‘ a \ «10“‘o._ a o~4u44q¢v;‘-‘~¢--—v~« ~ n—qco-v s TEE MS ......4 m 25.41... .;...l...4 ......rll e2 . . . .............. - .. . x : , ......u... 3:... . . 4-2:}...0...‘ . . .., ...a. . . _ i . .4... I... ......J.... . . . .., .r............... 4.... . . . , . . .... ..........r. . . .. . . . ............. . .. , .. 2.2.7.... .. : . . ......................... 23...... .. .. . ,. .. . . .. ......... ....,..4......... 12.14”“ . . ... ...: ......4.......r. ... , ... . x... A... .. ... 1 . . . . ; . ...: .. i . v»: ,. J... .. . . , . . ,.....f....u.;.. .4.........:. 4.4.4...u........-.;14.... fir: :41... .. .. .. ,.. .4... ............4.. it... . . . v4.4fi41. , , ......a. . . . 4 . . .44.“. 94.4.1444... . .. . 3.1.5.. . . . .. . . . ...... ,. .. . ... . .4.... . , . ...4.....;.................. i . :....4.. , . . . . .. 1.74.... .14. 4 ... ....r..4,44..... 49.4..r4... .. . . . : .. . 4..., 4./........4.... . , , 1- .... . . . . a ...4 .4. ......w... n . . _, . . . I .... , ..i. . , . , . r H. , . . . ,. .. . . N 45.4%... 1.3.... . . . .~ . . 4...4...’4.4 fit. . , . . . . ...... ...... ,ift. .. ,. .... . 34. . . . .4 3”". I . .. A . 4:..vn4vtrlc....... . . ..1 7’. ... . D a -..... ...,44... A :85, t'h 4 . . 5 4 . . l . .rlfll4bla..1J¢I. A . , : . . .. ........r.... a . ..Cr...2 . ..... {Ar V A ; A. 3 . R W ... eéés V .. , . s This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE SELF-PERCEIVED AND SELF-REPORTED SCOPE, QUALITY, AND STAFFING PATTERNS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS IN 100 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE UNITED STATES presented by Chester Winston has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Higher Education L ,3“ ,> ,w fl/Cg’r/Vvéz’) Major professor Date May 21, 1971 0-7639 ABSTRACT THE SELF-PERCEIVED AND SELF-REPORTED SCOPE, QUALITY AND STAFFING PATTERNS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS IN 100 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE UNITED STATES BY Chester Winston The purpose of this study was: 1. To survey the Self-perceived scope and quality of existing community services programs in a random sample of public community colleges in the United States. 2. To determine the staffing patterns of existing community services programs. 3. To determine areas of needed emphasis in the development of comprehensive community services programs. Two hundred questionnaires were mailed to a group of public community colleges selected at random from the 1969 Junior College Directory. One hundred replies were received after follow-up letters were sent. The question- naires were based on the Taxonomy of Community Services Functions developed by Dr. Max Raines of Michigan State Chester Winston University. The taxonomy identifies eighteen functions which are considered basic to a community services program. These functions are divided into three main categories of six functions each as follows: Self-Development Functions which are primarily focused on the needs, aspirations, and potentialities of individuals or informal groups of individuals to help them achieve a greater degree of personal self-realization and fulfillment. These functions are Developmental Counseling, Educational Extension, EducationalvExpansion, Social Out- reach, Cultural Development, and Leisure-time Activity. Community Development Functions which are primarily focused upon cooperative efforts of the college and com- munity organizations, agencies, and institutions to improve the physical, social, economic, and political environment of the community. These functions are Community Analysis, Inter-agency Cooperation, Advisory Liaison, Public Forum, Civic Action, and Staff Consultation. Program Development Functions which are activities of the community services staff designed to procure and allocate resources, coordinate activities, establish objec- tives, and evaluate outcomes. These functions are Public Information, Professional Development, Program Management, Conference Planning, Facility Utilization, and Program Evaluation. Chester Winston The above taxons were assembled into the question- naire in which the respondents were asked to evaluate, on a five-point scale, the scope and quality of those func- tions implemented and the need for implementation of those functions not implemented. The survey revealed that over one-fourth (27) of the respondents implemented all of the eighteen functions, and over one-half (55) indicated that at least fifteen functions were implemented. No one function was implemented by all of the respondents. The five most implemented functions were: Educational Extension (92%), Educational Expansion (90%), Facility Utilization (89%), Professional Development (88%), and Public Information (87%). The five least implemented functions were: Public Forum (62%), Developmental Counseling (66%), Leisure-time Activity (67%), Community Analysis (68%), and Program Evaluation (69%). Taking all factors into consideration, the survey showed that the following functions, listed in order of implementation, were the most extensively implemented (at least 80% of colleges reported implementation), the broadest in scope of implementation, and the highest in quality of implementation. 1. Educational Extension 2. Educational Expansion 3. Facility Utilization Chester Winston 4. Professional Development 5. Public Information 6. Advisory Liaison 7. Cultural Development CONCLUSIONS 1. Ninety seven per cent of the respondents claim to have implemented a community services program. This may be considered evidence that community services are now considered by the respondents to be a legitimate func- tion of the community college. 2. Making an arbitrary judgment that a compre- hensive community services program ought to implement at least two-thirds of the functions listed in the Raine's Taxonomy, it can be concluded that 76% of the respondents reported a satisfactory or better community services pro- gram as far as the number of functions is concerned. 3. The data suggest that the respondents tend to stress their academic and vocational functions and serve the community by serving individual members of the com- munity rather than the community as a whole. 4. The respondents, for reasons not investigated in the study, appear to attach more significance to some functions than to others. They implement these functions more often and the most implemented functions tend to have the greatest scope, the highest quality of implementation, Chester Winston and rank highest in need for implementation among colleges that do not claim implementation. 5. The respondents appear to stress the quality of community services functions rather than the scope of these functions. In every case, using mean quality and mean scope scores, quality of implementation was rated higher than scope. 6. 0n the self-rating scales, as used in the study, respondents tended to rate themselves conservatively or near the middle value. 7. The respondents have a tendency to regard their community services program as part of their continuing education program rather than the other way around, as advocated by the supporters of the community services concept. 8. In terms of staffing patterns, community services programs present a variegated pattern. The only thing com- mon to all programs is that they hire teachers almost exclusively on a part-time basis. The next most common feature is that they are usually directed by one person. However, the heads of the community services programs devote varying amounts of time to fulfilling that reSponsibility. 9. Since very few respondents indicated that they felt no need to implement functions that they were currently not implementing, it can be concluded that a truly compre- hensive community services program would be one that Chester Winston implements all eighteen of the functions listed in the Raine's Taxonomy. THE SELF-PERCEIVED AND SELF-REPORTED SCOPE, QUALITY AND STAFFING PATTERNS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS IN 100 COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN THE UNITED STATES BY Chester Winston A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1971 t{\ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge, with thanks, the advice, encouragement, and occasional exhortations of my advisor, Dr. Max R. Raines. Additional thanks are due to Dr. R. Roth, Director of Special Projects for the Oakland Inter- mediate School District, for his help with the statistical portions of this study. - ii TABLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . LIST OF TABLES . . . LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. APPENDICES . INTRODUCTION . OF Purpose of the Study Need for the Study Definitions . Limitations of the Study CONTENTS Page 0 O O O O o Q Q . Vii 10 10 11 13 SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . 18 Historical Development . . . . . . . . 18 The Community College and Community Services . 22 Recent Trends in the Literature . . . . . 32 Reports on the Structure and Extent of Community Services Conclusion' . METHODOLOGY . The InStrument . Taxonomy of Community Services Functions The Sample . Treatment of Data . RESULTS OF THE SURVEY O C O :0 I n. O O O 34 O O O O O O O O O 38 O O C O O O O O O 43 . . . . . . . . . 43 . 44 C O O O O O O O O 49 . . . . . . . . . 50 O C O O O O O O O 55 Community Services Functions . . . . . . SS Staffing Patterns . A Comparison of Self— Perceived Program Adequacy Ratings with Selected Institutional Variables . . . . . . . . 85 O O O O O O O O. 67 iii Chapter Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 91 Summary of Data Collection and Methodology . 91 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . 92 Scope and Quality of Functions . . . . . 94 Staffing Patterns . . . . . . . . . 95 Relationship Between Selected Variables and Adequacy of Program . . . . . . . 99 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Areas of Needed Emphasis in the Development of Comprehensive Community Services Programs . 105 Implications for Further Research . . . . 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O I O O O C 110 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 116 iv 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Growth in Number and Enrollment of Junior COllegeS 1961-1969 a o o o o o o o o 0 Growth in Number and Enrollment of Public Two- Year (20118965 1961-1969 e o o o o o o c Number of Two-Year Institutions (Out of a Total of 243 Reporting) Indicating the Performance of Special Community Services, Spring, 1956 . Number of Replies to Questionnaire by State . . Number of Community Colleges Reporting Implementation of Community Services Functions 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Community Services Functions in Descending Order of Percentage of Implementation as Self- Reported by Colleges . . . . . . . . . Number of Community Services Functions Implemented Per College . . . . . . . . Community Services Functions Ranked by Number of Colleges Indicating Need for Implementation Self-Perceived Scope of Community Services Functions in Rank Order of the Means . . . . Self-Perceived Quality of Community Services Functions in Rank Order of the Means . . . . Self-Perceived Sc0pe and Quality of Community Services Functions Arranged According to Each Function . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Colleges Having Full or Part-Time or No Directors of Community Services . . . Titles of Persons Heading Community Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30 51 56 57 58 60 63 64 65 68 71 Table Page 14. The Immediate Superior to the Head of the Community Services Program . . . . . . . 74 15. Number of Administrative Assistants to the Head of the Community Services Programs . . . . 75 16. Amount of Clerical Assistance Provided to the Head of the Community Services Programs . . . 76 17. Bachelor's Degrees Held by Heads of Community Services Programs According to Academic Area . 81 18. Master's Degrees Held by Heads of Community Services Programs by Academic Area . . . . 82 19. Doctoral Degrees Held by Heads of Community Services Programs by Academic Area . . . . 83 20. Last Position Held by Heads of Community Services Programs . . . . . . . . . . 86 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . B. Follow-Up Letter . . . . . . . . . . C. Alphabetical List of Colleges Participating in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Comparison of the Sample Population with the Total Population as Reflected in the 1969 Junior College Directory . . . . . . . E. Respondents in Order of Score on Questionnaire F. Number of Colleges Replying by Region . . . G. Colleges Participating in Survey by Region . H. Frequency Count of Replies to Section I of Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . I. Questionnaire Used in Survey . . . . . . vii Page 117 119 121 124 126 128 130 134 136 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The growth of that uniquely American institution, the junior college, since its inception approximately seventy years ago, can only be characterized as phenomenal. In 1900 there were no public junior colleges and only eight private junior colleges with a total enrollment of 100 students (5:41-42). By 1969, that number had grown to 1,038 institutions, of which 794 were public and 244 private. Enrollment had reached 2,186,272 students in both public and private junior colleges, and at the present time enroll- ments are rapidly increasing. Forty-seven years were required for enrollments in junior colleges to reach the half million mark; they doubled in the next twenty-three years, exceeding one million in 1964. Since then, enroll- ment has doubled in only five years. This recent growth is illustrated in Table 1. In the fall of 1969, 40 new public junior colleges were established. These colleges had initial enrollments totalling 48,048 students. In 1969, enrollments in public community-junior colleges were up 240,529 students over 1968, an increase of 13.28% (4:7-8). Table 2 reflects this TABLE 1.~-Growth in Number and Enrollment of Junior Colleges 1961-1969. Number Per Cent of Year of Enrollment Increase in Colleges Enrollment 1961 678 748,619 -- 1962 704 818,869 9.38 1963 694 927,534 13.27 1964. 719 1,043,963 12.55 1965 771 1,292,753 23.83 1966 837 1,464,099 13.25 1967 912 1,671,440 14.16 1968 993 1,954,116 16.91 1969 1,038 2,186,272 11.88 Source: Junior College Directory, 1970, p. 7. TABLE 2.--Growth in Number and Enrollment of Public Two- Year Colleges 1961-1969. Number Per Cent of Year of Enrollment Increase in Colleges Enrollment 1961 405 644,968 -- 1962 426 713,334 10.59 1963 422 814,244 14.14 1964 452 921,093 13.12 1965 503 1,152,086 25.07 1966 565 1,316,980 14.31 1967 648 1,528,220 16.03 1968 739 1,810,964 18.50 1969 794 2,051,493 13.28 Source: Junior College Directory, 1970, p. 8. growth and, additionally, includes technical institutes and two-year branches of state univerSities not previously listed in the Junior College Directory. With such an impressive growth rate, one can under- stand Harlacher's enthusiasm: The community college is fast becoming a dynamic force which affects the thought processes, habits, economic status, and social interaction of people from every walk of life, in every part of the country. More and more, it is becoming the most important element of this nation's educational structure (7:12). While there may be some doubt that the community college will become the most important element of the nation's educational structure, there is no question that this institution represents a radical departure from the traditional concept of an institution of higher education. To illustrate the traditional view, Reynolds quotes two statements made by Noah Porter in 1869: Let any reflecting man think for a moment of the kind of education which society furnishes to a great extent in this country. . . . Let him reflect on the trickery of business, the jobbery of politicians, the slang of newspapers, the vulgarity of fashion, the sensation- alism of popular books, the shallowness and cant that dishonor the pulpit and defile worship, and he may reasonably rejoice that there is one community which for a considerable period takes into keeping many of the most susceptible and most promising of our youth, to give them better tastes, higher aims, and above all to teach them to despise all sorts of intellectual and moral shams. The college community is emphatically an isolated community more completely separated and further removed than almost any other from the ordinary and almost universally prevading influences of family and social life. When the student leaves his home to enter college, it is true that in a most important sense he leaves it forever (12:140). Two years after the publication of the article in which these statements appeared, Porter became president of Yale University. It was not the junior cellege that began the move- ment away from the traditional college concept as expressed by Porter. Rather, it was the state universities and the land-grant colleges that took the leadership. The state university idea in the mid-nineteenth century assumed that a democratic social order required education on every level and that all had an equal right to education. Further, it was held that a state-supported institution should meet the professional and practical needs of citizens. This led to development of a more functional type of higher educa- tion than was offered by the liberal arts institutions. The movement begun by the state universities, mostly in the east, was given added momentum when, in 1862, the Federal government made land grants for the support of agriculture and mechanical education. The changes brought about in the traditional concepts of higher education by the land-grant college movement undoubtedly paved the way for the acceptance of the junior college idea (2:15). Land- grant colleges introduced subjects on the basis of their practical value, combined "liberal arts" and "practical" courses, and helped in the acceptance of vocational training by educational institutions. As Brick states: A unique system of higher education evolved through the years in response to societal demands. This kind of evolution marks the development not only of the American state university system and the land-grant colleges, but also of the junior college movement. By disrupting the traditional classical liberal arts curriculum by being committed to the concept that the state and the nation prosper in proportion to the development of the individual, by democratization of higher education through their belief that intel- lectual capacity and achievements are not confined to the wealthy and privileged, by their insistence on the equality of studies, by all these, the land- grant colleges broke the monopoly of the classical colleges and the stranglehold of the fixed and pre- scribed curriculum. They contributed a program and philosophy to American higher education from which the junior colleges borrowed heavily (2:16-17). Originally founded as a local institution designed to provide youth with the first two years of college work in preparation for transfer to higher level institutions, the junior college evolved, states Thornton, in three stages. The first, lasting until 1920, was "education for transfer" previously mentioned. The second, "the expansion of occupational programs" lasted from 1920 to 1945 and established the place of terminal two-year occupa- tional programs for the semi-professions in the junior college curriculum. The final stage began in 1945, the ”community college concept" stage (16:46-54). It is in the evolution of the junior college into a community-serving institution, one that looks beyond the campus and classroom and seeks to meet the needs of all people in its service area that led Reynolds to state that the junior college is the institution that has moved further away than any other institution of college rank from the ideal of the tradi- tional college concept (13:14). The acceptance of the community college concept by the junior colleges led to the development and expansion of community service programs. Such programs are now considered to be a major function of the community college, having equal status with the other commonly accepted major functions of: Preparation for advanced study Occupational education General education Counseling and guidance. The community service function of the community college has been the last of the functions to develop. Although mentioned in the literature, in one way or another, as early as 1915, community colleges had, in general, been occupied in building their transfer, occupational and other programs until after World War II. In this connection, Thornton comments: The function of community services is the most recently developed of the tasks of the community junior college. Nevertheless, the sc0pe and adequacy of these services determine whether or not the college merits the title of 'community' junior college; to an important degree, they determine also the extent of community under- ~standing and support of the several functions of the college. Because of the recency of the concept of community services, the experience of junior colleges in performing them has been limited (16:66). Blocker remarks that the community service division would undoubtedly be the last of the divisions to be organ- ized (1:211). Writing in 1960, Medsker found very little in the literature about community services. Only one major publication devoted as much as a chapter to the topic-- The Fifty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education entitled The Public Junior College. He did find, however, as a result of his survey of 243 colleges, that 219 or 90% reported activities in the com— munity service area (9:78-79). It is, of course, not unusual to find an educational activity well under way before it is extensively reported. Despite its belated arrival on the scene, the concept of community services as a major function of the community college is, as previously mentioned, now widely held, if not widely implemented. In the preface of his report to the American Association of Junior Colleges, Harlacher says that an increasing number of community colleges recognize that by definition they have an obliga- tion to: 1. Become a center of community life by encouraging the use of college facilities and services by community groups when such use does not interfere with the college's regularly scheduled day and evening classes. 2. Provide educational services for all age groups which utilize the special skills and knowledge of the college staff and other experts and are designed to meet the needs of community groups and the college district community at large. 3. Provide the community with the leadership and coordination capabilities of the college, assist the community in long range planning, and join with individuals and groups in attacking unsolved problems. 4. Contribute to and promote the cultural, intellect- ual, and social life of the college district com- munity and the development of skills fer the profitable use of leisure time (6:111). Implicit in Harlacher's writing is the idea that the implementation of community service functions is only now receiving the attention it deserves. Certainly, social upheavals and changes in the past have accelerated community service programs and will continue to do so in the future. The effect of the Second World War was noted by Parker: As youth went into military service, junior college enrollments dropped. And, coincidentally, training for defense needs sprang up in tremendous variety. This was community-desired, community-served and community-appreciated. When the din of battle softened, community adult service was as strong if not stronger than before. Junior colleges found that they had developed a taproot, one that promised to keep them in business (11:194). More recently, the civil rights movement and the War on Poverty have spawned a myriad of laws, bureaus, and programs, all of which add impetus to the community service function of community colleges. Myran wrote in 1969, that relatively few community colleges have community service programs directed by professional staffs and capable of establishing significant community service programs having their own identify: In spite of such shortcomings, the community college has begun to understand social action; it has begun to assume greater social responsibility in its com- munity. The decade of the 1960's has been character- ized by sweeping social change, and it is in this period that community services have emerged as an identifiable component of the community college (10:13). The community service function of community colleges, then, is in an interesting position. Recognized, in theory at least, as the equal partner of the older, more estab- lished functions of preparation for.advanced study, occupa- tional education, general education, and counseling and guidance, it has not, as yet, developed as quickly or extensively as its proponents have desired. Some com- munity colleges open their doors with a community service division already formed, others acknowledge its existence but hold off implementation until the college is well- established, and some ignore it completely. Addressing himself to this problem, Lanser stated: It is entirely possible that some college adminis- trators will tend to restrict or ignore the college community services as increased demands are made on the regular day schedule. The writer assumes that a community service function is a necessary and integral part of the total public junior college program. Community services should be included as one of the essential functions, if the college is to fulfill its obligation to provide equal oppor- tunity for educational experiences to every citizen of the community (8:11). A new organization, The National Council on Com- munity Services for Community and Junior Colleges has been formed. The Daily Tribune, a Royal Oak, Michigan newspaper reporting this event, noted that workers in the community services field consider the community service area of the 10 two-year college the single most important characteristic distinguishing it from other institutions of higher educa- tion (15). While this may be merely another example of journalistic enthusiasm, the fact remains that community service is a growing, vital, and dynamic community college function that will expand even more in the future. In summary, a statement by Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., is apropos: _Most community colleges claim community service as a major purpose or function. There are not many institu- tions, however, in which the full potential of this program has been realized. At the same time, there is reason to believe that the next great thrust of community college development will be in the direction of community services (3:9). Purpose of the Study 1. To survey the self-perceived scope and quality of existing community services programs in a random sample of public community colleges in the United States. 2. To determine the staffing patterns of existing community services programs. 3. To determine areas of needed emphasis in the development of comprehensive community services programs. Need for the Study A review of the literature indicates that a study of this type in the area of community services has yet to be undertaken. Medsker's study, done in 1956, covered 18 states and did not concern itself only with community service programs. Additionally, since it is 15 years old, it is safe to assume that many changes have taken place 11 since it was completed. Harlacher's study, finished in 1967, is, of course, more recent. It covered 104 college campuses in 19 different states. Harlacher, however, stated, in a conversation with this writer, that he selected those colleges which past experience had shown to have good com- munity services programs. It would, therefore, present a somewhat one-sided view of the field. Thus, there appears to be a need for a comprehensive survey dealing with, among other things, the scope of existing programs. Aside from any general values which may be derived from a knowledge of the self-perceived scope, quality, etc. of existing programs--any addition of knowledge to disci- pline is presumed to be of value--there is a definite practical value to this investigation: it will be used to aid in the development of the Michigan State Community Services Leadership Program which is financed by a grant from the Kellogg Foundation and directed by Dr. Max R. Raines. The knowledge of the current scope and quality, staffing patterns, and future areas of implementation of community services programs, should prove valuable in planning the curriculum and structure of this program. Definitions The key definition in this paper is that used in connection with the term "community services." No one definition of this term has found common acceptance among 12 educators. As will be seen in Chapter II, the community services concept is based, in part, on the adult education movement and thus contains elements of that discipline. Later the term "continuing education" appeared in educa- tional literature and seems to be replacing "adult education" in that media. It is not necessary to the purpose of this paper to debate the differences in terminology. All three enterprises are so intertwined as to make distinctions between them mainly academic exercises. As Myran con- cluded, ". . . community services and continuing education are not mutually exclusive. One includes elements of the other; it is, therefore, folly to attempt to minutely de- linate these terms" (10:15). Reynolds, writing only about the difference between adult education and community services, made the following statement which is relevent to all three terms: In developing a description of community services, adult education is treated as such a service. Purists who have a reverent regard for one term or another will doubtless be offended. It is believed, however, that no real violence will be done to either term but that considering adult education as part of com- munity services will be advantageous in avoiding the confusion that would inevitably result from making artificial distinctions (4:143). For the purposes of this paper, then, the definition of community services is taken from Harlacher with the addition of the words "social" and "on-campus" (6:17). Community services are educational, cultural, social and recreational services which an educational institution 13 may provide for its community over and beyond regularly scheduled on-campus day and evening classes. Other definitions include: Public Community College--A publically supported institu— tion offering two-year transfer, occupational, and general educa- tion programs, as well as com- munity service programs to all segments of the pOpulation living within the service area of the institution. Scope--The range of activities within a given category of the taxonomy of functions. A broad scope indicates many and varied activities within a function. Quality--The fineness, merit or excellence of a given category of the taxonomy of functions. Staffing Patterns—-1. The place of the community services program in the over- all administrative structure of the public community college. 2. Educational and professional background of the community services director. Limitations of the Study This study has the fundemental limiting factors common to the questionnaire method of gathering data. There was no direct method used to establish the validity of the Gnaestionnaire. The format of the instrument exactly followed. tfliat of a questionnaire previously used in a prior study on ~h1nior College personnel programs. It must be assumed that like questionnaire possesses face validity and that it was 14 effective in securing the desired data. Further, the questionnaire was a self-report instrument and the validity of the results limited by the accuracy, truthfulness, and clarity of the respondents. Another limitation of the questionnaire method is the difficulty of getting all of the sample population to complete and return them. In this case a 50% return was achieved, raising the question of why the remaining colleges did not respond and suggesting that some factor may exist that could bias the results. The results and conclusions of this study, then, are limited to and based on the data received from 100 community colleges collected during the summer and fall of 1969 and early 1970 and should not be construed to represent all of the community colleges in the United States. The study must also be regarded as descriptive in nature and not intended to imply qualitative judgments about the adequacy of community services programs. While respondents were asked to make judgments, the writer treated these as perceptions rather than as indices of actual adequacy. The latter would only be feasible if an outside panel of experts were to visit these institutions much in ‘the fashion of accrediting teams. At the same time there its value in knowing the degrees of favorablness which reespondents hold toward their own implementations. 15 Finally, although the data were checked and re- checked, there is always the possibility of human error in the handling of the data and the mathematical computa- tions. CHAPTER I--FOOTNOTES lClyde E. Blocker, Robert H. Plummer, and Richard C. Richardson, Jr., The Two-Year College: A Social Syntheses (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965). 2Michael Brick, Forum and Focus for the Junior College Movement: The American Association of Junior Colle es (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers Co ege, Columbia University, 1964). 3Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., "The AAJC Approach," Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (September, 1967), 9. 4Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., ed., The 1970 Junior Colle e Director (Washington, D.C.: American Association 0 Junior Colleges, 1970). 5Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., ed., The 1962 Junior College Directory (Washington, D.C.: American AssocIation of Junior Colleges, 1967). 6Ervin L. Harlacher, The Community Dimension of the Community College, Report to the American AssociatiOn ofiJunior Colleges, Washington, D.C., 1967. 7Ervin L. Harlacher, "New Directions in Community Services," Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (March, 1968), 12-17. 8Roland Louis Lanser,"The Community Services of Selected Public Junior Colleges"(unpublished Ph.D. disserta- tion, University of Missouri, 1951). 9Leland L. Medsker, The Junior College: Progress 39d.Prospect (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960). 10Gunder Arnold Myran,"The Structure and Development HKDh90+dc>mt»msmfdkdbtuuHDCDNdenb\JanuJNbo¢sthC>OPJCMbGDOCDUflNLukHvFJW 200 oowowwOOWI-‘OI-‘O.500WHQNONOOHHwi—‘file—‘OOI-‘ubnbomooNbOOHi—‘Ol—‘l—‘OH 100 l-‘UJMONI—‘Ol-‘O‘l-‘OOObwaO-waP-‘OOHOWWWNWNNNwONONHON-BOOhHwOD-‘Hb 100 52 To ascertain certain relationships it was necessary to arrive at a score which would represent the self-reported and self-perceived adequacy of the 39331 community services program of each of the responding colleges. To arrive at this score, two arbitrary assumptions were made: first, that the scope of each function was equally as important as the quality of implementation of that function and, second, that each function had the same importance as any other function. The scope of each function implemented as reported by the college, was given a numerical score as indicated above, and the same was done for the quality of implemen- tion of each function. Each function implemented by a respondent then had two scores, one representing the scope and the other quality of implementation. The scores for the scope of each function were totaled, as were the scores for the quality of implementa- tion. These scores were then combined to give a total score which represented the self-perceived adequacy of the community services program at each college. Simply, the adequacy of the community services program is equal to the sum of the sc0pes of each function implemented, plus the sum of the qualities of implementation of each function implemented. Since there are 18 functions in the taxonomy and 10 points is the highest possible rating, a perfect 53 score would be 180 points. Appendix E shows the scores each college received in descending order, as well as the mean sc0pe and mean quality of implementation of program. CHAPTER I I I--FOOTNOTE S 1Kenneth H. Kurtz, Foundations of Psychological Research (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965). 2Richard G. Lathrop, Introduction to Psychological Research (New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1969). 3Max R. Raines, A Proposal to Explore and Expand the Continuing Education and Community Development Potential of MiCHigan Community Colleges (unpublished, Michigan State University,gl968). 4Gright, E. Wilson, Jr., An Introduction to Scientific Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.,gl952). 54 CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Community Services Functions The nature of the data requested in Section 1 of the inventory suggests that it be reported primarily in tabular form. Table 5 indicates the number of colleges reporting implementation of each function of the community services program. The mean number of colleges implementing self- development functions was 78.1. The mean of those imple- menting community development and program development functions was 72.5 and 79.6, respectively. It appears that community development functions which focus on coopera- tive efforts with the local community to improve the physical, social, economic, and political environment of the community are not as fully implemented as are the other two functions. A restructuring of the data in Table 5 may provide a more meaningful or at least another view of this material. Table 6 represents the per cent of implementation of each function in descending order of implementation. In this table it is necessary to list functions out of their 55 56 TABLE 5.--Number of Community Colleges Reporting Implementa- tion of Community Services Functions. Number of Colleges Function Reporting Implementation Self-Development Developmental Counseling 66 Educational Extension 92 Educational Expansion 90 Social Outreach 74 Cultural Development 80 Leisure-time Activity 67 Community Development Community Analysis 68 Inter-agency Cooperation 78 Advisory Liaison 82 Public Forum 62 Civic Action 71 Staff Consultation 74 Program Development Public Information 87 Professional Development 88 Program Management 75 Conference Planning 71 Facility Utilization 89 Program Evaluation 69 categorical placement. The Roman numerals in the second column indicate the category in the taxonomy to which each function belongs. For this purpose, Roman numeral I indicates Self-DevelOpment functions, II indicates Community Development functions, and III indicates Program Development functions. This format is used where appropriate in all the tables that follow. 57 TABLE 6.--Community Services Functions in Descending Order of Percentage of Implementation as Self- Reported by Colleges. Function Category Percentage Implemented Educational Extension I 92 Educational Expansion I 90 Facility Utilization III 89 Professional Development III 88 Public Information III 87 Advisory Liaison II 82 Cultural Deve10pment I 80 Inter-agency Cooperation II 78 Program Management III 75 Staff Consultation II 74 Social Outreach I 74 Conference Planning III 71 Civic Action II 71 Program Evaluation III 69 Community Analysis II 68 Leisure-time Activity I 67 Developmental Counseling I 66 Public Forum II 62 It can be seen here, as well as in the preceding table, that no one function was implemented by all of the colleges. That 90% or more of the colleges implemented the two primarily educational functions should come as no surprise, since the providing of educational opportunities to the local community has long been regarded as one of the most important functions of the community college. For the purposes of this paper it can be fairly stated that the community college that implements all of the community services functions listed in the taxonomy has a broad and comprehensive community services program. Table 7 indicates how many colleges are performing all or some number of the community services functions. 58 TABLE 7.--Number of Community Services Functions Implemented per College. Number of Functions Number of Colleges Reporting Implemented Implementation 18 27 17 9 16 9 15 10 14 7 13 8 12 6 ll 3 10 7 9 3 8 2 7 2 6 2 5 1 4 0 3 l 2 O 1 O 0 3 Median=15 Over one-fourth of the colleges replying indicated that they have implemented all of the functionsand over half of the respondents have implemented at least 15 of the functions. Only 11 colleges reported that they implemented less than one-half of the functions. The median number of functions implemented was 15. Tables 5, 6, and 7 deal with those community services functions that are currently being implemented by the respond- ents. Section I of the survey also requested information regarding those functions that were not being implemented. 59 The colleges were asked to identify the non-implemented functions and to report on how strongly they felt that there was a need for implementation. The intensity of need was judged on a 5 point scale ranging from "No Need" to Urgent." Numerical values 1-5 were applied to each point of the scale, 1 representing "No Need," etc. The numerical values of the mean intensity of need were rounded off and applied to the following scale: 1 -1.5 No Need 1.6-2.5 Little Need 2.6-3.5 Moderate Need 3.6-4.5 Strong Need 4.6-5 Urgent Need Table 8 shows these non-implemented functions ranked in order of the number of colleges indicating a need to implement them and the mean intensity of the need. Inspection of the frequency count indicated that the mean would be the best measure of central tendency. The standard deviation was also computed to show variance. Here it is interesting to note that the function Educational Extension, which ranks the lowest in need for implementation, ranks the highest--"Urgent"--in intensity of need. It is obviously the most implemented function as shown in Table 6 and the fact that those colleges which do not implement it consider the need to be so urgent, indicates that community colleges are responsive to items 60 TABLE 8.--Community Services Functions Ranked by Number of Colleges Indicating Need for Implementation. No. of Mean Function Category Colleges Intensity Standard Ind1cat- DeV1at1on . of Need 1ng Need Public Forum II 35 3.37-moderate .897 Development Counseling I 31 3.45-moderate .797 Leisure-time Activity I 31 2.90-moderate 1.117 Community Analysis II 29 3.62-strong .761 Program Evaluation III 27 3.63-strong 1.023 Civic Action II 26 3.46—moderate .929 Conference Planning III 25 3.16-moderate .783 Social Out- Reach I 24 3.50-moderate 1.037 Staff Con- sultation II 22 3.41-moderate .937 Program Management III 21 3.81-strong .957 Cultural Development I 18 3.06-moderate 1.117 Inter-agency Cooperation II 18 3.56-moderate .955 Advisory Liaison II 15 3.40-moderate .717 Public Information III 10 3.90-strong .880 Educational Expansion I 8 3.63-strong .992 Professional Development III 8 3.63-strong .695 Facility Utilization III 7 4.00-strong .925 Educational Extension III 6 4.67-urgent 1.025 61 which reflect a more traditional academic role. (The Educational Extension function is defined as increasing the accessibility of the regular courses and curricula of the college.) It should also be noted that the function that ranked the lowest in intensity of need, Leisure-time Activity, ranked almost at the bottom in frequency of implementation. The Public Forum function which also ranked lowest in frequency of implementation was rated as "Moderate" in intensity of need. The above tables presented data concerning the implementation of community services functions throughout the country. The next table shows the scope of activities associated with the functions. Sc0pe, as defined in Chapter I, is the range of activities within a given function. A broad scope indicates many and varied activities are being carried on. The respondents were asked to judge the scope of each function performed on a 5 point scale ranging from Very Limited to Very Broad. Numerical values 1-5 were applied to each point of the scale, 1 meaning "Very Limited," etc. Here, as in Table 8, the mean is used as the measure of central tendency and the standard deviation as the measure of variance. Using the same sort of scale that was applied to table 8, i.e.: 62 1 -1.5 Very Limited 1.6-2.5 Limited 2.6-3.5 In-between 3.6-4.5 Broad 4.6-5 Very Broad the means were rounded-off and the numerical value translated back into the language used in the questionnaire. Only two of the 18 functions were rated as high as "Broad" in sc0pe and all the rest were rated as "In-Between." This may represent a tendency on the part of the respondents, which becomes more evident in the tables to follow, to rate themselves toward the middle of the scale. This tendency may reflect a certain conservatism in responding to the type of questionnaire used, a reluctance to appear either as accomplishing too much or too little. If Table 9 is compared with Table 6 and the latter to Table 10, it may be noted that the data begins to acquire a certain amount of internal consistency. The functions that are reported to be most often implemented are also reported to have the greatest scope. To check this observa- tion a Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was computed between per cent of self-reported implementation (Table 6) and rank-order of self-perceived scope. There was a high positive correlation (Rs-.87) between the two factors significant to the .01 level, which confirms the above observation. 63 TABLE 9.--Se1f—Perceived Scope of Community Services Functions in Rank Order of the Means. Standard Function Category Mean Deviation Facility Utilization III 3.78-broad .97 Educational Extension I 3.64-broad .90 Public Information III 3.48-in-between .98 Professional Develop- ment , III 3.43-in-between 1.01 Advisory Liaison II 3.41-in-between 1.16 Cultural Development I 3.19-in-between 1.12 Educational Expansion I 3.10-in-between 1.06 Program Management III 3.05—in-between 1.04 Inter-agency Cooperation II 3.04-in-between .93 Program Evaluation III 2.99-in-between 1.04 Conference Planning III 2.94-in-between 1.03 Civic Action II 2.87-in-between 1.02 Developmental Counseling I 2.73-in-between 1.11 Social Outreach I 2.70-in-between 1.05 Staff Consultation II 2.70-in-between 1.00 Public Forum II 2.65-in-between .95 Leisure-time Activity I 2.64-in-between 1.08 Community Analysis II 2.62-in-between 1.00 The next piece of information elicted by the survey was the quality of implementation of each function. The respondents were asked to rate the quality of current activities within each function on a 5 point scale, ranging from "Very POOr" to "Very Good." Numerical values 1-5 were assigned and the mean and standard deviation were used as before. The numerical values were converted as follows: 1 -l.5 Very Poor A 1.5-2.5 Poor 2.6-3.5 In-between 64 TABLE lO.-—Se1f—Perceived Quality of Community Services Functions in Rank Order of the Means. Standard Function Category Mean Deviation Educational Extension I 4.13-good .61 Facility Utilization III 3.97-good .87 Cultural Development I 3.89-good .95 Educational Expansion I 3.81-good .82 Professional Develop- ment III 3.78-good .79 Public Information III 3.65-good .83 Advisory Liaison II 3.64-good 1.00 Social Outreach I 3.57-good .86 Developmental Counseling I 3.56-good .97 Conference Planning III 3.55-good .84 Civic Action II 3.54-in-between .89 Staff Consultation II 3.48-in-between .89 Program Management III 3.47-in-between .83 Leisure-time Activity I 3.47—in-between .97 Public Forum II 3.44-in-between .94 Inter-agency Cooperation II 3.37-in-between .80 Program Evaluation III 3.24-in-between .89 Community Analysis II 3.21-in-between .90 3.6-4.5 Good 4.6-5 Very Good Here a tendency to rate the quality of the functions higher than the scope may be noted. Eight functions were rated less than Good. Again, no one function was rated in the highest quality category and none appeared in the two lowest categories. Again, the functions that were most frequently implemented, as well as attaining highest ratings in scope, tended also to be rated higher in quality. This will be discussed further under Table 11. 65 TABLE ll.--Se1f-Perceived Scope and Quality of Community Services Functions Arranged According to Each Function. Mean Rank Order Mean Rank Order Function Scope Scope Quality Quality Self-Development Developmental Counseling 2.73 13 3.56 9 Educational Extension 3.64 2 4.13 1 Educational Expansion 3.10 7 3.81 4 Social Outreach 2.70 14.5 3.57 8 Cultural Development 3.19 6 3.89 3 Leisure-time Activity 2.64 17 3.47 13.5 Community Development Community Analysis 2.62 18 3.21 18 Inter-agency Cooperation 3.04 9 3.37 16 Advisory Liaison 3.41 5 3.64 7 Public Forum 2.65 16 3.44 15 Civic Action 2.87 12 3.54 11 Staff Consulta- tion 2.70 14.5 3.48 12 Program Development Public Informa- tion 3.48 3 3.65 6 Professional Development 3.43 4 3.78 5 Program Manage- ment 3.05 8 3.47 13.5 Conference Planning 2.94 11 3.55 10 Facility Utilization 3.78 l 3.97 2 Program Evalua- tion 2.99 10 3.24 17 66 The Educational Extension function which rated the highest in quality seems to emerge as the most important community services function in the eyes of the respondents. It was the most often implemented, it was the only function whose need for implementation was rated "Urgent" by those colleges that did not implement it; and, it rated second in breadth of scope. As previously mentioned in discussing this function, this does not seem unusual. The extension of educational services to the community has been one of the more basic functions of the community colleges and, in all probability, one of the first to be implemented after the establishment of the college. It might be speculated, therefore, that this function has the dual advantages of tradition and longevity which some or most of the other functions do not possess. For the convenience of the reader who may wish to compare the scope of each function with the quality, the data has been rearranged in Table 11. An inspection of Table 11 reveals that a relationship exists between the scope of each function and the quality. Using the Spearman rank-order correlation method, it was found that a moderately high positive correlation (Rs=.75) exists between scope and quality. This is significant at the .01 level. It can be stated that the community services func- tions that are the most extensively implemented (at least 67 80% of colleges reporting implementation), the broadest in scope, and the highest in quality are in order of implementation as follows: 1. Education Extension 2. Educational Expansion 3. Facility Utilization 4. Professional Development 5. Public Information 6. Advisory Liaison 7. Cultural Development It should be noted that the most implemented func- tion, Educational Extension, ranks second in scope and first in quality. Facility Utilization, which ranks third in implementation, ranks first in scope and second in quality. Since the correlation is not 1.00, the second most imple- mented function, Educational Expansion, ranks seventh in scope and fourth in quality. Three of the above listed functions, numbers 1, 2, and 7, fall into the Self-Development category. Three, numbers 3, 4, and 5, fall into the Program Development category, only one, number 6, falls into the Community Development category. This indicates that Community Develop- ment functions have not achieved the status of the other two. Staffing Patterns The second section of the Community Services Inven- tory dealt with the staffing patterns of community services 68 programs. The first question sought to determine if there was a person specifically charged with the direction of the program and the amount of time allocated for that assign- ment. The results are summarized on Table 12. Only 13% of the colleges reporting programs indicated that they had no director. The vast majority indicated directors with varying time allotments. Almost half of the respondents had a director, either full or over half-time. A little less than one-third had half-time or less than half- time directors. When the respondent checked "Other" he was asked to explain his answer. Two said that the job was done by the president of the college. Five replied that responsibility TABLE 12.--Number of Colleges Having Full or Part-Time or no Directors of Community Services. Number of Colleges Time Allotment 27 Full time 18 Over one-half time 30 One-half time or less 13 No director 10 Other 2 No answer Total 100 69 for the job was shared by various members of the faculty. In one case, the job was performed in a limited manner by the dean of academic affairs. One college reported that three divisions were responsible and one college reported that the director of guidance had very limited respon- sibilities. The next question attempted to define any other duties that might be performed by the person heading the community services program, in addition to those connected with the community services program. As can be seen from the list below, some of the areas of responsibility appear closely related to community services while others are not. The most frequently reported areas of responsibility were: 1. Direction of evening or extended day college for credit 2. Public relations other than those directly related to community services 3. Teaching various subjects on a part-time basis 4. Direction of summer sessions for credit 5. Direction of federal programs 6. Direction of technical or occupational educa- tion programs 7. Counseling and guidance 8. Program or institutional research or development 70 Less frequently reported duties include: 1. Financial aid 2. Placement 3. Accreditation 4. Direction of athletic programs 5. Fund raising 6. Admissions 7. Health services 8. Discipline 9. Recruiting 10. College publications 11. Director of music 12. Director of part-time studies 13. Basic adult education 14. Adult high school programs 15. Assistant to the administrative dean The third question in Part II of the survey asked the title of the person in charge of the community services program. The results are summarized in Table 13. There is, obviously, no general agreement on what title to give the person who heads the community services program. Even the most common designation, that of Director of Continuing Education, was reported by less than 10% of the respondents. The next most common title, that of Director of Community Services, was only reported by six colleges. 71 TABLE 13.--Tit1es of Persons Heading Community Services Program. Title Number Reporting Dean of: AduIt and Community Services Community Services Continuing Education Continuing Education and Summer School Evening College Extension-Community Services Instruction Student Personnel Technical and Adult Education Assistant or Associate Dean of: Academic Affairs Adult and Continuing Services Adult Education and Community Services Continuing Education Extension Services Instruction Instruction-Continuing Education Instruction for Program Development and Community Services Special Services Students Director of: Adult DiStributive Education Adult Education Adult and Continuing Education Adult and Extension Courses Community Services Continued and Vocational Education Continuing Education Continuing Education and Community Services Continuing Education and Development Development and Continuing Education Development and Research Division for Continuing Education Evening and Summer Sessions Extended Day Program Extension and Community Services Extension Programs Field Service General Adult Education Guidance Occupational Education HF‘FH‘FJHLHKJH hawra wrahaHrAFaH OPHO\HDQFJH HPJPJHkAFJHrAPJHFAFJN 72 TABLE 13.--Continued. Title Number Reporting Office of Community Services Placement and Evening College Public Relations and Institutional Development Public Services Service Programs Student Personnel Urban Affairs FJFWHFJH FJH Other Directors: Evening Director Executive Director-Community Services Hra Coordinator of: Adult Education Community Services Continuing Education Continuing Education and Community Services 1 Special Programs 1 aruka Others: Administrative Assistant for Evening and Summer Program Administrative Assistant to the President Administrator-Field Service Assistant Superintendent—Administrative Dean Assistant to the President Chairman-Public Events Board President Specialist-Continuing Education HF4 FJNFJKJH Total 86 As mentioned in Chapter I, there is a certain amount of controversy and confusion as to the distinction between community services, continuing education, and adult educa- tion. This becomes evident upon examination of the terms used in the titles listed in Table 13. The term "Continuing Education" appears singly in titles 19 times; "Community 73 Services,‘ in combination with other terms, appears eight times; "Continuing Education" appears in combination 11 times, and "Adult Education" appears six times. It appears then, that at this stage of the develop- ment of community services programs, colleges have a tendency to identify with continuing education programs. Without previous data which does not exist, it is impossible to tell if this is a trend that is developing or one that is ending, as more colleges recognize community services as an entity in its own right subsuming the continuing educa- tion program. Table 14 summarizes the responses to the fourth question in Part II of the Survey-~To what higher adminis- trator does the head of the community services program report? Little comment appears necessary here. Forty-one per cent of the respondents indicated that the head of the community services program reported to the head of the college. The assumption might be made that in those col- leges, at least, the community services program enjoy equal status with other college programs. This assumption, however, remains to be proved. Question five sought information on the amount of assistance furnished to the head of the community services program. Tables 15 and 16 indicate the number of adminis- trative assistants provided and the amount of clerical help available. 74 TABLE l4.—-The Immediate Superior to the Head of the Community Services Program. Report to One Person Title Number Reporting Head of College includes: President, Director, Executive Director, Superintendent, Dean, District Director 36 Dean of Instruction includes: Instructional Dean, Director of Instruction 17 Dean of Academic Affairs includes: Academic Dean Dean of College Vice-president Nnb-bU‘l Executive Dean Dean of Administration includes: Administrative Dean M Dean or Director of Continuing Education Administrative Assistant for Special Programs Assistant Director of College Assistant Director of Instructional Services H r4 H F4 Associate Dean of Faculty Dean of Division of Evening and General Studies Dean of Faculty Dean of Students Director of Campus (more than one campus) Director of Adult Education H +4 H F4 H +4 Vice-president, Student Personnel Report to Two Persons Academic Dean and President Dean and President Dean of College and Dean of Students 1 Associate Dean of Instruction and Dean of Instruction Total 88 75 TABLE 15.--Number of Administrative Assistants to the Head of the Community Services Programs. Number of Colleges Number of Assistants Full-time Assistants ll 1 4 2 2 3 l 4 1 5 1 17 Full plus Part-time Assistants Full Part-time 4 l 2 1 4 2 1 4 1 1 3 2 l 1 3 1 1 1 Part-time Only 10 1 1 2 l 3 l 4 1 5 1 6 No Assistants 49 0 76 TABLE l6.--Amount of Clerical Assistance Provided to the Head of the Community Services Program. Number of Colleges Number of Clerks Full-time 20 l 3 3 2 2 l 4 Full-time plus Part-time Full Part-time 23 l 1 3 2 1 2 3 l 2 2 2 2 1 3 1 l7 4 l 5 4 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 2 4 1 2 3 1 l 4 1 l 2 Part-time Only 11 1 No Clerical Help 17 .0 77 With the exception of one college, it appears that community colleges are reluctant to provide the head of the community services program with an abundance of adminis- trative assistants. Question six asked how many teachers were employed in the community services program. It was found that only five colleges employed teachers full-time. The number of teachers employed ranged from 1 to 10. Three colleges used teachers more than one-half time. One used 20, another used six, and one used two. The vast majority reported that they employed teachers on a less than half-time basis. The number employed ranged from 1 to 985. Two colleges employed over 500 teachers, five colleges employed over 100 teachers, and six colleges employed over 50 teachers. The balance of the respondents employed up to 48 teachers and the median number of teachers employed by all respondents equalled 30 teachers. Question seven asked for an organizational chart of the structure of the college in order to determine the relationship of the community services department or division to the other departments of the college. The response indicated that there are almost as many patterns of organization as there are colleges. Twenty-one colleges reported that no formal community services division or department existed and that the functions were performed 78 by a variety of departments. Eleven colleges did not answer this question, nor did they indicate the reason for not answering. The majority of the balance of the responses could be placed into one of three generalized patterns. It should be noted that these three patterns are abstractions and only a few colleges fit the patterns exactly. The most common configuration.for 27 colleges reporting is shown in Pattern I below. In this pattern, the community services department is considered to be part of the instructional program and, as such, is the responsi- bility of the academic dean or dean of instruction or any variation of that position. It may carry the title "Com- munity Services" or in many cases "Adult" or "Continuing Education" department or division. If the latter designa- tion is used, community services are considered an integral part of that department. Pattern I Head of College Assistant to Head Head of Head of Head of Business Academic Student Affairs Affairs Services Academic Community Deaprtments Services The next most common configuration (20 colleges reporting) is one in which the community department is 79 considered to be of equal rank to the other departments and is the responsibility of the president, or in some cases the dean of the college, if such position exists. As in the case of Pattern I, this department may be designated "Adult" or "Continuing Education," but community services are an integral part of the department. Pattern II Head of College Assistant to Head Dean of College Head of’ Head of Head of Head of Business Academic Student Community Affairs Affairs Services Services Pattern III is much less common (eight colleges reporting) than Patterns I and II. In this configuration, community services is considered to be a separate not an integral part of another department, usually Adult or Continuing Education, but in two cases the Student Per— sonnel Department, and in another the Research and Develop- ment Department. The balance of the colleges (11) reported configura- tions which failed to fit in any of the above patterns. They possessed no special merit nor were they startingly unusual. They were just different enough not to fit the patterns. In view of this, they will not be reproduced. 80 Pattern III Head of College Assistant to Head Head of Head of Head of Head—of Adult Business Academic Student or Continuing Affairs Affairs Services Education Head of Community Services The next question asked the educational background of the person heading the community services program. Seventeen of the respondents did not answer-this question, primarily because no such person existed or because the president headed the program. All persons heading programs had bachelor degrees in the areas indicated in Table 17. As might be expected, the largest number of degrees (33) were in the field of education. Interestingly, the largest number of degrees in any one specific area, eight, were to be found in history, followed by social studies with seven. ’ Only six of the respondents did not have a master's degree in some area in addition to the bachelor's degree. Of these, four were working on the advanced degree in the fields of Adult Education, English, Administration, and Vocational and Technical Education. Master's degrees were held in the academic areas as indicated in Table 18. 81 TABLE 17.--Bachelor's Degrees Held by Heads of Community Services Programs According to Academic Area. Academic Area Number Reporting Administration: Administration 1 Business or Management 5 Behavioral Science: Psychology 2 Education: Biology Education Business Education Education Education Psychology Elementary Education Industrial Arts Language Arts Music Education Physical Education Science Education Social Studies Speech Education HVHGHHwHHmmH Exact Sciences: Mathematics Engineering Liberal Arts: English History Language Liberal Arts Natural Sciences: Chemistry Forestry Physics NI—‘mN NUI lubam Social Sciences: Economics Social Science Political Science Others: Industrial Technology Journalism Law Music NNw NHHH Total 81 82 TABLE 18.--Master's Degrees Held by Heads of Community Services Programs by Academic Area. Academic Area Number Reporting Administration: Administration and Psychology Public Administration Behavioral Science: Sociology Psychology Education: Administration Community Education Distributive Education Education Guidance Higher Education Industrial Education Physical Education Science Vocational and Technical Exact Sciences: Mathematics Engineering Liberal Arts: English History Modern Language Natural Sciences: Biochemistry Biological Science Social Sciences: Finance Government Others: Industrial Management Music Radio and Television Theatre Arts NH HHH an: HHHNNmmHHw F%4 HPJUJH 83 Here may be seen the increasing specialization in the education area. Whereas 33 respondents reported bachelor's degrees in that area, 48 master's degrees were reported in some educational field. Even more striking is that the largest number of degrees (23) is in the specialty of educational administration. The data raises an interesting question. Did the respondents acquire the degree prior to or after becoming administrators? The answer must await further research. In addition to the bachelor's and master's degrees, two administrators held specialist degrees, one in Public Administration, and one in Science Education. Doctorates, either Ph.D. or Ed.D., were held by 15 heads of programs, as indicated in Table 19. TABLE l9.--Doctora1 Degrees Held by Heads of Community Services Programs by Academic Area. Academic Area Number Reporting Education: Adult Education 2 Education 1 Educational Administration 5 Industrial Education 1 Physical Education 1 Secondary Education 1 Others: Engineering 1 Law 1 Music 1 Theology 1 84 Over two-thirds of the doctoral degrees held were in the field of education, only four were not. Additionally, 13 respondents reported that they were working on their doctoral degree. Four did not specify the area; two each in Higher Education, Educational Adminis- tration, and Adult Education; one each in History, Elemen— tary Education, and Educational Sociology. The professional backgrounds of the respondents presents a picture of wide diversity. As might be expected, the majority of directors of community services programs began their professional careers as teachers (53 of 73 replies). Twenty-one began as high school teachers, seven as junior college instructors, three as elementary school teachers, two as university teachers. Twenty did not specify where or what they taught. Others began in the following fields: Armed Services Business or Industry Engineering Journalism Law Psychology Public Service Organizations NI—‘NNwO‘b Ten respondents did not reply fully enough to trace their careers from the beginning. It is not within the scope of this paper to trace 'the upward climb of the respondents to.the positions they now hold. However, it might prove instructive to list the last position held before they assumed the responsibility 85 of directing the community services program, if only to emphasize the diverse professional backgrounds from which they came (see Table 20). Over one-half (48) of the respondents were already in administrative positions of some sort before they became head of the community services program. Seventeen came from the public schools; three came from university work; the remainder were in community colleges. Seventeen respondents had responsibilities in the area of community services before they became heads of the community services program. Nine respondents had guidance experience in either public schools or community colleges. What is evident here is that community services programs are headed mostly by people who have come from other educational fields and who, in all probability, will train themselves on the job. By using some of the data thus far presented, some further insight into community services programs can be gained. These interpretations are presented in the follow- ing section. A Comparison of Self-Perceived Program Adequacy Ratings with Selected Institutional Variables Using the method described in Chapter III, each responding community college was assigned a point score representing its self-perceived program adequacy rating. By comparing this program adequacy rating to selected 86 TABLE 20.--Last Position Held by Heads of Community Services Programs. Title Number Reporting I. Administrator-Community College: Dean of: Academics Continuing Education and Extension Students Technical Programs Not specified HrdnJth Assistant Dean of: Evening College Technical and Adult Education Director of: Community Services Continuing Education Development Financial Aids and High School Relations Guidance Vocational Counseling FJH haHra rerun Assistant Director of: Adult Education Extension Hid Division or Department Chairman: Business Administration 1 Unspecified 2 Miscellaneous: Assistant to Chancellor 1 Coordinator (unspecified) 1 Supervisor and Coordinator of Non-credit Activities 1 II. Instructors-Community College: Business Chemistry Music History Science Unspecified brannahJH III. Guidance and Counseling-Community College Unspecified 4 IV. Administrators-Public Schools Director of: Adult Education Adult Education and Coordinator of Federal Programs Adult Education and Dean of Boys Evening School and Placement N rdhaH 87 TABLE 20.--Continued. Title Number Reporting Guidance l In-service Education 1 Co-ordinator of: Adult Education Evening Schools Federal Programs Principal Superintendent Supervision (unspecified) HHmHHH V. Guidance and Counseling-Public School Unspecified N VI. University Personnel: Adult Education Counselor Assistant Professor--Education Assistant Professor—~Mechanical Technologies Basketball Coach Dean--State Teachers College Graduate Assistant Instructor (unspecified) Program Coordinator--Public- Service-Career Training Program Program Director--Local Adult Education Programs H H HwHHH HH VII. Miscellaneous: Clergyman Coach--high school Director of Continuing Education, State Department of Education 1 Director of Elementary and Secondary Activities, Country Board of Education 1 Director of Field Services, Illinois Commission on Human Relations Director of Training, Air Force Director of Training Development and Organizational Specialist, National Headquarters of Girl Scouts Law Student Lawyer Owned own business Personnel Director, Industry Social Worker, State Government HF‘ F‘H HHHHHH 88 institutional variables, it was possible to determine if these variables had a statistical relationship to the adequacy of the community services program. Five variables were selected on the basis of information available from the questionnaire. Enrollment The first variable selected was size of enrollment. In this case the nature of the data suggested that the Spearman rank order correlation co-efficient be obtained. This was computed to be .30 significant to .01. It indicates a very low positive correlation between the enrollment at the college and the adequacy of the program. It is generally conceded that rs needs to equal at least .5 to be able to state that there is a useful and pre- dictable relationship between two variables. One can state, therefore, that while there is some relationship between size of enrollment and adequacy of program it is not great enough to be able to predict with any degree of certainty that colleges with higher enrollments have more adequate community services programs than those with lower enrollments. Geographical Location of Institution In this calculation, as well as in the others to follow, the chi-square technique was indicated. In using this method it is important that the number of cases in each cell be adequate. In order to accomplish this, the 89 respondents were placed into two groups--those above the median of 98 points and those below. Those above the median were considered to have a more adequate program (self-rated) than those below. The country was divided into seven geographical regions (see Appendix F) and the colleges assigned to the appropriate region. The chi-square value was computed at 8.5. In order to be significant at the .05 level the chi- square value needed is 12.6. Therefore, it can be said that the location of the institution has no significant relationship to the adequacy of the program. Full or Part-time Director It seems logical to speculate that colleges having full-time or more than one-half time directors would tend to have a more adequate community services program (self- rated) than those colleges which lack such directors. This speculation is not justified. In this case, chi- square equals 5.6. The chi-square value needed at the .05 level is 9.5. Therefore, the amount of time spent by the director of the program was not significantly related to the adequacy (self-rated) of the program. Administrative Structure The variable in this instance concerns the relation- ship between the head of the community services program and the head of the institution, the hypothesis being that 90 reporting directly to the head of the institution would result in a more adequate community services program. The chi-square value obtained was .23. The value needed for significance at the .05 level is 3.8. Therefore, the person to whom the head of the community services program reports has no significant effect on the adequacy (self—rated) of the program. Professional Identification This variable deals with the idea that the community services program is identified as an entity in its own right rather than as an appendage to another program and that it would be a more adequate program because it had its own professional identity. The assumption was made that evidence of professional identity would be considered to exist if the title of the head of the program contained the words "Community Services," "Continuing Education," or "Adult Education." The chi-square value equaled .045. The value needed for significance at the .05 level is 3.84. Therefore, it can be said that the professional identification of the program as defined makes no significant difference to the adequacy (self-rated) of the program. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was: 1. To survey the self-perceived scope and quality of existing community services programs in a random sample of public community colleges in the United States. 2. To determine the staffing patterns of existing community services programs. 3. To determine areas of needed emphasis in the development of comprehensive community services programs. Summary of Data Collection and Methodology Two hundred questionnaires were mailed to a group of public community colleges selected at random from the 1969 Junior College Directory. One hundred replies were received after follow-up letters were sent. The data were compiled and reduced, in most cases, to tabular form. Since this study was designed to be basically descriptive, few sophis- ticated statistical techniques were used. When measures of 91 92 relationships were used, either the Spearman rank-order method of correlation or the chi-square technique was employed. Summary of Findings Implementation of Functions The Raines Taxonomy specifies 18 function which, for purposes of this study, make up the community services program. These functions are divided into three major categories, i.e., Self-Development Functions, Community Development Functions, and Program Development Functions. Within these broad categories the mean number of colleges implementing Self-Development Functions was 78.1. The mean of those implementing Community Development Functions was 72.5 and the mean of those implementing Egggram Develop- ment Functions was 79.6. Community Development Functions, then, are not as well implemented as are the other two categories. In terms of individual functions, the survey indi- cated that no one function was implemented by all of the respondents. The implementation per function ranged from a low of 62% of the colleges implementing the Public Forum function to a high of 92% of the colleges implementing the Educational Extension function. The five most implemented functions were: Educational Extension (92%), Educational Expansion (90%), Facility Utilization (89%), Professional 93 Development (88%), and Public Information (87%). The five least implemented functions were: Public Forum (62%), Developmental Counseling (66%), Leisure-time Activity (67%), Community Analysis (68%), and Program Evaluation (69%). Theoretically, a good community services program involves the implementation of all 18 of the functions listed in the Raines Taxonomy. Over one-fourth (27) of the respondents indicated that they implemented all of the functions, and over one-half (55) indicated that at least 15 functions were implemented. Only 11 colleges reported an implementation of less than one-half of the functions. Almost all colleges not implementing a particular function indicated that there was a need to implement that function, however, the intensity of the need was not directly proportional to the number of colleges indicating that a need exists. For example, the least implemented function, Public Forum, and, therefore, the one that most colleges indicated a need for, ranked only "moderate" in intensity of need for implementation with only two respond- ents indicating an "urgent" need for this function. Other functions which colleges felt they needed only moderately were: Leisure-time Activity, Conference Planning, Staff Consultations, Cultural Development, and Advisory Liaison. The only function to rate as an "urgent" need among colleges that did not implement it was Educational 94 Extension. All other functions were rated "strong" in intensity of need. Scope and Quality of Functions In terms of mean scores, only two functions, Facili- ty Utilization and Educational Extension, were rated by respondents to be "broad" in scope. All other functions rated as "in-between," It should be pointed out that these ratings are based on mean scores, and that the frequency count table in Appendix G shows replies ranging from "very limited" to "very broad" on almost all functions. Based on the five point scales used to evaluate the replies and then translated into words, the term "broad" as applied to sc0pe equates with the term "good" as applied to quality. Thus, it may be said that the respondents rated themselves more generously in terms of the quality of their programs since ten functions were rated "good" and eight were rated "in-between." Numerically, the mean scores of quality of implementation ranged from 3.21 to 4.13, a some- what narrower range than that of the mean scores for scope of implementation which was 2.62 to 3.78. In comparing the scope of implementation of each function with the quality of implementation, it was found that a moderately high positive correlation exists between the two (Rs='75 significant at .01 level). Taking all factors into consideration, the survey showed that the following functions, listed in order of 95 implementation, were the most extensively implemented (at least 80% of colleges reporting implementation), the broadest in scope of implementation, and the highest in quality of implementation. 1. Educational Extension 2. Educational Expansion 3. Facility Utilization 4. Professional Development 5. Public Information 6. Advisory Liaison 7. Cultural Development Staffing Patterns Seventy-six per cent of the respondents indicated that there was a director of the community services program but not necessarily on a full-time basis. Twenty-nine per‘ cent reported full-time directors, 18% reported staff members utilizing over half of their time directing the community services program, and 29% reported directors devoting half- time or less to the programs. Persons not directing the programs full-time carried a variety of other responsibili— ties, some closely related to the community services program, others not. There was no common agreement as to the title given the person heading the community services program. The most common designation, Director of Continuing Education, 96 was only reported nine times and the second most common, Director of Community Services, was reported only six times. Twenty-three per cent of the persons heading the community services programs were accorded the rank of dean or assistant or associate dean, 44% held the rank of director, eight per cent were ranked as co-ordinators, and the balance held a variety of other titles. In the titles given the person in charge of the community services program, the term "Continuing Education" appeared 19 times, singly and in combination with other terms 11 times. The term"Community Services" was used 11 times singly and eight times in combination. "Adult Educa- tion" appeared in titles three times singly and six times in combination. The immediate superior to the head of the community services program was indicated by 41% of the respondents to be the head of the college. Ninteen per cent reported to the dean of instruction and the remaining 40% reported to various members of the administrative staff. In six per cent of the cases the head of the community services pro- gram reported to more than one person. Over half of respondents did not provide any adminis- trative assistance to the head of the community services program.) Twelve colleges provided two or more full-time administrative assistants. Included in this group were three colleges that provided additional part-time assistants. 97 Fifteen colleges reported that they had one or more part- time assistants. Only 17 colleges reported that they provided the head of the community services program with no clerical assistance. Eleven reported one clerical assistant on a part-time basis. Twenty-six colleges reported one or more full-time persons and 40 colleges indicated that they provided one or more full-time clerical assistants, plus one or more part-time assistants. The vast majority of colleges reported that they employed teachers on a less than half-time basis. The median number of teachers thus employed was 30, the range being 1-985 employed. Two colleges employed over 500 part-time teachers and five colleges employed over 100 part-time teachers. Only five colleges employed 1-10 teachers full-time. Three colleges used 2-20 teachers more than half-time. The respondents were asked to submit an organiza- tional chart of the structure of the college in order to determine the relationship of community services department to the other divisions of the college. Twenty-one colleges reported no formal community services division and 11 did not reply. No two colleges had the same organizational structure, but three generalized patterns emerged. In 'the most commonly reported configuration (27 cases), the community services department was considered part of the 98 academic program and, as such, was the responsibility of the academic dean or dean of instruction. It holds equal rank with the other academic departments. The next most commonly reported configuration (20 cases) showed the community services department considered as a separate division equal in rank to the academic divi- sion and reporting directly to the head of the college. The third most common configuration (8 cases) had the community services department attached to another department, the head of which reports to the head of the college. In this configuration the community services program was generally a separate part of the Adult or Continuing Education Division. It should be noted here that the most commonly reported configuration does not correspond with the replies indicating that 40% of the heads of community services programs report directly to the head of the college since the configuration indicates that they report to the dean of instruction. This apparent contradiction may be explained by the fact that in cases where no official community services department exists, the head of the program usually reports directly to the head of the college. In these instances no organizational chart was submitted. The educational background of the heads of community services programs indicated that all of the respondents (81 replies) held bachelor's degrees in various academic areas 99 but most commonly (33) in the field of education. Only six of the respondents did not hold a master's degree. Master's degrees were held in many academic areas but a majority (48 cases) were held in some educational field and of these 23 were held in Educational Administra- tion. Of the 15 doctoral degrees held, 11 were in the field of education. The remaining were in theology, law, music, and engineering. Additionally, 13 respondents reported that they were working on their doctorate, mostly in the area of education. The professional background of the respondents indicated that one-half (48 cases) of the heads of com- munity services programs were in some sort of administra- tive position before they assumed their present positions. Seventeen came from public schools, three came from universities, and the balance were in community colleges. Seventeen of the respondents had previous responsi- bilities in the area of community services and nine had a guidance background. The balance held positions in many other educational areas. Relationship Between Selected Variables and Adequacy of Program The relationship between the adequacy of the com- munity services program and five selected institutional variables was tested statistically. Using the Spearman 100 rank-order correlation technique, a very low positive correlations (.3) was found to exist between the size of enrollment and adequacy of program. The relationship of four other variables, i.e., location, administrative structure, professional identi- fication, and amount of time spent by the director of the program, was tested using the chi—square method. The results indicated that these variables caused no signi- ficant difference in the adequacy of the community services program. Conclusions 1. The vast majority of the institutions responding to the survey (97%) claim to have implemented a community service program. Of the three remaining respondents that indicated they had no programs, one college was preparing to institute a program, while the other two felt no need to do so. This may be considered evidence, if such be needed, that community services programs are now considered by the respondents to be a legitimate function of community colleges, along with the traditionally accepted functions of occupational education, preparation for advanced study, general education, and guidance. 2. Assuming that the 18 functions.listed in the Raines Taxonomy represent those basic activities which must be implemented in a community services program, an 101 arbitrary judgment can be made that in terms of the number of functions implemented, a comprehensive program would include implementation of a least two-thirds of the 18 functions. Given this admittedly arbitrary criterion, it can be concluded that 76% of the respondents reported a satisfactory or better community services program as far as the number of functions is concerned. 3. While the community services concept has been adopted by the respondents, the data suggest that these community colleges still tend to stress their academic and vocational functions and serve the community by serving individual members of the community rather than the com- munity as a whole. The results of the survey indicate that Community-Development functions as a group are less often implemented than Self-Development functions. Of the seven most implemented functions (at least 80% reporting implemen— tation) only one, Advisory Liaison, is a Community Develop- mggt function. Further, the most implemented function, that of Educational Extension, is aimed directly at the improvement of the individual by increasing the accessi- bility of the regular course and curricula of the college. 4. While the survey instrument developed for this study, assumes that each of its 18 functions are of equal importance, the data indicate that the respondents, for reasons not investigated in this study, appear to attach more significance to some functions than to others. They 102 implement these functions more often and the most implemented functions tend to have the greatest scope, the highest quality of implementation, and rank highest in need for implementation among colleges that do not claim implemen- tation. For example, the Educational Extension function seems to emerge as the most important function in the eyes of the respondents. It is the function most often imple- mented, second broadest in scope, highest in quality, and the only function rated urgent in intensity of need for implementation. Conversely, the Public Forum function was least implemented, fifteenth and sixteenth, respec- tively, in the scope and quality rankings, and ranked only moderate in intensity of need. Based on the above, the most important community services functions appear to be: a. Educational Extension b. Educational Expansion c. Facility Utilization d. Professional Development e. Public Information f. Advisory Liaison g. Cultural Development 5. Raters appear to stress the quality of community services functions rather than the scope of these functions. Both scope and quality were rated on a 5 point scale by the respondents. In both cases the middle value was designated "in-between." The vast majority of the functions were rated in this middle category in terms of scope, only two functions ranking in the next or second highest category. 103 In rating quality of implementation, however, the colleges placed over one-half (10) of the functions in the second highest category and the balance in the middle classifica- tion. Further, in every case, using mean quality and mean scope scores, quality of implementation was rated higher than scope. 6. On the self-rating scales, as used in this study, respondents tended to rate themselves conservatively or near the middle value. No one function was reported by the respondents, as a whole, as being very broad in scope or very good in quality of implementation. Conversely, no function was rated as very limited or limited in scope or poor or very poor in quality of implementation. This may be a "hiding-in-the-mean" phenomenon. 7. At this point in time, the responding colleges have a tendency to regard their community services program as part of their continuing education program rather than the other way around, as advocated by the supporters of the community services concept. An analysis of the titles given the heads of community services programs indicated that the term Continuing Education appeared about 30% more often than did the term Community Services. 8. In terms of staffing patterns, community services programs present a variegated pattern. The only thing common to all programs is that they hire teachers almost executively on a part-time basis. The next most common feature is that 104 they are usually directed by one person. However, the heads of the community services programs devote varying amounts of time to fulfilling that responsibility. Twenty- seven per cent of the directors have full-time responsi-‘ bilities in this area, 18% have over half-time responsi- bilities, and 30% devote one-half time or less to the task. Some programs (13%) have no directors and 10% are adminis- tered in varying ways. In only a little over one-half of the programs reported does the director have any administrative assist- ance. More than two-thirds of the colleges did provide full-time clerical assistance to the director of the pro- gram. Heads of community services programs were most commonly (40% reporting) responsible directly to the head of the institution and the balance reported to superiors with many different titles. The conclusion here is that there is no dominent staffing or organizational pattern discernable in the community services programs examined. 9. Since very few respondents indicated that they felt no need to implement functions that they were currently not implementing, it can be concluded that all 18 functions listed in the Raines Taxonomy are basic to a comprehensive community services program and, therefore, all should be implemented. Further, the range of activities within a given function, defined in this paper as the.scope, should 105 be very broad, encompassing many and varied activities, and the quality of implementation of each function should be as high as it is possible to obtain. Finally, in spite of the evidence previously reported, which indicated that the amount of time allocated to the director of the program made no significant difference in the adequacy of the reported programs, this author stubbornly feels that a full-time director with professional preparation is needed for a comprehensive program. Areas of Needed Emphasis in the Development of Comprehensive Community Services Programs In terms of implementation of functions, only two functions, Educational Extension and Education Expansion, were implemented by 90% of the colleges surveyed. Emphasis, then, should be placed on increasing the implementation of the remaining 16 functions. Those functions classified as Community Development functions were, as a group, less fully implemented than were the Self-Development or Program Development functions. Since the community college is deemed to have a special concern in this area, that is, a responsiveness to local community programs and cooperation with the community in seeking their solutions, more extensive efforts in this general area are indicated. More specifically, and not necessarily in the Com— munity Development classification, the following functions were not implemented by at least 25% of the respondents: 106 Public Forum, Developmental Counseling, Leisure-time Activity, Community Analysis, Program Evaluation, Civic Action, and Conference Planning. Special efforts should, therefore, be made to increase the implementation of these functions. In terms of the scope of each function, only two, Facility Utilization and Educational Extension, were rated as having a broad scope. In all other functions the scope of activities was rated average. Obviously, the scope of all functions needs improvement but most particularly the bottom third in the ratings: Community Analysis, Leisure- time Activity, Public Forum, Staff Consultations, Social Outreach, and Development Counseling. No function rated poor or very poor in quality of implementation but none rated in the highest category. Improvement is again indicated in all functions. On the rating scale devised for the questionnaire, the following functions ranked "in-between" in quality of implementation and are, therefore, worthy of special effort directed toward improvement: Community Analysis, Program Evaluation, Inter-agency Cooperation, Public Forum, Leisure-time Activity, Program Management, Staff Consultation, and Civic Action. It should be noted that three functions, Public Forum, Leisure-time Activity, and Community Analysis, appear in each of the areas discussed above. This suggests that these 107 functions might be considered to have first priority in a program of improvement, since they rank low in all aspects. Another area of needed emphasis is the provision of a full-time director for the community services program. Only 27% of the respondents had such a director. Less than half of the colleges had a director with either full or more than half-time responsibilities in the community services area. Surely, an area as important as community services is or will be, ought to have a person in charge with full-time responsibility in that area. It is dif- ficult to see how community services programs can be eXpanded and improved without such a person. A final area of needed emphasis exists in the training of community services directors. Almost all of the respondents indicated that they were originally trained in specialties other than community services. This is not surprising, since only a few universities offer programs in this educational field and then under the titles of continuing or adult education. It is assumed that most of the training received by heads of community services programs was obtained either on the job or in workshops and seminars sponsored by various associations and uni- versities. It seems obvious that a great need exists for formalized training in the community services area. 108 Implications for Further Research 1. While it has been the contention of this paper that all 18 functions of the Raines Taxonomy are of equal importance, the results of the survey indicated that some functions are implemented more often and with broader scope and higher quality than others. Are some functions con- sidered more important than others or are they merely easier to implement? If value judgments are being made as to the relative importance of one function over another, who makes them and what factors are considered in setting priorities? 2. An instrument for the objective evaluation of community services programs could be developed, utilizing the questionnaire used in this study and the results reported in the previous chapters. Such an instrument used in conjunction with a team of outside observers would be of great value to those institutions actively seeking to improve their community services program. 3. The relationship between the self-reported broadness of scope and quality of implementation might be the subject of further investigation. The fact that the colleges reported that quality was higher than scope in every case leads to the conclusion that quality of imple- mentation was stressed by the respondents rather than broadness of scope. However, an alternate conclusion presents itself. It is possible that by rating the quality 109 of implementation higher than it might be, the respondents felt less restrained when rating broadness of scope. They, therefore, may have rated scope more accurately than quality. An investigation in which the raters were independent observers might confirm or disprove the latter conclusion. 4. Finally, a follow-up study should be made after a suitable length of time to determine any changes that might have occurred in the status of the functions since the completion of this study. Of particular interest might be the Social Outreach function. Governmental agencies at all levels are stressing programs typified by the Social Outreach function. An increase in activities associated with this function might truly indicate the unique ability of the community college to effectively serve its local area by recognizing and meeting its needs through a com- munity services program. BIBLIOGRAPHY 110 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Blocker, Clyde E.; Plummer, Robert H.; and Richardson, Richard C., Jr. The Two-Year Collegeie A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Bogue, Jesse Parker. The Community_College. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950. Brick, Michael. Forum and Focus for the Junior College Mpvement: The American Association of Junior Colle es. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Eells, Walter Crosby. The Junior College. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1931. Fretwell, Elbert K., Jr. FoundingePublic Junior Colleges: Local Initiative in Six Communities. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954. Johnson, B. Lamar. Starting a Community College. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1964. Keller, Robert J.; Lokken, Harry M.; and Meyer, Roy F. The Junior College in Minnesota. St. Paul: State of Minnesota. Department of Education, 1958. Knowles, Malcolm 8., ed. Handbook of Adult Education in the United States. Chicago: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A., 1960. Kurtz, Kenneth H. Foundations of Psychological Research. Boston: AlIyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Lange, Alexis. "Junior College Department of Civic Educa- tion." School and Society, II (1915), 442-448; Bogue, JeSse Parker. The Community College. New York: The McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1950. 111 112 Lange, Alexis. "The Junior College as an Integral Part of the Public School System." The School Review, XXV (1917), 465-479; Bogue, Jesse Parker. The Community College. New York: The McGraw-HiII Book Co., Inc., 1950. Lathrop, Richard G. Introduction to Psychological Research. New York: Harper and Row, Inc., 1969. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Practical Procedures. New York: Cooper Square Puinshers, Inc., I966.- Porter, Noah, as quoted in Reynolds, James W. "Community Services." The Public Junior College. Edited by Nelson B. Henry. National Society for the Study of Education, 55th Yearbook, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Reynolds, James W. "Community Services." The Public Junior College. Edited by, Nelson B. Henry. National Society for the Study of Education, 55th Yearbook, Part II. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Reynolds, James W. The Junior College. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965. Seashore, Carl E. The Junior College Movement. New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1940. Sexson, John A., and Harbeson, John W. The New American College. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1947. Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960. Wilson, E. Gright, Jr. An Introduction to Scientifig Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1952. Directories Cummiskey, Kenneth J., ed. 1970 Directory of Community Services Leadership in Community and Junior_Colleges. WaShington, D.C.: American Assodiation of Junior Colleges, 1969. 113 Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr., ed. The 1969 Junior College Directory. Washington, D.C.: American Association ofiJunior Colleges, 1969. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr., ed. The 1962 Junior College Direc- tor . Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1962. Periodicals Bard, Harr; Learner, Leon R.; and Morris, Leona S. "Opera- tion: Collegiate Horizons." Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (September, 1967), 16-21. Bottrell, Harold R. "Patterns of Organization in Community Service." Junior College Journal, XVIII (October, Burdick, Anna. "International Conference Report." School Life, XXIV (October, 1938), 21-22. Crawford, W. H. "Recognition and Acceptance in American Higher Education." Junior College Journal, XXV (April, 1955), 436-439. Donham, Dan J. "We Can Serve Welfare Recipients." Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (March, 1968), 74-76. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. "The AAJC Approach." Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (September, 1967), 9. Hardy, Norfleet. "Community Service through 'Great Decisions.'" Junior College Journal, XXXX (March, Harlacher, Ervin L. "New Directions in Community Services." Junior College Journal, XXVIII (March, 1968), 12-17. Houle, Cryril O. "The Obligation of the Junior College for Community Service." Junior College Journal, XXX (May, 1960), 502-516. MacKay, Donald William. "Four Challenges of the Junior College." Junior College Journal, V (April, 1935), 342-345. Parker, Franklin. "The Community Junior College-Enfant Terrible of American Higher Education: A Bibliography of 225 Doctoral Dissertations." Junior College Journal, XXXII (December, 1961), I93-204. 114 Putnam, Howard. "The Community Service Program as an Agency of Social Action." 'Junior College Journal, XXI (December, 1960), 221-223. Rollins, Charles E., and Appleson, Wallace B. "Accent on a Cultural Commitment." Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (October, 1967), 30-31. Schulman, Eveline D. "Baltimore's Social Interaction Program." Junior College Journal, XXXVII (December, 1966), 34-36. Taylor, Morris F. "Serving Miners, Rangers, and Towns- people." Junior College Journal, XVI (March, 1946), 301-302. Wellman, Fred L., and Hamel, Dana B. "Community College Progress in Virginia." Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (March, 1969), 52-54+. Reports American Association of Junior Colleges. Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee. February 22-23, 1922, I Chicago: The Association, 1922. American Association of Junior Colleges. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, Ohio. February 20-21, IV Chicago: The Association, 1925. Delaware Institute of Technology. Delaware Technical and Community Colleges: First Report of the Board of Trustees. Delaware: The Institute, 1966. Harlacher, Ervin L. The Community Dimension of the Com- munity College. Report to the American Association of JuniOr Colleges. Washington, D.C.: 1967. Harlacher, Ervin L. A Study of the Community Services Function in California Public Junior College. Norwalk, Califorfiia: Cerritor College, 1964. President's Commission on Higher Education. Hi her Education for American Democracy, I Wash1ngton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947. President's Commission on Education Beyond High School. Second Report to the President. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957. 115 Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. chord: The Clarendon Press, 1895; Harlacher, Ervin L. The Community Dimension of Community_§ollege. Report to the AmeriCan Associa- tiOn of Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: 1967. Unpublished Materials Davis, Alvin Russell. "An Institutional Approach to a Study of Community Needs With Special Reference to the Community College." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1964. Jones, Bertis I. "The History of Community Development in American Universities with Particular Reference to Four Selected Institutions." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1961. Lanser, Roland Louis. "The Community Services of Selected Public Junior Colleges." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1951. (Morton, Paul Wesley. "Community Services of the Community Colleges in the State of Pennsylvania." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Lehigh University, 1966. Myran, Gunder Arnold. "The Structure and Development of Community Service Programs in Selected Community Colleges in the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Raines, Max R. "A Proposal to Explore and Expand the Continuing Education and Community Development Potential of Michigan Community Colleges." Unpublished, Michigan State University, 1968. Vines, Eugene T. "Community Service Programs in Selected Public Junior Colleges." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, 1960. APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER 117 DATE Name Address Salutation You may recall that our recent Atlanta Convention emphasized the community service potentialities of two-year colleges. In keeping with this thrust, it is our hope to gain some picture of the current scope and quality of community service activities as seen by those who are responsible for them. Even though some colleges will not have implemented a comprehensive program of community services, it is quite probable that some parts of such a program have been initiated. Your institution is one of a carefully selected sample from which response is needed. We will be happy to provide a summary of the results of our study upon request. Your participation will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Max R. Raines Professor Higher Education MRR/hg 118 APPENDIX B FOLLOW-UP LETTER 119 DATE Name Address Dear Colleague: In July you received a Community Service Inventory form which was designed to elicit information about your com- munity services program. This survey is a joint effort of the American Association of Junior Colleges and the Kellogg Community Services Leadership Program at Michigan State University to establish some baseline data in the area of community services. We have not, as yet, received a reply from your institution and we would very much like to have one. If you need another copy of the Inventory, please fill in the enclosed self-addressed postcard and we will send you one. Also if you will so note on the card, we will be happy to send you the results of the survey when it is completed. Sincerely, Max R. Raines Professor Higher Education MRR/hg 120 APPENDIX C ALPHABETICAL LIST OF COLLEGES PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY 121 Alphabetical List of Colleges Participating in the Study Name Location Adirondack Community College Alvin Junior College American River College Asheville Buncombe Technical Institute Atlantic Community College Auburn Community College Broome Technical Community College Butler County Community Junior College Cape Fear Technical Institute Cerritos College Cleveland State Community College Cloud County Community College Coahoma Junior College College of the Redwoods Community College of Beaver County Dabney S. Lancaster Community College Dalton Junior College DesMoines Area Community College Dutchess Community College E1 Camina College Elizabethtown Community College Essex Community College Essex County College Fashion Institute of Technology Fergus Falls State Junior College Flathead Valley Community College Florrisant Valley Community College Forest Park Community College Fort Scott Community College Fort Steilacoom Community College Fulton Montgomery Community College Gaston College Glendale Community College Grand Rapids Junior College Greenfield Community College Highland Park Junior College Illinois Valley Community College Indian River Junior College Kent State University--Ashtabula Branch Lake City Junior College Lake Land College Lakeland Community College Lamar Community College Laney College Lenoir Community College Los Angeles Harbor College Lower Columbia College Macomb County Community College Madison Area Technical College Manchester Community College Mesabi State Junior College Metropolitan State Junior College Mohawk Valley Community College Muskegon County Community College Nash Technical Institute 122 Glen Falls, N. Y. Alvin, Texas Sacremento, California Asheville, N. C. Mays Landing, N. J. Auburn, New York Binghamton, New York El Dorado, Kansas Wilmington, N. C. Norwalk, California Cleveland, Tennessee Concordia, Kansas Clarksdale, Mississippi Eureka, California Freedom, Pennsylvania Clifton Forge, Virginia Dalton, Georgia Arkeny, Iowa Poughkeepsie, New York Torrence-Inglewood, Calif. Elizabethtown, Kentucky Baltimore, Maryland Newark, New Jersey New York, New York Fergus Falls, Minnesota Kalispell, Montana St. Louis, Missouri St. Louis, Missouri Fort Scott, Kansas Tacoma, Washington Johnston, New York Dallas, North Carolina Glendale, Arizona Grand Rapids, Michigan Greenfield, Massachusetts Highland Park, Michigan Oglesby, Illinois Fort Pierce, Florida Ashtabula, Ohio Lake City, Florida Mattoon, Illinois Mentor, Ohio Lamar, Colorado Oakland, California Kinston, North Carolina Wilmington, California Longview, Washington Mt. Clemens, Michigan Madison, Wisconsin Manchester, Conneticut Virginia, Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota Utica, New York Muskegon, Michigan Rocky Mount, N. C. 123 Alphabetical List of Colleges Participating in the Study Name Location Neosha County Community Junior College Niagara County Community College North Central Technical Institute North Country Community College North Dakota State School of Science Northeastern Nebraska College Northhampton County Area Community College Oakland Community College Ohio University-Zanesville Campus Palomar College Parkland College Pennsylvania State University--Worthington Scranton Campus Phillips County Community College Porterville College Queensborough Community College Richland Technical Education Center Richmond Technical Institute Rochester State Junior College Rock Valley College Saint Petersberg Junior College San Antonio College Sauk Valley College Shoreline Community College Southeastern Iowa Area Community College Southern Union State Junior College South Georgia College Southwestern Community College Springfield Technical Community College State University of New York--Agricultural & Technical College State University of New York--Agricu1tural & Technical College Stout State University Surry Community College Taft College Thos. Nelson Community College Triton College University of Chicago--Amundson-Mayfair Campus Valencia Junior College Wauboncee Community College Western Iowa Technical College West Shore Community College Williamsport Area Community College Wytheville Community College Yaba College Chanute, Kansas Niagara Falls, New York Wausau, Wisconsin Saranac Lake, New York Wahpeton, North Dakota Norfolk, Nebraska Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Pontiac, Michigan Zanesville, Ohio San Marcos, California Champaign, Illinois Dunmore, Pennsylvania Helena, Arkansas Porterville, California Bayside, New York Columbia, South Carolina Hamlet, North Carolina Rochester, Minnesota Rockford, Illinois St. Petersberg, Florida San Antonia, Texas Dixon, Illinois Seattle, Washington Burlington, Iowa Wadby, Alabama Douglas, Georgia Creston, Iowa Springfield, Massachusetts Canton, New York Gableskill, New York Rice Lake, Wisconsin Dobson, North Carolina Taft, California Hampton, Virginia River Grove, Illinois Chicago, Illinois Orlando, Florida Aurora, Illinois Sioux City, Iowa Scottville, Michigan Williamsport, Penn. wytheville, Virginia Marysville, California APPENDIX D COMPARISON OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION WITH THE. TOTAL POPULATION AS REFLECTED IN THE 1969‘ JUNIOR COLLEGE DIRECTORY 124 Comparison of the Sample Population with the Total Population as Reflected in the 1969 Junior College Directory Total Population Sample Enrollment N % N % l- 99 l .13 0 0 100- 199 20 2.71 1 1.00 200- 299 29 3.92 0 O 300- 399 33 4.47 3 3.00 400- 499 47 6.36 5 5.00 500- 599 33 4.47 4 4.00 600- 699 41 5.54 5 5.00 700- 799 32 4.33 2 2.00 800- 899 28 3.79 5 5.00 900- 999 27 3.65 3 3.00 1,000-1,099 198 26.79 32 32.00 2,000-2,999 74 10.01 10 10.00 3,000-3,999 51 6.90 10 10.00 4,000-4,999 30 4.10 5 5.00 5,000-5,999 24 3.25 4 4.00 6,000-6,999 13 1.76 1 1.00 7,000-7,999 12 1.62 l 1.00 8,000-8,999 6 .81 2 2.00 9,000-9,999 6 .81 2 2.00 10,000-Over 34 4.60 5 5.00 125 APPENDIX E RESPONDENTS IN ORDER OF SCORE ON QUESTIONNAIRE 126 Respondents in Order of Score on Questionnaire ; Mean Mean Mean Mean College Points Scope Quality College Points Scope Quality 1 154 4.28 4.28 41 97 2.56 3.92 2 151 4.28 4.11 52 97 2.11 3.28 3 151 4.15 4.47 53 97 2.61 3.33 4 145 4.11 3.94 54 96 2.61 3.50 5 135 3.50 4.80 55 94 2.44 2.78 6 133 3.50 3.89 56 94 1.89 3.75 7 129 3.78 3.39 57 91 2.78 2.28 8 128 2.17 4.73 58 91 2.39 2.82 9 127 3.22 3.83 59 91 2.17 3.47 10 127 3.61 3.44 60 90 2.33 2.67 11 127 3.50 3.94 61 90 2.06 3.53 12 126 3.06 4.18 62 86 2.06 3.77 13 126 3.17 4.31 63 86 2.33 3.67 14 126 3.44 3.56 64 84 1.94 3.78 15 125 3.39 3.56 65 84 2.06 3.62 16 124 3.17 3.72 66 84 2.11 3.29 17 124 3.06 4.06 67 83 2.28 3.82 18 121 3.06 3.67 68 82 2.33 2.22 19 121 2.94 3.78 69 82 2.22 4.20 20 118 2.78 3.78 70 77 2.06 2.22 21 118 3.06 3.71 71 77 2.06 3.33 22 118 3.28 3.47 72 75 1.89 3.42 23 118 3.17 3.39 73 75 2.00 3.55 24 118 3.28 3.28 74 72 1.89 3.17 25 117 3.00 3.94 75 72 1.67 3.82 26 117 3.11 3.59 76 68 1.50 3.42 27 116 2.94 4.08 77 68 1.89 2.83 28 116 2.89 3.56 78 68 1.39 3.31 29 114 2.67 4.13 79 67 1.67 3.70 30 113 2.83 3.86 80 67 1.78 3.89 31 112 2.89 3.33 81 65 1.44 3.55 32 110 3.00 4.31 82 68 1.50 3.89 33 110 2.67 3.44 83 62 1.50 3.50 34 110 3.06 3.67 84 61 1.39 3.60 35 109 2.61 3.88 85 58 2.24 3.33 36 108 2.67 4.29 86 58 1.33 4.25 37 107 2.61 3.33 87 57 1.50 3.33 38 106 2.44 4.13 88 57 1.39 3.20 39 105 2.78 3.24 89 54 1.06 3.50 40 105 2.61 3.62 90 52 1.44 2.17 41 105 2.83 3.36 91 49 .89 4.71 42 104 2.72 4.23 92 47 1.11 3.38 43 104 2.72 3.24 93 41 1.06 3.14 44 102 2.67 3.60 94 41 .94 4.00 45 102 2.44 3.87 95 39 1.06 3.33 46 101 2.61 4.15 96 30 .78 3.20 47 101 2.27 3.33 97 18 .60 3.00 48 100 2.78 3.33 98 0 0 0* 49 99 2.28 4.14 99 0 0 O** 50 98 2.39 3.93 100 0 0 0** *NO Program--all need indicated. 127 ** Colleges replied no program and no need existed. APPENDIX F NUMBER OF COLLEGES REPLYING BY REGION 128 8816 ..oO 58.15-5523 3 1.21.1331 (.m 3 c. uSEi 1:91.800 cozoflci {.52 cm oo— muzz 10 view I III 8. 08 o .4114 1. I I. I . . 1 ... I I 1 1 - _ v IIIIII .— . _ _ r. .r. ... m L _ h I N \ - ., f, . - - - - - 1 1 > . ., 1 - I . .- _ __ ._ ........ -1 ,-.-.-.-.-i .-.- -.-.-i .............I... - ... \ 1 | . . 1 w ._ [-5.]. I \. 1.!) _ . . , . 1 . 1 .1 1. N; .. . . I .s. 1 _ 1 .1 C .1 . ... I . . 1.. .1 x... 1 1 . _ Hm .. . _ . .. I. I \ \ \. < ‘.|L II | t': _ . \ UV i I. I I ......... I... [I .1 .I' . \ \ \ \ I, . ....... I . . w 1 H 1. 1 .1 m , _ u . , . . \ I. I. ,..)\IIII 1 ... 4 .1 t 1 1 . IIIIIIIII I I < . . ,. I .............. 1. > . / .. I C 1 «”1 a \ ‘1 _ .v 1 in. .11 , I 5 Km. ._ z 1. #2,»: 1 . 1 .1. 1. ., n 1. _ . 1 1. I 140/, L. . _ . J. . if f.- \ x _ . _ s a: If 1: 511 81 21 I. ,. to 1 18k .oZ 313m. 33:3 .9»: 0:530 U16D £26850 3: I31 129 . n Amati}? Jo. 02 3:: 10 zoom OOON 000“ O . . . . . 96:2 *0 Snow . am: 1883 , . , , . 11011331; 26.11916 / 3-25m 63510 . 3E , . 3g . 39 181$ 3: 3w“ “mam 3:3 I 53?! 3 E1 181 .02 3:5 1811.5 .82 2.11:6 .180 112826 APPENDIX G COLLEGES PARTICIPATING IN SURVEY BY REGION 130 Colleges Participating in Survey by Region I. EASTERN NORTH REGION Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Adirondack Community College, N.Y. Atlantic Community College, N.Y. Auburn Community College, N.Y. Broome Technical Community College, N.Y. Community College of Beaver County, Pa. Dutchess Community College, N.Y. Essex County College, N.J. Fashion Institute of Technology, N.Y. Fulton Montgomery Community College, N.Y. Greenfield Community College, Mass. Manchester Community College, Conn. Mohawk Valley Community College, N.Y. Niagara County Community College, N.Y. North Country Community College, N.Y. Northhampton County Area Community College, Pa. Penn. State University--Worthington-Scration Campus, Pa. Queensborough Community College, N.Y. Springfield Technical Community College, Mass. State University of New York, Agriculture and Technical College, N.Y. Canton Campus Cobleskill Campus Williamsport Area Community College, Pa. II. EASTERN SOUTH REGION Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, District of Columbia Asheville Buncombe Technical Institute, N.C. Cape Fear Technical Institute, N.C. Dabney S. Lancaster Community College, Va. Dalton Junior College, Ga. Essex Community College, Md. Gaston College, Dallas, N.C. Indian River Junior College, Fla. Lake City Junior College, Fla. Lenoir Community College, N.C. Nash Technical Institute, N.C. Richland Technical Education Center, S.C. Richmond Technical Institute, N.C. St. Petersberg Junior College, Fla. South Georgia College, Ga. 131 132 Surry Community College, N.C. Thos. Nelson Community College, Va. Valencia Junior College, Fla. Wytheville Community College, Va. III. MIDWEST NORTH REGION Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota. DesMoines Area Community College, Iowa Fergus Falls State Junior College, Minn. Grand Rapids Junior College, Mich. Highland Park Junior College, Mich. Illinois Valley Community College, Ill. Kent State University--Ashtabula Branch, Ohio Lake Land College, Ill. Lakeland Community College, Ohio Macomb County Community College, Mich. Madison Area Technical College, Wisc. Mesabi State Junior College, Minn. Metropolitan State Junior College, Minn. Muskegon County Community College, Mich. North Central Technical Institute, Wisc. Oakland Community College, Mich. Ohio University--Zanesville Campus, Ohio Parkland College, Ill. Rochester State Junior College, Minn. Rock Valley College, Ill. Sauk Valley College, Ill. Southeastern Iowa Area Community College, Iowa Southwestern Community College, Iowa Stout State University, Wisc. Triton College, I11. University of Chicago--Amundson-Mayfair Campus, Ill. Wauboncee Community College, I11. Western Iowa Technical College, Iowa West Shore Community College, Mich. IV. MIDWEST SOUTH REGION Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi. Cleveland State Community College, Tenn. Coahoma Junior College, Miss. Elizabethtown Community College, Ky. Florissant Valley Community College, Mo. Forest Park Community College, MO. 133 Missouri Southern College, Mo. Phillips County Community College, Ark. Southern Union State Junior College, Ala. V. WESTERN NORTH REGION Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska. Flathead Valley Community College, Mont. Fort Steilacoom Community College, Wash. Lower Columbia College, Wash. North Dakota State School of Science, N.D. Northeastern Nebraska College, Neb. Shoreline Community College, Wash. VI. WESTERN SOUTH REGION Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma. Alvin Junior College, Texas Butler County Community Junior College, Kansas Cloud County Community College, Kansas Fort Scott Community College, Kansas Glendale Community College, Arizona Lamar Community College, Colorado Neosha County Community Junior College, Kansas San Antonio College, Texas Wharton County Junior College, Texas VII. WESTERN COAST REGION California American River College Cerritos College College of the Redwoods El Camino College Laney College Los Angeles Harbor College Palomar College Porterville College Taft College Yuba College APPENDIX H FREQUENCY COUNT OF REPLIES TO SECTION I OF QUESTIONNAIRE 134 N.m O n O ON ON m O.m N O HH HN NN O O.m H n O NH O :OHumsHm>m smumoum O.v O O O ON Hm ON O.m N O HH HN Om ON O.v O O m H m :OHumuHHHuo HuHHHomh O.m v H O ON ON O O.N N v HN ON HH H N.m O O NH H H OsHacmHm mocmummsou O.m m N O OO ON H H.m N O HH ON ON e O.m O m O OH O acosommsmz amumoum O.m O O O ON mv OH v.m N O NH OO om OH O.m O O O m H ucmsQon>on Hmsonmmmoum H.m N O O ON OO NH O.m H O HH ON HO OH O.m O H H O N GOHumsHOOGH OHHasm ucQEQOHm>ma Emumoum 0.0 O H OH NN mm H H.N N O ON ON OH N v.m H N O O N m:OHumuHsnsOU mmmum O.m H H O NN NO O O.N H O HN mN OH O O.m O O OH O O GOHuo¢ OH>HO v.m v H O NN ON O H.N H O ON NN O N v.m N N «H OH N ssuom OHHOOA O.m N N O HN mm OH v.m H O OH HN ON OH v.m O N O OH O OOOHMHH OHOOH>O< O.m N N H NO vm m O.m N v HH Nm NN m O.m H H O O N coHumuomoou OucomcluousH N.m H O O HO HN v O.N H O HN HH OH H O.m O N OH OH O mHthmsd HuHcsssbo H§QOHO>OQ huHEs—EOU 0.0 H v v NN ON H O.N O OH HN mN O O O.N O O OH O m HuH>Huo¢ QsHuImHsmHmH O.m O O O HH Hm ON N.m O O OH ON HN HH H.m N O O N m ucwsaoHo>mo HausuHso O.m O O O ON OO O H.N O O ON ON OH O O.m O O O O O sommuuso HMHoom 0.0 O O H OH Ov OH H.m O O ON ON ON H 0.0 O N O O H sOHmsmmxm HusOHumospm H.v O H O O OO HN O.m O H NH OH OH NH 0.0 O O O N v GOHmcmyxu HmsOHumoscm O .m H n O OH on O H . N H OH OH NN NH H. O . m O m 4H HH m maHHomspoO Hmuamsmngwn unmsmon>uanuHom O H N n O O O H N n, O O O H N. n O O OOHO> unwom sum: (\2 m a U m d cum: «\2 O O u m 4 sum: «\z m O U m a Ouoow Houqu HuHHuso Omoom Oomz usOHuocsh 5 3 l APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN SURVEY 136 OOOH taunt—=— uhchu =<2=2l l:-uo= giving-u.— mu2=um E.;—Esau «23:: 3.5::— 1OOE= ... =8 3 33.23 m 83on 1:12:12on 1 . ~51 >~_OHZm_>Z_ mm—U_>~_m_m >H_ZD.>=>_OU < noon huo> I scam I smw3umnIsH I @006 I Coon HHO> I ICIDICN Qlfifl E HOOHCOEOHQEH OCHOO mmHuH>Huom ucmnuso Ho NuHHmsm mg» much so» vHsoz 30m OmuHsHH Ouo> I m OauHEHH I m cwwzumnIcH I w Omoum I m Omoun Huw> I w me1 coon oz I m mHuuHH I m cumuwuoz I m mcouum I m unomuo I Q E HGOHuucsm man OH mmHuH>HHum usouuso no mmoom an» onwnommc sow OHso3 30m HcoHuocdw or» no oowumu IcmEmHQEH How 000: on» oumEHuww 90h UHno3 30m .OmusmEOHmEH hHustHsu mH cOHuossw NH .vou:060HmsH 802 NH HOOEmSz. OOO_>~_Om szzzzou _ :15 a: H_O ~18 OzotaO OOzOOOOz FOREWORD Michigan State University and the American Association of Junior Colleges are engaging in a cooperative study of community services in public two-year colleges. Both institutions have recently received funds from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation to explore and expand development of community services in community colleges. The purpose of this survey is to obtain baseline data from a selected sample of colleges. We need your assistance in completing this Inventory. Even if you do not have a formally organized program of services at this time, it is quite prob— able that your institution has already implemented one or more of the listed functions. Please select the staff member whom you regard as best equipped to provide responses for your institution. Egg Part I feel free to involve several members of the administrative staff. Please ask the person with the major administrative responsibility for community services to complete Part II. For purposes of this survey we define community services as the educational, cultural, social, and recreational services which the college provides for its community beyond the regular credit courses scheduled on campus during the day or evening hours. Thank you for your consideration. Dr. Kenneth J. Cummiskey Dr. Max R. Raines, Director Specialist in Community Services Kellogg Community Services American Association of Junior Colleges Leadership Program at Michigan State University Mr. Chester Winston Survey Coordinator Michigan State University (1) C E N E R A L monI—lodwl—IWZH INSTRUCTIONS This section of the instrument contains a list of eighteen functions intended to describe the community services program. It is vital that you READ THE DESCRIP- TION OF THE FUNCTIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. While the descriptions are in- tended to be as definitive as possible, they are not definitions; consequently, you should read the central theme and intent of the description. After reading the description you are asked to judge whether or not the described function is a part of your community services program. If the function ie not an implemented function, please indicate your judgment of the need for implementation by selecting the appropriate response symbol (A, B, C, etc.). If in your judgment the function ie e part of your community services program, you are asked: 1. To judge the current scoEe of the activities associated with the function. Scope is defined as the range of activities within a given category of the taxonomy of functions. A broad scope indicates many and varied activities within a function. 2. To judge the current guality of the activities associated with the function by selecting the apprOpriate response symbol (A, B, C, etc.). Space has been provided for clarification of your responses and you are encouraged to write in comments throughout the section. Following Part I which contains the eighteen functions frequently associated with community service programs is Part II which requests you to provide institu- tional data about your current staffing pattern. When you have completed Parts I and II, please return the Inventory to us at your earliest convenience. We will be happy to provide a summary of results upon request. (2) H:::;;’,1/”// A Community Services Taxonomy The community service functions that are described in Part I of the Inventory can be classified into three major dimensions. These dimensions have been defined as follows: I Self—Development Functions - Those functions and activities of the college primarily focused upon the needs, aspirations and potentialities of individuals or informal groups of individuals to help them achieve a greater degree of personal self- realization and fulfillment. II Community Development Functions - Those functions and activities of the col- lege primarily focused upon cooperative efforts with community organizations, agencies and institutions to improve the physical, social, economic, and political environment of the community (e.g., housing, transportation, air polution, human relations, public safety, etc.). III Program Development Functions - Those functions and activities of the community services staff designed to procure and allocate resources, coordinate activities, establish objectives and evaluate outcomes. SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Several colleagues were most helpful in designing this taxonomy. They are listed alphabetically as follows: Patrick Distasio, Director of the Division Russell Kleis, Associate Professor of Career Programs and Community Services Michigan State University Miami-Dada Junior College Victor Lauter, Dean of Continuing Seymour Eskow, President Education aid Extension Services Rockland Community College New York City Community College William Keim, Administrative Dean of Gunder Myran, Research Associate Community Services, Cerritos College Michigan State University F1_11_1111.11.11111111111111 11 (3) w m o H < w m m N H H z c 3'3 0 O mzoI—II—IDZCUI Self Development Functions Developmental Counseling Function - Providing community members with opportunities for self-discovery and development through individual and group counseling processes; e.g., aptitude-interest testing, individual interviews, career information, job placement, family life, etc. ' Educational Extension Function - Increasing the accessibility of the regular courses and curricula of college by extending their availability to the community-at-large; e.g., evening classes, TV courses, "weekend college," neighborhood extension centers. Educational Expansion Function - Programming a variety of educational, up-grading and new career opportunities which reach beyond the traditional limitations of college credit restrictions; e.g., institutes, seminars, tours, short courses, contractual in-plant training, etc. Social Outreach Function - Organizing programs to increase the earning power, educa- tional level, and political influence of disadvantaged; e.g., ADC mothers, unemployed males, educationally deprived youth, welfare recipients, etc. Cultural Development Function - Expanding opportunities for community members to participate in a variety of cultural activities; e.g., fine art series, art festivals, artists in residence, community theatre, etc. Leisure-time Activity Function - Expanding opportunities for community members to participate in a variety of recreational activities; e.g., sports instruction, out- door education, summer youth programs, senior Citizen activities, etc. (4) HOV .H z 3.50 U b.5123 OOOOO Ommz II IIIIII .O SEES IOHHHHSIOII OOOOOII ommml .O HZOHEOO IEHIZOIOII OOOOO Ommz .11 Hzmzzoo EHHHOO I OOOOIOI I Ommz .m SEES EHHOOO I OOOOO Ommz 'llll' I." n N Hzmzzoo HEIRS OOOOO OOOz -.IIIIIIIII IIIIII .H III\\. .\ udenHOHo>wQ WHO m Community Development Functions 7. Community Analysis Function - Collecting and analyzing significant data which reflect existing and emerging needs of the community and which can serve as a basis for developing the community service program of the college; e.g., analyzing census tracts, analyzing manpower data, conducting problem oriented studies, identifying roles and goals of organizations, etc. L 8. Inter-agency Cooperation Function - Establishing adequate linkage with related programs of the college and community to supplement and coordinate rather than duplicate existing programs; e.g., calendar coordination, information exchange, joint committee work, etc. \0 Advisory Liaison Function — Identifying and involving (in an advisory capacity) key members of the variOus sub-groups with whom cooperative programs are belng planned; e.g., community services advisory council, ad hoc adVISory commlttee, etc. , Public Forum Function - Developing activities designed to stimulate integgst and understanding of local, national, and world problems; e.g., publlC a airs pamphlets, ”town” meetings, TV symposiums, etc. 11. 12. Civic Action Function - Participating in cooperative efforts with local govern- ment, business, industry, professions, religious and social groups to Increase the resources of the community to deal with major problems confronting the com- , community self-studies, urban beautification, community chest munity; e.g. drives, air polution, etc. Staff Consultation Function — Identifying, developing, and making available the consulting skills of the faculty in community development act1v1t1es; e.g., con- sulting with small businesses, advising on instructional materials, deSIgning conmmnity studies, instructing in group leadership, laborator} Lesting, etc. P-I<1E-4HL£IMZU) EDHmm Emowoum STAFFING PATTERNS Institution City State Population of Service Area STUDENT ENROLLMENT FALL - 1968 Head Count 1. Which (Pleas A. B. , Full-time , Part-time statement best describes the staff member heading your program? e check) We do not have such a staff member. Has full time responsibility for direction of community service program. Has as a primary responsibility (over 1/2 time) the direction of the community service program. Devotes 1/2 time or less to the direction of the community service program. Other - please explain below. 2. If answer to No. 1 is Q or Q, what other duties does this staff member have? 1.5 (10) QZH'TJ'EISPP-lm mZFUl’lI-iI-ll>"d What is the title given to the staff member described above? To what higher administrator is this staff member responsible? What is the size of the staff that assists the director of your community service program? Clerical Staff No. Full-Time No. Part-Time Administrators No. Full-Time No. Part-Time 6. Other than administrators and clerical personnel, how many teachers or other staff members are engaged full or part time in the community service program? Full Time = 15 hours weekly No. of Teachers Full Time More than Half Time Less than Half Time ‘ Other Personnel - please specify (11) In the space below, please sketch the line and staff relationship of the community services division to other divisions of the college. If not a separate division, please indicate to which division it is attached. If this information is already available in brochure form, please include brochure. In space below, please sketch the organizational pattern (line and staff) of the community services division. (12) AOVHOCHE mumapmuwnopcb AOHV oumm coHumopmuu mmuwmm EHHO coHonom OH msmow Ho OOHuouHumcH SOHO EOHHHOOQ CH mhmow Ho cowuauwumsH EHHO COHDHOOQ CH Ohmow Ho COHuDuHumcH EHHO COHOHOOO CH mpOwH Ho sOHuouHomcH EHHM COHuHmom OH mumow so OOHoouHuOoH AmvoOmmE oumawmuwnopc: GOHHDOHDOCH wumopmsmsopsb "ocoouwxomm HOCOHumoacm OOHOHOOO wchooosa mo .oH OHDHH cowuwmom mchwooua mo OHOHH COHuHmoa mswcoomum mo mHuHH COHuHmoo wsHvooosm mo OHuHH ooHuHmoa ummH mo OHOHH “oosmHHOmxm HOSOmeowoum .< .Emkwoua OOH>HOO HOHGDEEOO OLD wsHuooHHo Boo HOQEOE wwmum Osu OOHHOOOO ommon .m Graduate Education Regular Course Work Institution Last year in attendance Major Degree, if any Institution Last year in attendance Major Degree, if any Institution Last year in attendance Major Ii Degree, if any Please list any special workshops or institutes in community services attended. _/ (14) HOS ZOHH¢MMmOOU MDOH mom DOW MzmmH .ome cu SOHS Hos OOH mucosfioo How you uxoc OOOH>OHQ soon w>m£ momma mo mucosa HOOOHOHOO< HONHOOSQEO pHoos 50% JOHsz Houmuumstfivm Hmuocmw O mo OOHHDUOH mmOfiu psomwn OOHHHHODU HOEOOHOQ Ham chasm Ohm HEOHOOHO OOOH>HOO HHHCOEEOO m mo HOOOOHHO m ou HOHOHMOOOQ umofi on pHooB oncu 30% oo I .ouo .mmmuooo HuHmuo>Hoo I mwoocHHoaxo HmsOHumusow owns .NH .HH wwpgw1 4"‘W3‘k— _ . . 7: ...O" Us. 3; a. 21:23. 9:33: Xm—Honn. floss—12m: mmaanmm FOR—mama: $25.33 mama—Go: 113:. flak—NM Ema—13>: we»: szfiamm: m>OH szmmzn. Ema—13>: hamnu 1Fm>wm m._.>_u_.m Him OOH—um: m0” zmdczz 2):..20 moat—m mg? mg: “IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII“