appropriate resources and institutional commitment to advance society (Boyer, 1996). In doing so, some of these universities may become more structural with policies that support more organizational capacity and commitment by these institutions, so as to carry out their missions by addressing a litany of societal problems and issues. Research Question V(c): Did the HUD-COPC directors recognize their institutions’ relationships off-campus as an important barrier to their community engagement? No. Most of the HUD-COPC perceived this question to be of little importance in their outreach services among 3 items for this question. Only 1 item in the survey for this question was considered a significant barrier to the HUD-COPC off-campus relationship as it pertains to their community engagement. Again, this item dealt with community relations, a lack of cooperative relationship between the university and their community stakeholders. This factor continues to become an impediment for institutions of higher education in their community relations with local stakeholders. The Kellogg Commission (1999) reported that universities and colleges need to do more than outreach and public service work. These institutions are obligated to address a litany of urban problems and issues that have gentrified the nation’s cities. 171 They must collectively develop or rebuild relationships with their community stakeholders. The community plans need to reflect shared ideas, objectives, and goals among the interested parties, but ownership of the plan should be held by the community stakeholders. This ideology of the Kellogg Commission is part of the CDS phiIOSOphy for community building and empowerment. While most of the HUD-COPC as a group did not report any of the 5 research questions as being a problem in their community engagement activities, some of the items that have emerged from this section of the study are relevant. There were several items that consistently appeared throughout various sections of the study as problem areas such as, community relations, competency development and training, program evaluation for project modification and continuation, reward system for faculty support of community engagement projects, and organizational structure. All of these items have been supported throughout the literature regarding the negative adverse effects they can have on the progress and development of a community striving for empowerment and governance. This section of the study clearly states the need for more professional practice with guidelines that morally and ethically encourage community involvement, training, and ownership such as the accepted CDS principles. Conclusions from the Research Hypotheses For all three research hypotheses in the study, a Pearson correlation was used to analyze the relationship between two variables, and to determine if they had a positive linear relationship. The reliability coefficient was also included in each analysis to test the strength of the data. Results from these analysis will make references to the information found in the literature if any of the analysis are found significant or not 172 significant. Research Hypothesis 1: The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of, and used the accepted CDS principles in their program operations In answering Hypothesis 1, all 8 items in Section H (recognized) overall means were compared to the combined overall means of all seven items in Section HI (community development methods), and the selected items in Section IV (capacity-building strategies) (4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.11, and 4.12) of the questionnaire. A Pearson correlation test was computed to determine if the above variable means were statistically significant at the .05 level (2-tailed) test. This analysis yielded a correlation of .287 (weak) and .01 at the .05 level (2-tailed), which indicates that there is a strong relationship between the two variables, with a (weak) reliability coefficient of .4456. There was little variance between the scores. In this analysis, the HUD-COPC leaders indicated the importance of recognizing and using the accepted CDS community development principles in their program operations to be significant. These principles are considered good practice for practitioners to use in their community development work, because they regulate their behavior when working with the public and places more emphasis on doing things that are morally and ethically acceptable in the field (Littrell, 1971; and Fear, 1984) Therefore, Hypotheses I is not rejected because there is a correlation between recognizing and using the accepted CDS principles in practice as being significant for community engagement. 173 Research Hypothesis II: The HUD-COPC leaders recognized the importance of the accepted CDS principles, which had a direct and positive effect on their institutionalization efforts in community engagement. For Hypothesis II analysis, all 8 items in Section II (recognized) overall means were compared to the overall means of the selected items in Section V (On-campus barriers) such as (5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9) of the questionnaire. A Pearson correlation test had yielded a correlation of .325 and a -.114 at the .05 (2-tailed) level and the data indicated that there was no relationship between the two variables. This test was found not significant, with a reliability coefficient of -.2401 (weak). There was a lot variance in the scores between the variable standard deviations by 26 points. Hypotheses II was rejected because it had no significant impact or bearing on the HUD-COPC leaders recognizing the importance of the accepted CDS community development principles regarding their on-campus institutionalization efforts for community engagement. Nash (1972) stated that university leadership is the key to any institutions’ community and economic development success. Leaders are the ones who set the university’s agendas, goals, missions, resources, and reward systems. Each institution should only undertake activities that they have both the organizational capacity and support from the university to participate in community endeavors. Hypothesis ID: The HUD-COPC use of the accepted CDS community development principles relate positively and directly to their institutionalization efforts in community engagement. For Hypothesis III analysis, all 7 items in Section 111 (community development methods) overall means were combined with the overall means to one item in Section II 174 (2.7) and the selected items Section IV (capacity-building strategies) such as (4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.11, and 4.12) compared to the overall mean for Section V (on-campus barriers) such as (5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9) of the questionnaire. A Pearson correlation test had yielded a correlation of .129 (weak) and a score of .268 at the .05 (2-tailed) level, with a reliability coefficient of a .2107 (weak). There was a lot of variation between the two means by almost 8 points, including their standard deviations with a spread of 28 points. Therefore, Hypotheses III was rejected because it had no significant impact or bearing on the HUD-COPC leaders using the accepted CDS principles in their on-campus institutionalization efforts for community engagement. Holland (1997) asserted in order for schools to flourish in their community engagement efforts they must received institutional support that articulates scholarly work, with promotion of community engagement as part of the faculty reward system with their mission. They tend to have very clear objectives and goals campus-wide, with an organizational structure. Some of the policies will help universities in their recruitment and retention of faculty. Opportunities for service learning, for faculty consulting with community groups, for publications and for community networking are enhanced through these mechanisms. As organizational structures and patterns change in higher education, so do their level of commitment for community engagement services. As the level of commitment gets higher, so does the level of community relevance with full integration from the university (Holland, 1998). Among the three research hypotheses, only Hypothesis I proved to be significant, which entails the HUD-COPC leaders recognizing the importance of, and use of the 175 accepted CDS principles in their community engagement practices. This hypothesis is supported throughout the study in research questions I and II where the respondents have indicated their importance and use in their outreach service practices. Hypotheses II and III were aimed at on-campus barriers in regard to the HUD-COPC recognized importance of the accepted CDS principles and their use in campus relations. Both variables did not have an impact on the HUD-COPC relations on-campus for institutional support. Conclusions from the Matrix This aspect of the community engagement analysis is related to the HUD-COPC directors’ recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles in practice, which are reflected in the HUD grant requirements and guidelines. The matrix was developed to assess and measure the HUD-COPC through a crosstabulation using a Pearson correlation (chi-square) test on the following: o recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles, 0 recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles, 0 no recognition and use of the accepted CDS principles, and o no recognition and non-use of the accepted CDS principles. Results from the Pearson correlation (chi-square) indicated a strong relationship between the recognized importance of, and used the accepted CDS principles in practice by the HUD-COPC. This test yielded a .001 significance level at the .05(2-tailed). In this study, the test also indicates the higher the proportion of recognizing the principles, the higher the proportion will be using the principles. 176 When answering the questions above, the data revealed the following information, forty-five (45) percent or 35 of the HUD-COPC recognized and used the accepted CDS principles in their community engagement efforts, which was the highest score among the 78 reported cases. Twenty-six (26) percent (or 20 of them) recognized but did not use them. This was the second highest score. It was followed closely by 23.1% (or 18) that did not recognize or use them in their outreach efforts, and another 6.4% (or 8) that did not recognize the principles but used them in practice. Further, more than half of them at 70.5% recognized the importance of principles and 51.3% (40) HUD-COPC used them in their community engagement activities. This sample population of institutions demonstrated the ability to recognize and apply those activities that the HUD deemed as good practices for community engagement. Although 51.3% of them used those guidelines in practice, it shows some promise that those institutions understood the HUD mission for good community development practice by connecting their intellectual body of resources to their respective communities (Boyer, 1996). In contrast, there were about 29.5% and 48.7% of the institutions that did not recognize, or use the principles in practice, respectively. This study also revealed that in terms of using the accepted CDS principles and some of the HUD—COPC grant guidelines, there were just as many HUD-COPC not implementing (48.7%) the guidelines in practice as they were using (51.3%) them. These institutions could be described as “carpetbaggers” that are working towards their self-interest (Reardon et al., 1993). Regardless of the various institutions’ departmental units that were the lead unit 177 for their HUD-COPC program, this kind of practice is unacceptable and it does not emulate the HUD mission and goals for community engagement. Those institutions need to be held accountable for their lack of commitment toward community engagement. They are not mission-driven or adhering to much of the HUD-COPC grant requirements and guidelines that they agreed to do before some of them received firnding for their community projects. This type of behavior continues to be supported by the data and literature in the study in regard to institutions of higher education having bad community relations with their local community stakeholders. For those institutions that made or showed good promise in the study, they appeared to demonstrate good leadership qualities and community commitment. Those are the type of institutions that need to be rewarded for their good work, and others should mimic their lessons for community engagement practices. Implications of the Study Based on the findings and conclusions in this study, the researcher would like to offer several recommendations that are centered on community relations, competency development, program evaluations, and recognition and support for community engagement activities. 1. There is a strong need for the accepted CDS principles to become ad0pted and implemented in community engagement activities by institutions of higher learning. This study clearly supports the practices of the accepted CDS principles as being recognized as an important concept to use in community engagement activities. This notion encourages good moral and ethic behavior for professional practice, while regulating impaired practices that may adversely affect community development 178 projects. This is a grassroots model that is community-based driven through a democratic process, and it seeks active citizen participation for planning and implementation of a community plan for community governance and empowerment. These principles may help some institutions in their development of renewing and establishing a mutual relationship with their community stakeholders, especially for some of the institutions that participated in the study. 2. Universities and Colleges, particularly those located in metropolitan and urban areas, need to develop and define a realistic mission statement and vision plan that includes their local communities as part of its community engagement interest. These efforts should be encouraged and supported by the Board of Trustees, President, and campus-wide (i.e., Dean of Colleges, Department Chairpersons and the Director’s of various departments on—campus) through university policies. 3. The reward system for tenure needs to be rectified and meshed with community engagement activities. This type of activity should be recognized as scholarly research that becomes part of the tenure criteria for full-professorship (i.e., fund development, publications, seminars). This process should also increase and enhance classroom activities for linking university resources to their local communities for competency development and student professional development. 4. Those universities and colleges that have on-campus financial institutions should reinvest more of their resources into community and economic development within their local communities. This could be done through real estate development on a small or medium scale such as community development banking. They could create or redevelop a district for faculty and staff housing, such as at the University of 179 Pennsylvania, to promote and increase community awareness and commitment for community building. Recommendations for Future Research There were several questions that arose from this study in terms of community engagement that could be used as future research questions. The findings in the study could be enhance by researching the following: 1. More research needs to be done on the funded HUD-COPC programs misson statements to see if they are compatible with the HUD-COPC grant requirements and guidelines for community engagement. Often some institutions have received funding for community engagement projects, but do not have the institutional support or organization capacity to perform those job tasks. 2. What kinds of hands-on-training for competency development are offered and performed by the HUD-COPC to increase their local community’s leadership development skills, aside from disseminating literature. 3. What is the ratio of HUD-COPC projects that have been completed in their communities and are those projects are still viable without HUD support? 4. What kind of evaluations are used by the HUD-COPC to assess their community’s strengths and weaknesses for community engagement? Are they really effective or even implemented? Answers to the above future research questions would provide this study with more depth, which could become a tool for policy-makers to use in awarding various programs and institutions funding for community and economic development projects. 180 APPENDIX A Areas of Technical Assistance for Institutions of Higher Education Human Resource Developmpnt — developing educational programs to meet the growing business demands of a new global economy; Economic and Policy Analysis and Research — providing new information to the public and to provide decision-makers information about the area’s economy; Capacity Building for Economic Development — assisting various community-based organizations in developing the capacity to empower themselves in economic development activities; Technical Assistance to Apply Existing Knowledge to Industgy — helping firms to identify and develop some effective management tools and engineering concepts; Research to Develop New Knowledge — conducting applied and basic research to generate new knowledge to produce new products and expand services or improved forms of production; Technology Transfer of Newly Developed Knowledge to Industry — helping businesses to develop partnerships with their universities and to access their state-of-the-art technology for business expansion; Support for the Development of New Knowledge-Based Businesses —— promoting new businesses that used the knowledge base and resources within the university. 181 Source: SR1 lntemational (1986). Higher Education Economic Development Connection: Emerging Roles for Public Colleges and Universities in a changing economy. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 182 APPENDIX B Federal Register: March 20, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 54) [Notices] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [waisaccessgpogov] [DOCIszr20mr97-156] Part VII Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) Funding Availability, FY 1997; Notice DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-4187-N-01] Fiscal Year 1997 Notice of Funding Availability for Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD. ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for Fiscal Year 1997. SUMMARY: This NOFA announces the availability of Fiscal Year 1997 funding to make grants to establish and operate Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC). Available funding. Approximately $7.5 million to implement the fourth year of this demonstration program. Eligible applicants. Public and private nonprofit institutions of higher education. Purpose. To assist in establishing or carrying out research and outreach activities addressing the problems of urban areas. Funding under this demonstration program shall be used to establish and operate Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC). 183 The NOFA contains information concerning: (1) the principal objectives of the competition, the funding available, eligible applicants and activities and factors for award; (2) the application process, including how to apply and how selections will be made; and (3) a checklist of application submission requirements. DATES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR OBTAINING APPLICATIONS: Application kits may be requested on or after March 25, 1997. Applications must be physically received by the Office of University Partnerships, in care of the Division of Budget, Contracts. and Program Control, in Room 8230 by 4:30 pm. Eastern Standard Time on June 19, 1997. Facsimiles of applications will not be accepted. The above-stated application deadline is firm as to date, hour and place. In the interest of fairness to all competing applicants, the Department will treat as ineligible for consideration any application that is received after the deadline. Applicants should take this practice into account and make early submission of their materials to avoid any risk of loss of eligibility brought about by unanticipated delays or other delivery-related problems. Applicants hand-delivering applications are advised that considerable delays may occur in attempting to enter the building because of security procedures. ADDRESSES: To obtain a copy of the application kit, contact: HUD USER, AITN: COPC, PO. Box 6091, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Requests for application kits must be in writing, but requests may be faxed to: 301 -251-5747 (this is not a toll-free number). Requests for application kits must include the applicant's name, mailing address (including zip code), telephone number (including area code) and must refer to “Document FR-4187." The application kit is also available on the Internet from the Office of University Partnerships Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse can be accessed from the World Wide Web at: http://oup.org; or from a Gopher Server at: gopher:l/oup.org:89 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Karadbil, Office of University Partnerships in the Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 8110 Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1537. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may call HUD's TTY number (202) 708- 0770, or 1-800-877-8399 (Federal Information Relay service TTY). Other than the “800" number, these are not toll-free numbers. Ms. Karadbil can also be contacted via the Internet at Jane_R._KaradbiI@hud.gov. An information broadcast via satellite will be held on April 30, 1997 for potential applicants to learn more about the program and preparation of an application. For more information about attending the broadcast, please contact Ms. Karadbil. 184 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paperwork Reduction Act Statement The information collection requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2528-0180. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number. Promoting Comprehensive Approaches to Housing and Community Development HUD is interested in promoting comprehensive, coordinated approaches to housing and community development. Economic development, community development, public housing revitalization, homeownership, assisted housing for special needs populations, supportive services, and welfare-to-work initiatives can work better if linked at the local level. Toward this end, the Department in recent years has developed the Consolidated Planning process designed to help communities undertake such approaches. In this spirit, it may be helpful for applicants under this NOFA to be aware of other related HUD NOFAs that have recently been published or are expected to be published in this fiscal year. By reviewing these NOFAs with respect to their program purposes and the eligibility of applicants and activities, applicants may be able to relate the activities proposed for funding under this NOFA to the recent and upcoming NOFAs and to the community's Consolidated Plan. Attached to this NOFA, as Appendix A, is a list of HUD's NOFAs that the Department has published or expects to publish this fiscal year. To foster comprehensive, coordinated approaches by communities, the Department intends for the remainder of FY 1997 to continue to alert applicants of HUD's NOFA activity. In addition, a complete schedule of NOFAs to be published during the fiscal year and those already published appears under the HUD Homepage on the Internet, which can be accessed at http://www.hud.govlnofas.html. Additional steps to better coordinated HUD's NOFAs are being considered for FY 1998. To help in obtaining a copy of your community's Consolidated Plan, please contact the community development office of your municipal government. 185 l. Purpose and Substantive Description A. Authority This competition is authorized under the Community Outreach Partnership Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 5307 note; hereafter referred to as the “COPC Act"). The COPC Act is contained in section 851 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Pub.L. 102-550, approved October 28, 1992) (HCD Act of 1992). Section 801 (c) of the HCD Act of 1992 authorizes $7.5 million for each year of the 5-year demonstration to create Community Outreach Partnership Centers as authorized in the COPC Act. The COPC Act also required HUD to establish a national clearinghouse to disseminate information resulting from research and outreach conducted at the centers. COPC is administered by the Office of University Partnerships (OUP) in the Office of Policy Development and Research. OUP is responsible for five of the Department's grant programs for institutions of higher education--Community Outreach Partnership Centers program, Joint Community Development program, Community Development Work Study program, Hispanic-serving Institutions Work Study program. and the Doctoral Dissertation Grant program. In addition, OUP is responsible for a variety of new outreach initiatives to involve these institutions in local community development, public housing, and revitalization partnerships. B. Allocation and Form of Award The competition in this NOFA is for up to $7.5 million to fund the fourth year of the COPC program authorized as indicated above. Under this NOFA, HUD will fund two kinds of grants--New Grants and Institutionalization Grants. New Grants will be awarded to institutions of higher education to begin or expand their applied research and outreach activities. Institutionalization Grants will be awarded to certain COPC grantees to help ensure that their COPC activities are institutionalized as an integral part of the teaching, research, and service missions of their colleges and universities. There will be two separate competitions within this year's funding. To institutionalize their COPC functions, up to $1.4 million will be set-aside for a competition among the grantees awarded two-year grants in FY 1995. Up to $6.1 million will be used to fund new COPC grantees. HUD has administratively determined that FY 1995 grantees are only eligible for Institutionalization Grants, not for New Grants. (FY 1994 and FY 1996 COPC grantees are not eligible for either kind of grant, nor are universities that received Joint Community Development Program grants.) If any funds set-aside for Institutionalization Grants are not awarded, they will be used instead as part of the funding for New Grantees, 186 funding these grantees in rank order based on the rating factors. (Program requirements for Institutionalization Grants are the same as for New Grants, except as noted in Section IV of this NOFA, below.) It is estimated that approximately 15 COPC awards to new grantees can be made with the $6.1 million available. Each New Grant will be for a three-year period of performance (i.e., applicants must complete their proposed activities within three years). The maximum size of any New Grant will be $400,000, while the minimum will be $250,000. Both amounts are over the three year grant period. Applicants must submit an application within this range or they will be disqualified. Several applicants were disqualified last year because they asked for $400,000 for each of the three years of the grant period. Each Institutionalization Grant will be for a one-year period, with a maximum grant size of $100,000. Applicants for Institutionalization Grants will be disqualified if they request more than the maximum allowable amount. C. Description of Competition The Congress has mandated that the Department carry out “a 5-year demonstration to determine the feasibility of facilitating partnerships between institutions of higher education and communities to solve urban problems through research, outreach and the exchange of information." The COPC Act stipulates that grants are to go to public and private institutions of higher education to establish and operate COPCs. These COPCs shall: “(A) Conduct competent and qualified research and investigation on theoretical or practical problems in large and small cities; and (B) Facilitate partnerships and outreach activities between institutions of higher education, local communities, and local governments to address urban problems." Grants under the COPC program must focus on the following specific problems: “problems associated with housing, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, infrastructure, health care, job training, education, crime prevention, planning, community organizing, and other areas deemed appropriate by the Secretary." Furthermore, the COPC Act states: “The Secretary shall give preference to institutions of higher education that undertake research and outreach activities by bringing together knowledge and expertise in the various social science and technical disciplines that relate to urban problems." COPC programs must combine research with outreach, work with communities and local governments and address the multi-dimensional problems that beset urban areas. Single purpose applications are not eligible. Applications must be multifaceted and address three or 187 more urban problems, as described in selection factor #1. The scope of applications for Institutionalization Grants is covered elsewhere below. To be most effective during the term of the demonstration, the funded research must have a clear near-term potential for solving specific, significant urban problems. The selected institutions must have the capacity to apply their research results and to work with communities and local institutions, including neighborhood groups, in applying these results to specific real-life urban problems. The five key concepts of the COPC program are: (1) The program should provide outreach, technical assistance, applied research, and empowerment to neighborhoods and neighborhood- based organizations based on what the residents decide is needed, not based on what the institution thinks is appropriate for that neighborhood; (2) Community-based organizations should be partners with the institutions throughout the life of the project, from planning to implementation; (3) The applied research should be related to the outreach activities and be usable in these activities within the grant period or shortly after it ends, rather than research without practical application; (4) The assistance to neighborhoods should be provided primarily by the faculty, students, or to a limited extent, by neighborhood residents or community-based organizations funded by the university; and (5) The program should be part of the institution's broader effort to meet its urban mission, and be supported by senior officials, rather than just the work of a few faculty members. Proposed activities should not duplicate those of other entities in the community and should be appropriate for an institution of higher education to undertake in light of its teaching, research, and service missions. D. Eligible Applicants Applicants for this competition must be public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education granting two-or four-year degrees and accredited by a national or regional accrediting agency recognized by the US. Department of Education. Consortia of eligible institutions 188 may apply, as long as one institution is designated the lead applicant. Each institution may be part of only one consortium or submit only one application or it will be disqualified. HUD will hold an institution responsible for ensuring that neither it nor any part of the institution, including specific faculty, participates in more than one application. Applicants must submit proposals that address the problems of urban areas (see rating factor 1, for further enumeration of these problems). Different campuses of the same university system are eligible to apply, even if one campus has already received COPC funding. Such campuses are eligible as separate applicants only if they have administrative and budgeting structures independent of other campuses in the system. E. Program Requirements Grantees must meet the following program requirements: 1. Responsibilities. In accordance with section 851(h) of the HCD Act of 1992, each COPC shall: “(a) Employ the research and outreach resources of its sponsoring institution of higher education to solve specific urban problems identified by communities served by the Center; (b) Establish outreach activities in areas identified in the grant application as the communities to be served; (0) Establish a community advisory committee comprised of representatives of local institutions and residents of the communities to be served to assist in identifying local needs and advise on the development and implementation of strategies to address those issues; (d) Coordinate outreach activities in communities to be served by the Center, (e) Facilitate public service projects in the communities served by the Center, (f) Act as a clearinghouse for dissemination of information; (9) Develop instructional programs, convene conferences, and provide training for local community leaders, when appropriate; and (h) Exchange information with other Centers. The clearinghouse function in (0 above refers to a local or regional clearinghouse for dissemination of information and is separate and distinct from the functions in (h) above, which relate to the provision of information to the University Partnerships Clearinghouse, which is the national clearinghouse for the program. 189 2. Cap on Research Costs. No more than 25 percent of the total project costs (Federal share plus match) can be spent on research activities. 3. Match. Grantees must meet the following match requirements. Note, as shown in the selection factors (II.A.(2)), applicants will receive points for providing matching funds above those required. (a) Research Activities. 50 percent of the total project costs of establishing and operating research activities. (b) Outreach Activities. 25 percent of the total project costs of establishing and operating outreach activities. This non-Federal share may include cash or the value of non-cash contributions, equipment and other allowable in-kind contributions as detailed in 24 CFR Part 84, and in particular Section 84.23 entitled "cost sharing or matching." In order to avoid confusion about the calculation of the match, an example is provided. Assume that the total project cost for a COPC was $500,000, with $125,000 for research and $375,000 for outreach. Note that this project meets the requirement that no more than one-quarter of the total project costs be for research. The total amount of the required match would be $156,250. The research match would be $62,500 ($125,000 x 50 percent) and the outreach match would be $93,750 ($375,000 x 25 percent). The Federal grant requested would be $343,750 ($500,000 minus the match of $156,250). In calculating the match, administrative costs should be applied to the apprOpriate attributable outreach or research component. 4. Administrative. The grant will be governed by the provision of 24 CFR Part 84 (Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and other Nonprofit Organizations), A-122 (Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations), and A-133 (Audits of Institutions of Higher Education and other Nonprofit Institutions), as implemented at 24 CF R part 45. No more than 20% of the Federal grant funds may be used for planning and program administrative costs. Overhead costs directly related to carrying out activities under research and outreach need not be considered planning and program administrative costs, since those costs are eligible under that section. The 20% limitation imposed under this program applies only to Federal funds received through this grant, not to matching funds. F. Eligible Activities Eligible activities include: 190 1. Research activities which have practical application for solving specific problems in designated communities and neighborhoods, including evaluation of the effectiveness of the outreach activities. Such activities may not total more than one-quarter of the total project costs contained in any grant made under this NOFA (including the required 50 percent match). 2. Outreach, technical assistance and information exchange activities which are designed to address specific urban problems in designated communities and neighborhoods. Such activities must total no less than three-quarters of the total project costs contained in any grant made under this NOFA (including the required 25 percent match). Examples of outreach activities include, but are not limited to: (a) Job training and other training projects, such as workshops, seminars and one-on-one and on-the-job training; (b) Design of community strategies to resolve urban problems of communities and neighborhoods; (6) Innovative use of funds to provide direct technical expertise and assistance to local community groups and residents to assist them in resolving local problems such as homelessness, housing discrimination, and impediments to fair housing choice; (d) Technical assistance in business start-up activities for low- and moderate-income individuals and organizations, including business start-up training and technical expertise and assistance, mentor programs, assistance in developing small loan funds. business incubators, etc; (e) Technical assistance to local public housing authorities on welfare-to-work initiatives and physical transformations of public or assisted housing; (0 Assistance to communities to improve consolidated housing and community development plans and remove impediments to design and implementation of such plans; and (9) Assistance to communities to improve the fair housing planning process. 3. Funds for faculty development including paying for course time or summer support to enable faculty members to work on the COPC. 4. Funds for stipends for students (which cannot cover tuition and fees) when they are working on the COPC. 191 5. Activities to carry out the “Responsibilities" listed under Section I.E.1 of this NOFA. These activities may include leases for office space in which to house the Community Outreach Partnership Center, under the following conditions: a. The lease must be for existing facilities; b. No repairs or renovations of the property may be undertaken with Federal funds; and c. Properties in the Coastal Barrier Resource System designated under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3501) cannot be leased with Federal funds. G. Ineligible Activities Grants funds cannot be used for: 1. Research activities which have no clear and immediate practical application for solving urban problems or do not address specific problems in designated communities and neighborhoods. 2. Any type of construction, rehabilitation, or other physical development costs. 3. Costs used for routine operations and day-to-day administration of regular programs of institutions of higher education, local governments or neighborhood groups. Il. Rating Factors/Selection Process for New Grantees A. Rating Factors HUD will use the following criteria to rate and rank applications for New Grants received in response to this NOFA. Several modifications have been made to the factors, as they were issued last year. These modifications are described below. Selection factors for Institutionalization Grants are described below in Section IV of this NOFA. The factors and maximum points for each factor are provided below. The maximum number of points is 100. 192 ' r “ rim—51¢; Rating of the “applicant" or the “applicant's organization and staff," unless otherwise specified, will include any sub-contractors, consultants and sub-recipients which are firmly committed to the project. (1) (5 points) The demonstrated research and outreach resources available to the applicant for carrying out the purposes of the COPC Act. In rating this factor, HUD will consider the extent to which the applicant's organization and staff have recent, relevant and successful expenencein: (a) Undertaking research activities in specific communities which have clear near-term potential for practical application to significant urban problems associated with affordable housing. fair housing, economic development, neighborhood revitalization, infrastructure, health care, job training, education, crime prevention, planning and community organizing, and (b) Undertaking outreach activities in specific communities to solve or ameliorate significant urban problems. Under this factor, HUD will also evaluate the capability of the applicant to provide leadership in solving community problems and in making national contributions to solving long-term and immediate urban problems. In assessing this factor, HUD will look at past and current relevant projects of the applicant with community-based organizations or local governments. (2) (10 points) The demonstrated commitment of the applicant to supporting research and outreach programs by providing matching contributions for the Federal assistance received. In rating this factor, HUD will provide an increasing number of points for increasing amounts of contributions beyond the statutory 50 percent for research and 25 percent for outreach, up to a maximum of five points. Maximum points will be awarded for applications that secure 50 percent more than the amount of match required. Because the Department is interested in promoting the institutionalization of COPC projects, up to an additional five points will be awarded for the extent to which matching funds are provided from sources other than the applicant (e.g., funds from the city, including CDBG, other State or local government agencies, public or private organizations, or foundations). Factor 7 has been reduced by five points to compensate for the points added to this factor. 193 (3) (10 points) The extent of need in the communities to be served by the applicant. The applicant must demonstrate that it is serving areas with substantial low-income populations, low standards of living, and large numbers of empty or abandoned dwellings. HUD will consider the extent to which the proposal clearly delineates a need or needs in the specific communities or neighborhoods, that can be resolved through the activities of a COPC. The applicant must demonstrate how these needs were determined and how the COPC will help resolve these needs. The applicant should demonstrate a strong familiarity (based on sufficient investigation) with the existing and planned efforts of government agencies, community-based organizations, faith-based institutions, for-profit firms and any other entities to address such needs in the communities to be served, and should demonstrate that the applicant can cost-effectively complement any such efforts to attain measurable impacts. (4) (5 points) The demonstrated ability of the applicant to disseminate results of research and successful strategies developed through outreach activities to other COPCs and communities served through this demonstration program. In rating this factor, HUD will evaluate the past experience of the applicant's staff and the scope and the quality of the applicant's proposal to disseminate information on COPC research results and strategies to: (a) local communities in its area and (b) other communities and COPCs through the OUP Clearinghouse. (5) (35 points) The projects and activities that the applicant proposes to carry out under the grant. This factor has three sub- factors: (a) effectiveness of the research strategy (5 points); (b) effectiveness of the outreach strategy (15 points); and (0) work on specific HUD priority activities (15 points). (a) In rating the effectiveness of the research strategy, HUD will consider. (i) The extent to which the applicant's proposal outlines a clear research agenda, based on a thorough familiarity with existing research on the subject, that can be successfully carried out within the grant period. (The applicant should demonstrate that the proposed research builds on existing research in the field and does not duplicate research previously completed, or currently underway, by others); and (ii) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates how the 194 research to be undertaken will fit into the outreach strategy and activities. For example, an applicant proposing to study the extent of housing abandonment in a neighborhood and then designing a plan for reusing this housing would be able to demonstrate the link between the proposed research and outreach strategies. (b) In rating the effectiveness of the outreach strategy factor, HUD will consider the extent to which: (i) The application identifies a clear outreach agenda related to locally-identified needs that can be successfully carried out within the period of this grant. In assessing this sub-factor, HUD will look at whether the agenda includes specific projects. based on the needs identified in Selection Factor 3, with time lines within the grant penod. (ii) The outreach agenda includes design or strengthening and implementation of a community strategy to resolve community and neighborhood problems. Applicants will be expected to have involved the community in designing the strategy and to identify an agenda that they have already worked with the community to design. Applicants should refer to concepts 1 and 2 of the key concepts of the program, under Section I.C., to understand the kinds of community strategy HUD would fund. (iii) There is a plan for involving the university in the execution of the outreach stratng; and (iv) The outreach program provides for on-site or a frequent presence in the communities and neighborhoods to be assisted through outreach activities. (c) (15 points) HUD Priority Areas. (i) If all of the applicant's research and outreach agenda is to be in an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community, five (5) points will be awarded. (ii) If some of an applicant's research and outreach agenda is related to public housing transformation, HUD-assisted distressed housing, or Campus of Learners/Neighborhood Networks, five (5) points will be awarded. These programs are described in more detail in the application kit. 195 In awarding points for these two sub-factors, HUD will look for evidence of participation, including letters from the responsible entities describing the relationship and work to be undertaken. The level of work to be devoted to these priority areas will be based on the percentage of the COPC grant and matching funds proposed to be spent on them. (iii) If some of the applicant's work is on activities that affirmatively further fair housing, for example: (a) overcoming impediments to fair housing, such as discrimination in the sale or rental of housing or in advertising, provision of brokerage services, or lending; (b) promoting fair housing through the expansion of homeownership opportunities and improved quality of city services for minorities, families with children, and persons with disabilities; or (c) providing mobility counseling, five (5) points will be awarded. (6) (15 points) The extent of neighborhood and neighborhood based organization and local government participation in the planning and implementation of the COPC. The points for this factor have been increased from 10 points in last year's NOFA to reflect the addition of subfactor (d). In rating this factor, HUD will consider whether. (a) One or more community advisory committees, meeting the tests of sub-factors (b) and (0) immediately below, comprised of representatives of local institutions and a balance of the race, ethnic, disability status, gender and income of residents of the communities to be served has been or will be formed to participate in identifying local needs to be addressed by the COPC and to form a partnership with the COPC to develop and implement strategies to address those needs. Applicants will be expected to demonstrate that they have already formed such a committee(s) or secured the commitment of the appropriate persons to serve on the committee(s), rather than just describing generally the types of persons whose involvement they will seek. (b) There is a plan for involving the community advisory committee(s) in the execution of the research and outreach agenda; and (c) The outreach agenda includes training projects for local community leaders, for example, to increase their capacity to direct their organizations or undertake various kinds of community development projects. (d) The research and outreach plans show evidence of consultation and collaboration with the appropriate local government. This subfactor 196 '. "g'fl has been added in order to ensure that COPC activities are part of the broader plans a city has for the neighborhoods affected by the application. (7) (20 points) The extent to which the proposed COPC will result in the COPC function and activities becoming part of the urban mission of the institution. In reviewing this factor, HUD will consider the extent to which the COPC activities relate to the institution's urban mission, are part of a climate that rewards faculty and student work on these activities, and are reflected in course work. HUD will also look at the extent to which these activities are supported at the highest levels of institutional leadership. 8. Selection Process for New Grantees Applications for funding under this NOFA will be evaluated competitively and points will be awarded as specified in the Rating Factors section described above. After assigning points based upon the factors all applications will be listed in rank order. Applications will then be funded in rank order until all available funds have been expended. However, in order to be funded, an applicant must receive a minimum score of 70. HUD reserves the right to fund all or portions of the proposed activities identified in each application, based upon the eligibility of the proposed activities. If two or more applications have the same number of points, the application with the most points for rating factor (7) shall be selected. If there is still a tie. the application with the most points for rating factor (6) shall be selected. If the amount remaining after funding as many of the highest ranking applications as possible is insufficient for the next highest ranking application, HUD shall determine (based upon the proposed activities) if it is feasible to fund part of the application and offer a smaller grant to the applicant. If HUD determines that given the proposed activities a smaller grant amount would render the activities infeasible, or if the applicant turns down the reduced grant amount, HUD shall make the same determination for the next highest ranking application until all applications with scores of at least 70 points or available funds have been exhausted. C. Geographic Distribution HUD reserves the right to make selections out of rank order to provide for a geographic distribution of funded COPCs. The approach HUD will use, if it decides to implement this option, will be based on combining two adjacent standard HUD regions (e.g., Southwest and Southeast I97 Regions, Great Plains and Midwest Regions, etc.) If the rank order does not yield at least one fundable COPC within each combined region, then HUD may select the highest ranking application from such a combination, as long as the minimum score of 70 is achieved. It is HUD's intent to fund at least one eligible applicant (see Section ID. of this NOFA) that serves the colonies, as defined by Section 916(d) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, as long as the applicant receives a minimum score of 70. III. Application Content and Review Process Applicants must complete and submit applications in accordance with instructions contained in the application kit and must include all certifications, assurances, and budget information requested in the kit. Following the expiration of the application submission deadline, HUD will review and rank applications in a manner consistent with the procedures described in this Notice. IV. Program and Application Requirements for Institutionalization Grants (a) General Requirements. All requirements of Parts I and III of this NOFA apply also to this part unless otherwise herein noted. The maximum size of any Institutionalization Grant will be $100,000, and grant requests shall not exceed this amount. The term of the grant will be for one year. If the grantee proposes entirely new activities, it may conduct activities under both grants, until funds from both are fully expended. If the applicant proposes continuation of current activities, it must expend all the funds under the current grant before expending any new funds under an Institutionalization Grant. Current grantees may request a no-cost extension from HUD if necessary to finish expending all their FY 1995 grant funds. (b) Eligible Applicants. Only institutions awarded COPC grants in FY 1995 are eligible for Institutionalization Grants. These grantees are not eligible for New Grants. Institutionalization Grants to current grantees will be for a one-year period. Current COPC grantees that received grants as consortia must apply again as consortia, with all current member institutions participating in the proposed Institutionalization Grant, and with the same lead applicant as in their current COPC. 198 (c) Eligible Activities. Instead of proposing a range of activities to be undertaken, applicants should propose activities that will bring their COPC projects to a successful conclusion or could result in securing funding to continue either current or new COPC activities from other sources, such as local governments or foundations. (d) Rating Factors/Selection Process. (i) Rating Factors. The selection factors contained in Section ”A. of this NOFA have been modified. Applicants will be required to meet three selection factors (which are simply consolidations of the factors used for new grantees), summarized as “Past Performance," “Proposed Activities," and “Potential for Institutionalization." Each factor and the maximum points assigned to it are described below: ((a)) (30 points) The demonstrated past performance of the applicant, as measured by: the research and outreach resources made available to the applicant under the current COPC grant; the ability of the applicant to provide local leadership and disseminate results of the grant; and the effectiveness of the activities undertaken In the grant. ((b)) (30 points) The effectiveness of the proposed research and outreach activities, as measured by: need for the activities; involvement of the community in these activities; demonstrated commitment of the application by providing a matching contribution; and likelihood that these activities can be successfully carried out within the grant period. ((c)) (40 points) The potential of the proposed outreach strategy to ensure institutionalization of the COPC functions at the college or university, as measured by the extent to which the proposed COPC functions will become an integral part of the teaching, research and urban service mission of the institution and the extent to which the COPC activities are supported by the highest levels of institutional leadership. In reviewing this factor, HUD will consider the extent to which the COPC activities are part of and will enhance a broader set of existing or planned activities and will foster a culture that rewards faculty and student work on these activities. 199 it; . flan}... , . insist...“ .b L I (ii) Selection Process. An applicant must receive a score of at least 70 points in order to be funded. Applications will be rated but not ranked. There is sufficient funding for all eligible applications. Applications requesting over $100,000 will be ineligible. V. Corrections to Deficient Applications After the submission deadline date, HUD will screen each application to determine whether it is complete. If an application lacks certain technical items or contains a technical error, such as an incorrect signatory, HUD will notify the applicant in writing that it has 14 calendar days from the date of HUD's written notification to cure the technical deficiency. If the applicant fails to submit the missing material within the 14-day cure period, HUD may disqualify the application. This 14-day cure period applies only to non-substantive deficiencies or errors. Any deficiency capable of cure will involve only items not necessary for HUD to assess the merits of an application against the factors specified in this NOFA. VI. Findings and Certifications Federalism Impact The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies and procedures contained in this notice will not have substantial direct effects on States or their political subdivisions, or the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. As a result, the notice is not subject to review under the Order. Specifically, the notice solicits participation in an effort to provide assistance to institutions of higher education for establishing and carrying out research and outreach activities addressing the problems of urban areas. The COPCs established under this notice will work with local communities to help resolve urban problems. The notice does not impinge upon the relationships between the Federal government and State or local governments. Impact on the Family 200 The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive Order 12606. The Family, has determined that this notice will likely have a beneficial impact on family formation, maintenance, and general well-being. The assistance to be provided by the funding under this NOFA is expected to help local residents to become self-sufficient by improving living conditions and standards. Accordingly, since the impact on the family is beneficial, no further review is considered necessary. Accountability in the Provision of HUD Assistance. Section 102 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (HUD Reform Act) and the final rule codified at 24 CFR part 4, subpart A, published on April 1, 1996 (61 FR 1448), contain a number of provisions that are designed to ensure greater accountability and integrity in the provision of certain types of assistance administered by HUD. On January 14, 1992, HUD published, at 57 FR 1942, a notice that also provides information on the implementation of section 102. The documentation, public access, and disclosure requirements of section 102 are applicable to assistance awarded under this NOFA as follows: Documentation and public access requirements. HUD will ensure that documentation and other information regarding each application submitted pursuant to this NOFA are sufficient to indicate the basis upon which assistance was provided or denied. This material, including any letters of support, will be made available for public inspection for a five-year period beginning not less than 30 days after the award of the assistance. Material will be made available in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 15. In addition, HUD will include the recipients of assistance pursuant to this NOFA in its Federal Register notice of all recipients of HUD assistance awarded on a competitive basis. Disclosures. HUD will make available to the public for five years all applicant disclosure reports (HUD Form 2880) submitted in connection with this NOFA. Update reports (also Form 2880) will be made available along with the applicant disclosure reports, but in no case for a period less than three years. All reports-both applicant disclosures and updates-will be made available in accordance with the Freedom of lnforrnation Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 15. Prohibition Against Advance Information on Funding Decisions HUD's regulation implementing section 103 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, codified as 24 CFR part 4, applies to the funding competition announced today. The requirements of the rule continue to apply until the announcement of 201 the selection of successful applicants. HUD employees involved in the review of applications and in the making of funding decisions are limited by part 4 from providing advance information to any person (other than an authorized employee of HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from otherwise giving any applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons who apply for assistance in this competition should confine their inquiries to the subject areas permitted under 24 CF R part 4. Applicants or employees who have ethics related questions should contact HUD's Ethics Law Division (202) 708-3815. (This is not a toll-free number.) Byrd Amendment The Byrd Amendment, which is implemented in regulations at 24 CFR part 87, prohibits applicants for Federal contracts and grants from using appropriated funds to attempt to influence Federal executive or legislative officers or employees in connection with obtaining such assistance, or with its extension, continuation, renewal, amendment or modification. The Byrd Amendment applies to the funds that are subject to this NOFA. Therefore, applicants must file a certification stating that they have not made and will not make any prohibited payments and, if payments or agreement to make payments of nonappropriated funds for these purposes have been made, a SF-LLL disclosing such payments should be submitted. The certification and the SF-LLL are included in the application package issued pursuant to this NOFA. Protection of Human Subjects 45 CFR part 46, Subtitle A on the protection of human subjects does not apply to the COPC program because the research activities to be conducted under the program are only incidentally regulated by the Department solely as part of its broader responsibility to regulate certain types of activities whether research or non-research in nature. Environmental Impact A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 25 CFR part 50, implementing section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). The Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact is available for public inspection during business hours in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, Room 10276, US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500. 202 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.511. Dated: February 10, 1997. Michael A. Stegman, Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. appendix A--Hud Nofas Published and Expected to be Published in FY 1997 Office Program Public and Indian Housing .............. Indian Emergency Shelter Grants. Public and Indian Housing .............. Traditional Indian Housing Development. Public and Indian Housing .............. Indian HOME Program. Public and Indian Housing .............. Indian Community Devt. Block Grant. Public and Indian Housing .............. Family Unification. Public and Indian Housing .............. Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP). Public and Indian Housing .............. Demo/Revitalization/HOPE VI. Public and Indian Housing .............. Public Housing Drug Elimination Grant. Public and Indian Housing .............. Tenant Opportunity Program. Public and Indian Housing .............. Economic Development and Supportive Services. Public and Indian Housing .............. Drug Elimination Technical Assistance. Public and Indian Housing .............. Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Service Coordinators. Public and Indian Housing .............. Section 8/Designated Housing. Public and Indian Housing .............. Moving to Work Demonstration. 203 Housing ................................ Drug EIimination--Housing Programs. Housing ................................ 202 Elderly Housing. Housing ................................ 811 Disabled Housing. Housing ................................ Single Family Counseling. Housing ................................ Crime/Security. Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity ..... Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP). Community Planning and Development ..... Historically Black Colleges. Community Planning and Development ..... Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Including: Section 1403 Supportive Housing. Section 1405 Section 8 SRO. Section 1406 Shelter Plus Care. Community Planning and Development ..... Youthbuild. Community Planning and Development ..... Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)-- competitive. Policy Development and Research ........ *Community Development Work Study Published March 4, 1997 (62 FR 9898). Policy Development and Research ........ Community Outreach Partnership Centers. Policy Development and Research ........ Hispanic Serving Institutions. Lead-based Paint ....................... Lead-based Paint Hazard Reduction. [FR Doc. 97-7018 Filed 3-19-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-33-P 204 Source: Federal Register. (1997). Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC): Notice of Funding Availability. Retrieve on August 9, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://frwegate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi- bin/waisgate.cgi?WAlSdoch= 95 8017167l0+4+0+0&WAlSactioanetrieve 205 APPENDIX C Principles of Community Development Promote active and representative citizen participation so that community members can meaningfully influence decisions that affect their situation. Engage community members in problem diagnosis so that those affected may adequately understand the causes of their situation. Help community leaders understand the economic, social, political, environmental, and psychological impact associated with alternative solutions to the problem. Assist community members in designing and implementing a plan to solve agreed upon problems by emphasizing shared leadership and active citizen participation in that process. Disengage from any effort that is likely to adversely affect the disadvantaged segments of a community. Actively work to increase leadership capacity (skills, confidence, and aspirations) in the community development process. 206 Source: Community Development Society, Vanguard, “Principles of Good Practice”, No. 61, Summer 1986, University of Extension Center, St. Joseph, MO, p.3. 207 APPENDIX D COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPCS) (GRANTEES BY THE YEAR IN STUDY) 1994 Nh—A 9°89???” Arizona State University City College of the City University of New York/ Barnard College/Columbia University Duquesne University Merrimack College Pratt Institute Texas A&M University (LG) - College Station Trinity College-Hartford Wayne State University/Michigan State University/ University of Michigan Michigan State University/University of Michigan 9. Yale University 10. University of California Berkeley (LG)/ Francisco State/ Stanford University 11. University of California-L05 Angeles 12. University of Illinois-Chicago (LG) 13. University of Pan American 14. University of South Florida 1225 1. Case Western Reserve University/Cleveland State University/Cuyahoga Community College 2. DePaul University 3. George Mason University/Northern Virginia Community College 4. Georgia State University/Georgia Institute of Technology 5. Marshall University 6. University of Alabama-Birmingham/Miles College/Lawson State Community College 7. University of Delaware (LG)/ Delaware Technical and Community College 8. University of Florida (LG)/ Santa Fe Community College 9. University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign (LG) 10. University of Massachusetts-Boston (LG)/ Bunker Hill Community College/Roxbury Community College 208 Continuation: 11. University of Memphis/LeMoyne Owen College 12. University of Tennessee-Knoxville (LG) 13. University of Texas-Austin 14. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee/ Milwaukee Area Technical College COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPCs) (GRANTEES BY THE YEAR IN STUDY) 1996 Central Connecticut State University Howard University (HBCU) Hunter College Los Angeles Trade-Technical College (TTC) Northeastern University Ohio State University (LG) Portland State University Stillman College (HBCU) . Temple University 10. Tulsa Community College (CC) I 1. University of Califomia-Davis (LG) 12. University of Massachusetts-Lowell (LG) 13. University of Michigan-Flint 14. University of Pennsylvania 15. University of San Diego ‘OWSP‘SAPP’PZ‘ l_99_7_ Institutionalization Grants 1. Brooklyn College 1. DePaul University 2. Buffalo State College 2. George Mason 3. Clemson University (LG) 3. Georgia State 4. Fitchburg State College University 5. Indiana University-Purdue University 4. Marshall of Indianapolis University 6. New Hampshire College 5. University of 7. Rancho Santiago College (CC) Alabama- 8. San Jose State University Birmingham 9. University of Nebraska-Omaha 6. University of 10. University of Missouri-Kansas City Memphis 1 1. University of Califomia-San Diego 7. University of 12. University of Rhode Island (LG) Illinois- 13. University of North Carolina Urbana-Champaign (LG) 14. University of North Texas 15. University of Wisconsin-Parkside 209 Continuation: 16. Virginia Commonwealth University 8. University of Knoxville (LG) 9. University of Texas-Austin COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPCs) (GRANTEES BY THE YEAR IN STUDY) 1998 East Tennessee State University Fayetteville State University Florida Atlantic University Florida lntemational University Illinois Institute of Technology (INST.) Iowa State University (LG) Kean University Rutgers University (LG) 9. University of Alaska-Anchorage (LG) 10. University of Arkansas-Little Rock 11. University of Colorado-Denver 12. University of Illinois-Springfield (LG) 13. University of Louisville 14. University of Maryland (LG) 15. University of Minnesota (LG) 16. University of North Carolina-Charlotte 17. University of North Carolina-Greensboro 18. Wright State University WNQMPPJNH .1292 1. Butler University 13. Valparaiso University 2. Cornell University (LG) 14. University of Michigan- 3. Georgetown University Flint 4. Howard University (HBCU) 15. University of Oregon 5. Lynchburg College 16. University of South 5. Loyola University Florida 6. Mercer University 17. University of Tennessee- 7. Occidental College Chattanooga 9. Pratt Institute (INST.) 18. University of Tennessee- 10. Rowan University Knoxville (LG) 11. Springfield College 19. University of Texas- 12. State University of New York College-Cortland Pan American 210 Continuation: 20. University of Toledo 21. University of Vermont (LG) 22. University of West Florida COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS (COPCS) (GRANTEES BY THE YEAR IN STUDY) 2000 Auburn University (LG) Ball State University Barry University California State University-Hayward Danville Community College (CC) DePaul University Duquesne University Indiana University/Northwest-Gary . Medical College of Wisconsin 10. Megar Evers College 1 1. Seattle Central Community College (CC) 12. Texas A&M University (LG) - College Station 13. Tidewater Community College (CC) 14. Trinity College-Hartford 15. University of Denver 16. University of Memphis 17. University of Northern Iowa 18. University of Pennsylvania 19. University of Pittsburgh 20. University of Rhode Island (LG) 21. University of Southern California 22. University of Wisconsin- Parkside 23. Western Michigan University 24. Youngstown State University OWNP‘SAPPJNT‘ Classification of Symbols Land Grant Universities and Colleges — LG — (22) Historical Black Colleges and Universities — HBCU — (2) Community Colleges -CC — (5) Institute —INST. — (2) Trade-Technical College —TTC — (1) 211 Sources: Office of University Partnerships. (2002). Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPCs) Program Grantees. Retrieved on June 24, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.oup.org/about/grantceSCOpe.htrnl. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC). (2002). About NASULGC: NASULGC Member Land Grant Institutions. Retrieved on July 28, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.nasulgc.orgAbouLNasulgc/members.htm 212 APPENDIX E CENSUS REGIONS AND DIVISIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WEST (Pacific) Washington Oregon California Alaska Hawaii .U‘fi-‘WNT‘ MIDWEST (West North Central) 14. North Dakota 15. South Dakota 1 6. Nebraska 1 7. Kansas 1 8. Missouri 19. Iowa 20. Minnesota SOUTH (West South Central) 26. Oklahoma 27. Texas 28. Louisiana 29. Arkansas NORTHEAST (Middle Atlantic) 43. New York 44. New Jersey 45. Pennsylvania (Mountain) (Mountain) 6. Montana 1 1. Colorado 7. Idaho 12. Arizona 8. Wyoming 13. New Mexico 9. Nevada 10. Utah (East North Central) 21 . Michigan 22. Illinois 23. Indiana 24. Ohio 25. Wisconsin (East South Central) (South Atlantic) 30. Mississippi 34. Georgia 31 . Alabama 35. Florida 32. Tennessee 36. South Carolina 33. Kentucky 37. North Carolina 38. Virginia 39. West Virginia 40. District of Columbia 41. Delaware 42. Maryland (New England) (New England) 46. Vermont 48. Maine 47. New Hampshire 48. Massachusetts 213 49. Connecticut 50. Rhode Island Source: US. Department of Commerce .(1993). 1990 Census of Population Social and Economic Characteristics. United States (1990 CP — 2 — 1). Washington, DC: US. Document Printing Office. 214 APPENDIX F Urban Sprawl Infrastructure Issues for Inner Cities water, sewer, roads and other infrastructure will need to be built to accommodate development, leading to huge public capital and maintenance expenditures. If the public is unwilling to make these expenditures, it will pay in other ways—deteriorating roads and sewers, public health threats, and environmental degradation. urban areas, which have been neglected and abandoned as growth occurred on the urban fringe, will continue to deteriorate. The value of past public and private investments in buildings and infrastructure will be lost and society as a whole will be burdened by the cost of crime and poverty at the urban core. society will face a loss of jobs and associated income in key resource-based industries including agriculture, timber harvesting, and mining. Once open land is converted to residential and commercial use, it is unavailable for farming or forest management. The population shift will lead to escalating issues between new residents and persons engaged in traditional occupations like farming, logging, and mining. society as a whole will lose the aesthetic appeal of natural open spaces, the changing scenery and varied habitat that supports the state’s biological diversity. Tourism opportunities will suffer. as suburbanization continues, the distinct edge between city and country will grow more and more obscure resulting in an even more homogenized landscape (p. iii). 215 Source: Michigan Society of Planning Officials. (1995). Patterns on the Land: Our Choices-Our Future. Working Paper No. 11. Rochester, MI: The Society. 216 APPENDIX G MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY/CENTER FOR URBAN AFFAIRS COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPENT PROGRAM PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL Steps Identification of community issues/capacities/needs . Identify Stakeholders and create community/Project Advisory Committees Discuss and examine Alternative strategies to address issues/problem . Identify and mobilize resources to implement the chosen strategy . Program Implementation . Evaluate 7. Modify and/or disseminate strategy Methods and Actions Community advisory committees formed. Forrnalized issues, capacities, needs. Engage the community/organizational stakeholders. Involve citizens who are experiencing the problem/issue. Engage community in discussing issues, and identifying possible alternatives to address concerns. Identify local in-kind and cash resources to link with other resources to implement specific program strategy agreed upon by the community. In cooperation with the community implement the strategy. In general these strategies have included such activities as; innovative demonstration programs, non-formal educational events, technical assistance and applied research that assist in the development of urban problem solving strategies. Through formative and summative evaluations assess the program impacts on the target audience and others, to determine if the stated goals and objectives are met. Based on the findings of the previous step transfer the project into the community for implementation or modify steps 1- 6 to produce the desired outcomes. 217 Source: Michigan State University. (1994). Community and Economic Development Program Problem-Solving Model. East Lansing: Michigan State University. 218 APPENDIX H AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Adopted October 1978 -- as amended October 1991) This Code is a guide to the ethical conduct required of members of the American Institute of Certified Planners. The Code also aims at informing the public of the principles to which professional planners are committed. Systematic discussion of the application of these principles, among planners and with the public, is itself essential behavior to bring the Code into daily use. The Code's standards of behavior provide a basis for adjudicating any charge that a member has acted unethically. However, the Code also provides more than the minimum threshold of enforceable acceptability. It sets aspirational standards that require conscious striving to attain. The principles of the Code derive both from the general values of society and from the planning profession's special responsibility to serve the public interest. As the basic values of society are often in competition with each other, so also do the principles of this Code sometimes compete. For example, the need to provide full public information may compete with the need to respect confidences. Plans and programs often result from a balancing among divergent interests. An ethical judgment often also requires a conscientious balancing, based on the facts and context of a particular situation and on the precepts of the entire Code. Formal procedures for filing of complaints, investigation and resolution of alleged violations and the issuance of advisory rulings are part of the Code. The Planner's Responsibility to the Public A. A planner's primary obligation is to serve the public interest. While the definition of the public interest is formulated through continuous debate, a planner owes allegiance to a conscientiously attained concept of the public interest, which requires these special obligations: l) A planner must have special concern for the long range consequences of present actions. 2) A planner must pay special attention to the interrelatedness of decisions. 3) A planner must strive to provide full, clear and accurate information on planning issues to citizens and governmental decision-makers. 219 it 4) A planner must strive to give citizens the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans and programs. Participation should be broad enough to include people who lack formal organization or influence. 5) A planner must strive to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons, and must urge the alteration of policies, institutions and decisions which oppose such needs. 6) A planner must strive to protect the integrity of the natural environment. 7) A planner must strive for excellence of environmental design and endeavor to conserve the heritage of the built environment. The Planner's Responsibility to Clients and Employers B. A planner owes diligent, creative, independent and competent performance of work in pursuit of the client's or employer's interest. Such performance should be consistent with the planner's faithful service to the public interest. 1) A planner must exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of clients and employers. 2) A planner must accept the decisions of a client or employer concerning the objectives and nature of the professional services to be performed unless the course of action to be pursued involves conduct which is illegal or inconsistent with the planner's primary obligation to the public interest. 3) A planner shall not perform work if there is an actual, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable conflict of interest, direct or indirect, or an appearance of impropriety, without full written disclosure concerning work for current or past clients and subsequent written consent by the current client or employer. A planner shall remove himself or herself from a project if there is any direct personal or financial gain including gains to family members. A planner shall not disclose information gained in the course of public activity for a private benefit unless the information would be offered impartially to any person. 220 4) A planner who has previously worked for a public planning body should not represent a private client, for one year after the planner's last date of employment with the planning body, in connection with any matter before that body that the planner may have influenced before leaving public employment. 5) A planner must not solicit prospective clients or employment through use of false or misleading claims, harassment or duress. 6) A planner must not sell or offer to sell services by stating or implying an ability to influence decisions by improper means. 7) A planner must not use the power of any office to seek or obtain a special advantage that is not in the public interest nor any special advantage that is not a matter of public knowledge. 8) A planner must not accept or continue to perform work beyond the planner's professional competence or accept work which cannot be performed with the promptness required by the prospective client or employer, or which is required by the circumstances of the assignment. 9) A planner must not reveal information gained in a professional relationship which the client or employer has requested to be held inviolate. Exceptions to this requirement of non-disclosure may be made only when (a) required by process of law, or (b) required to prevent a clear violation of law, or (0) required to prevent a substantial injury to the public. Disclosure pursuant to (b) and (0) must not be made until after the planner has verified the facts and issues involved and, when practicable, has exhausted efforts to obtain reconsiderations of the matter and has sought separate opinions on the issue from other qualified professionals employed by the client or employer. The Planner's Responsibility to the Profession and to Colleagues C. A planner should contribute to the development of the profession by improving knowledge and techniques, making work relevant to solutions of community problems, and increasing public understanding of planning activities. A planner should treat fairly the professional views of qualified colleagues and members of other professions. 1) A planner must protect and enhance the integrity of the profession and must be responsible in criticism of the profession. 221 2) A planner must accurately represent the qualifications, views and findings of colleagues. 3) A planner who reviews the work of other professionals must do so in a fair, considerate, professional and equitable manner. 4) A planner must share the results of experience and research which contribute to the body of planning knowledge. 5) A planner must examine the applicability of planning theories, methods and standards to the facts and analysis of each particular situation and must not accept the applicability of a customary solution without first establishing its appropriateness to the situation. 6) A planner must contribute time and information to the professional development of students, interns, beginning professionals and other colleagues. 7) A planner must strive to increase the opportunities for women and members of recognized minorities to become professional planners. 8) A planner shall not commit an act of sexual harassment. The Planner's Self-Responsibility D. A planner should strive for high standards of professional integrity, proficiency and knowledge. 1) A planner must not commit a deliberately wrongful act which reflects adversely on the planner’s professional fitness. 2) A planner must respect the rights of others and, in particular, must not improperly discriminate against persons. 3) A planner must strive to continue professional education. 4) A planner must accurately represent professional qualifications, education and affiliations. 5) A planner must systematically and critically analyze ethical issues in the practice of planning. 222 6) A planner must strive to contribute time and effort to groups lacking in adequate planning resources and to voluntary professional activities. 223 Source: American Institute of Certified Planners. (1991). AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Washington, DC: Retrieved February 28, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.planning.org/abtaicp/conduct.html 224 APPENDIX I ASA Code of Ethics Code of Ethics American Sociological Association (Approved by ASA Membership in spring of 1997) INTRODUCTION PREAMBLE GENERAL PRINCIPLES Princfiple A: Professional Competence Principle B: Integr_ity Principle C: Professional and Scientific Responsibility Principle D: Respect for People's Rights, Dignity, and Diversiy Principle E: Social Responsibility ETHICAL STANDARDS Professional and Scientific Standards Competence Representation and Misuse of Expertise . Delegation and Supervision . Nondiscrimination . Non-exploitation \iororisporve . Harassment 8. Employment Decisions 8.01 Fair Employment Practices 8.02 Responsibilities of Employees 9. Conflicts of Interest 225 9.01 Adherence to Professional Standards 9.02 Disclosure 9.03 Avoidance of Personal Gain 9.04 Decisionmaking in the Workplace 9.05 Decisionmaking Outside of the Workplace 10. Public Communication 10.01 Public Communications 10.02 Statements by Others 1 1. Confidentiality 11.01 Maintaining Confidentiality 11.02 Limits of Confidentiality 11.03 Discussing Confidentiality and Its Limits 11.04 Anticipation of Possible Uses of Information 11.05 Electronic Transmission of Confidential lnforrnation 11.06 Anonymity of Sources 11.07 Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy 11.08 Preservation of Confidential Information 12. Informed Consent 12.01 Scope of Informed Consent 12.02 Informed Consent Process 12.03 Informed Consent of Students and Subordinates 12.04 Informed Consent with Children 12.05 Use of Deception in Research 12.06 Use of Recording Technology 13. Research Planning, Implementation, and Dissemination 13.01 Planning and Implementation 13.02 Unanticipated Research Opportunities 13.03 Offering lnducements for Research Participants 13.04 Reporting on Research 13.05 Data Sharing 226 14. Plagiarism 15. Authorship Credit 16. Publication Process 16.01 Submission of Manuscripts for Publication 16.02 Duplicate Publication of Data 16.03 Responsibilities of Editors 17. Responsibilities of Reviewers 18. Education, Teaching, and Training 18.01 Administration of Education Programs 18.02 Teaching and Training 19. Contractual and Consulting Services 20. Adherence to the Code of Ethics 20.01 Familiarity with Code of Ethics 20.02 Confronting Ethical Issues 20.03 Fair Treatment of Parties in Ethical Disputes 20.04 Reporting Ethical Violations of Others 20.05 Cooperating with Ethics Committees 20.06 Improper Complaints INTRODUCTION The American Sociological Association's (ASA's) Code of Ethics sets forth the principles and ethical standards that underlie sociologists' professional responsibilities and conduct. These principles and standards should be used as guidelines when examining everyday professional activities. They constitute normative statements for sociologists and provide guidance on issues that sociologists may encounter in their professional work. ASA's Code of Ethics consists of an Introduction, 3 Preamble, five General Principles, and specific Ethical Standards. This Code is also accompanied by the Rules and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics which 227 describe the procedures for filing, investigating, and resolving complaints of unethical conduct. The Preamble and General Principles of the Code are aspirational goals to guide sociologists toward the highest ideals of sociology. Although the Preamble and General Principles are not enforceable rules, they should be considered by sociologists in arriving at an ethical course of action and may be considered by ethics bodies in interpreting the Ethical Standards. The Ethical Standards set forth enforceable rules for conduct by sociologists. Most of the Ethical Standards are written broadly in order to apply to sociologists in varied roles, and the application of an Ethical Standard may vary depending on the context. The Ethical Standards are not exhaustive. Any conduct that is not specifically addressed by this Code of Ethics is not necessarily ethical or unethical. Membership in the ASA commits members to adhere to the ASA Code of Ethics and to the Policies and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. Members are advised of this obligation upon joining the Association and that violations of the Code may lead to the imposition of sanctions, including termination of membership. ASA members subject to the Code of Ethics may be reviewed under these Ethical Standards only if the activity is part of or affects their work-related functions, or if the activity is sociological in nature. Personal activities having no connection to or effect on sociologists' performance of their professional roles are not subject to the Code of Ethics. PREAMBLE This Code of Ethics articulates a common set of values upon which sociologists build their professional and scientific work. The Code is intended to provide both the general principles and the rules to cover professional situations encountered by sociologists. It has as its primary goal the welfare and protection of the individuals and groups with whom sociologists work. It is the 228 individual responsibility of each sociologist to aspire to the highest possible standards of conduct in research, teaching, practice, and service. The development of a dynamic set of ethical standards for a sociologist's work- related conduct requires a personal commitment to a lifelong effort to act ethically; to encourage ethical behavior by students, supervisors, supervisees, employers, employees, and colleagues; and to consult with others as needed concerning ethical problems. Each sociologist supplements, but does not violate, the values and rules specified in the Code of Ethics based on guidance drawn from personal values, culture, and experience. GENERAL PRINCIPLES The following General Principles are aspirational and serve as a guide for sociologists in determining ethical courses of action in various contexts. They exemplify the highest ideals of professional conduct. Principle A: Professional Competence Sociologists strive to maintain the highest levels of competence in their work; they recognize the limitations of their expertise; and they undertake only those tasks for which they are qualified by education, training, or experience. They recognize the need for ongoing education in order to remain professionally competent; and they utilize the appropriate scientific, professional, technical, and administrative resources needed to ensure competence in their professional activities. They consult with other professionals when necessary for the benefit of their students, research participants, and clients. Principle B: Integrity Sociologists are honest, fair, and respectful of others in their professional activities—in research, teaching, practice, and service. Sociologists do not knowingly act in ways that jeopardize either their own or others' professional welfare. Sociologists conduct their affairs in ways that inspire trust and 229 confidence; they do not knowingly make statements that are false, misleading, or decepfive. Principle C: Professional and Scientific Responsibility Sociologists adhere to the highest scientific and professional standards and accept responsibility for their work. Sociologists understand that they form a community and show respect for other sociologists even when they disagree on theoretical, methodological, or personal approaches to professional activities. Sociologists value the public trust in sociology and are concerned about their ethical behavior and that of other sociologists that might compromise that trust. While endeavoring always to be collegial, sociologists must never let the desire to be collegial outweigh their shared responsibility for ethical behavior. When appropriate, they consult with colleagues in order to prevent or avoid unethical conduct Principle D: Respect for People's Rights, Dignity, and Diversity Sociologists respect the rights, dignity, and worth of all people. They strive to eliminate bias in their professional activities, and they do not tolerate any forms of discrimination based on age; gender; race; ethnicity; national origin; religion; sexual orientation; disability; health conditions; or marital, domestic, or parental status. They are sensitive to cultural, individual, and role differences in serving, teaching, and studying groups of people with distinctive characteristics. In all of their work-related activities, sociologists acknowledge the rights of others to hold values, attitudes, and opinions that differ from their own. Principle E: Social Responsibility Sociologists are aware of their professional and scientific responsibility to the communities and societies in which they live and work. They apply and make public their knowledge in order to contribute to the public good. When 230 Is undertaking research, they strive to advance the science of sociology and to serve the public good. ETHICAL STANDARDS 1. Professional and Scientific Standards Sociologists adhere to the highest possible technical standards that are reasonable and responsible in their research, teaching, practice, and service activities. They rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge; act with honesty and integrity; and avoid untrue, deceptive, or undocumented statements in undertaking work-related functions or activities. 2. Competence (a) Sociologists conduct research, teach, practice, and provide service only within the boundaries of their competence, based on their education, training, supervised experience, or appropriate professional experience. (b) Sociologists conduct research, teach, practice, and provide service in new areas or involving new techniques only after they have taken reasonable steps to ensure the competence of their work in these areas. (c) Sociologists who engage in research, teaching, practice, or service maintain awareness of current scientific and professional information in their fields of activity, and undertake continuing efforts to maintain competence in the skills they use. (d) Sociologists refrain from undertaking an activity when their personal circumstances may interfere with their professional work or lead to harm for a student, supervisee, human subject, client, colleague, or other person to whom they have a scientific, teaching, consulting, or other professional obligation. 231 3. Representation and Misuse of Expertise (a) In research, teaching, practice, service, or other situations where sociologists render professional judgments or present their expertise, they accurately and fairly represent their areas and degrees of expertise. (b) Sociologists do not accept grants, contracts, consultation, or work assignments from individual or organizational clients or sponsors that appear likely to require violation of the standards in this Code of Ethics. Sociologists dissociate themselves from such activities when they discover a violation and are unable to achieve its correction. (0) Because sociologists' scientific and professional judgments and actions may affect the lives of others, they are alert to and guard against personal, financial, social, organizational, or political factors that might lead to misuse of their knowledge, expertise, or influence. (d) If sociologists learn of misuse or misrepresentation of their work, they take reasonable steps to correct or minimize the misuse or misrepresentation. 4. Delegation and Supervision (a) Sociologists provide proper training and supervision to their students, supervisees, or employees and take reasonable steps to see that such persons perform services responsibly, competently, and ethically. (b) Sociologists delegate to their students, supervisees, or employees only those responsibilities that such persons, based on their education, training, or experience, can reasonably be expected to perform either independently or with the level of supervision provided. 232 5. Nondiscrimination Sociologists do not engage in discrimination in their work based on age; gender; race; ethnicity; national origin; religion; sexual orientation; disability; health conditions; marital, domestic, or parental status; or any other applicable basis proscribed by law. 6. Non-exploitation (a) Whether for personal, economic, or professional advantage, sociologists do not exploit persons over whom they have direct or indirect supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as students, supervisees, employees, or research participants. (b) Sociologists do not directly supervise or exercise evaluative authority over any person with whom they have a sexual relationship, including students, supervisees, employees, or research participants. 7. Harassment Sociologists do not engage in harassment of any person, including students, supervisees, employees, or research participants. Harassment consists of a single intense and severe act or of multiple persistent or pervasive acts which are demeaning, abusive, offensive, or create a hostile professional or workplace environment. Sexual harassment may include sexual solicitation, physical advance, or verbal or non-verbal conduct that is sexual in nature. Racial harassment may include unnecessary, exaggerated, or unwarranted attention or attack, whether verbal or non-verbal, because of a person's race or ethnicity. 233 8. Employment Decisions Sociologists have an obligation to adhere to the highest ethical standards when participating in employment related decisions, when seeking employment, or when planning to resign from a position. 8.01 Fair Employment Practices (a) When participating in employment-related decisions, sociologists make every effort to ensure equal opportunity and fair treatment to all full- and part-time employees. They do not discriminate in hiring, promotion, salary, treatment, or any other conditions of employment or career development on the basis of age; gender; race; ethnicity; national origin; religion; sexual orientation; disability; health conditions; marital, domestic, or parental status; or any other applicable basis proscribed bylaw. (b) When participating in employment-related decisions, sociologists specify the requirements for hiring, promotion, tenure, and termination and communicate these requirements thoroughly to full- and part-time employees and prospective employees. (c) When participating in employment-related decisions, sociologists have the responsibility to be informed of fair employment codes, to communicate this information to employees, and to help create an atmosphere upholding fair employment practices for full- and part-time employees. (d) When participating in employment-related decisions, sociologists inform prospective full- and part-time employees of any constraints on research and publication and negotiate clear understandings about any conditions that may limit research and scholarly activity. 234 8.02 Responsibilities of Employees (a) When seeking employment, sociologists provide prospective employers with accurate and complete information on their professional qualifications and experiences. (b) When leaving a position, permanently or temporarily, sociologists provide their employers with adequate notice and take reasonable steps to reduce negative effects of leaving. 9. Conflicts of Interest Sociologists maintain the highest degree of integrity in their professional work and avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflict. Conflicts of interest arise when sociologists' personal or financial interests prevent them from performing their professional work in an unbiased manner. In research, teaching, practice, and service, sociologists are alert to situations that might cause a conflict of interest and take appropriate action to prevent conflict or disclose it to appropriate parties. 9.01 Adherence to Professional Standards Irrespective of their personal or financial interests or those of their employers or clients, sociologists adhere to professional and scientific standards in (1) the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; (2) the reporting of research; (3) the teaching, professional presentation, or public dissemination of sociological knowledge; and (4) the identification or implementation of appropriate contractual, consulting, or service activities. 235 9.02 Disclosure Sociologists disclose relevant sources of financial support and relevant personal or professional relationships that may have the appearance of or potential for a conflict of interest to an employer or client, to the sponsors of their professional work, or in public speeches and writing. 9.03 Avoidance of Personal Gain (3) Under all circumstances, sociologists do not use or othenivise seek to gain from information or material received in a confidential context (e.g., knowledge obtained from reviewing a manuscript or serving on a proposal review panel), unless they have authorization to do so or until that information is otherwise made publicly available. (b) Under all circumstances, sociologists do not seek to gain from information or material in an employment or client relationship without permission of the employer or client. 9.04 Decisionmaking in the Workplace In their workplace, sociologists take appropriate steps to avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts, and carefully scrutinize potentially biasing affiliations or relationships. In research, teaching, practice, or service, such potentially biasing affiliations or relationships include, but are not limited to, situations involving family, business, or close personal friendships or those with whom sociologists have had strong conflict or disagreement. 236 9.05 Decisionmaking Outside of the Workplace In professional activities outside of their workplace, sociologists in all circumstances abstain from engaging in deliberations and decisions that allocate or withhold benefits or rewards from individuals or institutions if they have biasing affiliations or relationships. These biasing affiliations or relationships are: 1) current employment or being considered for employment at an organization or institution that could be construed as benefiting from the decision; 2) current officer or board member of an organization or institution that could be construed as benefiting from the decision; 3) current employment or being considered for employment at the same organization or institution where an individual could benefit from the decision; 4) a spouse, domestic partner, or known relative who as an individual could benefit from the decision; or 5) a current business or professional partner, research collaborator, employee, supervisee, or student who as an individual could benefit from the decision. 10. Public Communication Sociologists adhere to the highest professional standards in public communications about their professional services, credentials and expertise, work products, or publications, whether these communications are from themselves or from others. 10.01 Public Communications (a) Sociologists take steps to ensure the accuracy of all public communications. Such public communications include, but are not limited to, directory listings; personal resumes or curriculum vitae; advertising; brochures or printed matter; interviews or comments to the media; 237 statements in legal proceedings; lectures and public oral presentations; or other published materials. (b) Sociologists do not make public statements that are false, deceptive, misleading, or fraudulent, either because of what they state, convey, or suggest or because of what they omit, concerning their research, practice, or other work activities or those of persons or organizations with which they are affiliated. Such activities include, but are not limited to, false or deceptive statements concerning sociologists' (1) training, experience, or competence; (2) academic degrees; (3) credentials; (4) institutional or association affiliations; (5) services; (6) fees; or (7) publications or research findings. Sociologists do not make false or deceptive statements concerning the scientific basis for, results of, or degree of success from their professional services. (c) When sociologists provide professional advice or comment by means of public lectures, demonstrations, radio or television programs, prerecorded tapes, printed articles, mailed material, or other media, they take reasonable precautions to ensure that (1) the statements are based on appropriate research, literature, and practice; and (2) the statements are othenivise consistent with this Code of Ethics. 10.02 Statements by Others (3) Sociologists who engage or employ others to create or place public statements that promote their work products, professional services, or other activities retain responsibility for such statements. (b) Sociologists make reasonable efforts to prevent others whom they do not directly engage, employ, or supervise (such as employers, publishers, sponsors, organizational clients, members of the media) from making deceptive statements concerning their professional research, teaching, or 238 practice activities. (0) In working with the press, radio, television, or other communications media or in advertising in the media, sociologists are cognizant of potential conflicts of interest or appearances of such conflicts (e.g., they do not provide compensation to employees of the media), and they adhere to the highest standards of professional honesty (e.g., they acknowledge paid advertising). 1 1. Confidentiality Sociologists have an obligation to ensure that confidential information is protected. They do so to ensure the integrity of research and the open communication with research participants and to protect sensitive information obtained in research, teaching, practice, and service. When gathering confidential information, sociologists should take into account the long-term uses of the information, including its potential placement in public archives or the examination of the information by other researchers or practitioners. 11.01 Maintaining Confidentiality (a) Sociologists take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality rights of research participants, students, employees, clients, or others. (b) Confidential information provided by research participants, students, employees, clients, or others is treated as such by sociologists even if there is no legal protection or privilege to do so. Sociologists have an obligation to protect confidential information, and not allow information gained in confidence from being used in ways that would unfairly compromise research participants, students, employees, clients, or others. 239 (c) Information provided under an understanding of confidentiality is treated as such even after the death of those providing that information. (d) Sociologists maintain the integrity of confidential deliberations, activities, or roles, including, where applicable, that of professional committees, review panels, or advisory groups (e.g., the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics). (e) Sociologists, to the extent possible, protect the confidentiality of student records, performance data, and personal information, whether verbal or written, given in the context of academic consultation, supervision, or advising. (f) The obligation to maintain confidentiality extends to members of research or training teams and collaborating organizations who have access to the information. To ensure that access to confidential information is restricted, it is the responsibility of researchers, administrators, and principal investigators to instruct staff to take the steps necessary to protect confidentiality. (9) When using private information about individuals collected by other persons or institutions, sociologists protect the confidentiality of individually identifiable information. Information is private when an individual can reasonably expect that the information will not be made public with personal identifiers (e.g., medical or employment records). 11.02 Limits of Confidentiality (a) Sociologists inform themselves fully about all laws and rules which may limit or alter guarantees of confidentiality. They determine their ability to 240 guarantee absolute confidentiality and, as appropriate, inform research participants, students, employees, clients, or others of any limitations to this guarantee at the outset consistent with ethical standards set forth in 1 1 .02(b). (b) Sociologists may confront unanticipated circumstances where they become aware of information that is clearly health- or life-threatening to research participants, students, employees, clients, or others. In these cases, sociologists balance the importance of guarantees of confidentiality with other principles in this Code of Ethics, standards of conduct, and applicable law. (c) Confidentiality is not required with respect to observations in public places, activities conducted in public, or other settings where no rules of privacy are provided by law or custom. Similarly, confidentiality is not required in the case of information available from public records. 1 1.03 Discussing Confidentiality and Its Limits (3) When sociologists establish a scientific or professional relationship with persons, they discuss (1) the relevant limitations on confidentiality, and (2) the foreseeable uses of the information generated through their professional work. (b) Unless it is not feasible or is counter-productive, the discussion of confidentiality occurs at the outset of the relationship and thereafter as new circumstances may warrant. 241 11.04 Anticipation of Possible Uses of Information (a) When research requires maintaining personal identifiers in data bases or systems of records, sociologists delete such identifiers before the information is made publicly available. (b) When confidential information concerning research participants, clients, or other recipients of service is entered into databases or systems of records available to persons without the prior consent of the relevant parties, sociologists protect anonymity by not including personal identifiers or by employing other techniques that mask or control disclosure of individual idenfifies. (c) When deletion of personal identifiers is not feasible, sociologists take reasonable steps to determine that appropriate consent of personally- identifiable individuals has been obtained before they transfer such data to others or review such data collected by others. 11.05 Electronic Transmission of Confidential Information Sociologists use extreme care in delivering or transferring any confidential data, information, or communication over public computer networks. Sociologists are attentive to the problems of maintaining confidentiality and control over sensitive material and data when use of technological innovations, such as public computer networks, may open their professional and scientific communication to unauthorized persons. 242 .II! It...“ film”? . .. N‘ 11.06 Anonymity of Sources (a) Sociologists do not disclose in their writings, lectures, or other public media confidential, personally identifiable information concerning their research participants, students, individual or organizational clients, or other recipients of their service which is obtained during the course of their work, unless consent from individuals or their legal representatives has been obtained. (b) When confidential information is used in scientific and professional presentations, sociologists disguise the identity of research participants, students, individual or organizational clients, or other recipients of their service. 11.07 Minimizing Intrusions on Privacy (a) To minimize intrusions on privacy, sociologists include in written and oral reports, consultations, and public communications only information germane to the purpose for which the communication is made. (b) Sociologists discuss confidential information or evaluative data concerning research participants, students, supervisees, employees, and individual or organizational clients only for appropriate scientific or professional purposes and only with persons clearly concerned with such matters. 243 11.08 Preservation of Confidential Information (a) Sociologists take reasonable steps to ensure that records, data, or information are preserved in a confidential manner consistent with the requirements of this Code of Ethics, recognizing that ownership of records, data, or information may also be governed by law or institutional principles. (b) Sociologists plan so that confidentiality of records, data, or information is protected in the event of the sociologist's death, incapacity, or withdrawal from the position or practice. (0) When sociologists transfer confidential records, data, or information to other persons or organizations, they obtain assurances that the recipients of the records, data, or information will employ measures to protect confidentiality at least equal to those originally pledged. 12. Informed Consent Informed consent is a basic ethical tenet of scientific research on human populations. Sociologists do not involve a human being as a subject in research without the informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative, except as othenNise specified in this Code. Sociologists recognize the possibility of undue influence or subtle pressures on subjects that may derive from researchers' expertise or authority, and they take this into account in designing informed consent procedures. 244 12.01 Scope of Informed Consent (a) Sociologists conducting research obtain consent from research participants or their legally authorized representatives (1) when data are collected from research participants through any form of communication, interaction, or intervention; or (2) when behavior of research participants occurs in a private context where an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or reporting is taking place. (b) Despite the paramount importance of consent, sociologists may seek waivers of this standard when (1) the research involves no more than minimal risk for research participants, and (2) the research could not practicably be carried out were informed consent to be required. Sociologists recognize that waivers of consent require approval from institutional review boards or, in the absence of such boards, from another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research. Under such circumstances, the confidentiality of any personally identifiable information must be maintained unless othenrvise set forth in 11.02(b). (c) Sociologists may conduct research in public places or use publicly available information about individuals (e.g., naturalistic observations in public places, analysis of public records, or archival research) without obtaining consent. If, under such circumstances, sociologists have any doubt whatsoever about the need for informed consent, they consult with institutional review boards or, in the absence of such boards, with another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research before proceeding with such research. 245 (d) In undertaking research with vulnerable populations (e.g., youth, recent immigrant populations, the mentally ill), sociologists take special care to ensure that the voluntary nature of the research is understood and that consent is not coerced. In all other respects, sociologists adhere to the principles set forth in 12.01(a)-(c). (e) Sociologists are familiar with and conform to applicable state and federal regulations and, where applicable, institutional review board requirements for obtaining informed consent for research. 12.02 Informed Consent Process (a) When informed consent is required, sociologists enter into an agreement with research participants or their legal representatives that clarifies the nature of the research and the responsibilities of the investigator prior to conducting the research. (b) When informed consent is required, sociologists use language that is understandable to and respectful of research participants or their legal representatives. (c) When informed consent is required, sociologists provide research participants or their legal representatives with the opportunity to ask questions about any aspect of the research, at any time during or after their participation in the research. (d) When informed consent is required, sociologists inform research participants or their legal representatives of the nature of the research; they indicate to participants that their participation or continued 246 participation is voluntary; they inform participants of significant factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate (e.g., possible risks and benefits of their participation); and they explain other aspects of the research and respond to questions from prospective participants. Also, if relevant, sociologists explain that refusal to participate or withdrawal from participation in the research involves no penalty, and they explain any foreseeable consequences of declining or withdrawing. Sociologists explicitly discuss confidentiality and, if applicable, the extent to which confidentiality may be limited as set forth in 11.02(b). (e) When informed consent is required, sociologists keep records regarding said consent. They recognize that consent is a process that involves oral and/or written consent. (f) Sociologists honor all commitments they have made to research participants as part of the informed consent process except where unanticipated circumstances demand othen/vise as set forth in 11.02(b). 12.03 Informed Consent of Students and Subordinates When undertaking research at their own institutions or organizations with research participants who are students or subordinates, sociologists take special care to protect the prospective subjects from adverse consequences of declining or withdrawing from participation. 247 12.04 Informed Consent with Children (a) In undertaking research with children, sociologists obtain the consent of children to participate, to the extent that they are capable of providing such consent, except under circumstances where consent may not be required as set forth in 12.01(b). (b) In undertaking research with children, sociologists obtain the consent of a parent or a legally authorized guardian. Sociologists may seek waivers of parental or guardian consent when (1) the research involves no more than minimal risk for the research participants, and (2) the research could not practicably be carried out were consent to be required, or (3) the consent of a parent or guardian is not a reasonable requirement to protect the child (e.g., neglected or abused children). (c) Sociologists recognize that waivers of consent from a child and a parent or guardian require approval from institutional review boards or, in the absence of such boards, from another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research. Under such circumstances, the confidentiality of any personally identifiable information must be maintained unless othenivise set forth in 11.02(b). 12.05 Use of Deception in Research (a) Sociologists do not use deceptive techniques (1) unless they have determined that their use will not be harmful to research participants; is justified by the study's prospective scientific, educational, or applied value; and that equally effective alternative procedures that do not use deception are not feasible, and (2) unless they have obtained the approval of 248 institutional review boards or, in the absence of such boards, with another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research. (b) Sociologists never deceive research participants about significant aspects of the research that would affect their willingness to participate, such as physical risks, discomfort, or unpleasant emotional experiences. (c) When deception is an integral feature of the design and conduct of research, sociologists attempt to correct any misconception that research participants may have no later than at the conclusion of the research. (d) On rare occasions, sociologists may need to conceal their identity in order to undertake research that could not practicably be carried out were they to be known as researchers. Under such circumstances, sociologists undertake the research if it involves no more than minimal risk for the research participants and if they have obtained approval to proceed in this manner from an institutional review board or, in the absence of such boards, from another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research. Under such circumstances, confidentiality must be maintained unless otherwise set forth in 11.02(b). 12.06 Use of Recording Technology Sociologists obtain informed consent from research participants, students, employees, clients, or others prior to videotaping, filming, or recording them in any form, unless these activities involve simply naturalistic observations in public places and it is not anticipated that the recording will be used in a manner that could cause personal identification or harm. 249 13. Research Planning, Implementation, and Dissemination Sociologists have an obligation to promote the integrity of research and to ensure that they comply with the ethical tenets of science in the planning, implementation, and dissemination of research. They do so in order to advance knowledge, to minimize the possibility that results will be misleading, and to protect the rights of research participants. 13.01 Planning and Implementation (a) In planning and implementing research, sociologists minimize the possibility that results will be misleading. (b) Sociologists take steps to implement protections for the rights and welfare of research participants and other persons affected by the research. (c) In their research, sociologists do not encourage activities or themselves behave in ways that are health- or life-threatening to research participants or others. (d) In planning and implementing research, sociologists consult those with expertise concerning any special population under investigation or likely to be affected. (e) In planning and implementing research, sociologists consider its ethical acceptability as set forth in the Code of Ethics. If the best ethical practice is unclear, sociologists consult with institutional review boards or, in the absence of such review processes, with another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research. (f) Sociologists are responsible for the ethical conduct of research conducted by them or by others under their supervision or authority. 250 13.02 Unanticipated Research Opportunities If during the course of teaching, practice, service, or non-professional activities, sociologists determine that they wish to undertake research that was not previously anticipated, they make known their intentions and take steps to ensure that the research can be undertaken consonant with ethical principles, especially those relating to confidentiality and informed consent. Under such circumstances, sociologists seek the approval of institutional review boards or, in the absence of such review processes, another authoritative body with expertise on the ethics of research. 13.03 Offering lnducements for Research Participants Sociologists do not offer excessive or inappropriate financial or other inducements to obtain the participation of research participants, particularly when it might coerce participation. Sociologists may provide incentives to the extent that resources are available and appropriate. 13.04 Reporting on Research (a) Sociologists disseminate their research findings except where unanticipated circumstances (e.g., the health of the researcher) or proprietary agreements with employers, contractors, or clients preclude such dissemination. (b) Sociologists do not fabricate data or falsify results in their publications or presentations. 251 (c) In presenting their work, sociologists report their findings fully and do not omit relevant data. They report results whether they support or contradict the expected outcomes. (d) Sociologists take particular care to state all relevant qualifications on the findings and interpretation of their research. Sociologists also disclose underlying assumptions, theories, methods, measures, and research designs that might bear upon findings and interpretations of their work. (e) Consistent with the spirit of full disclosure of methods and analyses, once findings are publicly disseminated, sociologists permit their open assessment and verification by other responsible researchers with appropriate safeguards, where applicable, to protect the anonymity of research participants. (f) If sociologists discover significant errors in their publication or presentation of data, they take reasonable steps to correct such errors in a correction, a retraction, published errata, or other public fora as appropriate. (9) Sociologists report sources of financial support in their written papers and note any special relations to any sponsor. In special circumstances, sociologists may withhold the names of specific sponsors if they provide an adequate and full description of the nature and interest of the sponson (h) Sociologists take special care to report accurately the results of others' scholarship by using correct information and citations when presenting 252 the work of others in publications, teaching, practice, and service settings. 13.05 Data Sharing (a) Sociologists share data and pertinent documentation as a regular practice. Sociologists make their data available after completion of the project or its major publications, except where proprietary agreements with employers, contractors, or clients preclude such accessibility or when it is impossible to share data and protect the confidentiality of the data or the anonymity of research participants (e.g., raw field notes or detailed information from ethnographic interviews). (b) Sociologists anticipate data sharing as an integral part of a research plan whenever data sharing is feasible. (c) Sociologists share data in a form that is consonant with research participants' interests and protect the confidentiality of the information they have been given. They maintain the confidentiality of data, whether legally required or not; remove personal identifiers before data are shared; and if necessary use other disclosure avoidance techniques. (d) Sociologists who do not othenivise place data in public archives keep data available and retain documentation relating to the research for a reasonable period of time after publication or dissemination of results. (e) Sociologists may ask persons who request their data for further analysis to bear the associated incremental costs, if necessary. (0 Sociologists who use data from others for further analyses explicitly acknowledge the contribution of the initial researchers. 253 14. Plagiarism (a) In publications, presentations, teaching, practice, and service, sociologists explicitly identify, credit, and reference the author when they take data or material verbatim from another person's written work, whether it is published, unpublished, or electronically available. (b) In their publications, presentations, teaching, practice, and service, sociologists provide acknowledgment of and reference to the use of others' work, even if the work is not quoted verbatim or paraphrased, and they do not present others' work as their own whether it is published, unpublished, or electronically available. 15. Authorship Credit (a) Sociologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. (b) Sociologists ensure that principal authorship and other publication credits are based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. In claiming or determining the ordering of authorship, sociologists seek to reflect accurately the contributions of main participants in the research and writing process. (c) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple authored publication that substantially derives from the student's dissertation or thesis. 254 16. Publication Process Sociologists adhere to the highest ethical standards when participating in publication and review processes when they are authors or editors. 16.01 Submission of Manuscripts for Publication (3) In cases of multiple authorship, sociologists confer with all other authors prior to submitting work for publication and establish mutually acceptable agreements regarding submission. (b) In submitting a manuscript to a professional journal, book series, or edited book, sociologists grant that publication first claim to publication except where explicit policies allow multiple submissions. Sociologists do not submit a manuscript to a second publication until after an official decision has been received from the first publication or until the manuscript is withdrawn. Sociologists submitting a manuscript for publication in a journal, book series, or edited book can withdraw a manuscript from consideration up until an official acceptance is made. (0) Sociologists may submit a book manuscript to multiple publishers. However, once sociologists have signed a contract, they cannot withdraw a manuscript from publication unless there is reasonable cause to do so. 16.02 Duplicate Publication of Data When sociologists publish data or findings that they have previously published elsewhere, they accompany these publications by proper acknowledgment. 255 16.03 Responsibilities of Editors (3) When serving as editors of journals or book series, sociologists are fair in the application of standards and operate without personal or ideological favoritism or malice. As editors, sociologists are cognizant of any potential conflicts of interest. (b) When serving as editors of journals or book series, sociologists ensure the confidential nature of the review process and supervise editorial office staff, including students, in accordance with practices that maintain confidentiality. (c) When serving as editors of journals or book series, sociologists are bound to publish all manuscripts accepted for publication unless major errors or ethical violations are discovered after acceptance (e.g., plagiarism or scientific misconduct). (d) When serving as editors of journals or book series, sociologists ensure the anonymity of reviewers unless they othenivise receive permission from reviewers to reveal their identity. Editors ensure that their staff conform to this practice. (e) When serving as journal editors, sociologists ensure the anonymity of authors unless and until a manuscript is accepted for publication or unless the established practices of the journal are known to be otherwise. 256 (f) When serving as journal editors, sociologists take steps to provide for the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries about the status of the review. 17. Responsibilities of Reviewers (a) In reviewing material submitted for publication, grant support, or other evaluation purposes, sociologists respect the confidentiality of the process and the proprietary rights in such information of those who submitted it. (b) Sociologists disclose conflicts of interest or decline requests for reviews of the work of others where conflicts of interest are involved. (0) Sociologists decline requests for reviews of the work of others when they believe that the review process may be biased or when they have questions about the integrity of the process. (d) If asked to review a manuscript, book, or proposal they have previously reviewed, sociologists make it known to the person making the request (e.g., editor, program officer) unless it is clear that they are being asked to provide a reappraisal. 18. Education, Teaching, and Training As teachers, supervisors, and trainers, sociologists follow the highest ethical standards in order to ensure the quality of sociological education and the integrity of the teacher-student relationship. 257 18.01 Administration of Education Programs (3) Sociologists who are responsible for education and training programs seek to ensure that the programs are competently designed, provide the proper experiences, and meet all goals for which claims are made by the program. (b) Sociologists responsible for education and training programs seek to ensure that there is an accurate description of the program content, training goals and objectives, and requirements that must be met for satisfactory completion of the program. (c) Sociologists responsible for education and training programs take steps to ensure that graduate assistants and temporary instructors have the substantive knowledge required to teach courses and the teaching skills needed to facilitate student learning. (d) Sociologists responsible for education and training programs have an obligation to ensure that ethics are taught to their graduate students as part of their professional preparation. 18.02 Teaching and Training (a) Sociologists conscientiously perform their teaching responsibilities. They have appropriate skills and knowledge or are receiving appropriate training. (b) Sociologists provide accurate information at the outset about their courses, particularly regarding the subject matter to be covered, 258 bases for evaluation, and the nature of course experiences. (c) Sociologists make decisions concerning textbooks, course content, course requirements, and grading solely on the basis of educational criteria without regard for financial or other incentives. (d) Sociologists provide proper training and supervision to their teaching assistants and other teaching trainees and take reasonable steps to ensure that such persons perform these teaching responsibilities responsibly, competently, and ethically. (e) Sociologists do not permit personal animosities or intellectual differences with colleagues to foreclose students' or supervisees' access to these colleagues or to interfere with student or supervisee learning, academic progress, or professional development. 19. Contractual and Consulting Services (a) Sociologists undertake grants, contracts, or consultation only when they are knowledgeable about the substance, methods, and techniques they plan to use or have a plan for incorporating appropriate expertise. (b) In undertaking grants, contracts, or consultation, sociologists base the results of their professional work on appropriate information and techniques. (0) When financial support for a project has been accepted under a grant, contract, or consultation, sociologists make reasonable efforts to complete the proposed work on schedule. 259 (d) In undertaking grants, contracts, or consultation, sociologists accurately document and appropriately retain their professional and scientific work. (e) In establishing a contractual arrangement for research, consultation, or other services, sociologists clarify, to the extent feasible at the outset, the nature of the relationship with the individual, organizational, or institutional client. This clarification includes, as appropriate, the nature of the services to be performed, the probable uses of the services provided, possibilities for the sociologist's future use of the work for scholarly or publication purposes, the timetable for delivery of those services, and compensation and billing arrangements. 20. Adherence to the Code of Ethics Sociologists have an obligation to confront, address, and attempt to resolve ethical issues according to this Code of Ethics. 20.01 Familiarity with the Code of Ethics Sociologists have an obligation to be familiar with this Code of Ethics, other applicable ethics codes, and their application to sociologists' work. Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethical standard is not, in itself, a defense to a charge of unethical conduct. 20.02 Confronting Ethical Issues (a) When sociologists are uncertain whether a particular situation or course of action would violate the Code of Ethics, they consult with other sociologists knowledgeable about ethical issues, with ASA's Committee 260 on Professional Ethics, or with other organizational entities such as institutional review boards. (b) When sociologists take actions or are confronted with choices where there is a conflict between ethical standards enunciated in the Code of Ethics and laws or legal requirements, they make known their commitment to the Code and take steps to resolve the conflict in a responsible manner by consulting with colleagues,professional organizations, or the ASA's Committee on Professional Ethics. 20.03 Fair Treatment of Parties in Ethical Disputes (a) Sociologists do not discriminate against a person on the basis of his or her having made an ethical complaint. (b) Sociologists do not discriminate against a person based on his or her having been the subject of an ethical complaint. This does not preclude taking action based upon the outcome of an ethical complaint. 20.04 Reporting Ethical Violations of Others When sociologists have substantial reason to believe that there may have been an ethical violation by another sociologist, they attempt to resolve the issue by bringing it to the attention of that individual if an informal resolution appears appropriate or possible, or they seek advice about whether or how to proceed based on this belief, assuming that such activity does not violate any confidentiality rights. Such action might include referral to ASA's Committee on Professional Ethics. 261 20.05 Cooperating with Ethics Committees Sociologists cooperate in ethics investigations, proceedings, and resulting requirements of the American Sociological Association. In doing so, they make reasonable efforts to resolve any issues of confidentiality. Failure to cooperate may be an ethics violation. 20.06 Improper Complaints Sociologists do not file or encourage the filing of ethics complaints that are frivolous and are intended to harm the alleged violator rather than to protect the integrity of the discipline and the public. Note: This re vised edition of the ASA Code of Ethics builds on the 7 98.9 edition of the Code and the 1992 version of the American Psychological Association ’5 Ethical Pr/hcip/es of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. 262 Source: American Sociological Association. (1997). ASA Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.asanet.org/ecoderev.htm 263 APPENDIX .J ASPA's Code of Ethics The American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) exists to advance the science, processes, and art of public administration. The Society affirms its responsibility to develop the spirit of professionalism within membership, and to increase public awareness of ethical principles in public service by its example. To this end, we, the members of the Society, commit ourselves to the following principles; 1. Serve the Public Interest Serve the public, beyond serving oneself. ASPA members are committed to: H . Exercise discretionary authority to promote the public interest. Oppose all forms of discrimination and harassment, and promote affirrnative action. Recognize and support the public's right to know the public's business. Involve citizens in policy decision-making. Exercise compassion, benevolence, fairness and optimism. Respond to the public in ways that are complete, clear, and easy to understand. Assist citizens in their dealings with government. Be prepared to make decisions that may not be popular. I" @8999?“ 11. Respect the Constitution and the Law Respect, support, and study government constitutions and laws that define responsibilities of public agencies, employees, and all citizens. ASPA members are committed to: 1. Understand and apply legislation and regulations relevant to their professional role. 2. Work to improve and change laws and policies that are counterproductive or obsolete. Eliminate unlawful discrimination. 4. Prevent all forms of mismanagement of public funds by establishing and maintaining strong fiscal and management controls, and by supporting audits and investigative activities. Respect and protect privileged information. 6. Encourage and facilitate legitimate dissent activities in government and protect the whistle-blowing rights of public employees. 7. Promote constitutional principles of equality, fairness, representativeness, responsiveness and due process in protecting citizens' rights. DJ LII 264 III. Demonstrate Personal Integrity Demonstrate the highest standards in all activities to inspire public confidence and trust in public service. ASPA members are committed to: 1. Maintain truthfulness and honesty and to not compromise them for advancement, honor, or personal gain. 2. Ensure that others receive credit for their work and contributions. Zealously guard against conflict of interest or its appearance: e.g., nepotism, improper outside employment, misuse of public resources or the acceptance of gifts. 4. Respect superiors, subordinates, colleagues and the public. Take responsibility for their own errors. 6. Conduct official acts without partisanship. b.) (I! IV. Promote Ethical Organizations Strengthen organizational capabilities to apply ethics, efficiency and effectiveness in serving the public. ASPA members are committed to: l. Enhance organizational capacity for open communication, creativity, and dedication. 2. Subordinate institutional loyalties to the public good. 3. Establish procedures that promote ethical behavior and hold individuals and organizations accountable for their conduct. 4. Provide organization members with an administrative means for dissent, assurance of due process and safeguards against reprisal. 5. Promote merit principles that protect against arbitrary and capricious actions. 6. Promote organizational accountability through appropriate controls and procedures. 7. Encourage organizations to adopt, distribute, and periodically review a code of ethics as a living document. V. Strive for Professional Excellence Strengthen individual capabilities and encourage the professional development of others. ASPA members are committed to: fl 0 Provide support and encouragement to upgrade competence. 2. Accept as a personal duty the responsibility to keep up to date on emerging issues and potential problems. 3. Encourage others, throughout their careers, to participate in professional activities and associations. 4. Allocate time to meet with students and provide a bridge between classroom studies and the realities of public service. 265 Source: American Society for Public Administration. (1994). ASPA’s Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aspanetorg/member/coe.htm 266 APPENDIX K Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers Approved by the 1996 NASW Delegate Assembly and revised by the 1999 NASW Delegate Assembly Preamble The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic human needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work is the profession's focus on individual well-being in a social context and the well-being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the environmental forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living. Social workers promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of clients. "Clients” is used inclusively to refer to individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities. Social workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. These activities may be in the form of direct practice, community organizing, supervision, consultation, administration, advocacy, social and political action, policy development and implementation, education, and research and evaluation. Social workers seek to enhance the capacity of people to address their own needs. Social workers also seek to promote the responsiveness of organizations, communities, and other social institutions to 267 workers throughout the profession's history, are the foundation of social work's unique purpose and perspective: . service . social justice . dignity and worth of the person . importance of human relationships . integrity . competence. This constellation of core values reflects what is unique to the social work profession. Core values, and the principles that flow from them, must be balanced within the context and complexity of the human experience. Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics Professional ethics are at the core of social work. The profession has an obligation to articulate its basic values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. The NASW Code of Ethics sets forth these values, principles, and standards to guide social workers' conduct. The Code is relevant to all social workers and social work students, regardless of their professional functions, the settings in which they work, or the populations they serve. The NASW Code of Ethics serves six purposes: 1. The Code identifies core values on which social work's mission is based. 2. The Code summarizes broad ethical principles that reflect the profession's core values and establishes a set of specific ethical standards that should be used to guide social work practice. 3. The Code is designed to help social workers identify relevant considerations when professional obligations conflict or ethical uncertainties arise. 4. The Code provides ethical standards to which the general public can hold the social work profession accountable. 268 5. The Code socializes practitioners new to the field to social work's mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. 6. The Code articulates standards that the social work profession itself can use to assess whether social workers have engaged in unethical conduct. NASW ' has formal procedures to adjudicate ethics complaints filed against its members.* In subscribing to this Code, social workers are required to cooperate in its implementation, participate in NASW adjudication proceedings, and abide by any NASW disciplinary rulings or sanctions based on it. *For information on NASW adjudication procedures, see NASW Procedures for the Adjudication of Grievances. The Code offers a set of values, principles, and standards to guide decision making and conduct when ethical issues .arise. It does not provide a set of rules that prescribe how social workers should act in all situations. Specific applications of the Code must take into account the context in which it is being considered and the possibility of conflicts among the Code's values, principles, and standards. Ethical responsibilities flow from all human relationships, from the personal and familial to the social and professional. Further, the NASW Code of Ethics does not specify which values, principles, and standards are most important and ought to outweigh others in instances when they conflict. Reasonable differences of opinion can and do exist among social workers with respect to the ways in which values, ethical principles, and ethical standards should be rank ordered when they conflict. Ethical decision making in a given situation must apply the informed judgment of the individual social worker and should also consider how the issues would be judged in a peer review process where the ethical standards of the profession would be applied. Ethical decision making is a process. There are many instances in social work where simple answers are not available to resolve complex ethical issues. Social workers 269 should take into consideration all the values, principles, and standards in this Code that are relevant to any situation in which ethical judgment is warranted. Social workers' decisions and actions should be consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of this Code. In addition to this Code, there are many other sources of information about ethical thinking that may be useful. Social workers should consider ethical theory and principles generally, social work theory and research, laws, regulations, agency policies, and other relevant codes of ethics, recognizing that among codes of ethics social workers should consider the NASW Code of Ethics as their primary source. Social workers also should be aware of the impact on ethical decision making of their clients' and their own personal values and cultural and religious beliefs and practices. They should be aware of any conflicts between personal and professional values and deal with them responsibly. For additional guidance social workers should consult the relevant literature on professional ethics and ethical decision making and seek appropriate consultation when faced with ethical dilemmas. This may involve consultation with an agency- based or social work organization's ethics committee, a regulatory body, knowledgeable colleagues, supervisors, or legal counsel. Instances may arise when social workers' ethical obligations conflict with agency policies or relevant laws or regulations. When such conflicts occur, social workers must make a responsible effort to resolve the conflict in a manner that is consistent with the values, principles, and standards expressed in this Code. If a reasonable resolution of the conflict does not appear possible, social workers should seek proper consultation before making a decision. The NASW Code of Ethics is to be used by NASW and by individuals, agencies, organizations, and bodies (such as licensing and regUlatory boards, professional liability insurance providers, courts of law, agency boards of directors, government agencies, and other professional groups) that choose to adopt it or use it as a frame of 270 reference. Violation of standards in this Code does not automatically imply legal liability or violation of the law. Such determination can only be made in the context of legal and judicial proceedings. Alleged violations of the Code would be subject to a peer review process. Such prdcesses are generally separate from legal or administrative procedures and insulated from legal review or proceedings to allow the profession to counsel and discipline its own members. A code of ethics cannot guarantee ethical behavior. Moreover, a code of ethics cannot resolve all ethical issues or disputes or capture the richness and complexity involved in striving to make responsible choices within a moral community. Rather, a code of ethics sets forth values, ethical principles, and ethical standards to which professionals aspire and by which their actions can be judged. Social workers' ethical behavior should result from their personal commitment to engage in ethical practice. The NASW Code of Ethics reflects the commitment of all social workers to uphold the profession's values and to act ethically. Principles and standards must be applied by individuals of good character who discern moral questions and, in good faith, seek to make reliable ethical judgments. Ethical Principles The following broad ethical principles are based on social work's core values of service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence. These principles set forth ideals to which all social workers should aspire. Value: Service Ethical Principle: Social workers' primary goal is to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers elevate service to others above self- interest. Social workers draw on their knowledge, values, and skills to help people in need and to address social problems. Social workers are encouraged to volunteer 271 some portion of their professional skills with no expectation of significant financial return (pro bono service). Value: Social Justice Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice. Social workers pursue social change, particularty with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers' social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people. Value: Dignity and Worth of the Person Ethical Principle: Social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the person. Social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful fashion, mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers promote clients' socially responsible self-determination. Social workers seek to enhance clients' capacity and opportunity to change and to address their own needs. Social workers are cognizant of their dual responsibility to clients and to the broader society. They seek to resolve conflicts between clients' interests and the broader society's interests in a socially responsible manner consistent with the values, ethical principles, and ethical standards of the profession. Value: Importance of Human Relationships Ethical Principle: Social workers recognize the central importance of human relationships. 272 Social workers understand that relationships between and among people are an important vehicle for change. Social workers engage people as partners in the helping process. Social workers seek to strengthen relationships among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the well-being of individuals, families, social groups, organizations, and communities. Value: Integrity Ethical Principle: Social workers behave in a trustworthy manner. Social workers are continually aware of the profession's mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical standards and practice in a manner consistent with them. Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical practices on the part of the organizations with which they are affiliated. Value: Competence Ethical Principle: Social workers practice within their areas of competence and develop and enhance their professional expertise. Social workers continually strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice. Social workers should aspire to contribute to the knowledge base of the profession. Ethical Standards The following ethical standards are relevant to the professional activities of all social workers. These standards concern (1) social workers' ethical responsibilities to_ clients, (2) social workers' ethical responsibilities to colleagues, (3) social workers' ethical responsibilities in practice settings, (4) social workers' ethical responsibilities as professionals, (5) social workers' ethical responsibilities to the social work profession, and (6) social workers' ethical responsibilities to the broader 273 society. Some of the standards that follow are enforceable guidelines for professional conduct, and some are aspirational. The extent to which each standard is enforceable is a matter of professional judgment to be exercised by those responsible for reviewing alleged violations of ethical standards. 1. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to Clients 1.01 Commitment to Clients Social workers' primary responsibility is to promote the well-being of clients. In general, clients' interests are primary. However, social workers' responsibility to the larger society or specific legal obligations may on limited occasions supersede the loyalty owed clients, and clients should be so advised. (Examples include when a social worker is required by law to report that a client has abused a child or has threatened to harm self or others.) 1.02 Self-Determination Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to seIf-detennination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals. Social workers may limit clients' right to self-determination when, in the social workers' professional judgment, clients' actions or potential actions pose a serious, foreseeable, and imminent risk to themselves or others. 1.03 Informed Consent (a). Social workers should provide services to clients only in the context of a professional relationship based, when appropriate, on valid informed consent. Social workers should use clear and understandable language to inform clients of the purpose of the services, risks related to the services, limits to services because of the requirements of a third-party payer, relevant costs, reasonable alternatives, clients' right to refuse or withdraw consent, 274 and the time frame covered by the consent. Social workers should provide clients with an opportunity to ask questions. (b) In instances when clients are not literate or have difficulty understanding the primary language used in the practice setting, social workers should take steps to ensure clients' comprehension. This may include providing clients with a detailed verbal explanation or arranging for a qualified interpreter or translator whenever possible. (c) In instances when clients lack the capacity to provide informed consent, social workers should protect clients' interests by seeking permission from an appropriate third party, informing clients consistent with the clients' level of understanding. In such instances social workers should seek to ensure that the third party acts In a manner consistent with clients' wishes and interests. Social workers should take reasonable steps to enhance such clients' ability to give informed consent. (d) In instances when clients are receiving services involuntarily, social workers should provide information about the nature and extent of services and about the extent of clients' right to refuse service. (e) Social workers who provide services via electronic media (such as computer, telephone, radio, and television) should inform recipients of the limitations and risks associated with such services. (f) Social workers should obtain clients' informed consent before audiotaping or videotaping clients or permitting observation of services to clients by a third party. 1 .04 Competence (a) Social workers should provide services and represent themselves as competent only within the boundaries of their education, training, license, certification, consultation received, supervised experience, or other relevant professional experience. (b) Social workers should provide services in substantive 275 areas or uSe intervention techniques or approaches that are new to them only after engaging in appropriate study, training, consultation, and supervision from people who are competent in those interventions or techniques. (0) When generally recognized standards do not exist with respect to an emerging area of practice, social workers should exercise careful judgment and take responsible steps (including appropriate education, research, training, consultation, and supervision) to ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients from harm. 1.05 Cultural Competence and Social Diversity (a) Social workers should understand culture and its function in human behavior and society, recognizing the strengths that exist in all cultures. (b) Social workers should have a knowledge base of their clients' cultures and be able to demonstrate competence in the provision of services that are sensitive to clients' cultures and to differences among people and cultural groups. (c) Social workers should obtain education about and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and Oppression with respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical disability. 1.06 Conflicts of Interest (3) Social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and impartial judgment. Social workers should inform clients when a real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients' interests primary and protects clients' interests to the greatest extent possible. In some cases, protecting clients' interests may require termination of the professional relationship with proper referral of the client. 276 (b) Social workers should not take unfair advantage of any professional relationship or exploit others to further their personal, religious, political, or business interests. (0) Social workers should not engage in dual or multiple relationships with clients or former clients in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. In instances when dual or multiple relationships are unavoidable, social workers should take steps to protect clients and are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. (Dual or multiple relationships occur when social workers relate to clients in more than one relationship, whether professional, social, or business. Dual or multiple relationships can occur simultaneously or consecutively.) (d) When social workers provide services to two or more people who have a relationship with each other (for example, couples, family members), social workers should clarify with all parties which individuals will be considered clients and the nature of social workers' professional obligations to the various individuals who are receiving services. Social workers who anticipate a conflict of interest among the individuals receiving services or who anticipate having to perform in potentially conflicting roles (for example, when a social worker is asked to testify in a child custody dispute or divorce proceedings involving clients) should clarify their role with the parties involved and take appropriate action to minimize any conflict of interest. 1.07 Privacy and Confidentiality (a) Social workers should respect clients' right to privacy. Social workers should not solicit private information from clients unless it is essential to providing services or conducting social work evaluation or research. Once private information is shared, standards of confidentiality apply. (D) Social workers may disclose confidential information when appropriate with valid consent from a client or a person legally authorized to consent on behalf of a client. 277 (c) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of professional service, except for compelling professional reasons. The general expectation that social workers will keep information confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person. In all instances, social workers should disclose the least amount of confidential information necessary to achieve the desired purpose; only information that is directly relevant to the purpose for which the disclosure is made should be revealed. (d) Social workers should inform clients, to the extent possible, about the disclosure of confidential information and the potential consequences, when feasible before the disclosure is made. This applies whether social workers disclose confidential information on the basis of a legal requirement or client consent. (e) Social workers should discuss with clients and other interested parties the nature of confidentiality and limitations of clients' right to confidentiality. Social workers should review with clients circumstances where confidential information may be requested and where disclosure of confidential information may be legally required. This discussion should occur as soon as possible in the social worker-client relationship and as needed throughout the course of the relationship. (f) When social workers provide counseling services to families, couples, or groups, social workers should seek agreement among the parties involved concerning each individual's right to confidentiality and obligation to preserve the confidentiality of information shared by others. Social workers should inform participants in family, couples, or group counseling that social workers cannot guarantee that all participants will honor such agreements. (9) Social workers should inform clients involved in family, couples, marital, or group counseling of the social worker's, employer's, and agency's policy concerning the social worker's disclosure of confidential information 278 among the parties involved in the counseling. (h) Social workers should not disclose confidential information to third-party payers unless clients have authorized such disclosure. (i) Social workers should not discuss confidential information in any setting unless privacy can be ensured. Social workers should not discuss confidential information in public or semipublic areas such as hallways, waiting rooms, elevators, and restaurants. (j) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients during legal proceedings to the extent permitted by law. When a court of law or other legally authorized body orders social workers to disclose confidential or privileged information without a client's consent and such disclosure could cause harm to the client, social workers should request that the court withdraw the order or limit the order as narrowly as possible or maintain the records under seal, unavailable for public inspection. (k) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients when responding to requests from members of the media. (I) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients' written and electronic records and other sensitive information. Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that clients' records are stored in a secure location and that clients' records are not available to others who are not authorized to have access. (m) Social workers should take precautions to ensure and maintain the confidentiality of information transmitted to other parties through the use of computers, electronic mail, facsimile machines, telephones and telephone answering machines, and other electronic or computer technology. Disclosure of identifying information should be avoided whenever possible. (n) Social workers should transfer or dispose of clients' ' records in a manner that protects clients' confidentiality 279 and is consistent with state statutes governing records and social work Iicensure. (0) Social workers should take reasonable precautions to protect client confidentiality in the event of the social worker's termination of practice, incapacitation, or death. (p) Social workers should not disclose identifying information when discussing clients for teaching or training purposes unless the client has consented to disclosure of confidential information. (q) Social workers should not disclose identifying information when discussing clients with consultants unless the client has consented to disclosure of confidential information or there is a compelling need for such disclosure. (r) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of deceased clients consistent with the preceding standards. 1.08 Access to Records (a) Social workers should provide clients with reasonable access to records concerning the clients. Social workers who are concerned that clients' access to their records could cause serious misunderstanding or harm to the client should provide assistance in interpreting the records and consultation with the client regarding the records. Social workers should limit clients' access to their records, or portions of their records, only in exceptional circumstances when there is compelling evidence that such access would cause serious harm to the client. Both clients' requests and the rationale for withholding some or all of the record should be documented in clients' files. (b) When providing clients with access to their records, social workers should take steps to protect the confidentiality of other individuals identified or discussed in such records. 1.09 Sexual Relationships 280 (a) Social workers should under no circumstances engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with current clients, whether such contact is consensual or forced. (D) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with clients' relatives or other individuals ’ with whom clients maintain a close personal relationship when there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. Sexual activity or sexual contact with clients' relatives or other individuals with whom clients maintain a personal relationship has the potential to be harmful to the client and may make it difficult for the social worker and client to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. Social workers—not their clients, their clients' relatives, or other individuals with whom the client maintains a personal relationship-assume the full burden for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. (0) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or sexual contact with former clients because of the potential for harm to the client. If social workers engage in conduct contrary to this prohibition or claim that an exception to this prohibition is warranted because of extraordinary circumstances, it is social workers—not their clients—who assume the full burden of demonstrating that the former client has not been exploited, coerced, or manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally. (d) Social workers should not provide clinical services to individuals with whom they have had a prior sexual relationship. Providing clinical services to a former sexual partner has the potential to be harmful to the individual and is likely to make it difficult for the social worker and individual to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. 1.10 Physical Contact Social workers should not engage in physical contact with clients when there is a possibility of psychological harm to the client as a result of the contact (such as cradling or caressing clients). Social workers who engage in appropriate physical contact with clients are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive 281 . r v “‘3‘ boundaries that govern such physical contact. 1.11 Sexual Harassment Social workers should not sexually harass clients. Sexual harassment includes sexual advances, sexual solicitation, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct. of a sexual nature. 1.12 Derogatory Language Social workers should not use derogatory language in their written or verbal communications to or about clients. Social workers should use accurate and respectful language in all communications to and about clients. 1.13 Payment for Services (a) When setting fees, social workers should ensure that the fees are fair, reasonable, and commensurate With the services performed. Consideration should be given to clients' ability to pay. (b) Social workers should avoid accepting goods or services from clients as payment for professional services. Bartering arrangements, particularly involving services, create the potential for conflicts of interest, exploitation, and inappropriate boundaries in social workers' relationships with clients. Social workers should explore and may participate in bartering only in very limited circumstances when it can be demonstrated that such arrangements are an accepted practice among professionals in the local community, considered to be essential for the provision of services, negotiated without coercion, and entered into at the client's initiative and with the client's informed consent. Social workers who accept goods or services from clients as payment for professional services assume the full burden of demonstrating that this arrangement will not be detrimental togthe client or the professional relationship. (c) Social workers should not solicit a private fee or other remuneration for providing services to clients who are 282 entitled to Such available services through the social workers' employer or agency. 1.14 Clients Who Lack Decision-Making Capacity When social workers act on behalf of clients who lack the capacity to make informed decisions, social workers should take reasonable steps to safeguard the interests and rights of those clients. 1.15 Interruption of Services Social workers should make reasonable efforts to ensure continuity of services in the event that services are interrupted by factors such as unavailability, relocation, illness, disability, or death. 1.16 Termination of Services (a) Social workers should terminate services to clients and professional relationships with them when such services and relationships are no longer required or no longer serve the clients' needs or interests. (b) Social workers should take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients who are still in need of services. Social workers should withdraw services precipitously only under unusual circumstances, giving careful consideration to all factors in the situation and taking care to minimize possible adverse effects. Social workers should assist in making appropriate arrangements for continuation of services when necessary. (c) Social workers in fee-for-service settings may terminate services to clients who are not paying an overdue balance if the financial contractual arrangements have been made clear to the client, if the client does not pose an imminent danger to self or others, and if the clinical and other consequences of the current nonpayment have been addressed and discussed with the client. (d) Social workers should not terminate services to pursue 283 a social, financial, or sexual relationship with a client. (e) Social workers who anticipate the termination or interruption of services to clients should notify clients promptly and seek the transfer, referral, or continuation of services in relation to the clients' needs and preferences. (f) Social workers who are leaving an employment setting should inform clients of appropriate options for the continuation of services and of the benefits and risks of the options. 2. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to Colleagues 2.01 Respect .(a) Social workers should treat colleagues with respect and should represent accurately and fairly the qualifications, views, and obligations of colleagues. (D) Social workers should avoid unwarranted negative criticism of colleagues in communications with clients or with other professionals. Unwarranted negative criticism may include demeaning comments that refer to colleagues' level of competence or to indi-viduals' attributes such as race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical disability. (c) Social workers should cooperate with social work colleagues and with colleagues of other professions when such cooperation serves the well-being of clients. 2.02 Confidentiality Social workers should respect confidential information shared by colleagues in the course of their professional relationships and transactions. Social workers should ensure that such colleagues understand social workers' obligation to respect confidentiality and any exceptions related to it. 284 2.03 Interdisciplinary Collaboration (a) Social workers who are members of an interdisciplinary A team should participate in and contribute to decisions that affect the well-being of clients by drawing on the perspectives, values, and experiences of the social work profession. Professional and ethical obligations of the interdisciplinary team as a whole and of its individual members should be clearly established. (b) Social workers for whom a team decision raises ethical concerns should attempt to resolve the disagreement through appropriate channels. If the disagreement cannot be resolved, social workers should pursue other avenues to address their concerns consistent with client well-being. 2.04 Disputes Involving Colleagues (a) Social workers should not take advantage of a dispute between a colleague and an employer to obtain a position or otherwise advance the social workers' own interests. (D) Social workers should not exploit clients in disputes with colleagues or engage clients in any inappropriate discussion of conflicts between social workers and their colleagues. 2.05 Consultation (a) Social workers should seek the advice and counsel of colleagues whenever such consultation is in the best interests of clients. (b) Social workers should keep themselves informed about colleagues' areas of expertise and competencies. Social workers should seek consultation only from colleagues who have demonstrated knowledge, expertise, and competence related to the subject of the consultation. (c) When consulting with colleagues about clients, social 285 workers should disclose the least amount of information necessary to achieve the purposes of the consultation. 2.06 Referral for Services (a) Social workers should refer clients to other professionals when the other professionals' specialized knowledge or expertise is needed to serve clients fully or when social workers believe that they are not being effective or making reasonable progress with clients and that additional service is required. (b) Social workers who refer clients to other professionals should take appropriate steps to facilitate an orderly transfer of responsibility. Social workers who refer clients to other professionals should disclose, with clients' consent, all pertinent information to the new service providers. (c) Social workers are prohibited from giving or receiving payment for a referral when no professional service is provided by the referring social worker. 2.07 Sexual Relationships (3) Social workers who function as supervisors or educators should not engage in sexual activities or contact with supervisees, students, trainees, or other colleagues over whom they exercise professional authority. (b) Social workers should avoid engaging in sexual relationships with colleagues when there is potential for a conflict of interest. Social workers who become involved in, or anticipate becoming involved in, a sexual relationship with a colleague have a duty to transfer professional responsibilities, when necessary, to avoid a conflict of interest. 2.08 Sexual Harassment Social workers should not sexually harass supervisees, students, trainees, or colleagues. Sexual harassment includes sexual advances, sexual solicitation, requests for 286 sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. 2.09 Impairment of Colleagues (a) Social workers who have direct knowledge of a social work colleague's impairment that is due to personal problems, psychosocial distress, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties and that interferes with practice effectiveness should consult with that colleague when feasible and assist the colleague in taking remedial action. (b) Social workers who believe that a social work colleague's impairment interferes with practice effectiveness and that the colleague has not taken adequate steps to address the impairment should take action through appropriate channels established by employers, agencies, NASW, licensing and regulatory bodies, and other professional organizations. 2.10 Incompetence of Colleagues (a) Social workers who have direct knowledge of a social work colleague's incompetence should consult with that colleague when feasible and assist the colleague in taking remedial action. (D) Social workers who believe that a social work colleague is incompetent and has not taken adequate steps to address the incompetence should take action through appropriate channels established by employers, agencies, NASW, licensing and regulatory bodies, and other professional organizations. 2.11 Unethical Conduct of Colleagues (a) Social workers should take adequate measures to discourage, prevent, expose, and correct the unethical conduct of colleagues. (D) Social workers should be knowledgeable about _ established policies and procedures for handling concerns about colleagues' unethical behavior. Social workers 287 should be familiar with national, state, and local procedures for handling ethics complaints. These include policies and procedures created by NASW, licensing and regulatory bodies, employers, agencies, and other professional organizations. (0) Social workers who believe that a colleague has acted unethically should seek resolution by discussing their concerns with the colleague when feasible and when such discussion is likely to be productive. (d) When necessary, social workers who believe that a colleague has acted unethically should take action through appropriate formal channels (such as contacting a state licensing board or regulatory body, an NASW committee on inquiry, or other professional ethics committees). (e) Social workers should defend and assist colleagues who are unjustly charged with unethical conduct. 3. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities in Practice Settings 3.01 Supervision and Consultation (a) Social workers who provide supervision or consultation should have the necessary knowledge and skill to supervise or consult appropriately and should do so only within their areas of knowledge and competence. (b) Social workers who provide supervision or consultation are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. (c) Social workers should not engage in any dual or multiple relationships with supervisees in which there is a risk of exploitation of or potential harm to the supervisee. (d) Social workers who provide supervision should evaluate supervisees' performance in a manner that is fair and respectful. 288 3.02 Education and Training (a) Social workers who function as educators, field instructors for students, or trainers should provide instruction only within their areas of knowledge and competence and should provide instruction based on the most current information and knowledge available in the profession. ' (D) Social workers who function as educators or field instructors for students should evaluate students' performance in a manner that is fair and respectful. (c) Social workers who function as educators or field instructors for students should take reasonable steps to ensure that clients are routinely informed when services are being provided by students. (d) Social workers who function as educators or field instructors for students should not engage in any dual or multiple relationships with students in which there is a risk of exploitation or potential harm to the student. Social work educators and field instructors are responsible for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries. 3.03 Performance Evaluation Social workers who have responsibility for evaluating the performance of others should fulfill such responsibility in a fair and considerate manner and on the basis of clearly stated criteria. 3.04 Client Records (a) Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that documentation in records is accurate and reflects the services provided. (D) Social workers should include sufficient and timely documentation in records to facilitate the delivery of services and to ensure continuity of services provided to clients in the future. 289 (0) Social workers' documentation should protect clients' privacy to the extent that is possible and appropriate and should include only information that is directly relevant to the delivery of services. (d) Social workers should store records following the termination of services to ensure reasonable future access. Records should be maintained for the number of years required by state statutes or relevant contracts. 3.05 Billing Social workers should establish and maintain billing practices that accurately reflect the nature and extent of services provided and that identify who provided the service in the practice setting. 3.06 Client Transfer (a) When an individual who is receiving services from another agency or colleague contacts a social worker for services, the social worker should carefully consider the client's needs before agreeing to provide services. To minimize possible confusion and conflict, social workers should discuss with potential clients the nature of the clients' current relationship with other service providers and the implications, including possible benefits or risks, of entering into a relationship with a new service provider. (b) If a new client has been served by another agency or colleague, social workers should discuss with the client whether consultation with the previous service provider is in the client's best interest. 3.07 Administration (a) Social work administrators should advocate within and outside their agencies for adequate resources to meet clients' needs. (b) Social workers should advocate for resource allocation procedures that are open and fair. When not all clients' 290 needs can be met, an allocation procedure should be developed that is nondiscriminatory and based on appropriate and consistently applied principles. (0) Social workers who are administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that adequate agency or organizational resources are available to provide appropriate staff supervision. (d) Social work administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the working environment for which they are responsible is consistent with and encourages compliance with the NASW Code of Ethics. Social work administrators should take reasonable steps to eliminate any conditions in their organizations that violate, interfere with, or discourage compliance with the Code. 3.08 Continuing Education and Staff Development Social work administrators and supervisors should take reasonable steps to provide or arrange for continuing education and staff development for all staff for whom they are responsible. Continuing education and staff development should address current knowledge and emerging developments related to social work practice and ethics. 3.09 Commitments to Employers (a) Social workers generally should adhere to commitments made to employers and employing organizations. (b) Social workers should work to improve employing agencies‘ policies and procedures and the efficiency and effectiveness of their services. (c) Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that employers are aware of social workers' ethical obligations as set forth in the NASW Code of Ethics and of the implications of those obligations for social work practice. (d) Social workers should not allow an employing 291 organization's policies, procedures, regulations, or administrative orders to interfere with their ethical practice of social work. Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that their employing organizations' practices are consistent with the NASW Code of Ethics. (e) Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate discrimination in the employing organization's work assignments and in its employment policies and practices. (f) Social workers should accept employment or arrange student field placements only in organizations that exercise fair personnel practices. (9) Social workers should be diligent stewards of the resources of their employing organizations, wisely conserving funds where appropriate and never misappropriating funds or using them for unintended purposes. 3.10 Labor-Management Disputes (a) Social workers may engage in organized action, including the formation of and participation in labor unions, to improve services to clients and working conditions. (b) The actions of social workers who are involved in labor-management disputes, job actions, or labor strikes should be guided by the profession's values, ethical principles, and ethical standards. Reasonable differences of opinion exist among social workers concerning their .primary obligation as professionals during an actual or threatened labor strike or job action. Social workers should carefully examine relevant issues and their possible impact on clients before deciding on a course of action. 4. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities as Professionals 4.01 Competence (a) Social workers should accept responsibility or employment only on the basis of existing competence or 292 the intention to acquire the necessary competence. (D) Social workers should strive to become and remain proficient in professional practice and the performance of professional functions. Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work. Social workers should routinely review the professional literature and participate in continuing education relevant to social work practice and social work ethics. (0) Social workers should base practice on recognized knowledge, including empirically based knowledge, relevant to social work and social work ethics. 4.02 Discrimination Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability. 4.03 Private Conduct Social workers should not permit their private conduct to interfere with their ability to fulfill their professional responsibilities. 4.04 Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deception Social workers should not participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or deception. 4.05 Impairment (a) Social workers should not allow their own personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties to interfere with their professional judgment and performance or to jeopardize the best interests of people for whom they have a professional responsibility. 293 (D) Social workers whose personal problems, psychosocial distress, legal problems, substance abuse, or mental health difficulties interfere with their professional judgment and performance should immediately seek consultation and take appropriate remedial action by seeking professional help, making adjustments in workload, terminating practice, or taking any other steps necessary to protect clients and others. 4.06 Misrepresentation (a) Social workers should make clear distinctions between statements made and actions engaged in as a private individual and as a representative of the social work profession, a professional social work organization, or the social worker‘s employing agency. (b) Social workers who speak on behalf of professional social work organizations should accurately represent the official and authorized positions of the organizations. (c) Social workers should ensure that their representations to clients, agencies, and the public of professional qualifications, credentials, education, competence, affiliations, services provided, or results to be achieved are accurate. Social workers should claim only those relevant professional credentials they actually possess and take steps to correct any inaccuracies or misrepresentations of their credentials by others. 4.07 Solicitations (a) Social workers should not engage in uninvited solicitation of potential clients who, because of their circumstances, are vulnerable to undue influence, manipulation, or coercion. (D) Social workers should not engage in solicitation of testimonial endorsements (including solicitation of consent to use a client's prior statement as a testimonial endorsement) from current clients or from other people who, because of their particular circumstances, are vulnerable to undue influence. 294 4.08 Acknowledging Credit (3) Social workers should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed and to which they have contributed. (b) Social workers should honestly acknowledge the work . of and the contributions made by others. 5. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to the Social Work Profession 5.01 Integrity of the Profession (a) Social workers should work toward the maintenance and promotion of high standards of practice. (b) Social workers should uphold and advance the values, ethics, knowledge, and mission of the profession. Social workers should protect, enhance, and improve the integrity of the profession through appropriate study and research, active discussion, and responsible criticism of the profession. (c) Social workers should contribute time and professional expertise to activities that promote respect for the value, integrity, and competence of the social work profession. These activities may include teaching, research, consultation, service, legislative testimony, presentations in the community, and participation in their professional organizations. (d) Social workers should contribute to the knowledge base of social work and share with colleagues their knowledge related to practice, research, and ethics. Social workers should seek to con-tribute to the profession's literature and to share their knowledge at professional meetings and conferences. (e) Social workers should act to prevent the unauthorized 295 and unqualified practice of social work. 5.02 Evaluation and Research (a) Social workers should monitor and evaluate policies, the implementation of programs, and practice interventions. (b) Social workers should promote and facilitate evaluation and research to contribute to the development of knowledge. (c) Social workers should critically examine and keep current with emerging knowledge relevant to social work and fully use evaluation and research evidence in their professional practice. (d) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should carefully consider possible consequences and should follow guidelines developed for the protection of evaluation and research participants. Appropriate institutional review boards should be consulted. (e) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should obtain voluntary and written informed consent from participants, when appropriate, without any implied or actual deprivation or penalty for refusal to participate; without undue inducement to participate; and with due regard for participants' well-being, privacy, and dignity. lnforrned consent should include information about the nature, extent, and duration of the participation requested and disclosure of the risks and benefits of participation in the research. (f) When evaluation or research participants are incapable of giving informed consent, social workers should provide an appropriate explanation to the participants, obtain the participants' assent to the extent they are able, and obtain written consent from an appropriate proxy. (9) Social workers should never design or conduct evaluation or research that does not use consent procedures, such as certain forms of naturalistic 296 observation and archival research, unless rigorous and responsible review of the research has found it to be justified because of its prospective scientific, educational, or applied value and unless equally effective alternative procedures that do not involve waiver of consent are not feasible. (h) Social workers should inform participants of their right to withdraw from evaluation and research at any time without penalty. (i) Social workers should take appropriate steps to ensure that participants in evaluation and research have access to appropriate supportive services. 0) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should protect participants from unwarranted physical or mental distress, harm, danger, or deprivation. (k) Social workers engaged in the evaluation of services should discuss collected information only for professional purposes and only with people professionally concerned with this information. (I) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should ensure the anonymity or confidentiality of participants and of the data obtained from them. Social workers should inform participants of any limits of confidentiality, the measures that will be taken to ensure confidentiality, and when any records containing research data will be destroyed. (m) Social workers who report evaluation and research results should protect participants' confidentiality by omitting identifying information unless proper consent has been obtained authorizing disclosure. (n) Social workers should report evaluation and research findings accurately. They should not fabricate or falsify results and should take steps to correct any errors later found in published data using standard publication methods. 297 (0) Social workers engaged in evaluation or research should be alert to and avoid conflicts of interest and dual relationships with participants, Should inform participants when a real or potential conflict of interest arises, and should take steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes participants' interests primary. (p) Social workers should educate themselves, their students, and their colleagues about responsible research practices. 6. Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to the Broader Society 6.01 Social Welfare Social workers should promote the general welfare of society, from local to global levels, and the development of people, their communities, and their environments. Social workers should advocate for living conditions conducive to the fulfillment of basic human needs and should promote social, economic, political, and cultural values and institutions that are compatible with the realization of social justice. 6.02 Public Participation Social workers should facilitate informed participation by the public in shaping social policies and institutions. 6.03 Public Emergencies Social workers should provide appropriate professional services in public emergencies to the greatest extent possible. 6.04 Social and Political Action (a) Social workers should engage in social and political action that seeks to ensure that all people have equal access to the resources, employment, services, and opportunities they require to meet their basic human needs and to develop fully. Social workers should be 298 aware of the impact of the political arena on practice and ’ should advocate for changes in policy and legislation to improve social conditions in order to meet basic human needs and promote social justice. (b) Social workers should act to expand choice and opportunity for all peOpIe, with special regard for vulnerable, disadvantaged, oppressed, and exploited people and groups. (0) Social workers should promote conditions that encourage respect for cultural and social diversity within the United States and globally. Social workers should promote policies and practices that demonstrate respect for difference, support the expansion of cultural knowledge and resources, advocate for programs and institutions that demonstrate cultural competence, and promote policies that safeguard the rights of and confirm equity and social justice for all people. (d) Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitation of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital . status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability. 299 Source: National Association of Social Workers. (1999LCode of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.naswdc.org/code/ethicshtm 300 APPENDIX L A Chronology of Federal Legislation Affecting Public Higher Education (The Land Grant Tradition) 1787—Northwest Ordinance is passed, authorizing the sale of public land for support of education, thus establishing the land-grant principle. 1862—First Monill Act is passed and signed by President Abraham Lincoln, donating public lands to the several states, the sale of which is for the "endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life." 1887—The Hatch Act is passed, mandating the creation of agricultural experiment stations for scientific research. 1890—The Second Morrill Act is passed, providing further endowment for colleges. Part of this funding is to be used for institutions for black students, leading to the creation of 17 historically black land-grant colleges. l907—Nelson Amendment to the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 is passed, providing further increased appropriations to land-grant institutions. l908—Benefits of Second Morrill Act and the Nelson Amendment extended to Puerto Rico. 1914—The Smith-Lever Act is passed, providing federal support for land-grant institutions to offer educational programs to enhance the application of useful and practical information beyond their campuses through cooperative extension efforts with states and local communities. l934—Congress creates the National Youth Administration to enable college students to earn money by performing 301 educationally useful tasks and to continue their studies. l935—The Bankhead-J ones Act adds to annual appropriations for land-grant institutions. l942—The General Equivalency Diploma (GED) program and the Military Evaluations Programs for veterans who left school to serve in World War II are established. 1944—The Servicemen's Readjustrnent Act (GI. Bill of Rights), Public Law 346, provides for the higher education of veterans. 1945—The Bankhead-Flannagan Act furthers the development of cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics. l946—Congress passes the Fulbright Act (Public Law 584) to enable Americans to study and teach abroad. 1946—The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is established, which among its many other activities, provides international exchange opportunities for American scholars and administrators. l948—The US. Information and Educational Exchange Act (the Smith-Mundt Act) provides for the international exchange of teachers, students, lecturers and other specialists. 1950—Point Four Program is enacted by Congress (the Foreign Economic Assistance Act, subsequently called the lntemational Cooperation Administration, then renamed the Agency for lntemational Development, or AID). 1950—Congress creates the National Science Foundation (NSF). 1950—The Land-Grant Endowment Funds Bill protects federal and private endowments from unilateral federal action to divert them from the purposes for which they were granted. 1952—Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (Korean GI. Bill of Rights) is passed. 1958—National Defense Education Act (NDEA) provides college student loans, graduate fellowships and aid for the 302 improvement in the teaching of science, mathematics and modern languages. 1960—Land-grant status for the University of Hawaii establishes a new precedent. Since there is no longer adequate federal land to donate for the creation of an endowment, the University of Hawaii is given a $6 million endowment in lieu of land scrip. 1961—Report of the US. Commission on Civil Rights, "Equal Protection of the Laws in Public Higher Education: 1960" recommends that federal funds be disbursed "only to such publicly controlled institutions of higher education as do not discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin." 1963—The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1963 recognizes federal responsibility for aid to colleges and universities in the form of grants and loans for the construction of academic facilities. 1964—The National Defense Education Act Amendments authorize major changes to expand and strengthen the graduate fellowship program and eliminate discriminatory institutional limitation on loan-fund grants. 1965—The Higher Education Act of 1965 is passed, funding many higher education programs, including student aid. 1965—The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 establishes a maximum interest rate of three percent for the College Housing Loan Program to provide relief for students from the high cost of college attendance. l966—The National Defense Education Project is passed to coordinate the federal role in international education. Later, this project is incorporated as Title VI of the Higher Education Act. l967—The District of Columbia Post Secondary Education Reorganization Act gives land-grant status to Federal City College, now the University of the District of Columbia. This established a precedent for federal trust areas to participate in the land-grant system 1968—The Navajo Community College Act creates the first 303 tribally controlled college. 1972—University of Guam, Northern Marianas College, the Community Colleges of American Samoa and Micronesia, and the College of the Virgin Islands secure land-grant status through the Education Amendments of 1972 (Public Law 92- 318). 1978—The Tribally Controlled Community College Act stimulates the development of a variety of technical, two- year, four-year, and graduate colleges presently located on or near tribal reservations. l979—The US. Department of Education is established. 1980—Congress passes the Education Amendments of 1980 (to the Higher Education Act of 1965). l991—National Security Education Act (Boren Bill) is enacted to provide support for undergraduate study abroad and graduate work in foreign languages and area studies. 1992—President Bush signs the Higher Education Act Amendments, reauthorizing the 1965 Higher Education Act. 1993—The National and Community Service Trust Act establishes a corporation to coordinate programs through which students receive minimum wage stipends and tuition benefits in return for community service. 1993—The federal government begins "direct lending," a program that enables colleges and universities to provide loans using federal funds directly to students, thus avoiding private lenders and streamlining the process. 1993—The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), supported by NASULGC, launches a campaign to secure land-grant status for 29 Native American Colleges located in 12 states and serving 16,000 students. 1994—Land-grant status is conferred on 29 Native American colleges as a provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act. The bill also authorizes a $23 million endowment for them, to be built up over five years. The colleges are to receive interest payments from the endowment each year. 304 Source: National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (1996). The Land Grant Tradition: A Chroan of Federal Legislation Affecting Public Higher Education. Retrieved June 18, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nasulgc.org/pub]ications/Land_Grant/Chronologyhtm 305 APPENDIX M Second Morrill Act Colleges and Universities Progress through Teaching, Research and Service 99!"? -sssew l-‘O 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. University/College 1890-1990 Lincoln University 1866 Alcom State University 1871 South Carolina State College 1872 University of Arkansas- Pine Blufi‘ 1873 Alabama A&M 1875 Prairie View A&M University 1876 Southern University 1880 Tuskegee University 1881 Virginia State University 1882 Kentucky State University 1886 University of Maryland- Eastem Shore 1886 Florida A&M University 1887 Delaware State College 1891 North Carolina A&T University 1891 Fort Valley State College 1895 Langston University 1897 Tennessee State University 1912 306 Source: Neyland, L. W. (1990). HistoricallrLBlack Land-Grant Institutions and the Development of Agriculture and Home Economics, 1890-1990. Tallahassee, FL: Florida A&M Foundation, Inc. 307 APPENDIX N Fifteen Universities and Colleges Dilemmas Problems associated with social sciences: l. universities with the greatest allocation of funding have the most resources to respond to our urban needs; however, they are nationally and internationally focused; the social science field needs to be modified; their research is aimed at catering their peers and other social scientists. A lot of emphasis is placed on securing grant funding and elevating their position within their major departments and not on resolving the urban problems associated with om: local communities; social scientists without Ph.D's are not welcomed and accepted by various academia disciplines to resolve our local problems. They do not have a Ph.D or a desire to get one; and the urban field definition has not been defined because of a lack of correlation between urban problems and urban studies in the academic field. Nash cited more problems associated with race relations; Problems with race relations: 5. conflict of interest among university community service offices because some staff members believe research is not relevant to the problems of urban residents. 6. universities need to created and develop linkages with their local community groups, residents and organizations need to become receptive to their ideas on community projects; and many universities located in urban areas, primarily the inner cities, have difficulty with addressing urban problems because of a lack of funding resources for program development projects. Problems associated with funding: 8. financial support regarding universities program projects tend to have no continuity once they are underway such as the Title I program of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This act generates funding to initiate programs, but offers no further support. This issue has caused many schools to focus refocus their 308 Problems associated with fimding: 8. 9. financial support regarding universities program projects tend to have no continuity once they are underway such as the Title I program of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This act generates funding to initiate programs, but offers no further support. This issue has caused many schools to focus refocus their educational and community and economic development activities. This is especially true for the historical black colleges and universities since they are short both on staff and funding; and universities are not viewed as problem solvers, but creators of problems. Other types of dilemmas and assumptions: 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. many university faculty and staff members believe if they get involved with local communities (groups, organizations and businesses) they will improve their working relationship with the local community; university extension has the most resources to help the urban poor; however, they focus their attention and funds to serving the middle-class; universities have a tendency to establish a good relationship with some of their constituencies that they are serving and developing bad relationships with those who feel neglected; universities outreach extension programs tend to serve the middle-class when the poorer communities are in desperate need for attention and community empowerment; universities need to connect their educational mission to the that of their respective communities and to provide their students with community development work experiences; and based on the community that the university is serving through its community and economic development projects, ethnically, everyone is not going to be satisfied. Universities tend to placed a lot of emphasis on serving the needs of the population that is the community majority in numbers. 309 Source: Nash, G. (1973). The University and the City: Eight Cases of Involvement. New York: McGraw-Hill. 310 [\J APPENDIX 0 Capacity-Building Strategies . advisory committee - engaging community stakeholders for input in the planning process design of an implementation plan for action; training — to provide educational seminars and workshops in training individuals (including economic opportunities for residents) and organizations to gain the skills and information they need to resolve some of their community issues and problems; technical assistance - this process is product-oriented for community empowerment which includes but is not limited to i.e., grantwriting, the development and implementation of a community plan, market analysis, legal assistance; capacity building - activities are designed to improved the competency level of individuals, community leaders and organizations to make inform decisions to resolve community issues and problems. Capacity- building is a twofold; it is process-oriented and product-oriented. The outcomes of the process-oriented includes i.e., improved and increased citizen participation, improved organizational structure, greater reliance on community and organizational resources; the outcomes of product-oriented includes i.e., acquired knowledge and skills through technical assistance that is sustained over time to bring about positive social changes in their community development; networking - “the creation of relationships for the purposes of establishing mutual interest and shared responsibility” (LaMore, 1998, p. 4); professional student development - students are given opportunities for competency development as a scholarly-practitioner through internships, assigned to specific projects, or conduct an independent research project under the supervision of a faculty member; applied research - is the practice of using information, and knowledge to resolve community issues and problems through a plan-of-action; and demonstration projects - generally involves the conceptualization phase of the problem (identifying community needs), resource mobilization for collaboration, technical assistance, and securing in-kind donations and funding, implementation phase entails the management of the plan put into action and program operation, evaluation phase deals with ongoing project monitoring for modification of program objectives and goals, and project transference to the community for sustainable development. 311 Sources: LaMore, R. (1996, Spring). Building Community Capacity: Theory and Practice. Community News and Views. Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 6, 8. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1996, Summer). Applying Knowledge to Solve Problems. Community News and Views. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 7- 8.Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1996, Fall). Training and Technical Assistance: The CECP In Action. Community News and Views. Vol. 9, No. 2, 5. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1997, Spring). Demonstration Projects: Learning By Doing. Community News and Views. Vol. 9, No. 3, 2. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1998, Winter). The CEDP in Action: Facilitating Networking. Community News and Views. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 4 , 7. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1998, Summer). Active Student Learning. Community News and Views. Vol. 10, No. 2, 3. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. 312 APPENDIX P Community Engagement Activities of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPCs) ID No: SECTION I: For each item, place an “X” in the box that best describes your membership. You can select more than one category. Are you or have you ever been a member of the following organizations? 1. American Institute for Certified Planners (AICP) 2. American Society for Public Administrators (ASPS) 3. American Sociological Association (ASA) 4. Community Development Society (CDS) 5' National Association of Social Workers (NASW) 6. Other(s) - Please list: 313 SECTION II: For each item, place an “X” in the box that best reflects your opinion As a HUD-COPC unit, how important are the following elements in your community engagement activities? Not Of Little Undecided mportant Very Important Importance Important I. To promote active and representative participation in the identification of community problems 2. To engage community members in groups to identify their community’s strengths and weaknesses 3. To help community members understand the economic, social, political, environmental, and psychological impact associated with alternative solutions the problem 4. To allow community members to democratically influence their decision-making process for community planning 5. To assist community members in the development and implementation of community plan 6. To assist and encouraged community members to work within their organizational capacity (i.e., human, financial resources) 7. To disengage from community conflict that may adversely affect community support 8. To increase local leadership capacity (i.e., skills, confidence, aspirations) 314 SECTION III: For each item, place an “X” in the box that best reflects your opinion Did the unit that administered the HUD-COPC: Strongly Disagree Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree Identify community issues, capacities, and needs? Identify community stakeholders and created a project advisory committee? Discuss and examine alternatives strategies to address community issues and problems? Identify and mobilize resources to implement a community development plan? Involve community stakeholders in the program implementation phase of the project? Conduct formative and summative evaluations to assess program impacts? Modify or transfer the project into the community for implementation? 315 SECTION IV: For each item, place an “X” in the box that best reflects your opinion Did the unit that administered the HUD-COPC: Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1. Establish a relationship with local Community resources (i.e., organizations, schools, businesses, institutions) for in-kind support? 2. Establish a community advisory committee comprised of community members and local institutions? 3. Improve the local agencies organizational structure for competency development? I4. Use part of your funds to provide technical assistance to community members in resolving community issues? 5. Improve the local agencies organizational structure for competency development p. Increase citizen participation in community activities and meetings? 7. Develop instructional programs, seminars, and training for local community groups and leaders? 8. Train a community advisory committee in assessing, monitoring and evaluating their project outcomes for modification or project continuation 9. Act as a clearinghouse for dissemination of information with other local community-based organizations and governments? 316 CONTINUATION: SECTION IV For each item, place an “X” in the box that best reflects your opinion Did the unit that administered the HUD-COPC: Strongly Disagree isagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree 10. Involve undergraduate and/or graduate students in your center’s community engagement efforts? ll. Assist community stakeholders in developing and implementing problem-solving techniques? 12. Transfer the project into the community? 13. Receive matching funds from your institution? l4. Receive external funding from non-COPC programs? 317 SECTION V: For each item, place an “X” in the box best reflects your opinion As a HUD-COPC unit, how important were the following barriers? Not f Little Undecided mportant Very Important Ilmportance Important 1. Lack of cooperative relationship between university and their community stakeholders 2. Lack of cooperative relationship with businesses/ industries 3. Lack of cooperative relationship between university and city officials 4. Lack of commitment from university leaders and trustees 5. Lack of resources and time for faculty to get involved to the extent necessary to solve socio-economic problems 6. Lack of recognition of community service for faculty as a scholarly activity 7. Disagreement about priorities for service within the institution 8. Lack of organization within the institution of various community service activities 9. Lack of students and volunteers to participate in appropriate activities 318 SECTION VI - OPTIONAL: If you have any comments or suggestions regarding the questionnaire, please feel free to provide them below. Again, thank you very much for completing the questionnaire. 319 APPENDIX Q INTRODUCTORY LETTER February 18, 2002 Dear: HUD-COPC Director 1 would like to take this time out of my schedule to introduce myself to you and the purpose of my e-mail. My name is Vince Richardson and I am a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Resource Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, at Michigan State University. A few days from now, you will receive an e-mail request to fill out a brief questionnaire as part of my dissertation study on the Housing and Urban Development, Community Outreach Partnership Centers (HUD-COPCs) through the Department of Resource Development. The questionnaire pertains to obtaining some information from the HUD-COPC directors. This is based on their participation and perspectives on community engagement as it relates to the institutionalization of the COPCs. I am sending you this e-mail in advance because it is only appropriate and respectful to do because people like to know ahead of time why they are being contacted and for what purpose. To ensure your confidentiality, you will be assigned an identification number that will be printed on the survey in place of your name. If you have any questions about the anonymity of the survey or the procedures used, you can contact me at (517) 355-3230 or by e-mail: richar4l @msu.edu. You may also choose to contact the following people listed below: 0 Dr. George Rowan, Dissertation Chairperson, Department of Resource Development, and the President of the Black Faculty and Staff Phone: (517) 353-1740 or by e-mail: rowan@msu.edu o Ashir Kumar, M .D. Chairperson, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects Phone: (517) 355-2180 or by e-mail: UCRIHS@msu.edu As part of you participation, a summary of the survey findings will be sent to you. Thank you for your time and consideration. 320 Sincerely, Vince Richardson, Ph.D Candidate Michigan State University Resource Development 321 APPENDIX R COVER LETTER February 25, 2002 Dear: HUD-COPC Director Last week, you should have received an e-mail notice that indicated a questionnaire (attached) would be sent to you as part of my dissertation study on the Housing and Urban Development, Community Outreach Partnership Centers (HUD-COPCs) through the Department of Resource Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, at Michigan State University. The purpose of questionnaire is to obtain information from the HUD-COPC directors regarding their participation and perspectives on community engagement as it relates to the institutionalization of the HUD-COPCs. There are five areas of inquire such as (1) member affiliation, (2) concepts of community development (CD), (3) community development processes, (4) capacity-building activities, (5) project barriers, (6) optional: open-ended question. Please complete the questionnaire as it relates to the COPC Project. Your participation in completing the questionnaire is entirely voluntary. Your responses are completely confidential and information obtained from the questionnaire will be used in a group aggregate form for the purpose of data analysis. For anonymity, your name will not be revealed to anyone or linked to any university records. For tracking purposes, individuals will only be identified by their assigned survey identification number to complete and return incomplete questionnaires. Please complete the questionnaire by March 15, 2002, and send it back via e-mail to richar41@msu.edu. Completing this questionnaire should only take 10 tolS minutes. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the questionnaire, you can reach me at (517) 355-3230 or the above e-mail address. Other questions pertaining to the anonymity of the survey or the procedure of it, you may also contact: - Ashir Kumar, M.D. Chairperson, University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) Phone: (517) 355-2180 or by e-mail: UCRIHS@msu.edu or 322 0 Dr. George Rowan, Dissertation Chairperson, Department of Resource Development and the President of the Black Faculty and Staff Phone: (517) 353-1740 or by e-mail: Rowan@msu.edu For your participation, a summary of the survey findings will be sent to you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Vince Richardson, Ph.D Candidate Michigan State University Resource Development 323 APPENDIX S FOLLOW-UP LETTER March 18, 2002 Dear: HUD-COPC Director About three weeks ago, I sent you a questionnaire via e-mail as part of my dissertation research study. It pertains to obtaining some information from the HUD-COPC directors regarding their participation and perspectives on community engagement as it relates to the institutionalization of the COPCs at their respective schools. As of today, I have not received your completed questionnaire. I realize that this a busy time of the year for many of you as the semester is ending in another month or two. While preparing for graduation, I decided to contact you and others, via e-mail and by phone, in hopes of obtaining your insights that only the HUD-COPC directors can provide for this study. Your participation in completing the questionnaire is entirely voluntary. Should you choose to participate, your identity and responses will be held in confidence, and they will not be linked to any university records. Only the aggregate data will be used in reporting the survey results. To insure confidentiality, each participant will be assigned an identification number that will be printed on the survey in place of his or her name. In case you did not receive the previous questionnaire, I have attached another one. Completing the questionnaire should only take 10 to 15 minutes. When you have time, I hope you will fill out and return the questionnaire as soon as possible. Your thoughts and perspectives would be greatly appreciated for the study. For your participation, a summary of the survey findings will be sent to you. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the questionnaire, you can reach me at (517) 355-3230 or by e-mail: fichar41@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Vince Richardson. Ph.D Candidate Michigan State University Resource Development 324 APPENDIX T SUMMARY OF SOLICITED COMMENTS REGARDING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE “Many of the questions did not fit well into our model. We began with an engaged community and we just supplemented many of their activities; eventually, we became part of their infrastructure which is the best way in this part of the country to assure viability of programs. Our staff and faculty now sit on governing boards of the community groups we work with as well as the school bodies. Our evaluation unit and ongoing programmatic support is now part of numerous [sic] grants in several different departments [sic].” “The questions are a bit confusing [sic]using the preference of "administered". I [sic] with our COPC [sic] the author of the grant is different that [sic] the administrator of [sic] COPC [sic]. This is where the disconnect [sic] in implementation and community involvement starts. As the administrator [sic] I am in constant contact with the community and the dean (the person who wrote the grant) doesn't understand the dynamics of the community and is resistant to what the community wants. This questionnaire is also written in the past tense and perhaps should be worded more in the present. Because of these gray areas I offer the following comments to the indicated sectrons:” SECTION III: “#4 We have taken a document that the community has worked on call the "Central Area Neighborhood Plan" and aligned [sic]COPC to it. With the economy and city budget cuts there isn't very much money to complete the neighborhood plans, so by us aligning ourselves with the Central Area's plan [sic]the community will have a reason to come back to the table and work on the plan.” “#6 Not yet, I am having challenges with the Dean, [sic] most important support so we get on with this task.” “#7 by coordinating with the community "Neighborhood Plan" [sic]we've essentially transferred the plan into the grant.” SECTION IV: “The Dean is not supportive of the issues that really connect and concern the community. The city has a community leadership program for community people, which some people are using. The participation rate of persons from the Central Area is low, so participation all around is an issue for this community, especially racially.” 325 “#10 To a limited capacity [sic]. Support and orientation from the dean has been little to none. Having to learn [sic]an institution has impacted [sic] my ability to connect with the student body.” “#12 I have been working on moving [sic] COPC into the community for approximately eight (8) months. The accessibility as well as limited parking has been a problem as far as the community really feeling line [sic] somebody was really [sic] put out for them.” “We’ve engaged community in identifying their needs but not through focus groups. Why ask about matching from [sic]the university? ou [sic] can’t get a COPC grant without it.” “Our service area includes two adjacent communities that are fairly large and include many institutions and organizations. Therefore, our work is very complex. We have numerous projects (about 20) and very different relationships with very diverse organizations. I have answered the questions to the best of my ability but we an interview to go into any depth on the questions. A yes or no answer will not suffice on many of these questions. I hope this helps.” “I thought it important to view responses to your survey in light of what we actually did since often times we over promised and believed we were capable of doing more than we actually did, especially given the timeframe from HUD and HUD’s overly ambitious mandate to impact both the institution and community in a comprehensive way (i.e., we were required in the guidelines to address a minimum of three urban issue areas--which put a strain on us). Institutional and community agency turnover was another factor in not being able to see projects through to ongoing success.” “HUD’s guidelines for this program held us to what I feel is [sic] an unrealistic view of impact on community issues. In particular, we did not want to play a direct service role which would challenge our very competent community development corporation and our community action agency. Much in the way of community participation and leadership is [sic ]already done by the community agencies so often times we would try to have a more modest overall impact.” “Since we did not (and don’t) want to dictate to the community an empowerment process (facilitation should even be community driven given most community/institution dynamics), I viewed our COPC success as the ability to a) institutionalize engagement on campus with faculty and administration, b) create positive linkages with the community on focused projects, and c) have the project become self-sustaining. With a and c, for several major reasons, we failed (this from a COPC that was awarded a HUD Best Practices)” “Answers applied to some components of the program but not all. For example, our major youth program transferred to a community base [sic], but not our website.” 326 I’m not sure what you want to get out of this, but I don’t think that these questions get to the heart of the work that was done through our initiative... “SECTION FIVE WAS VERY UNCLEAR AND THE ANSWERS MAY BE UNRELIABLE.” “IN MY OPINION SECTION MAKES THE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL OF THE ABOVE BARRIERS EXISTED. THE COPC I WAS INVOLVED IN DID NOT FACE THESE BARRIERS, HENCE I CAN [sic] NOT DETERMINE THEIR IMPORTANCE. SO WHEN ANSWERS STATE NOT IMPORTANT, THIS MEANS IT WAS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THIS COPC. IF ANY COPC FACED THESE BARRIERS THEY ARE ALL VERY SIGNIFICANT.” “An interesting survey. At times the questions where vaguely framed. For example, in this last section, I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to reflect on the issues (e.g. Lack of cooperative relationship between university and their community stakeholders) as if they MIGHT have been or as we ACTUALLY EXPERIENCED them. We enjoyed a cooperative relationship with our community partners, a fact that I think was important in our success. Thus when considering it as a “barrier” I said it was important. This should NOT be seen as having been an actual problem on our COPC project. That is to say, I selected their relative importance based on how the particular issue MIGHT have been IF we had faced it.” “Question [sic] needed on length of time [sic] project has been in place and [sic]are unimportant activities scheduled [sic] but not yet completed.” “I have assumed that “the unit that administered the HUD-COPC” is our COPC, itself.” “COPC has been a wonderful vehicle to strengthen the ongoing relationship between the university and the community. Both sides have benefited [sic]. For the university: [sic] this has been an invaluable training ground for undergraduates, graduates, and faculty. Their work, research and direct programs, are all the better for having the chance to truly listen to the strengths and needs of the community partners. For the community, they have said that they feel better able to articulate wants, better organized, have skills and programs that will last after the funding, and have seen themselves succeed in ways they wouldn’t have expected. We’re excited about what can be done if we are fortunate to be awarded a New Directions grant. That grant, like the COPC, will be the direct outgrowth of community voices. “I fear that the questions are not discriminating enough on the first several pages. It will be interesting to see whether you get much variation. They seem to represent the COPC philosophy and strategy and I suspect that most COPC [sic] projects will include most of them. The last page is more discriminating and allows for more diverse responses.” “I would [sic] request that you provide us a copy of the product that comes form this project, including the descriptive statistics that come from this survey.” 327 I “ We have had superb support from the University administration for all COPC activities and excellent community and civic relations — therefore, none of these issues were seen as barriers.” “The questionnaire assumes that all HUD COPCs are alike with similar problems. As such, it provides little or no room for the respondent to elaborate on some of the sections. I would prefer to not check boxes but, instead, explain answers. For example, our center was established through legislative mandate. So, with or without COPC funds we will continue to provide the programs that we provide. Secondly, because of the services we offer (business training, job skills training, etc), we do not anticipate turning the project over to the community for future implementation. In other words, HUD [sic] COPCs do ver [sic]different things that cannot easily be explained in a check box.” “Section V was confusing. It asks about excellent issues, but I wasn’t sure how to respond. While I consider almost all important or very important barriers, many were not barriers for us in our COPC. For example, Lack of cooperative relationship between university and their community stakeholders is at least an important barrier, however, it has not been a barrier for us in our COPC. I just responded in general.” “I quit answering the questions because I felt I was giving false information. The questions you ask are good questions but the response categories are not.” “I think this misses some key aspects of the COPCs. Asking about transfer into the community makes no sense, since all we have done has always been actively in and with the community. No transfer is needed other than to maintain the university as a resource, and we have actively worked to keep that going.” “Another part that I think is missed is the notion that community leaders squabble and fight amongst themselves in ways that make it difficult to work with them.” “Options for answering questions in SECTION [sic] V and wording of the questions make responses seem awkward.” “Some questions [sic] ambiguous. For us, the project was developed by the community with the college. Therefore, it was never necessary to “transfer” the project to [sic]the community.” “Our administration wants the image of community outreach, but not the substance. They very much support [sic] COPC [sic] objectives verbally, but provided no resources and no administrative support and often opposed efforts to garner cooperation or support.” “Kind [sic] of an odd set of questions given all the issues that one could examine related to the institutionalization of COPC’s etc. This [sic] probably the 3rd survey I have received from different (non HUD) [sic]and none really seem to grasp what some of the issues are in this endeavor.” 328 “The question you rose [sic] for Section II is confusing. After the COPC Proposal [sic]was submitted to HUD, the Advisory Committee — made up on [sic] representatives from the University and Community/Partner Organizations—did little to directly interact with community members, since community voice came from community/partner organizations. Therefore, subsequent community engagement efforts were solely directed at our community/partner organizations.” “Section V, I would have re-phrased the question (and re-worded some of the responses), because the question presumes barriers, where for us, nonexisted [sic] in five cases. I would have re-phrased the question to ask if there was a barrier (for each area), and, if so, I would have asked the respondent to rank the degree of difficulty the barrier posed.” “The categories, e. g. “very important,” etc. [sic]do not allow too [sic]adequate expression. For example, Section V, “Important” response to category #1 does not really express my experience. While barriers existed, and it was important to [sic ]me to overcome those barriers, the “lack of cooperative relationship” was finally addressed.” “COPC’S [sic] don’t deal with entire communities as a rule. Your questions regarding “communities” is [sic] therefore [sic] difficult to answer. Maybe if you had talked [sic] of “neighborhoods” or made [sic] clear that “communities [sic] refers to sub-units such as neighborhoods, your questions would have been clearer.” “Your question [sic] in Section IV requires a YES or NO answer. I do not know how to answer it in the present form.” “Your questions in Section V regarding “barriers” is not understandable in the present form in terms of the answers required. The first question needing to be asked is “to what degree was the following a barrier?” [sic] e.g., [sic] How is someone supposed to answer the question regarding “lack of commitment from University leaders. . ..[sic] If there was no such barrier? Does that mean it is not important????? [sic].” “Your survey does not offer opportunities to provide solutions and suggestions.” “I found it somewhat difficult to respond to the questionnaire because I could not tell whether the scoring (e. g. from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”) was meant to determine intent, or results. That is - when asked whether our project “engage(d) community members in focus groups...” - I am guessing that the correct response was “strongly disagree,” because we never intended to use focus groups, and did not do so. Or under barriers: if a barrier was identified as “not important,” it may be (as in #3, above) that the barrier itself is very real, but that it did not greatly hinder us from accomplishing the goals of the project. In the case of our project (and much of our other work), the assumed non-cooperation of city officials is one of the chief reasons community-based organizations turn to us, and to other nonprofit sector resources, to assist them in their community planning and development work!” “In Section 111, you asked about a number of goals and objectives related to organizational capacity. Your list included several that were important to the effort, but 329 which were addressed directly by the community organizations themselves, or for which they had access to resources other than our institution. So I marked these “strongly disagree,” to convey neither a failure to address them, nor that these goals were not part of the project, but simply that they were not part of our institution’s work as a COPC on this project.” “Also, as I have noted under some of the questions — the working model we have long embraced here is that the problems and projects we work on are all initiated, defined, and implemented by people in the affected communities. Our department’s mission is solely to be a resource to communities - we are not a research institute, and we have a full-time (non-teaching) professional staff. We can make available both the specific technical resources of our professions (planning and architecture), and our 30+ years’ institutional experience in community planning, but the process belongs to the community-based organizations at every step. So there is no issue of “transferring the project to the community.” “If I can make a general observation — In New York City we are fortunate to work in an environment where there are many highly competent and deeply committed community organizations. These organizations represent constituencies that are highly diverse in race and ethnicity, geography, age, gender, and in the issues on which they focus. Our institution is fortunate in that this context (and the size and complexity of New York and its issues!) allows us to provide technical assistance to many groups, without being viewed, either by the groups themselves, nor by other stakeholders, as the dominant partner in the working relationship. Our assistance may enhance community-based organizations’ credibility, but it is never the sole source of that credibility, nor are we ever the only (technical assistance) game in town for them.” “I may be wrong, but I sometimes read into surveys like yours a [sic] sense that universities must be all things to all people in a COPC partnership, or that it is assumed that we bring to the relationship the overwhelming share of resources, power, and expertise. We are lucky that this is rarely the case for us — and that partnerships based on mutual respect enable [sic] CBOs to use our resources to their best advantage, and when necessary, to put us in our place.” 330 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, P., and Sapsford, R. (Eds) (1992). Research into Practice: A Reader for Nurses and the Caring Professions. Buckingham: The Open University Press. American Association of Community Colleges. (1997). National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends and Statistics 1997-1998. Washington, DC: Community College Press. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (1995). Urban Community Service at AASCU and NASULGC Institutions: A Report on Conditions am Activities. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. American Institute of Certified Planners. (1992). Ethical Principles in Planning. Washington, DC: Retrieved February 28, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.planning.org/abtaicp/ethics.html American Institute of Certified Planners. ( 1991). AICP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Washington, DC: Retrieved February 28, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.plarming.org/abtaicp/conduct.html American Society for Public Administration. (1994). ASPA’s Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.aspanet.org/member/coe.htm American Sociological Association. (1997). ASA Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.asanet.org/ecoderev.htm Anderson, A. B., Basilevsky, A., and Hum, DP]. (1983). Measurement: Theory and Techniques. In Peter H. Rossi, James D. Wright, and Andy B. Anderson (Eds.), Handbocylg of Survey Researh (pp. 231-287). New York: Academic Press. Authur, C. L. (1991). Public and Community Service Activities of Faculty and Academic Staff Member at a Land Grant Institution: A study of Michigan State University. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press. Barthelemy, S. J. (1984). The Role of Black Colleges in Nurturing Leadership. In A. Garibaldi (Ed.), Black Colleges and Universities: Challenges for the Future (pp. 14-25). New York: NY. Prager Publishers. Bass, B. .M. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Batten, T. R., and Batten, M. (1967). The Non-Directive Approach In Group and Community Work. London, England: Oxford University Press. 331 Becker, G. (1975). Human capital. New York: Columbia University Press. Bender, T. (Ed.). (1988). Introduction. In The University and the City: From Medieval Origins to the Present (pp. 3-10). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Berube, M. (1978). The Urban University in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Bhattacharyya, G. K., and Johnson, R. A. (1977). Statistical Concepts and Methods. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. Blakely, E. J. (1980). Building Theory for CD Practice. In J. Christenson and J. W. Robinson, J r., Community Development in America, (pp. 203-219). Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Bonnen, J. T. (1998). The Land-Grant Idea and the Evolving Outreach University. In R. M. Lerner, and L. A. Simon (Eds), University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century: Outreach Scholarshj) for Youth and Families (pp. 25- 70). New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Bonner, T. (1981). The Distinctly Urban University: A Bad Idea? Chronicle of nglfil: Education Vol. 23, No. 4, p. A48. Boud, D. J ., and Walker, D. (1990). Making the Most of Experience. Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 12, No. 2, 61-80. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, Vol.1, No. 1, 11-20. Bringle, R. G., Games, R., and Malloy, E. A. (Eds). (1999). College and Universities as Citizens: Issues and Perspectives. In College and Universities gs Citizens (pp. 1-16). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Brokensha, D., and Hodge, P. (1969). Community Development: An Interpretation. San Francisco: Chandler. Bronwell, B. A. (1993). Metropolitan Universities: Past, Present, and Future. Metropolitan Universities: An lntemational Forum. Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-21. Brunner, E., and Yang, E. H. (1949). Rural Americafi and the Extension Service: A History and Critique of the Cooperative Agricultural and Home Economic Extension Service. New York: Teachers College. Byme, J. V. (1998). Outreach, Engagement, and the Changing Culture of the University. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, Vol. 3, No. 2, 3-8. 332 Cain, B. (1977). Participatory Research: Research with Historic Consciousness. Toronto: Participatory Research Project Working Paper No. 3. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1972). The Campus and the City. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cary, L. J. (1979). The Present State of Community Development-Theory and Practice. In D. A. Chekka (Ed.), Community Development: Theoryand Method of Planned (pp. 32-46). New Delhi:Vikas.. Chaskin, R. J. (2001). Building Community Capacity: A Definitional Framework and Case Studies from a Comprehensive Community Initiative. Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, 291-323. Christenson, J. A. (1989). Themes of Community Development. In J. A. Christenson and J. W. Robinson, J .W. Jr. (Eds), Community Development in Perspective (pp. 26-47). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press Christenson, J. A., Fendley, K., and Robinson, J. W., Jr. (1989). Community Development. In J. A. Christenson, and J. W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds), Community Development in Perspective (pp. 3—25). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Christenson, J. A., and Robinson, J. W., Jr. (1980). In search of community development. In J. A. Christenson, and J. W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds), Community Development in America (pp. 3-17). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Cisneros, H. G. (1995). The University and the Urban Chgllenge. US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC. Cisneros, H. G. (1996). Community Colleges and Urban Development. US. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, DC. Cohen, A. M., and Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American Community College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Coleman, J .S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94195-120. Committee on the Future of the Colleges of Agriculture in the Land Grant University System, Board of Agriculture, and National Research Council. (1995). College of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: A Profile. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Community Development Society, Vanguard (1986). Principles of Good Practice. Community DeveIOpment Society. No. 61, 3. St. Joseph, MO: University Extension Center 333 Cook, J. B. (1994). Community Development Theory. Retrieved on May 5, 2002 from the World Wide: http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/miscpubs/mpOS68.htm Corbett F. J ., and Levine, M. (1974). University Involvement in the Community. Behavioral Publications, New York, NY. Comwell, L. (1986). Gemeenkapsontwikkeling: wetenskaplike konsep of metafoor? Unpublished master’s thesis, Pretoria: University of South Afiica. Corrigan, D. (1997). The Role of the University in Community Building. The Educational Forum. Vol. 62, 14-24. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi. Cox, D. N. (2000). Developing a Framework for Understanding University-Community Partnerships. In. S. Wachter, W. F. Heenan, and D. N. Cox (Eds), Cityscape. A Journal of Policy Development and Research (pp. 9-25). Vol. 5, No. 1. Washington, DC: US. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. De Beer, F ., and Swanepoel, H. (1998). Community Development and Beyond: Issues, structures and procedures. Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik Publishers. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Dmevich, R. (1995). Partnerships for Community Development and Housing, Journal of Housing and Community Development, v. 52, 9-14. Eddy, E. D. (1957). Colleges for Our Land and Time: The Land-Glyn Idea in American Education. New York: Harper and Brothers. Eddy, E. D. (1963). The First Hundred Years, in Retrospect and Prospect. In the College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics (Eds), West Virginia University. The development of the Land-Grant Colleges and Universities and their influence on the economic and social life of the people. Paper presented at West Virginia University, College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Home Economics Seminar No. 1, 3-13. Morgantown, West Virginia. Elliot, P. G. (1994). The Urban Campus: Educating the New Majority for the New Centug. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press. Ewens, B. (1990). The Economic Development Evaluator’s Handbook. Michigan Partnership for Economic Development Assistance. Michigan State University. Fear, F. A. (1984). A Code of Ethics for Community Development. Vanguard, Vol. 53, No.1, 6-7. 334 Federal Register. (1994). Department of Housing and Urban Develg3ment, Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPCl: Notice of Funding Availability. Retrieve on August 10, 2002 from the World Wide Web: httpL/lfrwegate4.access.gpo.govlcgi- bin/waisgate.cgiiWAISdoch=5265746866+O+O+0&WAISaction=retrieve Federal Register. (1996). Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC): Notice of Fundirg Availability. Retrieve on August 9, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http:l/frwegate4.accessgpo.gov/cgi- bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID==52502017342+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve Federal Register. (1997). Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Outreach Partnership CenterflCOPC): Notice of Funding Availability. Retrieve on August 9, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://frwegate4.accessgpo.gov/cgi_- bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=95 801 7 l 67 1 0+4+O+O&WAlSaction=retri eve Federal Register. (1999). Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmenLCommunity Outreach Partnership Centers LCOPC): Notice of Funding Availability. Retrieve on August 9, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://frwegate4.accessgpogov/cgi- bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=525451 14631+4+O+0&WAISaction=retrieve F eld, M. M. (1998). Community Outreach Partnership Centers: Forging New Relationships Between University and Community. Joumgl of Planning Education and Research,Vol. 17, No. 4, 285-290. Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Firestone, T., and Fear, F. A. (1982, August). Ethics in Community Development: An Explorgtion of Basic Concepts and Issues. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Community Development Society. Madison, Wisconsin. Fraenkel, J. R. , and Wallen, N. E. (1990). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. Garibaldi, A. (Ed.). (1984). Black Colleges and Universities: Challenges for the Future. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies in Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., and Maeroff, G.I. (1997). Scholarshig assessed: Evaluation of the Professoriate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey—Bass. Glickman, N., and Servon, L. (1997). More than bricks and sticks. What is community development capacity? Working Paper No. 132. New Brunswick, NJ: Rugters University. Center for Urban Policy Research. 335 Glickman, N., and Servon, L. (1998). More than Bricks and Sticks: Five Components of Community Development Corporation Capacity. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3): 497-539. Fannie Mae Foundation. Glickman, N., and Nye, N. (2000). Working Together: Building Capacity for Community Development. Housing Policy Debate, 1 1, (1 ), 163-198. Fannie Mae Foundation. Gilderbloom, J., Mullins, R. L., Jr., Sims, R. N., Wright, M.T., and Jones, LaTonda R. (1997). University-Community Collaboration in Low-Income Housing Projects and Neighborhood Revitalization in Louisville, Kentucky. In P. Nyden, A. F i gert, M. Shibley, and D. Burrows. Buildig Community: Social Science in Action 5. (pp. 42-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. " Goldsmith, W. W., and Blakely, E. J. (1992). Separate Societies: Poverty and Inequality in US. Cities. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Good, C. A., and Winifred, M, R. (Eds). (1973). Dictionary of Education. (3rd ed.). E New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Company. " Grobman, A. B. (1988). Urban State Universities: An Unfinished Nationi Agenda. New York: Prager Publishers. Guba, E., and Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hall, B. (1977). Creating Knowledge: Breaking the Monopoly, Toronto: Participatory Research Project Working Paper No. 1. Halpem, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press. Harkavy, I. (1996). Urban University-Community Partnerships: Why Now and What Could (Should) Be Next? Journal of Public Service and Outreach, Vol. 1, No. 2, 8-14. Hardcastle, D.A., Wenocur, S., and Powers, PR. (1997). Community Practice: Theories and Skills for Socizg Workers. New York: Oxford Press. Hathaway, C. E., Mulhollan P. E., and White, K. (1990). Metropolitan Universities: Models for the Twenty-first Century. Metropolitan Universities: An lntemational Forum, Vol. 1, No. 4, 9-20. Heam, R. W., (1978). University Urban Studies Centers: Linking Teaching Research and Public Service. Urban Education, Vol. 13, No. 1, 13-26. 336 '1' “q, Holland, B. A. (1995). Characteristics of distinctive institutional missions. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park. Holland, B. A. (1997). Analyzing institutional commitment to service. Michgigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 4, 30-41. Holland, B. A. (1998). From Murky to Meaningful: The Role of Mission in Institutional Change. In G. R. Bringle, R. Games and E. Malloy (Eds), Colleges and Universities as Citizens (pp. 48-73). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Holland, B. A. (2001). Toward a Definition and Characterization of the Engaged Campus: Six Cases. In Metropolitan Universities: The University as Citizen Conference. Metropolitan University: An lntemational Forum, Vol. 12, No. 3, p.24. Hollander, E. L. (1999). Foreword. In R. G. Bringle, R. Gomes and E. A. Malloy. Colleges and Universities as Citizens (pp. v-viii). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Horton, H. D. (1992). A Sociological Approach to Black Community Development: Presentation of the Black Organizational Autonomy Model. Journal of the Community Development Society, 23(1), 1-19. Hughes, M. A., Kingley, T. G., and Peterson, G. (1993). Restoring Opportunity in America’s Cities. Public Welfare: The American Public Welfare Assoication, Vol. 51, No. 2, 28-34. Institute for Research in Higher Education. (1992). Keeping the gromise. Policy Perspective, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1-8. J argowsky, P. A. (1997). Poverty and place. Ghettos, barrios, and the American city. New York: Russell Sage. Jones, B. (1990). Neighborhood Plgnning: A guide for citizens and plgnners. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to Our Roots: The Engaged Institution. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation. Kellogg Foundation, W. K. (1996). WK. Kellogg Foundation: Evaluation Handbook. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation. Kidd, R., and Byram, M. (1978). Popular Theater: A Technique for Participatory Research. Toronto: Participatory Research Paper No. 5. 337 I‘.-:_ I Kinnick, M. K., and Ricks, M. F. (1990). The Urban Public University in the United States: An analysis of change, 1977-1987. Research in Higher Education, 31(1), 15-38. Kuhn, M. (1955). Micgigan State: The First One Hundred Years, 1855-1955. East Lansing, Michigan State University Press. Lackey, A. 8., Peterson, M., and Pine, J. (1981). Participatory evaluation: A tool for community development practitioners. Journal of the Community Development Society, 12(1): 83-102. Ladd, H. F., and Yinger, J. (1989). America’s Ailing Cities: Fiscal Health and the Design of Urban Policy (pp. 1-4). Baltimore, MD. John Hopkins University Press. LaMore, R. (1996, Spring). Building Community Capacity: Theory and Practice. Community News and Views. Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 6, 8. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1996, Summer). Applying Knowledge to Solve Problems. Community News and Views. Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 7- 8.Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1996, Fall). Training and Technical Assistance: The CECP In Action. Community News and Views. Vol. 9, No. 2, p. 5. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1997, Spring). Demonstration Projects: Learning By Doing. Community News and Views. Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 2. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1998, Winter). The CEDP in Action: Facilitating Networking. Community News and Views. Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 4 , 7. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. LaMore, R. (1998, Summer). Active Student Learning. Community News and Views. Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 3. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Urban Affairs Program. Legg, I. J. (1994). Metropolitan Universities and the Culture of Research. Metropolitan Universities: An lntemational Forum, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp 92-96. Lerner, R. M., and Simon, L. A. (Eds). (1998). University-Community Collaborations for the Twenty-First Century: Outreach Scholarship for Youth and Families. New York: Garland Publishing. 338 Littrell, D. W. (1971). The Theory and Practice of Community Development: A Guide for Practitioners. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Littrell, D. W. (1980). The Self Help Approach. In J. A. Christenson, and J. W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds), Community Development in America (pp. 64-72). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Magrath, C. P. (1998, February 4). Creating the engaged university: The importance of outreach and service to socigty. Speech at the Pennsylvania State University Outreach Retreat. Retrieved on August 30, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.outreach.psulnews/speeches/speechB.html Mansfield, E. (1989). Principles of Microeconomics (6th ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Co. Mayo, M. (1975). Community Development: A Radical Alternative? In R. Bailey and M. Brake (Eds), Radical social work (pp. 129-143). New York: Pantheon. Mazey, M. E. (1995). The Role of a Metropolitan University in Facilitating Regional Cooperation. In D. M. Johnson, and D. A. Bell (Eds). Metropolitan Universities: An Emming Model in American Higher Education (pp. 195-205) Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press. McBumey, D. H. (1998). Research Methods. (4’h Ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. McClenny, K. (1993). Metropolitan Universities and the State Perspective: The Best of Times, the Worst of Times. Metropolitan Universities: An lntemational Forum, Vol. 4, No. 3, 67-74. McMillian, D. W., and Chavis, D. M. (1996). Sense of community. A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14:6-23. Metropolitan Universities. (1993). Who Are We? Metropolitan Universities. Metropolitan University: An lntemational Forum, Vol. 4, No. 3, 66. Michie, J. (2001). Reader’s Guide to the Social Sciences. London: Fitzroy Dearbom Publishers. Michigan State University. (1982, June 24). Mission Statement. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Michigan State University. (1994). Community and Economic DeveIOpment Program Problem-Solving Model. East Lansing: Michigan State University. 339 Michigan Society of Planning Officials. (1995). Patterns on the Land: Our Choices-Our Future. Working Paper No. 11. Rochester, MI: The Society. Midgley, J. (1986a). Community participation: history, concepts and controversies. In Midgley, J. (Ed.), Community participation, social develognent and the state (pp.24-25). London: Methuen. Mills, R. W. (1970). The Sociological Imagination. Harrnondsworth, Penguin. Nash, G. (1973). The University and the City: Eight Cases of Involvement. New York: McGraw-Hill. National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved March 10, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.naswdc.org/code/ethicshtm National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (1996). F The Land Grant Tradition: A Chronology of Federal Legislation Affecting t Public Higher Education. Retrieved June 18, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Land_Grant/Chronology.htm National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (2002). About NASULGC: NASULGC Member Land Grant Institutions. Retrieved July 28, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nasulgc.org/About_Nasulgc/members.htm Nelson, P. J. (1999). Community Dreaming In The Rural Northwest: The Montana Study, 1944-47. Great Plains Quarterly, Vol. 19, 257-275. Nevins, A. (1962). The State University and Democracy. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Neyland, L. W. (1990). Historically Black Land-Grant Institutions and the Development of Agriculture and Home EconomicsL189O-1990. Tallahassee, FL: Florida A&M Foundation, Inc. Office of University Partnerships. (2000). Colleges and Communities: Gateway to the American Dream. Washington, DC: University Partnerships Clearinghouse. Office of University Partnerships. (2002). Community Outreach Partnership Centers (COPC) Program Grantees. Retrieved on June 24, 2002 from the World Wide Web: http://www.oup.org/aboutlgranteescopehtml. Organization for Social and Technical Innovation. (1970). Urban Universities. Rhetoric, reality, and conflict. Washington, DC: Office of Education, Bureau of Higher Education. 340 -- l‘ Parker, W. B. (1924). The Life and Public Services of Justin Smith Morrill. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Parsons, K. C. (1967). The Role of Universities in City Renewal. In E. H. Wentworth (Ed.), Taming Megalopolis (pp. 979-1001). Vol. II. New York: Anchor. Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publication. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. The New Century. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication. Phifer, B. M., List, E. F., and Faulkner, B. (1980). History of community development in America. In J. A. Christenson, and J. W. Robinson, Jr., (Eds), Community development in America (pp. 18-37). Ames: Iowa State University Press. Poston, R. W. (1950). Small Town Renaissance: A Story of the Montana Study. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers. Putman, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. Igg American Prospect, 13 235-42. Rasmussen, W. D. (1989). Taking the University to the Pemple: Seventy-Five Years of Cooperative Extension. Ames: Iowa State Press. Reardon, K, Welsh, J ., Kreiswirth, B., and Forester, J. (1993). Participatory Action Research From the Inside: Community Development Practice in East St. Louis. The American Sociologist, 24: 69-91. Riverside Webster’s II Dictionary. (1996). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Rohe, W. M., and Gates, L. B. (1985). Planning with Neighborhoods. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Roth, B. (1985). Revitalizing Our Communities: The Challenge for Community Economic Development in Michigan. Michigan Community Economic Development Coalition. East Lansing, Michigan. Rowley, L. L. (1999). The Public Service Mission of Urban grid Metropolitan State Universities: An Analysis of Mission, Policy, and Practice. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia University Press. Royer, C. (1993). What’s Happening in Metropolitan America? In Metropolitan Universities: Metropolitan Universigtr: An lntemational Forum, Vol. 4, No. 3, 25. 341 Ryan, J. H. (1998). Creating an Outreach Culture. J oumgl of Public Service and Outreach. Vol. 3, No. 2, 27-34. Rubin, H. J ., and Rubin, I., S. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Rusk, D. (1993). Cities Without Suburbs. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Rusk, D. (1996). Baltimore Unbound: A Strategy for Regional Renewal. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 532766-79. Sampson, R. J. (1991). Linking the micro-and macro-level dimensions of community social organization. Social Forces, 70:43-64. Sanders, I. T. (1958). The Community: An Introduction to a Social System. New York: Harper and Row. Sanders, I. T. (1975). The Community (3rd ed.). New York: Ronald Press. Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Speigel, Hans B. C. (1979). Theoretical research and community development practice. In E. J. Blakely (Eds), Community Development Research, (pp. 24-45). New York: Human Science Press. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Statistical Package Social Sciences (SPSS). (1999). SPSS Base 10.0 Applications Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS. Statistical Package Social Sciences (SPSS). (1999). SPSS Base 10.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS. SRI lntemational. (1986). Higher Education Economic Development Connection: Emerging Roles for Public Colleges and Universities in a Changing Econorry. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Stringer, E. T. (1996). Action-Research: A Handbook for Practitioners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Teitz, M. B. (1989). Neighborhood economics. Local communities and regional markets. Economic Development Quarterly, 3 (2):111-22. 342 Tocqueville, A. de. (1966). Democracy in America, 1835. A New Translation by G. Lawrence, J. P. Moyes and M. Lerner, (Eds). New York: Harper and Row. Thompson, N. (2000). Theory and Practice in Human Services. Philadelphia: Open University Press. True, A. C. (1928). History of agricultural extension work in the United States: 1785-1923. USDA, Miscellaneous Publication 15. Washington, DO: U. S. Government Printing Office. Turner, W. H., Rosen, N. L., and Dixon, B. D. (1979). Traditionally Black Institutions: 2% A Profile and an Institutional Directory. Washington, DC: National Center for if Education Statistics. Urban Community Service Program. CFDA No. 84.252. Biennial Evaluation Report-F Y i 93-94. Chapter 538. Washington, DC: Retrieved on June 19, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Biennal/538.html Urban Institute. (1992). Confronting The Nation’s Urban Crisis: From Watts (1965) to South Central Ips Angeles (1992). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. US. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Census of Population, General Population Characteristics: Michigan, A9. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. US. Bureau of the Census. (1990). Census of Population, General Population Characteristics: Michigan, All. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. US. Bureau of the Census. (1991). State and metropolitan area data book, 1991, p. 356. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. US. Congress, House. (1915). Committee on Agriculture. Cooperative Agricultural Extension Workszeport to Accompany HR. 7951. 63rd Congress, 2d session, House of Representatives 110. US. Department of Commerce. (1990). Census of Population. In P. Nyden, A. Figert, M. Shibley, and D. Burrows. Building Community: Social Science in Action (p. 42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. US. Department of Commerce .(1993). 1990 Census of Population Social and Economic Characteristics. United States (1990 CP — 2 — 1). Washington, DC: US. Document Printing Office. 343 U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of University Partnerships. (1999). University-Community Partnerships in America: Current Practices, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: University Partnerships Clearinghouse. Vaughan, G. B. (1999). The CommunityCollege Story: A Tale of American Innovation. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. Votruba, J. C. (1996). Making a place for the new American scholar. Working paper series: Inquiry No. 1. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Walsh, J. (1997). Stories of Renewal: Community Building and the Future of Urban America. New York: Rockefeller Foundation. Walshok, M. L. (1998). Strategies for Building the Infrastructure that supports the engaged campus. In G. R. Bringle, R. Games, and E. Malloy (Eds). Colleges and Universities as Citizens (pp. 74-95). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Warren, R. (1972). The Community in America (2nd ed.). Chicago: Rand McNally. Webster’s Dictionary (1986). Baltimore, MD: Ottenheimer Pubishers. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1990). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Publishers. Wilkinson, K. P. (1989). The Future for Community Development. In J .A. Christenson, and J. W. Robinson, Jr. (Eds), Community development in Perspective (pp. 337-354). Ames: Iowa State University Press. Worthen, B. R., and Sanders, J. R. (1987). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines, (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Wright, D. S. (1978). Understanding Intergovernmental Relations: Public Policy and Participants’ Perspective in Local, State, and National Government. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press. Wright, S. E. (1986). Social Science Statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. 344 lllllllllllllllllIllllll