‘ IIIII ' III "I ”I I I""""""""" ‘ I II‘ ' III III" I IIII"II "III "III" mIIII". "I""I"" IIII","I II IIIIII} IIIII "III III. I|"I""" II II". ""III"I —_="'"' MW 13? L: (2...; . III "M " "I I 'I I IIII‘ I quII 'I :I II III III III .IIII I”, IIII"""" ""III . . I . . " " " I. "I . "I" " I 2""I"2’I "I'- 1‘1"" "".""" "" "III "'I "I I. II ; "I I ‘.2" .é'é-"I': .' I. f I IIIIIIII"""" III 2I""" I"II IIIII" III" I III" .I." I" . " ."I"""""""I IJI" I‘ . " . ..I.I III II,.III"IIIII "IIII III ‘ I II “ II;""""""" "I I IIIIII .IIIIII IIIIIIII,’ IIII""""""|"" III "II” ""I . ‘ ”2.3:. I. ‘ If I . . I"""I'I""""II" ' I“ "II I I. . ‘ III, I"’"‘"""’ "“"IIII.,III III" III I I .; I’. III ”I" IIIIIIII‘HIIII" "WII ""I III" II 1"" III "III I; -, ,"I I ""II" III II "I" .I I"1 """I'" III" II III III". "".‘ II "II-""I I?“ T‘"'_ ”11:" I". :I »"I'II..I. r . ""I I" II . II IIIIII """IIIIIII IIII I IIIIIIII"""" I. I?" -_ ".'". I ".'" I . I)" I " "’ .I ‘-. '.J "II"I" "I.""" "" ;' 'IIII‘IIzI ""'" ”I I :‘IIIII' II"III "."II III III II II" IIIIII :‘I" I " "I "'IIIII ’" '"'"§I'I""I""I"' I""I"I"'I'I:IIII.I "".' ".III. III «III I, 'f‘ Illj . IIIII II II ' II.I|I1I."II", IIII .IIIIId“ C""I""""~MII "um ‘ I? II I 'I L I&""'III.II“"' .. II I... I. ."II ‘II"" I I II. II IIII " ‘ ‘.."""., .I '""I3:"‘II" ‘ -.. 'n . ' 'I II I I II?- , j,~.I‘I""I"".""‘"III .I'I'I II "III!" II ' "c III II III . II III" I III. .I _ . II )I. II..II"I"II”III|I 'II'II .IIII II IIIIII" I" I , "II"I"II “I"I" ""I III "" "II II" III. IIII I I" . "".‘-I." 2 L2,. III I III III ‘ . . IIIII'" * I III , Q" I I . ‘ I .‘I .‘. . . “"I" I" m .I. . .I "‘.II.. "III "II'III 'I ‘II"."-"s‘II "-__%N Date 0-7639 \ \ i i \ \\\\\\i\\ i i I h \ \ / a \\\\3§\\\\§\\;\;\i\\i\\ 10423 4 . amuse-pm 1w .. if ., ., ,,4 . — K it. 1 I: R A R Y } Michigan Sta to i. University —— v» r-v—ww-‘rm This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVENESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS presented by FOREST | NA WARREN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degreein Administration and Higher Education 477szL £934; Major professor /3/ i “ii“ OVERDUE FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place In book return to remove charge from circulation records v A . _ .43 Ill . “av-III ‘ "If u...»v, "2.5:..“23. .. 1‘... Lt... ‘ I v...$...:~ .. © 1980 FORESTINA WARREN All Rights Reserved AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVE- NESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS BY Forestina Warren A DISSERTATION‘ Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1980 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH PERFORMANCE EFFECTIVE- NESS IN NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS BY Forestina Warren This study was conducted to identify and test a set of organizational arrangements, primarily administra- tive practices and procedures of neighborhood organiza- tions, which can be used to predict effectiveness of such organizations in meeting community needs and thus be useful to funding agencies in selecting organizations to be funded. Concepts of the goal model, system resource model and evaluation methods for determining effectiveness were used to identify organizational arrangements for effective- ness. The first phase of the study employed a version of the Delphi procedure using a series of two question- naires and a panel of nineteen experts to agree upon organizational arrangements necessary for effective per- formance of neighborhood organization. The second phase of the study tested the actual relationship of the Forestina Warren organizational arrangements to effective performance. Organizations were chosen from a total of one-hundred and ten organizations. Thirty met the criteria for study selection. A total of twenty-eight organizations partici- pated in the study. Measurements on forty—nine organizational arrange- ments selected from expert consensus served as measure— ments on twelve clusters of administrative practices for goal attainment, resource utilization, and daily opera- tions. The twenty-eight organizations were assessed for- their scores on the possession of these arrangements. Nineteen result measures from the delivery of a service served to define effectiveness. An analysis of the twelve clusters of administrative practices was conducted to determine whether the organizations use of administrative practices correlated with the organizations results in performance. A second purpose of this study was to deter- mine whether administrative practices could distinguish levels of performance on a combined index for effective- ness. An analysis of the administrative practices was conducted to determine whether high and low performing organizations showed any difference in the use of adminis- trative practices. Multivariate statistical procedures were used for analysis of data. The study found that the administrative practices agreed upon by experts can predict the performance of Forestina Warren neighborhood organizations in the delivery of a service. Significant relationships were found with varying subsets of the clusters of administrative practices and nine of the nineteen performance measures. Three clusters of the administrative practices, inter-organizational rela- tionships, political relationships, and Operational con- trols, were found to best characterize overall effective- ness in neighborhood organizations. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks are due to the following peOple who have been of special help to me in completing this disser- tation: Russell J. Kleis, my advisor, for his guidance and support. Dr. Floyd G. Parker for graciously chairing my committee. Dr. Duane L. Gibson, director of this study, for his guidance, interest and encouragement. Dr. Lawrence W. Lezotte for his support and invalu- able assistance. Dr. Max R. Raines for ably serving on my committee. Dr. Robert L. Green for his help in getting me started. Richard F. Huegli and S. Sidney Newhouse of United Community Services for their interest and cooperation. Fred D. Watts for his professional guidance and con- tinued support throughout this endeavor. My mother and sisters for their caring encourage- ment. ii LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rationale of the Study . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Justification . . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . General Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . Goal Approach Model . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of the Goal Approach Model . System Approach Model . . . . . . . . . Discussion of the System-Resource Model Evaluation Approach . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Evaluation Methods . . . . Other Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . Description of Methodology . . . . . . . Phase 1. Development of a Yardstick Against Which to Assess Organiza- tional Arrangements for Effective Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delphi Instruments . . . . . . . . . The Delphi Participants . . . . . Delphi Procedure and Data Collection iii Page vi viii 13 15 20 22 31 32 38 39 4O 42 42 43 45 48 48 CHAPTER Page Phase 2. Application of Delphi Findings to Organizations and Observation of Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Organizations Studied . . . . . . . . . . 53 Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Observation of Performance . . . . . . . . 56 Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 IV. FINDINGS FROM THE DELPHI PROCEDURE: ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS HAVING IMPORTANCE FOR EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE . . . . ~ 67 Selection of Statements on Organizational Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Findings from the First Round Delphi Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Findings of the Second Round Delphi Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 V. FINDINGS: ANALYSES AND RESULTS . . . . . . . . 89 Research Question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Rating of Success by Program Director . . 94 Rating of Success by Funding Agent's Monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Program Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Program Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Number Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Total Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Average Daily Attendance . . . . . . . . . 99 Average Participation of Youth . . . . . . 100 Percent Utilization of Program . . . . . . 100 Cost per Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Cost per Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Cost per Youth per Day . . . . . . . . . . 105 Cost per Hour of Service . . . . . . . . . 107 Percent of Grant for Salaries . . . . . . 108 Percent of Service Cost for Salaries . . . 110 Percent of Manpower Paid by Funder . . . . 113 Percent Manpower Paid by Other Sources . . 115 iv CHAPTER Percent of Manpower Voluntary Ratio Youth to Worker Research Question 2 Summary . . . . . . VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary of Project and Hypothesis Testing . Discussion of Findings . Conclusions . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX A. Delphi Instruments . B. Delphi Participants . . . C. Participating Organizations D. Research Instruments Follow-Up Survey . . . . E. Format for Assessing Arrangements . . . F. Forms for Collection G. Summary of Responses From Delphi Survey H. Listing of Effective Administrative Prac- for Interview Organizational of Performance Data Procedures to Free-Form Questions on Attributes and Deceptions of Neighborhood Organizations . tices for Neighborhood Organizations . I. Correlation Matrices BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . Page 118 120 121 124 130 130 136 138 146 154 ‘154 175 177 178 201 220 227 234 237 240 LIST OF TABLES Performance Factors in Insurance Agencies Summary of Questionnaire Returns . . . . Performance Measures for Organizations Providing Summer Programs . . . . . . . Dimensions of Organizations for Analysis Summary Table of Item Distribution--As a Result of the First Round Returns on the Neighborhood Organization Delphi Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Goal Achievement Arrange- ments of Importance for Effectiveness from First Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Resources Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from First Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance Organizational Operations Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from First Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary Table of Item Distribution--As a Result of the Second Round Returns on the Neighborhood Organization Delphi Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Goal Achievement Arrange- ments of Importance for Effectiveness from Second Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Resources Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from Second Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 27 50 58 68 71 74 75 78 81 83 85 5.4. 5.7. 5.8. 5.10. Organizational Operations Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from Second Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Seven Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Rating of Success Externally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Ten Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Cost per Youth . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Four Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Cost per Day . . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Ten Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Cost per Youth per Day . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Eight Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Percent of Grant for Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Ten Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Percent of Service Cost Salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Eight Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Percent of Manpower Paid by Funder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Ten Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Percent of Manpower Paid by Other Sources . . . . . . . . . Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Nine Organizational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Percent of Manpower Voluntary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Stepwise Discriminate Analysis vii Page 87 96 102 .104 106 109 112 114 116 119 123 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 5.1. Correlation Coefficients of Multiple Regression Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 viii CHAPTER I IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM Organizations play major roles in society. It is through organizations that goods and services are provided which contribute to the economic, social and political lives of the citizens. In part, how well organizations carry out their tasks determine the well-being of society. Consequently, the quality of life depends upon effective performance from organizations. The local citizen-based organization as provider of services is presently receiving attention from society. These organizations are seen by many as appropriate and necessary vehicles for the delivery of some social services to localities. In general, how well these organizations perform can affect the quality of life in communities. The study of the performance of these orga- nizations could have far reaching implications in building and shaping the life in communities. More immediately, it was believed that the study of the performance of local citizen-based organizations could be of assistance to social planners and policy-makers when they are involved in the allocation of resources to these organizations. With limited funds available it is 1 desirable to select for support those organizations which are most likely to be effective, that is, those organiza- tions which are most likely to achieve objectives within the constraints of limited resources. While the local citizen-based organizations as providers of services to the locality have received some support for their existence and contributions to society, the rapid and continuous growth of such organizations has resulted in most of these organi- zations competing for financial support for their survival. Historically, many of these organizations have their origins in the social action activities of the 19605; others represent continuation or revival of neighborhood organizing activities of settlements and welfare councils of the social reform activities of earlier decades. These movements attempted to develop direct relationships between service agencies and the people that they were designed to serve. Typically, the efforts stressed participatory democracy and the educational process through which people in a local com- munity situation seek or are helped to improve their capac- ity for problem-solving. These efforts were to bring about relevant programs and services in the locality. Here the benchmark of effectiveness was participation of the locality in problem-solving. Today there has emerged a multiplicity of local organizations based upon these principles and aspiring to meet the needs of the locality. Social planners and policy- makers advocate self-help and maximum citizen-participation if organizations are to effectively create and provide services to improve localities. Yet, these do not serve as distinctive features of local organizations in determining the relevance of the organization in performance. The notion that an organization is relevant because it has citizen—participation, it is engaging in self-help activ- ities, and it seeks solutions to problems of the locality continues to leave the crucial question of determinants of effectiveness and selective criteria unanswered. While relevancy to the locality and oftentimes value issues are basic to an understanding of local organizations, they do} not exclude the possibility of applying rational analysis to the task of defining and assessing effectiveness in a neighborhood organization. The problem in identifying effec- tive neighborhood groups was well stated by Arnold Gurin (1973, p. 1330), whose concern is for selective criteria for tracing out the groups that may be involved in relevant community action. "No coherent body of concepts exists as yet, nor does a satisfactory methodology for pursuing such an analysis." Purpose This study inquired into the relationship between administrative practices and procedures used by neighbor- hood organizations and the performance these organizations demonstrated in the delivery of a service. It tested some hypotheses about the relationship between the organizations' practices and procedures for goal attainment, use of resources and daily operations as they related to perform- ance effectiveness. Rationale of the Study Local organizations have been forming as a means of dealing with community problems. As such organizations have proliferated increased attention has been focused on selection of those organizations which can best meet the needs of the people in the locality. Selection of local organizations for financial awards to meet the needs of the locality has been accomplished in a variety of ways: value judgements made by funders; demonstration of social action strategies by the organization, protest, political processes, and citizen participation. While useful in their own right, these strategies are limited as measures of organizational performance and guides to choices among organizations com- peting for always limited financial assistance. Lipsky (1969) in studying protest as a political resource examined the efforts of a local organization in the Harlem rent strike of 1963 and 1964. The rent strike was an effort of a local organization led by a dynamic leader who had been agitating about slum housing for more than fifteen years. The local group used protest strategies with a combination of appeal and threat in their movement to improve the tenants' conditions in the community. While the rent strike aroused the public and city housing officials, the group's efforts were not successful in achiev- ing their fundamental goal; general programs to repair slum housing. Lipsky contends that, in part, failures of this kind result when the protest leader gives higher priority to publicity and arousing support than to administrative detail. Administrative tasks are necessary to operate and maintain organizational viability. Failures of this kind focus attention on the need to examine not only the strate- gies of an organization for protest but the strategies of administrative practices and procedures used to achieve ends as indicators of potential successes or failures. Thus far the literature has provided little guidance for the selection of local organizations to be supported based upon a comparative analysis of administrative prac- tices and procedures that would lead to expectations of successfully meeting the needs of the locality. Unless greater effort is made to understand some basic character- istics of local organizations which are appropriate to meet- ing the problems of the locality there is little hope for them ever to achieve the purpose of helping the locality become richer and more stimulating. In fact, unless this is done and the overall viability of the operations of local organizations become strengthened the funding to local orga- nizations as providers of services may be a serious waste of funds. Though many people are concerned for effective local organizational performance, there is not a consensus among those people about what ought to be done for effectiveness. Some people focus on political processes, some focus on com- munity participation, and others focus on community self— determination as indicators of a local organization’s poten- tial for effective performance. There is a need for approaches to measuring effectiveness that can simultaneously promote freedom from the limitations represented by social action strategies and value judgements as criteria for selection, for often these criteria can only be useful after demonstrated performance. Information about a local organi- zation's administrative procedures for goal attainment, use of resources in the environment, and daily operations, which is objective and can be known before selection, coupled with existing knowledge of social action strategies will add another element and can greatly enhance the decision-making process. One needs to be only casually aware of current events in American society to know that local development and stability is a major concern among social scientists and policy-makers. Adult educators and community developers are as concerned and involved as other professional groups in attempting to provide relevant and meaningful community education to develop viable communities and effective local organizations. This study is a link in attempting to answer some questions that will aid in further development of the needed conceptual framework in bringing about more effective local citizen-based organizations, and in providing guidance to funding agencies forced to make decisions about which of many competing organizations are most likely to use limited funds effectively. Theoretical Justification The process of community development requires some kind of conceptual framework. The character, structure, and method of operation of an organization established by members of a community to deal with community problems are of first importance since the organization becomes the main channel through which the community development process moves. The degree to which the objectives and the unique advantages imputed to community organizations are realized is consequently dependent on the way the organization func- tions (Ross, 1967, p. 158). If the fulfillment of organiza- tional objectives and the process of community development are dependent upon the character, structure, and operations of the organization, then a comparative analysis of organi- zations examining these dimensions may identify differing organizational procedures which explain differences in per- formance. Importance of the Study This research is important specifically to the field of social welfare and generally to the field of adult education and other fields which assist in the organization and development of people and their communities. There are several reasons why such a study of organizational performance among local organizations is important among professional fields. First, the study explores an area in which little, if any, systematic research has been done. Many studies have been made of organizational effectiveness, but they have been primarily of large scale organizations and profit- making organizations. Studies on small scale organizations and voluntary organizations, in particular, have not exam- ined organizations from a means-ends point of View on a comparative basis to account for differences in performance. Secondly, with the growing number of such organiza- tions, often competing for scarce financial resources, knowl- edge and understanding or organizational procedures which facilitate successful performance is needed to aid in maxi- mizing yield from investment in local efforts. Thirdly, the findings of this study can provide a model for future assessment and analysis of local organiza- tions. Fourthly, professional disciplines working in com- munity development, community organization, and adult edu- cation are currently confronted with the task of helping people within localities to use local organizations to seek solutions to their problems. Thus, effective organizational means must be discovered and tested with regard to the prac- tical implementation for the organization of the concepts of self-help and local autonomy. It is hoped that this study will contribute to such knowledge and understanding regarding these important matters. It is also hoped the identification and explanation of those organizational procedures that account for effective per— formance among local organizations will be better understood. Such understanding can be used to assist citizens in develop- ing and maintaining a viable organizational base which will enhance their community development endeavors. Research Questions The purpose of this study was to identify and test a set of organizational arrangements, primarily administra- tive practices and procedures, of neighborhood organizations which can be used to predict effectiveness of such organiza- tions in meeting community needs and thus be useful to fund- ing agencies in selecting organizations to be funded. The organizational arrangements were considered as means for effective performance and were used to describe effective neighborhood organizations. To achieve the purpose of the study answers to the following questions were sought. Question 1. What organizational arrangements are judged to be important for an effective neighborhood orga- nization? Question 2. Is there a relationship between the organi- zational arrangements judged as important and per- formance results? 10 Question 3. Can the assessment of organizational arrangements judged to be important be effectively used to predict levels of performance? General Hypothesis Organizational performance can be predicted from a set of organizational arrangements known before perform- ance. Assumptions There were two main assumptions which guided this study. The first assumption was that organizational per- formance is dependent upon organizational means. The second was that a fit exists between an organization's performance on a selected program during the summer and its performance all during the year. Limitations There are two limitations of the study. Both limi- tations are a result of and reason for the exploratory nature of the study. First, the sample is limited, thus the findings are not necessarily widely generalizable. Second, the study used investigator-developed instruments designed specifically for the study. At this point they can be relied upon only as exploratory tools. Definitions Neighborhood organizations are defined in this study as local citizen-based organizations which are autonomous 11 groups operating in local neighborhoods, controlled pre- dominantly by citizens of the area, and whose prime objec- tive is to improve the general welfare of the locality. Organizational effectiveness for purposes of this study is defined as the extent to which an organization achieves its objectives within the constraints of limited resources (Gibson, Ivancevich and Donnely, Jr., 1973, p. 20). Overview In this chapter a research problem was stated and. a rationale for engaging in the study was presented. The guiding research questions were also identified. Literature reporting studies that are relevant to this study will be reviewed in Chapter II. These studies focus on approaches to the measurement of organizational effectiveness. These studies help give some background into research that has focused on the major variables of this study. Chapter III contains a description of the research methodology. The research methodology is presented in two phases. For each phase the sample of subjects and the research instruments are discussed in detail. Field pro- cedures and data collection procedures are discussed, con- cluding with a description of the kinds of statistical pro- cedures used to analyze the data for each phase. The 12 rationale for the use of the selected statistical procedures is also presented. In Chapter IV the findings of the first phase of they study are presented. The purpose and procedures for developing criteria in the first phase are restated. Results of the criteria for assessment are reported along with some descriptive statistics which indicate their degree of agreed importance. In Chapter V the findings of the second phase of the study are presented. The research hypotheses are restated along with the statistical hypotheses. Results of the tests of the hypotheses are reported along with their statistical significance. Conclusions and implications are the major focus of Chapter VI. The findings are interpreted and suggestions are made for practice in social welfare and adult education as well as for further research. Overall the study looks at the prediction of organi- zational effectiveness among small scale citizen-based organizations. It is therefore important to understand what is known about the assessment of organizational effec- tiveness and how procedures in the organization influence effectiveness. These issues are examined in the following chapter as a foundation is set for the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to explore those organizational arrangements in local citizen-based organi- zations which are considered to be characteristic of effec- tive performance. In this chapter literature is reviewed which contributed to the development of criteria and the general approach used for studying organizational effec- tiveness among neighborhood organizations. The literature related to this exploration deals mostly with the development of frames of reference for determining organizational effectiveness and to a lesser extent with hypothesis testing. Most studies have looked at performance of large-scale organizations and small profit- making organizations. Few studies have looked at perform- ance of small-scale voluntary organizations. Far fewer studies have employed the concepts of organizational effec- tiveness with respect to small-scale voluntary organiza- tions. At present, organizational theory concerning effec- tiveness deals mainly with general propositions which apply equally well but also equally badly to all organizations. 13 14 This was indicated two decades ago by Etzioni (1960): "The differences among various organizational types are great; therefore any theory of organizations in general must be highly abstract. It can serve as an important frame for specification, that is, for the development of special theories for various organizational types, but it cannot substitute for such theories by servicing in itself as a model, to be applied directly to the analysis of concrete organizations." The main thrusts of the literature have developed from two different views of the nature of organizations ‘ which determine the conceptual definition of effectiveness. In one view, an organization is seen as a rational set of arrangements oriented toward achieving certain goals. From this position, effectiveness is defined in terms of goal attainment and it is a functional concept. The other view takes an open-system approach to organizations and defines effectiveness as the degree to which the organization can preserve the integration of its parts. In this view the means-ends dimensions which permit organizational adaptation and survival become measures of organizational effectiveness and it is a structural concept. Literature on organiza- tional effectiveness using both the goal approach model and the system model are reviewed in this chapter as well as applied approaches. 15 Goal Approach Model Studies using the Goal approach model for determin- ing organizational effectiveness use criteria which measure the extent to which an organization realizes its goals. The basic effort is in defining and measuring what the organization calls goal, purpose, mission or aims. The works of the following persons have contributed to the devel- opment of this approach in determining organizational effec- tiveness: Etzioni, 1960; Perrow, 1961; Zald, 1963; Simon, 1964; Warriner, 1965; Warner, 1967; Price, 1968. The work of Etzioni (1960) gives the most impetus for developing studies of effectiveness using the goal approach. He views goals as the defining characteristic of modern organizations and refers to goals as a source for standards by which members of an organization and out- siders can assess the success of the organization. Goals are considered as starting points to measure the organiza- tion's performance. The model is considered an objective and reliable analytical tool because it omits the values of the explorer and applies the values of the subject under study as the criteria of judgement. Perrow (1961) presents a more specific framework for understanding the performance of organizations by analy- sis of the organizations' Operative goals rather than the official goals or the stated purposes of the organization as put forth in the charter, annual reports, public state- ments by key executives and authoritative pronouncements. 16 The operative goals are the ends sought through the actual operating policies and practices of the organization. The operative goals tell what the organization actually is try- ing to do, regardless of what the official goals say are the aims. Zald (1963) studied organizational goals and their consequences in examining the variations in the structure and operations of large-scale organizations. He conducted a comparative analysis of goals among four correctional institutions having as their goal rehabilitation. In measur- ing the extent to which each of the institutions had treat— ment and custodial goals he used indicators of official statements, executive perspectives and perceptions of lower level staff. Use of these measures provided an understanding of how official mandates are translated into organizational practice. Once the institution was identified by treatment or custodial goals, he was able to demonstrate three effects of institutional goals on organizational structure. He showed that goals affect organizational norms, departmental structure and power balance. Simon (1964) recommends that the term organizational goal be used to refer to constraints imposed by the organi- zational role. In this way the concept of goal can be introduced in an entirely operational manner. This View of the nature of organization goals provides an operational way of showing, by describing the structure of the organi- zational decision-making mechanism, how and to what extent 17 overall goals help to determine the actual courses of action that are taken. The index of organizational performance then becomes a measure of how well the resources of internal and external systems are used to achieve the goal, for the organization must operate within sets of constraints. These constraints can be identified as profits, costs, work force, production, etc. Warriner (1965) focused upon the problems of data and method for identifying organizational purpose among voluntary associations typified by bridge clubs, service clubs, fraternities or study clubs. According to Warriner, "statements of purpose must be treated as fictions produced by an organization to account for, explain, or rationalize its existence to particular audiences rather than as valid and reliable indicators of purpose." To define the purpose of an organization he suggests that the assumed functions or consequences of the organizational activities be examined, then the values inherent in the activities be identified. He identified four value functions among voluntary associ- ations. The performance pleasure function, the sociability function, the symbolic function, and the productive function. He proposes that the concept of assumed value function (A.V.F.) of activities be the operational definition of organizational purpose. If activities are defined in terms of their assumed value function, then weighted by the pro- portion of member time devoted to each activity, then you have a measure of the relative influence of each value 18 function in the organization. It is these measures which can be used to define the purpose of the organization. Warner (1967) discusses two general sources of prob- lems in measuring goal attainment in voluntary organiza- tions. One source is the nature of goals with the attri- butes of intangibility, change, number, continuousness and remoteness; the problem is one of implementation of measure- ments. The second is the kinds of decisions made by the researcher in identifying the goals and measuring attain- ment. He discusses the problems by referring to the measurement of goal attainment by a criteria pyramid and. a means-ends pyramid. The criteria pyramid maps the com- ponents of the goal itself; the means-ends pyramid charts the means and subgoals needed to reach the goal. He points out the difficulties in using the two approaches as they relate to temporal decisions--"movement toward goals does not necessarily occur in regular increments which are uni- formly distributed over all time periods" and absolute and relative standards for measurements--"there are problems of finding truly comparable cases, organizations with similar goals and subgoals, constraints, environments, resources, and the like." While he offers no definitive solution to the problems, he suggests that each of the five attributes of organizational goals be considered in the design of research on the goal attainment of voluntary orga- nizations, and that the combination or configuration of these attributes be considered in the research methodology. 19 Price (1968) produced an inventory of propositions specifying determinants of organizational effectiveness. Defining effectiveness as the degree of goal achievement, he conducted an analysis of fifty studies. Each study chosen for investigation contained information pertinent to the effectiveness of the organization or information about productivity, morale, conformity, adaptiveness and institutionalization. The studies focused on organizations with "specific purposes" that were administrative organiza- tions, that is, organizations composed primarily of full- time members. The organizations included government agencies, business firms, universities, trade associations, hospitals, prisons, professional societies, and trade unions. He summarized the determinants of the effectiveness of orga- nizations in four categories: the economic system, the political system, the control system, and population- ecology. For each of these categories core variables which influence effectiveness were specified. He identified thirty-one core variables. The core variables ranged from such things as the division of labor in the economic system to size and spatial mobility in the population-ecology sys- tem. A review of his work gives an indication of the wide range of elements which can be considered in examining orga- nizational effectiveness. 20 Discussion of the Goal Approach Model The literature reviewed above was selected for review because it dealt with the relationship of organiza- tional goals to organizational performance as criteria for measuring organizational effectiveness, which is a major interest of the present study. The works reviewed looked at methods for defining and methods for measuring organiza- tional goals. It was pointed out that in order to define an organization's real goals different members in different statuses within the organization should be contacted and the operations of the organization should be observed. ‘This is because organizations are social systems and as such are systems of coordinated activities of more than one actor. Consequently, to define an organization solely in terms of its official or stated goals and therefore to judge its effectiveness in terms of its degree of success in obtain- ing those goals is to limit the investigation of organiza- tional effectiveness. Etzioni comments on this perspective. All social units, including organizations, are multifunctional units. Therefore, while devoting part of their means directly to goal activities, social units have to devote another part to other functions, such as the creation or recruitment of further means to the goal and the maintenance of units performing goal activities and service activ- ities (Etzioni, 1960, p. 259). Literature on the goal approach model showed the necessity of identifying an organization's goals in order to assess its effectiveness, for it is through the attain- ment of goals that an organization is considered effective. 21 The literature presented the difficulty posed in identify- ing goals which is necessary if assessment is to occur. Etzioni, Perrow, and Zald propose reviewing written state- ments provided by the organization, i.e., goal statements or operating policies. Simon proposes examining constraints imposed upon the decisions made within the organization, production targets, expected profits, etc. Warriner pro- poses examining organizational activities among the members of the organization, the amount of time devoted to activ- ities. Warner identified the problem of studying organiza- tional effectiveness as due to differences among organiza- tions on key attributes which prevent comparative analysis. This present study included organizations with similar goals, constraints, environments and resources. This was achieved by selecting for study of performance orga- nizations which had a common goal--the provision of a com- parable service to the neighborhood. Variability existed in how they went about in achieving those goals. This per- mitted an observation of the varying operations of the orga- nizations. As suggested by Etzioni this study examined means for goal activity as well as means for maintenance and service by looking at the organizations' administrative practices. Organizational statements of goals, operating policies, activities of members, along with other practices were examined as means for effective performance. 22 System Approach Model Conceptualization of the system model and studies using this model for determining organizational effective- ness are based upon developing a rationale and indices for measuring certain elements of the organization as a system which are considered to account for organizational effec- tiveness. Contributions by the following persons have aided in understanding the system model for determining organiza- tional effectiveness: Georgopoulos and Tannebaum, 1957; Seashore, 1965; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Bennis, 1966; Yuchtman and Seashore, 1967; Seashore and Yuchtman, 1967; Friedlander and Pickle, 1968; Mott, 1972. The strongest finding which shows that a system model can be formulated and meaningfully applied is a study by Georgopoulos and Tannebaum (1957). They defined organi- zational effectiveness as the extent to which an organiza- tion as a social system, given certain resources and means, fulfills its objectives without incapacitating its means and resources and without placing undue strain upon its members. In their study of an industrial service organiza- tion specializing in the delivery of retail merchandise they examined the means-ends dimension of the organization to determine organizational effectiveness. This was achieved by developing operational criteria to measure three basic elements of the system; organizational flexi- bility, productivity and strain. They then evaluated these 23 criteria and operations in terms of their organizational character and found that the criteria were representative of an organizational phenomenon, they were reliable, and they were in agreement with independent expert judgement. Seashore (1965) proposed a framework for conceptual- izing organizational performance by outlining a way of view- ing the relationships among numerous criteria that might be considered in the evaluation of the performance of an organization. He distinguished between five kinds of criteria and their uses: (1) Ends vs. means; (2) Time reference; (3) Long vs. short run; (4) Hard vs. soft; (5) Values. A full account- ing for the performance of an organization requires conside- ration for the use of all five kinds of criteria in which the network of criteria of performance is viewed as a pyra- mid shaped hierarchy. At the top is the "ultimate criterion." It is some conception of the net performance of the organi- zation over a long span of time in achieving its formal objectives, with optimum use of the organization's environ- mental resources and opportunities. The ultimate criterion is never measured-~except possibly by historians. In the middle are the penultimate criteria. These are shorter run performance factors or dimensions comprised by the ultimate criterion. They are output or results criteria. Typical variables in this class for business organizations are: sales volume, productive efficiency, growth rate, profit rate. Some soft variables may be employee satisfaction or 24 customer satisfaction. In the case of some nonbusiness organizations, these penultimate criteria might be predomi- nantly of the behavioral kind, as in the case of a school whose output is judged in terms of learning rates, propor- tion of students reaching some standard of personal growth or development. At the bottom of the hierarchy of assess- ment criteria are measures of the current organizational functioning according to some theory or some empirical sys- tem concerning the conditions associated with high achieve- ment on each of the penultimate criteria. These variables include those descriptive of the organization as a system and also those representing subgoals or means associated with penultimate criteria. Among the hard criteria at this level, for business organizations, might be such as scrap- page, short run profits, productivity against standard, meeting of production schedules, machine downtime, ratio of overtime to regular time. Among the soft criteria at this level may be such as: employee morale, credit rating, communication effectiveness, absenteeism, turnover, group cohesiveness. Katz and Kahn (1966) propose that open-system theory supplies the elements of a model of effectiveness for human organizations. They elaborated on this theory to fit phe- nomena of large-scale human organizations. They defined organizations as open systems dependent on outside agencies in the environment for making available required energic inputs (labor, materials, and others) and for absorbing the 25 organizational product. For them the meaning of organiza- tional effectiveness is the maximization of return to the organization, by economic and technical means, and by political means. Organizational effectiveness id determined by a combination of efficiency of the organization as a sys- tem and its success in obtaining on advantageous terms the input it requires. Bennis (1966) referring to organizations as open- systems postulates that the methodological rules by which the organization approaches its task and exchanges with its environments are the critical determinants of organizational effectiveness. His major concern is that when organizations are considered as open-systems, adaptive structures coping with various environments, the most significant character- istic for understanding effectiveness is organizational com- petence or mastery in problem-solving. He believes that it is the dynamic processes by which the organization searches for, adapts to, and solves its changing goals that provide the critical dimensions of organizational effective- ness. In 1967 Seashore together with Yuchtman, using Sea- shore's (1965) pyramid of criteria framework derived from the system model of organizations, presented a conceptual framework for assessing the performance of like and unlike organizations. The organization's success over a period of time in its competition for resources, its bargaining position in a given environment, is regarded as an expression 26 of its overall effectiveness. Since resources are of vari- ous kinds, competitive relationships are multiple, and there is interchangeability among classes or resources, the assess- ment of organizational effectiveness must be in terms not of any single criterion but of an Open-ended multidimensional set of criteria. From the competition of organizations for scarce and valued resources emerge a universal hierarchical differentiation among social organizations. Such a hier- archy becomes a yardstick against which to assess organiza- tional effectiveness. It is by focusing on the ability of the organization to exploit its environment in the acquisi- tion of resources that the performance of both like and unlike organizations can be assessed and evaluated compara- tively. Seashore and Yuchtman (1967) published an empirical investigation of their conceptualization of a system approach to determining organizational effectiveness. They examined the annual performance of seventy-five insurance sales agencies over an eleven year period. Using factorial analysis methods for discovering the factorial elements they characterized the behavior of small business organiza- tions. From a set of seventy-six selected performance indi- cators they discovered ten major factors which explained most of the variation in organizational performance. These ten factors and their indicator variables are given in Table 1. They suggest that the factors represent the 27 umnuu coonmEm CH mmmcwmsn wo mmmucwouwm o> mandamwm hanmuunsv nufls wmwoflaom 3m: mo mmmucoonom n> oooaw mom EdHEoum mommm>¢ m> sexes mmocflmnm > >ocomm wo muonEoE Hmuou ou muonEwE nomcso> mo hufl>fluosooum mo ofluom Q>H mflnmumnEoE Hmuou ou .mm moons. Homcsow mo owumm m>H mumnEmE mo mmocHSmnusow >H Amofl>uom mo munch w>fim cusp mmmH ucomm 3wcv wufl>fluoacoum Damon 0H0 m> ucmmm 3o: mo Oeumm QHHH Damon 3o: mom huw>wuospoum mmmum>¢ mHHH >DH>HDUDUOHQ gonads Boz HHH EdHEwum mo ooaw mom umoo c0wuoaooum oHH moan nuance mo oooaw Hod umoo coauosooum QHH wofiaom 30: non umoo cofluozoonm mHH umoo cofluosooum HH Amucomm mo Honescv uo3oacm8 >0cmm< 0H Aocm m.umw>. omusmcfl mm>fla mo Honesz pH AmumHHocv wouomaaoo mESHEmHQ Hm3mcom 0H Aofiaao> umaaoo. oHOm mucousmcfl Bmz DH 6cm m.umm>. mou0m 2H mmfloflaom mo HonEdz MH «oESHo> mmocflmsm H manmflum> onQMHHm> HODMOHUCH cocmflmmm oEmz Umcmflmm< uouomm quEsz .mmeOmemvfl QUCMHDMCH CH mHODUMh GUCMEHOwhmmlloHIN OHQMH. 28 .mmm .m .hmma .cmEunosw can muocmmom "mousom .mdauflaflomm Hmoflmwnm mo uoc .muczooom mo mocmcmucwme ou muwmom««« .mcofluommcmuu osHm>|an£ um3om m5mum> mcofluommcmnu msHo>IBOH acmzee .mESHo> ca ucmsmuocfl ucmuuso can OESHO> UmumHSEsoom anon mCHUDHUGHa mmHQMHSmcH oooa mom ooum>oo mo>fla mo HwnEsz ax muflmmo Mom OUHOM ca mocmusmcH mx COADMHDOGOQ poxunz x Damon mom oEdHo> mmocflmsn Bo: mmmuo>< mxH mufl>fluosooum gonad: xH oouooaaoo EsHEoum ooaw Hod umoo oocmcoucflmz QHHH> cofiuooaaoo Hon umoo mocmcmucflmz MHHH> assumoo mocmcmucfimz HHH> mcoflmmflEEoo Hmcomuom m.ummmcm2 mHH> mammcmfio ucmemmcmz HH> uo3om ucmE Hmfiuflcfl on mmcmso no: mo oflumm QH> who» mafiuso uozomcme CH mmcmno uoz mH> nu3onm Ho3omcmz H> manmflum> moanednm> noumoflocH nocmflmmd mEmz pocmflmmd uouomm monEsz .ooSCHDCOUII.HIN manna 29 continuing processes of resource acquisition which are char- acteristics of adaptive Open systems. Though the elements described in Table 1 deals with insurance company affairs they are fruitful as a general model in developing the ele- ments considered in this research. Seashore and Yuchtman propose that the conventional concepts of goals and goal attainment are not applicable to organizations and that organizational performance can be assessed and described better in terms of generalized resource-getting capabilities under conditions Of competi- tion for scarce and valued resources. Their objective in the formulation was to seek order and simplicity in the numerous and miscellaneous variables used by managers, researchers, and the general public in defining and evalu- ating the performance of an organization. They recognized that the ten major factors for the sales organizations did not constitute a universal set of such factors applicable to all kinds of organizations. But they did think it pos- sible that several Of them are universal while others may be unique to sales and similar organizations. Friedlander and Pickle (1968) surveyed ninety-seven small business organizations, represented by retail service, wholesale, manufacturers, and mineral extraction businesses. The purpose of their study was to explore the concept of total organizational effectiveness by studying the relation- ships between internal and external system effectiveness. Internal system components were those within the formal 30 boundaries of the organization: the owner, the employee. Societal components with which the organization transacts by exporting and importing energy were considered part of the larger environment in which the organization is located: the customer, the suppliers, the creditors, the community, and the government. Effectiveness was viewed as the degree to which the needs of system components were fulfilled or satisfied in their transactions with the organization. Findings of their study indicate that there are only a moderate number of relationships between the degree to which the organization concurrently fulfills the needs of its internal system components and the components of its larger society. Concurrent fulfillment of the needs of the five societal components was also of a rather low magnitude. They concluded from their analysis that it is difficult for organizations to achieve a balanced relationship among the component elements examined. Mott (1972) conducted research to determine some of the characteristics of organizations that influence their effectiveness. He defined effectiveness as the ability of an organization to mobilize its centers of power for action, production, and adaptation. His key theoretical question was how should the centers of power be organized for produc- tion, adaptability, and flexibility. He developed and tested the hypothesis that overall organizational effectiveness is directly related to productivity, adaptability, and flex- ibility. He measured each factor using data from 31 questionnaires administered to workers in hospitals and federal agencies. He found that all three survival pro- cesses can be structured to varying degrees, and the degree affects the organizational characteristics associated with them. No single prescription for effectiveness was found, but rather several ways of organizing that will yield about the same level of effectiveness. Discussion of the System-Resource Model The literature reviewed above seems to indicate that certain elements in an organization's structure as a system can influence its performance. It appears that there is no single factor to account for this but rather a combina- tion of factors. It was also indicated that the extent or degree to which these factors should be manifested for effec- tive organizational performance varies. Georgopoulos and Tannebaum measured organizational flexibility, productivity, and strain for determining effectiveness. Seashore and Yuchtman measured results criteria. Katz and Kahn looked at an organization's ability to get from its environment energic inputs. Bennis stresses the importance Of an orga- nization's adaptation to its environment. Friedlander and Pickle stress the importance of internal and external rela- tionships. Mott concentrates on the ways in which the centers of power are organized. The present study incorporated from the system resource literature a way of looking at organizational 32 effectiveness among the organizations presently under study. Based on a review of the systems model two major aspects emerged to be incorporated into the present study. First, the area of adaptation to the environment through use of resources available. Second, results criteria as measures of performance. Operational criteria to examine effective use of resources by energic inputs, i.e., people, money, other agencies, external relationships, were developed for the present study (Georgopoulos and Tannebaum, 1957; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Friedlander and Pickle, 1968). Also devel- oped were results criteria applicable to the performance of small-scale nonprofit voluntary service organizations, i.e., volume of service, costs, perceptions of service (Sea- shore and Yuchtman, 1967). Adapted from the framework pre- sented by Mott (1972) this study examined how an organiza- tion's administrative practices should be arranged for goal attainment, resource utilization and daily operations. Since goal statements, operating policies and organizational activities, and adaptation to the environment through judicious use of resources have been the major areas pre- sented in the literature, this study examined these three dimensions as basic areas for organizational effectiveness. Evaluation Approach There is much written in social welfare literature about organizational effectiveness. But most of it in rela- tion to effectiveness deals with acknowledging the need to 33 develop and apply better measures of effectiveness in social welfare for consequences of social welfare programs have been only partially evaluated (Levinson, 1966). In a report to the National Association of Social Workers, Stein (1962) discussed organizational effective- ness relating it to social work administration and community welfare organization. He considers both the goal model and the system model for analysis in social agencies. He sug- gests that the goal model has considerable merit in the present stage of social work development: Despite shortcomings in evaluations based on the goal model, it is at this stage necessary to encourage the analysis of both stated and implicit goals in social agencies in order to permit and encourage a more real- istic and hard-headed examination Of agency objectives, and to provide the basis for comparative studies of social welfare organizations in terms of goals. The system approach to organizational effectiveness is viewed by Stein as having relevance to the analysis of social agencies, specifically as presented by Georgopoulos and Tannebaum in their three basic criteria of productivity, flexibility or adaptation and absence of tension. Yet, he recognized that there is no generally conceded Operational definition of productivity; "the development Of standards of productivity related to different types of social agen- cies remains an important requirement for research if the systems model of Georgopoulos and Tannebaum is to have value." Levinson (1966) combines the goal-oriented model and the system-oriented model to provide a framework for 34 evaluating organizational effectiveness in social welfare programs. The goal-oriented model facilitates the measure- ment of inputs, outputs, and outcomes in relation to formal agency goals in terms of effectiveness and efficiency cri- teria. The system-oriented model focuses on interconnections among simultaneously operating programs as well as other organizational factors. Within the context of these two models he identifies several clusters of variables and their interrelationships: outcomes, program services, staff, char- acteristics of new and potential clients. It is these vari- ables which should be subjected tO measurement in order to evaluate the effectiveness of various program components. Stein, Hougham, and Zalba (1968) presented a con- ceptual framework for assessing social agency effectiveness using a goal model approach. The model evaluates the agency as a delivery system by comparing its actual service output with its formal output goals. They recommend that in order to evaluate the agency's effectiveness in relation to the stated goals the following kinds of data concerning the agency's actual operation should be sought and summarized: 1. Quantity goals--compilation and analysis of rele- vant statistics on agency service (e.g., number of cases processed, interviews conducted, etc.); 2. Quality goals--classification Of cases and outcomes (success/failure) by risk or problem categories; 3. Coverage goals--definition and size of target popu- lation. Of this entire population, how many are being served by the agency? How many are being served elsewhere? What proportion of the agency caseload actually meets the criteria stated in coverage goals? 35 Zald (1966) focused on analysis of community organi- zations that takes the total organization as its object. He presents a conceptual framework for the analysis of com- munity organizations as miniature polities with the follow- ing four interrelated concepts forming the core of the analysis: (1) organizations have constitutions, (2) consti- tutions are linked to the constituency and resource base of the organization, (3) community organizations wish to affect target populations, organizations, or decision centers, (4) community organizations exist among a welter of other agencies; they have foreign or external relations that can facilitate, impede, or be neutral to the accomplish- ment of their goals. Zald suggests that empirical studies which analyze community organizations along these lines will permit an examination of problems of mobilizing support and community consensus, and an analytic and differential basis will be developed by which to assess community organizations and evaluate practice roles. Vanecko, Orden and Hollander (1970) have one of the few studies in this area that includes a component relating organizational analysis to social change. In an applied study they examined process and outcomes of community organi- zation efforts and institutional change. The purpose of the study was to evaluate those characteristics of community action agencies that determine how effective they are in influencing other institutions to be more responsive to the needs and demands of the poor. Using survey research methods, 36 they selected fifty cities to obtain information on the attributes of community action agencies; to learn about the activities, goals, and organization of community action agencies; to gain knowledge about the characteristics of the cities and of the neighborhoods expected to be important factors in the changes being studied; and to actually uncover changes. They found that the degree to which the community action agency's board of directors and executive director state that community organization goals are the goals of the community action agency strongly predicts the extent to which other institutions serving the poor will change. Other variables which influenced institutional change were identified as the characteristics of the city in which com- munity action agency operates, characteristics of the target neighborhood in which the community action agency operates, i.e., poverty level; and characteristics of the community action agency itself, i.e., goal orientation, involvement in militant activities. More recently, Rothman (1974) has provided action guidelines that offer strategies and tools for social change in grassroots organizations and in human service planning organizations. He systematically reviewed social science research studies over a six year period, codified them, and gave them an applied formulation. While the guidelines are useful in providing a better direction for affecting practice outcomes they are limited in their existing formulation because they have not been directly tested scientifically. 37 Generalizations which are pertinent to understanding organi- zational performance are provided in the area of contextual factors of organizational behavior in which the environ- ment, goals and size of an organization are focused upon. While he provides many effectiveness indicators the follow- ing are of particular interest to this study: . Diverse resource bases for funds. Joint programs with similar organizations. . Goals directed toward satisfaction of community needs. Programs determined by citizens. Short range projects with quick payoffs. Issues voted on by group members. Recruitment Of primary group. Recruitment Of memberships with occupational and friendship ties to the community. Verbal and written contacts with political repre— sentatives. QOU'Ib LUMP 0 O I O C O \D Patillo (1975) views a social agency as a dynamic system operating in interaction with its environment. He provides a format to systematically review any social agency for potential performance. His design for assessing the capabilities of social agencies is an examination of selected aspects of the agency's management and administration. He views the social agency as an organization having purposes, goals, objectives and programs; having structure; and inter- acting with its environment. To analyze and evaluate the organization's capabilities he focuses on ten major areas: (1) structure and formal organization, (2) board operations, (3) purposes, goals, Objectives and programs, (4) organiza- tional control, (5) fiscal administration, (6) personnel administration, (7) communications, participation and 38 coordination, (8) leadership and direction, (9) staff and facilities, (10) community relations. For each of these areas he provides a list of statements which details optimum conditions to insure effective performance. While the state- ments are not exhaustive they can be seen, not only as start- ing points for detailed analysis and review of a social agency, but also as a basis for an initial exploration of what conditions and situations ought to exist for a local citizen-based organization to be effective. Discussion of Evaluation Methods In applying empirical methods to the assessment of organizational effectiveness there seems to be consistent agreement on the need to develop and apply methods which will take into account the goal approach and the system approach. The present study attempted to link the goal approach model and the system model in developing a strategy for identifying the characteristics of effective local citizen-based organizations. From evaluation methods, pro- cesses and procedures of organizations under study was opera— tionalized for measurement. As Zald (1966) discussed, external relations of the organizations was examined for their influence on goal accomplishment. Effectiveness indi- cators of Rothman (1974) and Patillo (1975), were adapted and explored for their pertinence to neighborhood organiza- tions. These indicators were consistent with what Levinson (1966) referred to as organizational factors, i.e., 39 characteristics of manpower and operations. These organiza- tional factors were examined for their interconnection with each organization's Operating program for service delivery, Levinson (1966), Stein, Hougham, and Zalba (1968). Other Studies A plethora of literature related to the study of effectiveness has emerged during the 19705. This has resulted because of the increased interest in seeking out those organizations, programs, and services which work effectively to diminish or resolve social problems confront- ing society. This literature dealing with effectiveness is Often described under the terms accountability and evalu- ation. Conspicuous failures of some programs to fulfill public expectations and concern for the soaring costs of services have added greatly to interest in careful program evaluation. NO effort was made to explore all of the litera- ture in these areas but a cursory review indicated that many of these works include the examination or consideration of measuring the effects of public services and programs in a variety of areas such as: Human Services and Social Work (Weschler, Reinherz, and Dobbin, 1976; Sze and Hopps, eds., 1978); Social Programs (Caro, ed., 1977; Rossi and Williams, eds., 1972); Social Action (Weiss, 1972); Mental Health (Neigher, Hammer and Landsberg, eds., 1977); American Educa- tion (Martin and Overholt, 1976); Higher Education (Dressel, 1976). These works were not systematically explored because 40 it was felt better to explore the general types of frameworks as was done above and to seek out some of the specific attempts to measure effectiveness which could be applicable to neighborhood organizations. Summary In this chapter conceptual frameworks, research studies and applied investigations were reviewed concerning the determination of effectiveness in organizations, using the goal approach model and the system model. The literature concerning the goal approach model assumes that each organization has a goal or set of goals, that these goals can be defined and understood, and that it is possible to plan the best strategies for attaining them. With this orientation the way to assess organizational effectiveness is to develop criterion measures to assess how well the goals are being achieved. The literature concerning the system model assumes that organizational effectiveness is a multidimensional concept, that demands placed on an organization are dynamic and complex, and that therefore, it is not possible to define a finite number of organizational goals in any mean- ingful way; rather, the organization adopts the overall goal of maintaining its viability or existence through time with- out depleting its environment. With this orientation the way to assess organizational effectiveness is to develop criterion measures to assess if an organization is internally 41 consistent, and if its resources are being judiciously dis- tributed over a wide variety of coping mechanisms. The most complete approach for predicting or explain- ing organizational effectiveness seems to require a combina- tion of the goal approach model and the system model. When seeking to explain or predict an organization's degree of success in meeting its goals the system variables should be investigated. No necessary and inclusive Operational definition applicable to all organizations has been found for deter- mining organizational effectiveness. The model explored in this study for determining organizational effectiveness was exploratory and was an attempt to converge concepts of the goal approach model and the system model. The focus of this research was to deter- mine the best strategies for predicting organizational effec- tiveness among neighborhood organizations. Drawing from the literature reviewed organizational effectiveness was investigated by looking at results criteria in performance. Predictors of performance were administrative practices and procedures used by organizations for goal achievement, use of resources, and daily operations. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In this chapter the research methodology of the study is presented. The research design, including vari- ables and research hypotheses, is described. The charac- teristics of the universe of organizations, the research instruments used in data collection, and the methods used to analyze the data are also described. Description of Methodology This was a descriptive study which explored whether certain performance elements of local citizen-based organi- zations could be predicted by a selected set of organiza- tional arrangements. The study was developed in two phases. First, the Delphi technique employing a panel Of experts was used to identify organizational arrangements of local citizen-based organizations believed to be crucial for their successful performance in the delivery of a service. In the second phase of the study, a group of local citizen- based organizations were selected and data on the organiza- tional arrangements identified by experts were gathered from each organization. Subsequently, the performance of each 42 43 organization was observed in the delivery of a service. In design terms the study examined the predictability of an organization's performance based upon its rating on a set of measures describing organizational arrangements identi- fied by experts. The study also examined the discriminating value of the expert-identified arrangements in identifying a developed overall index of high and low effective perform- ing organizations. This study was heuristic and because Of the limited sample was in some respects similar to case studies. A description of the methodology for each phase Of the study follows. Phase 1. Development of a Yardstick Against Which to Assess Organizational Arrange- ments for Effective Performance The Delphi technique for decision-making was used for this part of the study. Since the technique is com- paratively new, there is little that can be said about it that would generate complete agreement among current prac— titioners. The Delphi procedure used in this study was adapted from a review of the Delphi procedures developed and used by Dalkey and Helmer (1963), Turoff (1970, and Van de Ven and Delbecq (1974). The Delphi technique is a method for the systematic solicitation and collation of informed judgments on a partic- ular topic. Its purpose is to seek out information which may generate a consensus of judgment on the part of the 44 respondent group. While considerable variance exists in administering the Delphi process, the basic approach employs only two iterations of questionnaires and feedback reports. First, a questionnaire designed to obtain information on a topic or problem is distributed by mail to a group of respondents who are anonymous to one another. The respon- dents independently generate their ideas in answering the questionnaire, which is then returned. The responses are then summarized into a feedback report and sent back to the respondent group along with a second questionnaire that is designed to probe more deeply into the ideas generated by respondents in the first questionnaire. On receiving the feedback report respondents independently evaluate it and respond to the second set of questions. Typically, respon- dents are requested to vote independently on priority ideas included in the feedback report and to return their second responses, again by mail. Generally, a final summary and feedback report is then developed and mailed to the respon- dent group (Van de Ven and Delbecq, 1974, pp. 606-607). Designs Of the Delphi technique covering the same basic subject area may vary considerably. Also, the design of the summary and feedback procedures of an actual exercise may be influenced by the objectives or combination Of Objec- tives of the use of the procedure (Turoff, 1970, p. 149). Not only are there variations in the design of Delphis cover- ing the same basic subject area, but also, in the number of informed respondents needed for participation. Dalkey 45 and Norman (1963) used five respondents in their procedure; Turoff (1970) suggests the use of as many as ten to fifty respondents; Van de Ven and Delbecq (1974) used seven respondents. While there is no general rule for the number of respondents needed to participate in the pro- cedure, Turoff (1970) indicated that there is agreement on two separate groups of individuals needed to participate; the user body and the respondent group. The user body would be the individual or individuals expecting some sort of pro- duct from the exercise which is useful to their purposes. The respondent group is the group chosen to respond to the questionnaires. This may sometimes be the user body or the respondent group may contain a subset of the user body. The respondent group for this study included persons from the user body and persons outside the user body. The present study used a series of two questionnaires and a panel of nineteen informed respondents. Persons of the user body--persons employed by a funding agency--were used in the procedure for questionnaire construction and selection of the informed respondents for participation. Delphi Instruments The first questionnaire was developed by the researcher in consultation with two persons, one a repre- sentative of the user group, an agency program consultant with a social planning and allocating agency, Edward G. Marsh, MSW; and the other a person representative of the 46 respondent group, a professor of social work at a higher education institution, Jack Rothman, Ph.D. The first questionnaire contained items adapted from evaluative and self-study information about the admin— istration and management of social agencies (Rothman, 1974; Patillo, 1975) and ideas suggested by the researcher and consultants. The initial questionnaire was pre-tested using three staff persons from a social planning and allo- cating agency who were not part of the reSpondent group. At pre-test seventy-six items on organizational arrange- ments were included in the questionnaire. After pre- testing sixty-two items were considered usable. The sixty-two items pertained to the subject areas of goal achievement, resources and operations. Of the sixty- two items on the first-round questionnaire fourteen were in the subject area of goal achievement. Six of these goal achievement items pertained to purposes-goals—objectives; and eight pertained to programs. Thirty-two of the items were in the subject area of resources. Seventeen of these resource items pertained to the manpower of organizations, seven of which related to the board or steering group, four related to the leader and six related to staff and volunteers. Ten of the thirty- two resource items pertained to organizational relationships, three of which related to relationships within the commun- ity, six related to inter-organizational relationships and 47 one related to political relations. Five of the thirty- two resource items pertained to funding. The remaining sixteen of the sixty-two items were in the subject area of operations. Twelve of the operations items pertained to controls and four pertained to activ- ities. Any item mentioned by at least one respondent on the first questionnaire was added on the second round ques- tionnaire. A total of thirty-seven new items were added to the second questionnaire by the respondent group for rating. Eighteen of these items were in the subject area of goal achievement, fifteen were in the subject area Of resources, and four were in the subject area of Operations. Of the eighteen items pertaining to goal achievement, fourteen related to purposes-goals-objectives, and four related to programs. Seven of the fifteen resource items pertained to manpower, one relating to the board, two relat- ing to the leader, and four relating to staff and volunteers. Four of the fifteen resource items pertained to organiza- tional relationships, one of which related to inter- organizational relationships and three to political relation- ships. The remaining four resource items pertained to fund- ing. All four of the operations items pertained to organi- zational controls. The questionnaires used for the first and second round of the Delphi procedure are provided in Appendix A. 48 The Delphi Participants Since the study was interested in organizational effectiveness of local citizen-based organizations the panel of experts selected for participation consisted of persons with expertise in citizen-based organizations and/or organi- zational effectiveness theory. The persons selected for participation were either recommended for participation by a representative of the user body, S. S. Newhouse, Execu- tive Research Associate for a social planning and allocating agency or were chosen by the researcher for their contribu- tions to the literature in developing theoretical frameworks for the study of organizational effectiveness. The respon- dents were past or present executives or program personnel in social agencies which provide assistance to citizen-based organizations and professors from universities who had pub- lished articles pertinent to the subject matter. Twenty- two persons were asked to participate. Nineteen of the twenty-two participated in the procedure. They are listed in Appendix B. Delphi Procedure and Data Collection The procedure was developed and conducted during May through September of 1977. The first round of question- naires was mailed June 2, 1977. All respondents returned their questionnaires by June 27, 1977 after some follow-up calls. The second round questionnaires were mailed July 27, 49 1977. All second round questionnaires were returned by September 14, 1977 after some follow-up telephone calls. The first mailing to each respondent contained the following materials: 1. A letter asking for participation, an explanation of the policy issue being addressed, and factual information about the organizations under examina- tion. 2. A general information and instruction summary of the Delphi procedure and specific instructions for participation. 3. A general summary of the content areas included in the questionnaire. 4. Description of the evaluation scale to be used. 5. Two copies of the questionnaire so the respondent could retain a copy of his/her answers. As described above, the Delphi procedure began with sixty-two items for consideration. The sixty-two items were divided into three separate sections: Goal Achievement; Resources; and Operations. The respondents were asked to rate the relative importance of each item for an organiza- tion's success. In addition, two free form questions asked for respondents' recommendations on attributes of successful neighborhood organizations, and information about neighbor- hood organizations that can be deceptive in assessing their potentials, that is, information which could be misleading. The second mailing to each respondent contained the following materials: 1. A cover letter thanking respondents for partici- pation, summarizing the results, and giving the percent of returned questionnaires. 50 2. A summary table giving the ratings of the sixty- two items by subject area, the items repeated for consensus, and the new items added by respondents. 3. A copy of the first-round questionnaire with ratings by the respondent group for each item. 4. A summary listing of the items generated by the two free form questions. 5. A reiteration of the organizations under examina- tion, and description of the rating scale to be used. 6. Two copies of the second-round questionnaire con- taining the thirty-seven items generated by respondents for rating, and three items for a revote. 7. Specific instructions for questionnaire returns. Table 3.1 displays for each round of questioning the number of questionnaires sent, the number of question- naires returned, the percentage of questionnaires returned, and the percentage of the original group contacted of twenty-~ two who returned questionnaires. Table 3.1.--Summary of Questionnaire Returns. . _ Total Total Percent Percent Returned Quizgign Number Number Returned Of Original Sent Returned Each Round Group Contacted I 22 19 86.4 86.4 II 19 19 100.0 86.4 The outcome of the Delphi procedure provided a fifty item checklist of organizational arrangements con- sidered by experts as necessary for the effective perform- ance of a neighborhood organization. The fifty items were 51 grouped under twelve clusters representing the major cate- gories of organizational arrangements for goal achievement, use of resources, and daily operations. For each item on the checklist, indicators on an interview questionnaire were developed to examine whether an organization did or did not possess the organizational items. Only items selected as very important and important were used. Arbi- trary weights of 2 and l were used for determining scores. Each arrangement with a consensus rating of "very important" was weighted 2. Each arrangement with a consensus rating of "important" was weighted 1. Where more than one indicator was developed on the questionnaire to provide information in determining if an organization possessed the arrangement the weight given each indicator was distributed in propor- tion to the value of the organizational arrangement. The fifty items provided seventy-one possible points that an organization could receive, since twenty-one of the items were rated as very important and twenty-nine were rated as important; thus, (21 x 2) + (29 x l) = 71. How- ever, of the fifty items selected by experts, only forty- nine were employed in this study. The one item not system— atically examined was "programs with quality outputs." This item was eliminated because the purpose of the study was to examine organizational arrangements observable at any point in time by a review of organizational records, files, and statements before outcomes were achieved. This item did not lend itself to such examination, because 52 "outputs" come after, or as a result of, the organizational arrangements. This item had received an importance rating of 2. Since it was eliminated the total possible points for this study was 69. This study was interested in identifying the orga— nizational arrangements which best predicted performance among local citizen-based organizations. Therefore, the organizational arrangements selected by experts were explored further by applying the Delphi findings to organizations, observing the organization's performance, and determining what performance was predicted by the organizational arrange- ments selected by experts. The methodology used for this procedure is presented in Phase 2 of this chapter. Phase 2. Application of Delphi Findings to Organizations and Observation of Performance This part of the study sought to apply the organi- zational arrangements identified by experts through the Delphi procedure to citizen-based organizations. For this purpose a group of local citizen-based organizations was selected. The head of each organization was interviewed, and later invited to complete a questionnaire in order to obtain information on organizational arrangements for each of them. At the time of the interviews organizational arrangements selected from the second round Delphi survey were not completed. Rather than delay the interviews until the Delphi process could be completed, it was considered 53 important to interview organizations' representatives prior to the start of their summer service to youth to prevent intervention and possible biasing of program operations once the program started. Thus, to take full advantage of the finalized Delphi process a mail questionnaire was later developed and distributed specifically to obtain information on organizational arrangements not ascertained in the original interview. Organizations Studied Twenty-eight citizen-based organizations were exam- ined. The organizations were representative of small-scale citizen operated organizations, locally autonomous and not identified with a national parent organization. These orga- nizations had no endowment for funds but were constantly dependent on themselves and others for operating funds. They were funded by a private social planning and allocat- ing agency to provide a service to youth during the summer of 1977. They were chosen from a total of 110 organizations who were funded under the same program. They met the follow- ing criteria: 1. Were independent voluntary organizations. 2. Had federal tax exempt status or state incorpora- tion status. 3. Had specified target populations and geographical boundaries. 4. Operated all year. Of the 110 organizations funded for providing 1977 summer programs to youth, eighty organizations did not meet these criteria and were eliminated from consideration. 54 They were: sixty-seven organizations affiliated with a pub- lic or private sponsoring organization or church; two social agencies serving large metropolitan areas; eleven not state incorporated and not operating all year. Of the thirty organizations remaining all met the criteria for study selection. Each of the thirty organiza- tions was contacted by the researcher and asked to partici- pate in the study. Two groups decided not to participate. Thus, a total of twenty-eight organizations participated. A list of the organizations participating in the study is given in Appendix C. Research Instruments Two instruments were employed to gather required data. A questionnaire was designed specifically for the collection of data through an interview procedure. The questionnaire was comprehensive and included questions from the initial Delphi survey dealing with organizational arrangements, and other questions seeking general informa- tion. An additional mail survey was later conducted to obtain information selected by experts in the Delphi pro- cedure which was not included in the original research instrument. The research instruments used for data collec- tion in this part of the study are included in Appendix D. The questionnaire for the interview covered six major descriptive areas about organizations: background and development, goals, resources, operations, constituency, 55 and leadership. The principal purpose of the questionnaire was to solicit information to determine whether the organi- zations possessed the organizational arrangements identified through the Delphi procedure. The first section was used to obtain information on the historical background of the organization: its age, initiation, affiliations, and location of target population. The second section was to obtain information on the goals and programs of the organization. Goal statements, types of programs, changes in goals and programs, role of the organization in the community, and program determina- tion were examined. In the third section the resources were examined. Structural aspects such as board members, staff and volun- teers by occupation, residence, and length of service with the organization, organizational relationships with the community and other organizations were examined, as well as the organization's financial resources. The fourth section sought information on the Opera- tion of the organization: controls on bookkeeping, policy determination, committees, and records of services. Activ- ities in the facility of the organization were ascertained as well as facility ownership, daily hours, and use by residents. The fifth section was used to Obtain general infor- mation on the organization's members and recipients of services: number of members; and number, sex, age groupings, 56 race and residence of persons served and fees charged for services. The sixth section of the questionnaire contained questions to elicit biographical information on the leader of the organization. Data Collection During late June and early July of 1977 personal interviews ranging from 1% to 2 hours were held with top officials of the twenty-eight organizations or their desig- nated representatives. The interviews were conducted by the researcher. A follow-up mail survey was conducted during March of 1978 to gather information recommended on the second round Delphi survey procedure and not obtained at the time of the interviews. The information from the interviews and follow-up mail survey was used to provide a discrete application of the organizational arrangements from the Delphi findings to each organization in the study to later examine the clusters of organizational arrangements in relation to orga- nizational performance. Appendix E gives the format used in assessing an organization for each of the organizational items. Observation of Performance During the summer of 1977 performance data were com- piled on the summer programs provided by the twenty-eight organizations included in this study. The planning and 57 implementation of each of the programs were the responsi- bility of each of the funded organizations. The programs provided by these organizations served youth between six and fifteen years of age. The activities provided in the programs included arts and crafts, cultural enrichment, sports, games and field trips. Data for computing the performance measures were taken from administrative records required and maintained by the funding agent for each organization--applications, budgets, and staffing, from daily attendance sheets completed by each participating organization, from a success rating form completed by the director of each participating organi- zation and from a duplicate success rating form completed by the funding agent's monitor on each organization. Copies of the forms are provided in Appendix F. Using data from the above sources performance scores were computed for each organization. Five organizations did not submit daily attendance records. For these five organizations the monitors' site visit reports were used to estimate youth participation. Table 3.2 lists the units employed for measuring performance from observation of pro- gram operation. Design of the Study The research design of this study integrates the data generated in Phase 1 and 2 of the study to develop a prediction model for local citizen-based organizations 58 mumxuo3 on ow>umm mono» mo Oflumm mam o0fl>uom mo confi>ummsm .H> ammucsHo> uo3omcms mo Damoumm ma» muocuo ma Odom uo3omcmE mo ucmoumm haw ucmum >3 Gama Hm3omcmE mo Damouom mam mofl>nom mo mumuuommsm .> mOHumHmm MOO umoo m0fl>uom mo ucoouom may mmHHmHmm now ucmum mo unmoumm va» OOH>Hom mo noon mom umoo may woo mom nusoa mom umoo NH» woo woo umou Ha» nuso> you umoo 0H» oofl>umm mo Dmou .>H EcumOHm mo coflumNHHfiu: unmouom m» Sago» comm GOHDMQHOADHOQ mmmum>< mu oocmocouum SHHOO ommuo>¢ 5» mocmocouum Hmuoe o» Oo>wooom ©o>nom munch ucmuomwflo mo Honfisz m» oofl>uom mo wufiucmso .HHH mason Emnmoum v» Oonfi>oum m>no Emmmoum m» OOH>Hom mo wuflucmso .HH HODHCOE m.ucomm mcflocsw >9 mewumm N» OOH>Hom mo uouoouflo w.coflumuwcmmuo an mcflumm a» mmooosm Om>wmouom .H OHOOHHO> monsmmoz oocmEMOMHOm oocmflmm< oouwsam>m Houomm msouu HOQESZ .mEmHmoum HOEEOm mcflofl>oum mcoflummflcmmuo Mom mmusmmmz mocmfiuomummln.m.m manna 59 regarding their performance in providing a service to their locality. Specifically, the design uses the clusters of organizational arrangements generated by experts through the Delphi procedure and applied to the group of organiza- tions as predictor variables, or independent variables. The performance measures serve as criterion variables, or dependent variables. Each criterion measure is then corre- lated with the Delphi data clusters. The model seeks to determine the following: (1) If any of the criterion variables, in this case the perform- ance measures, can be predicted by the clusters of organi- zational arrangements selected by experts. (2) Which per- formance measures are predicted best by the clusters of organizational arrangements. If the organizational arrangements selected by experts can to some extent and in some combination explain one or more of the performance measures, then the criteria identified by experts can be applied to neighborhood organi- zations in the future and their ranking on the clusters of arrangements can be used to predict prOpensity for perform- ance. If a discriminating ability can be found in the experts' criteria, then that criteria would be useful in describing the unique characteristics of effective neighbor- hood organizations. 60 Statistical Analysis First, multiple regression, a multivariate statis- tical procedure, is used to analyze the data. Multiple regression is used because the study is interested in iden- tifying the relationship between an outcome variable and a set of predictors, i.e., a criterion variable and the clusters of organizational arrangements selected by experts respectively. In order to obtain a predictor of rank on the performance measures, the clusters of organizational arrangements are correlated with each performance measure. The regression model x . + ...., + B x . + e., i = 1....,28 y1 = BO + B 11 p p1 1 1 is used to develop equations which can predict each dependent variable, performance measures, from a set of independent variables, clusters of organizational arrangements. The effectiveness or strength of the selected clusters of organi- zational arrangements as predictors of performance is mea- sured by the multiple correlation coefficient. Having nineteen performance measures for analysis and predictor measurements on twelve clusters of organiza- tional arrangements, nineteen regression equations were developed. Each equation selected from the twelve clusters of organizational arrangements those clusters which best predicted each performance measure. For each equation the sample consisted of a set of twenty-eight observations 61 (yl, X1,l""' X12,l)°°°°'(y28' xl,28"'°' x12'28). The results selected from experts through a version of the Delphi procedure indicated that the organizational arrangements could predict performance. Since no empirical studies were available to support this, and since the order of importance of the organizational arrangements in predict- ing the performance was not known, the Biomedical Computer Program (BMD) for stepwise regression was used. The step- wise regression procedure was an additional technique used in identifying significant clusters of predictors in each of the nineteen equations. Stepwise regression selected a best subset of the independent variables as predictors according to the follow- ing procedure. The first step selected the single variable, from the organizational clusters, which best predicted Y, in this case a performance measure. The second step found the variable which best predicted Y given the first variable entered. In the steps that followed either (a) a variable was entered which best improved the prediction of Y given all the variables entered from previous steps; or (b) a variable was removed from the set of predictors if its pre- dictive ability fell below a given level of .05. The pro- cess was terminated when no further variable improved the prediction of Y (Afifi and Azen, 1972, pp. 107-135). This procedure was repeated for each of the nineteen performance measures . 62 Secondly, discriminate analysis was used to identify a set of the clusters of organizational arrangements which best discriminated between high effective and low effective performing groups. Group designation was determined by rank ordering organizations on selected performance measures. The median was used to separate mid-rank. These performance measures were: rating of success by monitor of the funding agency, cost per youth, and percent of manpower paid by other sources. These measures were used because they were con— sidered as the measures which were most objective and most attributable to the evaluation of success. The discriminate analysis procedure considered two populations, K = l, K = 2. Organizations (W) in each popu- lation were grouped as W1 and W2 as a result of the above mentioned predetermined performance measures. If assignment to a group is based on measurements xi where i = (1,...,P) for p characteristics then in vector form x = (xi,....,xp)'. Assuming a normal multivariant distribution for each popu- lation group, the expression becomes W N(ulPXI, ZIPXP) and l N(u2le. 22 PXP) where u population mean vector 2 If A2 is the measure of the "distance" between populations covariance matrix groups, W1 and W2, and oi are coefficients which when 63 maximizing A2 would yield a discriminant score called 2 in the expression: X+GX +...+(1X l 2 p p 2 Then for characteristics (X) to be in Group Wk the mean of 5 II I‘M Q variance II M I'M Q 0 II I-‘ O H N where k It was believed that high performing organizations would show high scores on organizational arrangements of inter-organizational and political relationships and opera- tional controls. Therefore, these clusters of organizational arrangements would best distinguish high from low effective performers. Since I was not sure if this was true the F- test based on a one way analysis of variance was used to choose the organizational variables that were significant. The Biomedical Computer Program P-Series (BMDP) was employed for this procedure. The procedure first identified the independent variable for which the mean values in the two groups were "most different." For each variable this dif- ference was measured by a one-way analysis of variance F- statistic, and the variable with the largest F was chosen. In successive steps, the conditional distribution of each variable not entered was considered, given the variab1e(s) 64 entered. Of the variables not entered, the variable for which the mean values of the conditional distribution in the two groups were "most different" were identified. This difference was also measured by a one-way analysis of vari- ance F-statistic. The stepwise process was terminated when no additional variables significantly contributed to the discrimination between the two groups (Afifi and Azen, 1972, p. 253). Research Hypotheses The general hypotheses guiding this study are stated here. 1. The clusters of organizational arrangements as predictor variables will explain each performance measure and the extent of each relationship, expressed as a correlation coefficient, will be significantly greater than zero. 2. The means for one or more of the clusters or organi- zational arrangements will distinguish, at a statis- tically significant level of .05, between high effective and low effective performance. Limitations There are limitations of this study which affect its generalizability. The sample of organizations for the study was a total sample of available organizations but was not randomly selected from the general universe of neighbor- hood organizations. Rather were included for study because they were selected for the provision of a common service. Since they had been selected to provide the service these organizations were likely to be high performers. Thus, the 65 findings cannot be generalized to the universe of neighbor- hood organizations. For the kinds of analysis used, the sample of twenty- eight was adequate for an exploratory study to show tendenc- ies but too small for high confidence in findings or wide- spread generalizations. However, the results can be generalized with some caution. Before generalizations are made the characteristics described in the organizations studied section of the study should be checked for similar- ities (Cornfield and Tukey, 1956). Also, the organizational elements selected in this study for analysis represent a limited view of organiza- tional means for performance. The means for effective per- formance may lie in elements not looked at in this study. This study is exploratory in nature. It is a begin- ning step in identifying the characteristics of effective neighborhood organizations and the relationship between the characteristics and performance. Though its findings cannot be widely generalized, the findings can be suggestive of what characteristics are associated with performance and what relationships would provide fruitful grounds for further study. Summary This chapter has identified the research methodology of the study. The research procedures and instruments were described and discussed. The research design and 66 statistical analyses identifying the study's independent and dependent variables were discussed. The research hypotheses were stated and limitations of the study were set forth. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS FROM THE DELPHI PROCEDURE: ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS HAVING IMPORTANCE FOR EFFECTIVE PERFORMANCE In this chapter the data collected through the_ Delphi procedure for decision-making are reported and anal- yzed. The organizational arrangements rated as having importance for effective performance are reviewed and reported. Selection of Statements on Organizational Arrangements This part of the study was devoted to developing a set of statements which were believed to describe necessary organizational arrangements for effective performance of citizen-based organizations and which received widespread agreement of persons professionally acquainted with such organizations. The statements were divided into three main subject areas: Goal Achievement; Resources; and Operations. Each subject area was divided into subparts. The goal achieve- ment subject area was divided into two subparts: one 67 68 concerned with purposes-goals-objectives, and the second concerned with programs. The resources subject area was divided into three subparts: manpower, organizational rela— tionships and funding. Manpower resources included board, leader, staff, and volunteers. Organizational relationships as resources included community, inter-organizational, and political relations. The operations subject area was sub- divided into controls and activities. Statements within each of these areas were selected to describe organizational arrangements. These statements were used for analysis. Table 4.1 gives the subject areas investigated. Table 4.1.--Dimensions of Organizations for Analysis. I. GOAL ACHIEVEMENT A. Purposes-goals-objectives B. Programs II. RESOURCES A. Manpower 1. board 2. leader 3. staff 4. volunteers B. Organizational relationships 1. community 2. inter-organizational 3. political C. Funding III. OPERATIONS A. Controls B. Activities 69 Two Delphi questionnaires with statements on orga- nizational arrangements pertaining to these dimensions for analysis were submitted to a group of experts. The group of experts was instructed to rank each statement as to its importance to a neighborhood organization's success accord- ing to the following scale: 4. Very Important 3. Important 2. Slightly Important 1. Unimportant In order to be selected as an organizational arrangement having importance for an organization's success experts had to agree the statement was important or very important and there had to be widespread agreement on the importance of the statement among the expert group. To make the determination the mean and the variance was used. The spread of agreement was analyzed by rank ordering the statements by the calculated variance within the category to which the statement applied. Then the mean response was examined to determine the importance rating. Since the study seeks those statements on organizational arrangements which best describe effectiveness a statement was selected as very important when the mean response was between 3.50 and 4.00 and the variance for that statement was low. Statements with a mean response between 3.49 and 3.00 were selected as important when the variance was low. Statements with a mean of 2.99 and lower and a high 70 variance were considered unimportant and were eliminated from investigation. Also, statements with a wide variance were considered non-consensus and were eliminated. Where statements received a mean of 3.00 or above and a wide vari- ance with written responses giving opposing views or ques- tions of clarification, the statements were repeated for reconsideration. Items were selected with the highest mean and the least variance when rank ordered by the variance within each category. Results of the first round questionnaire were tabu- lated with nineteen or 86.4 percent returns. Where a con- sensus was obtained on a statement as important or very important it was selected for the organization analysis form and was dropped from further Delphi rating. Also, dropped from further exploration were those statements which by con- sensus were rated as not important or received non-consensus. Table 4.2 gives a numerical summary of ratings of importance of the sixty-two statements included on the first round questionnaire. Findings from the First Round Delphi Questionnaire Of the sixty-two original statements included on the first questionnaire, thirty-three were selected as having importance. Of the thirty-three selected, thirteen were rated as very important and twenty were rated as important. Of the thirty-three statements selected, seven 71 ¢I m “I quIOIv In 0-4 HI FHH N| HI m] ml v-l VI rqoiwvm N N NI VI hqoaviv H| NIN mI ml 0 (“LOP-I ,_.| PWP-Q'w F4 N m 0 m mafincsh HOOflufiHom HOCOHumnwcmmuO|MoucH >uflcfifieoo wmfinmcowumamu HmcoflumNHcmmuo muooucsao> w mmmum Hopqu pumom um3omcmz Hmuou .mOOHDOmOm Eoumoum mo>HDOOnQO can mamom .mmmomuzm Hmuou .ucoEo>oa£o¢ Hmoo >o>usm Houoe .HH UOOOd mEouH cofiumo IAMHHMHU How mumomom IIIIIIIIIII msmcomcoo Ico: no ucmunomEHCD ucmunomEH pcmuuomEH >nm> wsmcomcou mEouH co mafiumm mEmuH Hmcnmfluo mEOUH .>o>Hsm fizmaoa :oflumNficmmuo oooznonnmflwz ocu co mcuduom ocsom umuflm OSD mo pasmom m wfluucofluanfluumfla EmuH mo manna humsfiumll.m.v OHQOB 72 I I o a m g homuw>fluo¢ v a o N v NH mHouucoo w. u. m. m. M. mm. Hmuou .mcoflumummo .HHH noncomcoo unmunomEH ucmuuomEH coHumo >Ho> o la HHOHU Icon HO mEouH o find .m. ucmuuomEacD mEouH msouH MOM . mdmcmmcou Hmcwmfiuo mumommm mEouH co mcfiumm .emsenueoonu.m.e wanna 73 related to arrangements necessary for the achievement of goals, sixteen related to organizational resources neces- sary for effective performance, and ten related to effec- tive operations. Of the seven statements selected in the area of goal achievement, two were organizational arrangements necessary for purposes-goals-Objectives to be achieved; and five were organizational arrangements necessary for programs to be achieved. These statements are given in Table 4.3 with their importance rating, mean score and variance. Of the sixteen statements selected in the area of resources, nine pertained to manpower resources, four of which referred to the board, one referred to the leader of the organization, two referred to staff, and two referred to volunteers. Five of the sixteen statements on resources pertained to organizational relationships, three of which referred to community relations and two referred to inter- organizational relationships. The remaining two resources statements pertained to funding. Table 4.4 gives these organizational arrangements with their importance ratings, mean score and variance. Of the ten operations statements selected on the first round questionnaire, six related to operational con- trols and four related to organizational activities. Table 4.5 gives these organizational arrangements by importance ratings, mean score and variance. 74 Table 4.3.--Organizational Goal Achievement Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from First Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance. Statement XI Importance Rating 1. 1. Purposes-Goals-Objectives: Evidence that purposes, goals—objectives are congruent with community needs. Evidence of a periodic review of organization's objectives with adjust- ments and modifications as required. Programs: Objectives manifested in the programs of the organization. Programs determined by residents. Programs with quality outputs. Short-range projects. Programs which provide immediate assistance to residents. 3.50 3.44 3.61 3.42 0.35 0.39 0.39 Very Important Important Very Important Important Very Important Important Important 75 Table 4.4.--Organizational Resources Arrangements of Impor- tance for Effectiveness from First Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance. Statement Importance Rating A. Manpower: (Board Members) 1. Include representation of persons from the neighborhood. 2. Include representation of persons with knowl- edge of the programs provided by the organi- zation. 3. Elected to office by the membership. 4. Include representation of persons from the membership of the organization. (Leader-president or chairman) 1. Knowledge of the organization's impact in the neighborhood. (Staff) 1. Educational and experi- ence background adequate to carry out the programs of the organization. 2. Representative of per- sons served by the organization. 3.41 3.47 3.41 Very Important Important Very Important Important Important Important Important 76 Table 4.4.--Continued. Statement X 5 Importance Rating (Volunteers) 1. Volunteers from the neighborhood. 3.35 0.38 Professional volunteers from a variety of back- grounds (accountants, lawyers, educators, social workers). 3.41 0.50 Organizational Relationships: (Community) 1. 3. Interpretation of the organization's purposes, programs and achieve- ments to neighborhood residents. 3.56 0.23 Publication of the organization's purposes, programs, and achieve- ments to neighborhood residents. 3.21 0.28 Meetings open to neighborhood residents. 3.38 0.53 (Inter-organizational) 1. Working relationships with other neighborhood organizations similar in program emphasis. 3.42 0.50 Participation in com- munity associations or councils. 3.26 0.56 Important Important Very Important Important Important Important Important 77 Table 4.4.--Continued. Statement R 82 Importance Rat1ng C. Funding: 1. Neighborhood based fund—raising activ- ities. 3.26 0.56 Important 2. Grants from foundations, government, community councils. 3.29 0.63 Important 78 Table 4.5.--Organizational Operations Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from First Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance. - 2 Importance Statement X 5 Rating A. Controls: 1. Policies and issues voted on by group members. 3.68 0.22 Very Important 2. Evidence of adequate bookkeeping. 3.79 0.28 Very Important 3. Well defined statements of policies. 3.42 0.50 Important 4. Records of services pro- vided. 3.53 0.61 Very Important 5. Records of persons served. 3.47 0.61 Important 6. Reports which portray the operating results of the organization. 3.58 0.61 Very Important B. Activities: 1. Assessment of community needs. 3.79 0.17 Very Important 2. Information source for residents on matters which affect the neighborhood. 3.72 0.24 Very Important 3. Facility open for use by the community. 3.56 0.24 Very Important 4. Evidence of active recruitment of members. 3.37 0.44 Important 79 Twenty-six of the sixty-two statements included on the first round questionnaire were deleted from considera- tion from a consensus by experts of not-important. Three statements received written comments suggesting either dif- ference of views or uncertainty of meaning and were repeated on the second questionnaire. The two free form questions included on the first questionnaire asking for opinions about key attributes of neighborhood organizations and information which could be deceptive whether intended or unintended in assessing a neighborhood organization's potentials generated 112 State- ments. Seventy-three of the statements were pertinent to key attributes and thirty-nine were pertinent to deceptions. This information was compiled separately and is provided in Appendix G. Findings of the Second Round Delphi Questionnaire The second Delphi questionnaire began with forty statements for rating. Thirty-seven of the statements were derived from those written by the expert respondent group on the first questionnaire. Three of the forty statements were revisions of original statement included on the first questionnaire for which comments indicated lack of agree- ment or uncertainty of meaning. Of the thirty-seven new statements generated by experts, seventeen were selected as having importance. Of the seventeen selected, eight were rated as very important 80 and nine were rated as important. Table 4.6 gives a numerical summary of ratings of importance on statements on the second questionnaire. Of the seventeen statements selected, nine related to arrangements necessary for the achievement of goals, seven related to organizational resources necessary for effective performance, and one related to effective opera- tions arrangements. Of the nine statements selected in the area of goal achievement, seven were organizational arrangements neces- sary for purposes-goals-objectives to be achieved; and two were organizational arrangements necessary for programs to be achieved. These statements are given in Table 4.7 with their importance rating, mean score and variance. Of the seven statements selected in the area of resources, three pertained to manpower resources, two of which pertained to the leader of the organization and one to staff. Two pertained to political relationships and two pertained to funding as resources. Table 4.8 gives these statements with their importance rating, mean score and vari- ance. One of the seventeen statements of importance selected on the second round questionnaire was in the area of operations and pertained to evaluations, a necessary con- trol in operations for effectiveness. This statement is given in Table 4.9 with its importance rating, mean score and variance. 81 mafiocsm NI NI I VI HOOHDHHom HmcoflumNACOOHOIHODcH wuflcsfieoo mmflnmcowpmaom HmCOADMNHcmmHO N I N m mll Nr—I I l mII muooucsao> w mumpm noommq Unmom um3omcmz III I roll NH O UWVI m ,_4 t\ mKVOIw I—I HODOD .mmousomom .HH VI mI e Emumoum mo>fluomnno Ocm manow .momomusm mN VI MN 10 H I Hmuou .ucmEm>mH£om Hmow .H I o H *I ml o m w H >o>usm Hmuoe m N m| co| DCODHOQEH msmcomcou ucmuHOQEH muw> Icoz no mEouH ucmuuomeflcb momcomcou Hmuoe mEouH wEouH co mcflumm .>o>usm Armada coflwmmflcmmuo ooonnonnmfloz map so mcusuom ocoom ocooow ocu mo pasmom m mmIIcoHuanuumfla EouH mo manna NHmEEDmII.m.v manna 82 I I I I mOHuH>Huo< m H I v mHouucoo m M H w Houou .mcoflunuomo .HHH msmcmmcou ucmuuomEH DCOMMMMEH Icoz no mEouH ucmuuomEHcD msmcomcou Hmuoe mEouH mEouH co ocflumm .omscwucooII.o.v manna 83 Table 4.7.--Organizational Goal Achievement Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from Second Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance. Statement ><| Importance Rating A. Purposes-Goals-Objectives: 1. Communication of the organization's purposes and objectives to volun- teers who assist the organization. Communication of the organization's pur— poses and objectives to paid staff. Established milestones or time periods for reaching goals and objectives. Visible goals that can attract support. Statements of goals and objectives, well-defined, but flexible enough to accommodate unantici- pated action to be pro- tective and reactive to community issues as they arise. Specificity of objectives even though difficult to quantify, i.e., objec- tives of community cohe- sion, community morale. Flexibility in long-range planning to accommodate unanticipated projects or programs. Very Important Very Important Important Important Very Important Important Important 84 Table 4.7.--Continued. XI 0) Statement Importance Rating B. Programs: 1. Qualitative and quanti- tative programs that satisfy those who are to benefit. 3.60 0.36 Programs by and for the community that meet self-defined needs rather than needs defined by others. 3.50 0.37 Very Important Very Important 85 Table 4.8.--Organizational Resources Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from Second Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance. Statement X Importance Rating Manpower: (Leader-president or chairman) l. A president or chairman willing and able to learn with commitment to the organization and its programs. 3.79 2. A president or chairman with knowledge of the organization and its programs with chair type skills. 3.65 (Staff) 1. Staff able to relate to persons served. 3.80 Organizational Relationships: (Political) 1. Contacts with agencies handling revenue sharing funds, other financial grants, or sources of funds. 3.37 2. Contacts with mayor's office, city council, neighborhood city halls, police precincts. 3.45 0.18 0.36 Very Important Very Important Very Important Important Important 86 Table 4.8.--Continued. Statement R 52 Importance Rating C. Funding: 1. Donations from individ- uals and groups committed to the organization's interest without strings attached. 3.20 0.38 Broader community based fund-raising activities which do not result in loss of local autonomy. 3.35 0.45 Important Important 87 Table 4.9.--Organizational Operations Arrangements of Importance for Effectiveness from Second Round Delphi by Mean Score and Variance. Statement E 32 Importance Rat1ng A. Controls: 1. Semi-annual and/or annual evaluations. 3.45 0.37 Important The following three statements were restated and repeated on the second round questionnaire for a revote. 1. Identification of the organization with a specific geographic area (service area and/or functional area). 2. The board includes representation of persons from the business and corporate community whether resi- dents of the community or outside the community. 3. Joint programs with similar organizations. Each of the statements were analyzed separately. Neither of the statements received consensus among the experts that they were important and were therefore deleted from organi- zational analysis. Summary In this chapter the results of the Delphi technique for decision-making on characteristics of importance for effective performance of neighborhood organizations were presented. The information generated in each step of the pro- cedure was presented and analyzed to test agreement among 88 the expert panel on the significance of the information for assessing a neighborhood organization's potential. An examination of the variance was used to deter- mine the level of agreement of each statement. The mean was used to determine the level of importance. A total of ninety-nine statements relating to an organization's internal arrangements for effective perform- ance were reviewed and rated by a panel of nineteen experts for importance. Of the ninety-nine statements, fifty were considered as having importance. Of the fifty selected, twenty-one received a first priority rating and were con- sidered very important. Twenty-nine were considered as second priority arrangements and were rated important. Of the fifty statements selected a total of sixteen pertained to arrangements necessary for goal achievement, twenty-three pertained to effective arrangements of resources and eleven pertained to operational arrangements. The complete list of the fifty statements selected is given in Appendix H. Forty-nine statements were deleted from consideration due to lack of agreement on importance or agreement of not important for effective performance. CHAPTER V FINDINGS: ANALYSES AND RESULTS In this chapter the statistical analysis of the data collected is reported and analyzed. Statistical hypotheses intended to help answer the research questions have been tested and the results are reported. Finally, the major findings are summarized. The research methodology Of this study focuses on identifying the characteristics of effective neighborhood organizations. The research conducted thus far has shown that there are certain organizational arrangements of a neighborhood organization which can be identified before performance is observed. Such characteristics can be used to evaluate the organization's potential for effective per- formance. These organizational arrangements have received consensual validity from experts as to their importance for a neighborhood organization's effective performance. These organizational arrangements will be analyzed further for their actual validity in explaining performance as defined by this study. First, clusters of the organizational arrangements were analyzed as factors known before perform- ance with post performance measures to see if the post 89 90 performance measures could be explained by the clusters of organizational arrangements or some set of the clusters. Secondly, the pre-performance cluster variables were anal- yzed with a combined measure of effectiveness for post per- formance to see if the clusters of organizational arrange- ments could distinguish between high and low effectiveness. Appendix I includes correlation matrices for all variables analyzed in this chapter. A review of the correlation matrix between the organizational clusters and the performance measures showed the following significant simple correlations, r 05 = .317. Significant Performance Measures Organizational Clusters r (Y1)Rating by internal (X4)Leader .338 agent (Y )Rating by external (X )Staff .354 2 5 Agent (Y4)Program hours (X1)Purposes-goals- -.360 objectives (Y5)Number served (X3)Board .335 (Y10)Cost per youth (X )Community -.452 (X6)Volunteers -.424 (X9)Political -.356 (X3)Board -.349 (Y12)Cost per youth (X6)Volunteers -.434 per day (X7)Community -.427 (Yl3)Cost per hour (X7)Community -.342 of service (Yl4)Percent of grant (X1)Purposes-goals- for salaries objectives .389 (X9)Political 91 Significant Performance Measures Organizational Clusters r (Y15)Percent of service (X1)Purposes-goals- cost for salaries objectives .510 (X4)Leader -.332 (X9)Politica1 -.321 (Yl6)Percent of manpower (X12)Activities .450 paid by funder (Xl )Purposes-goals- objectives .371 (Yl7)Percent of manpower (X1)Purposes-goals- paid by others objectives -.44l (X9)Political .423 (X8)Inter-organizational .409 (Y18)Percent of manpower (X1)Purposes-goals- voluntary objectives .429 (X9)Political -.396 (X11)Controls -.349 The above analysis shows the single organizational cluster variables which best explain the indicated perform- ance measures, the extent of the relationship between the individual variables and performance measures, and the direction of each relationship. Since this study was interested in reducing error in predicting a neighborhood organization's potential for successful performance multiple regression was used to see if the explanation of the performance measures could be improved by using all of the organizational variables or some multiple set of the organizational variables to explain the performance measures over using individual vari- ables for explanation. 92 ResearchQQuestion l Is there a linear relationship between the organi- zational variables as a set or some subset of the variables and the performance measures of this study? The statistical hypotheses were tested using nine- teen separate multiple regression procedures. The F ratios were computed to test significance, i.e., prediction of the set of twelve clusters of organizational arrangements for each of the nineteen dependent variables. The nineteen null hypotheses are that the independent variables, the twelve clusters of organizational arrangements, do not signifi- cantly predict each of the nineteen performance measures. The associated alternative hypotheses are that some subset of the twelve clusters of organizational arrangements will significantly predict each of the nineteen performance measures. The multiple correlation coefficient is used to show the extent of magnitude of linear dependence of a perform- ance measure on some set of the predictor variables. The square of the multiple correlation coefficient is used to show the proportion of variance of a performance measure explained by the regression of the performance measure on the selected cluster(s) of organizational arrangements, which was used as a measure of goodness of fit. Figure 5.1 graphically presents the multiple regression design with resulting equations showing the direction of the correla- tions. 5313 coauu~ouuou oz I O coqucaouuou o>quwaom I + coducqouuoo 0>Iucovz u I no. an acau«u«:o«m I a .mcoquoavm connnuuoox O~Q4u~ax no nucodoACGOou couuauouuoo .~.m Gunman on. I I I I I I I I I I I I scare: I. .IIII I. II... .I... In“. I I o I I I o I o I I I stages—o» . canons-I Io accuses an... Ion. I I I I I o I I I O I I aces». ma u.oa canons-n I. aeooco. .~_». Iufi. I I o o I I I o I I o I Lassa. an I... o. coxoncul so «caucus a p. on“. I I I I I I I I I o o I u..cq.o¢ cos anon . Ioo.Ic-o Io occur-I .o.». In“. I o I I o I o I I I o I no.II—-I co. «corn I. «score. .o_». on. I I I I I I I I I I I I ou.»con I. can; co. «aou Ana». Cum. 9 o o I o I I I o I I 9 how can scan» so. once and». I... a a I o o o o a I I I o . III II. IIIu ._... Ina. I o . I o I. I I I I I I I suaoh co. aaou .o—». an. o I I I o o I I I I I I lagoon. .9 ca.« III....I III»... .I». «v. I I o o I I I I I I I I 3‘39; go.- .o so.a Iog.u—ucoa ouncos¢ an». .0. I I I I I I I I I I I I cue-occuuo u..-s ooocos< agp. _v. I I I I I I I I I I I I cue-vegan. —Iuo» an». ~n. I o I I I I I I I I o I wuss-u cocoa: an». no. I I o I . I o I . I I I I , I «can; causes; av». ~.. I I I I I I I I I I I a nun: cognac. an». Io“. I o o o I I o I o I I I co..coc a.aeoo- on..::. an o:.»-: an». on. I I I I I I I I o I o I Logo-s.u logger; an oc—.o¢ A... x I....I.ao< ..oca:ou oc.vcau —-O.c.po. .courc na.c ace-a ~I-am cos-.4 is... «locooc. nouontas Icoac_ Iallou I33... .2: .2: .2: 1.: 1.: 1: 1:1: .I: .I: .I: 2: uuxdxxauuquunu uuz<230u¢unIhmox 94 The sections that follow will examine each of the performance measures in terms of their relationship to the predictor variables. Because of the multiple regression procedure used, the presence or absence of an individual correlation may or may not yield a multiple correlation that will satisfy the requirements of the null hypothesis. Rating of Success by Program Director Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Rating of Success by Program Director." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, board, staff, volun- teers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls and activities gave a multiple correlation coef- ficient of .56 with a F-ratio of 0.78. This was not signifi- cant at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Rating of Success by Program Director" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational variables. Rating of Success by Funding Agent's Monitor Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Rating of Success by Funding Agent's Monitor." 95 A stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, pro- grams, board, staff, community, inter-organizational and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .70 with a F-ratio of 2.68. This was significant at a = .05 (F = 2.51, df 7,20). The null hypothesis on no significant relationship was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.1. As shown, the correlation between the criterion, Rating of success externally, and the selected subset of organizational variables is 0.696 with a goodness of fit of 0.484. Within the selected predictor set the organizational variables staff, activities, community, programs, and board correlated positively; inter—organizational and purposes- goals—objectives correlated negatively. Organizations rank- ing high on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided a neighborhood oriented ppgff, involvement of residents in operational activities, open communication with the community: community oriented and defined programs, and an informed community based ppgpd were rated better on the success of the summer program than organizations with low rankings on these variables. Organizations ranking low on the possession of organizational arrangements which had inter-organizational relationships with other neighborhood organizations and associations, and well defined and 96 mo. v a «me. u mumsvm m was. I m Hauoe moo. ewe. mam. mo>fluoonoonmamomImmmomHsm ave. new. Ham. onmom mmo. mmv. oom. HmcofiumNHCOOHOIHoucH ave. mow. mmm. mEmHmonm con. mom. mom. mune5550o flea. new. raw. mmflufl>fluo¢ oma. oma. «mm. madam moccnu mumsgm m mumsgm m OHQHDHOS moanmwum> HODOAOOHN .>HamcuoDx coosm mo mcflumm How moHnoHum> HODOAOOHA ucoEomcmuH¢ Hmcoflumecmm c>om mo Downsm m mo conmmummm mmfl3mwumII.H.m mange 97 and manageable purposesjgoals-objectives were rated better on the success of the summer program than organizations with high rankings on these variables. Program Days Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Program Days." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .62 with a F-ratio of 0.91. This was not significant at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 11,16). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Program Days" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational vari- ables. Program Hours Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Program Hours." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, inter—organizational, political, 98 controls and activities gave a multiple correlation coef- ficient of .65 with a F-ratio of 1.22. This was not sig- nificant at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Program Hours" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational variables. Number Served Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Number Served." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, and activities gave a multiple correlation coef- ficient of .52 with a F-ratio of 0.64. This was not sig- nificant at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypoth- esis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Number Served" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational variables. Total Attendance Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes—goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Total Attendance." 99 A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .41 with a F-ratio of 0.26. This was not significant at a = .05(F = 2.48, df 12,15). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Total Attendance" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational variables. Average Daily Attendance Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Average Daily Attendance." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .41 with a F-ratio of 0.25. This was not significant at a = .05(F = 2.48, df 12,15). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Average Daily Attendance" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational variables. 100 Average Participation of Youth Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Average Participa- tion of Youth." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, controls and activities gave a multiple correlation of .42 with a F-ratio of 0.37. This was not significant at o = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no signifi- cant relationship was not rejected. "Average Participation of Youth" cannot be predicted by any set of the organiza- tional variables. Percent Utilization of Program Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Percent Utilization of Program." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, inter-organizational, political, funding and controls gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .36 with a F-ratio of 0.25. This was not significant 101 at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Percent Utili- zation of Program" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational variables. Cost per Youth Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Cost per Youth." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, funding, and activities gave a multiple correlation coef- ficient of .79 with a F-ratio of 2.79. This was significant at u = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.2. As shown, the correlation between the criterion, Cost per youth, and the selected subset of the organizational variables is 0.788 with a goodness of fit of 0.621. Within the selected subset the organizational vari- ables purposes-goals-objectives, leader, and funding corre- lated positively; community, board, volunteers, programs, staff, activities, and inter-organizational correlated nega- tively. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided well defined and 102 mo. v a Ame. n mumswm m mme. u m Hmuoe moo. Hmm. mob. HmcoflumNHCOOHOIHoucH moo. mam. own. mmwufl>fluo¢ «Ho. moo. Hon. mcflocsm mmo. mom. who. Hoommq Hao. onm. mmn. mmmum mac. mmm. men. memnmoum moo. Hem. mmo. mo>fluoomQOImHmomImomOQHsm who. one. How. mummucsao> oom. vow. omo. onmom vow. «om. mmv. xuficsfieou moccno oucsvm m mumsgm m m maafluaoz mmaomfiuc> uouoflooum «I... III.I .5050» won umoo MOO moHomflHm> uouoaooum Dawsoocmuufl ancoflumNHcmmuo COB mo Downsm m mo coflmmoumom mmHBQoumII.N.m manna 103 manageable purposes-goals-objectives, a skillful and com- mitted leader, and use a variety of means for funding had higher unit costs for service to each youth than organiza- tions with low rankings on these factors. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrange- ments which provided open communication with the communipy, an informed community based board, had residents and non— residents with a variety of professional backgrounds as volunteers, had community oriented and defined programs, had a neighborhood oriented staff, involved residents in the operational activities, and had inter-organizational relationships with other neighborhood organizations and associations had lower unitosts for service to each youth than organizations which ranked low on these variables. Cost per Day Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Cost per Day." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of programs, board, leader, and funding gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .58 with a F-ratio of 2.99. This was significant at a = .05(F = 2.80, df 4,23). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was rejected. 104 The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.3. As shown, the correlation between the criterion, Costpper day, and the selected subset of organizational variables is 0.585 with a goodness of fit of 0.342. Table 5.3.--Stepwise Regression of a Subset of Four Organi- zational Arrangement Predictor Variables for Cost per Day. Predictor . Variables Mult1ple R R Square R Square Change Funding .313 .098 .098 Leader .408 .166 .069 Board .504 .254 .088 Programs .585 .342 .088 Total R = .585 R Square = .342 p < .05 Within the selected subset the organizational vari- ables funding, leader, and board correlated positively; programs correlated negatively. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrangements which used a variety of means to Obtain funding, had a skillful and committed leader, and an informed community based board showed higher unit costs for each day of service than organi- zations with low rankings on these variables. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided for community oriented and defined programs 105 showed lower unit costs for each day of service provided than organizations ranking low on this variable. Cost_per Youth per Day Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Cost per Youth per day." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, political, funding, and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .77 with a F-ratio of 2.53. This was significant at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no signifi- cant relationship was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.4. As shown, the correlation between the criterion, Cost perpyouth per day, and the selected subset of organi- zational variables is 0.774 with a goodness of fit of 0.598. Within the selected predictor set the organizational variables activities, purposes-goals-objectives, leader, and funding correlated positively; volunteers, board, com- munity, programs, staff, and political correlated negatively. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organiza- tional arrangements which involved residents in Operational activities, provided well defined and manageable 106 mo. v a mom. I mumsam m «an. n m amuoe «oo. mom. who. amoauaaom awe. Imm. Hem. oneness mao. mom. vmh. Hmpmoa boo. mmm. mun. mmmum use. mam. can. meaumoum moo. aom. moo. mo>auooflQOImamomImomomnnm mmo. ame. New. anaeseaoo omo. mom. moo. oumom moo. mom. Nmm. moaua>auo< mma. mma. «mo. muomuc5a0> omcmcu mumsvm m mumsvm m mamauasz mwaomaum> Houoaomum .wmo mom nusow mom umoo How moanmanm> uouoaomum ucoEomcmuu¢ aOCOaumNacmmHO COB mo Downsm m mo coawmmummm mmazmmumll.v.m manna 107 pupposes-goals-objectives, had skillful and committed leaders, and used a variety of means for funding showed higher unit costs for each youth served each day service was provided than organizations with low ranking on these variables. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrangements which used residents and non- residents with a variety of professional backgrounds as volunteers, had an informed community based board, provided Open communication with the community, had community oriented and defined programs, had neighborhood oriented staff, and had political contacts with a variety of public officials and funding agencies showed lower unit costs to serve each youth each day service was provided than organizations which ranked low on these variables. Cost per Hour of Service Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Cost per Hour of Service." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls and activities gave a multiple correla- tion coefficient of .60 with a F-ratio of 0.69. This was not significant at a = .05(F = 2.48, df 12,15). The null 108 hypothesis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Cost per Hour of Service" cannot be predicted by any sub- set of the organizational variables. Percent of Grant for Salaries Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Percent of Grant for Salaries." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-Objectives, board, leader, staff, community, political, funding, and activities gave a multi- ple correlation coefficient of .72 with a F-ratio of 2.62. This was significant at a = .05(F = 2.48, df 8,19). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.5. As shown, the correlation between the criterion, Percent of grant for salaries, and the selected subset of organizational variables is 0.724 with a goodness of fit of 0.525. Within the selected predictor set the organizational variables purposes-goals-objectives, community, leader, activities and staff correlated positively; board, political, and funding correlated negatively. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided well defined and manageable 109 mo. v m mmm. u mumsvm m «Nu. u m amuoe 30. mmm. IR. 335E nao. mom. aan. mmmum omo. mmv. oon. moaua>auo¢ amo. one. moo. woomma 2:. men. 30. 3398500 ovo. ohm. nmm. amoauaaom who. mmm. one. Unmom ama. ama. mom. mo>auomnQOImamomImomomusm omcmcu mumsgm m mumsgm m m mamauasz meaomaum> Houoaooum .moaumamm MOM pcouo mo ucoouom HOm manmHHm> Houoaooum ucoEomcmuud accOaucnacmmuo unmam mo Domosm m mo COammoummm mma3moumII.m.m manna 110 purposes-goals-objectives, open communication with the community, skillful and committed leaders, involvement of residents in operational activities, and neighborhood ori- ented staff showed a higher proportion of grant funds used for salaries than organizations ranking low on these vari— ables. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided an informed com- munity based board, had political contacts with a variety of public officials and funding agencies, and used a variety of means for funding showed lower proportions of grant funds used for salaries than organizations ranking low on these variables. Percent of Service Cost for Salaries Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Percent of Service Cost for Salaries." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .78 with a F-ratio of 2.61. This was signifi- cant at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was rejected. 111 The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.6. As shown, the correlation between the criterion, Percent of service cost for salaries, and the selected sub- set of organizational variables is 0.778 with a goodness of fit of 0.606. Within the selected predictor set the organizational variables purposes-goals-objectives, controls, community, inter-organizational, volunteers, and activities correlated positively; leader, political, staff, and funding corre- lated negatively. Organizations ranking high on the pos- session of organizational arrangements which provided well defined and manageable purposes-goals-Objectives, Opera- tional controls through documentation, evaluation, and dis- semination of services and policies, had open communication with the community, had inter-organizational relationships with other neighborhood organizations and associations, used resident and nonresidents with a variety of professional backgrounds as volunteers, and involved residents in the operational activities of the organization showed a higher proportion of the cost for the summer program spent for salaries than organizations ranking low on these variables. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organiza- tional arrangements which provided skillful and committed leaders, political contacts with a variety of public offici- als and funding agencies, had neighborhood oriented staff, and used a variety of means for funding showed lower propor— tions of the costs for the service spent for salaries. 112 mo. v a mom. I mumsom m one. u m amuos So. moo. MEI. magnum woo. oom. mob. woaua>avo< aao. omm. moo. mummu25a0> omo. vum. mmh. aMCOaDONacmmHOIumuca amo. mmm. mvh. “woum moo. «mm. amp. snacsEEoo mmo. mow. moo. amoauaaom nmo. hmq. mmo. Hwomoa oaa. ohm. moo. waouucou oom. oom. oam. mo>auomnoOImamomImomomHsm omcmco mumsvm m ownsvm m m mamauasz moanmaum> Houoaomum .moaumamm umoo ooa>umm mo pcoouom MOM manmaHn> nouoaooum ucoEoocmun< aMGOaumNacmmuo COB mo pomosm m mo cOamwmumom mmaBQoumII.o.m manna 113 Percent of Manpower Paid by Funder Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, prOgrams, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Percent of Manpower Paid by Funder." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, board, leader, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, controls, and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .72 with a F-ratio of 2.51. This was significant at a = .05 (F = 2.48, df 8,19). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.7. As shown, the correlation between the criterion, Percent of manpgwer paid by funder, and the selected subset of organizational variables is 0.717 with a goodness of fit of 0.514. Within the selected predictor set the organizational variables activities, purposes-goals-objectives, leader, volunteers, and controls correlated positively; inter- organizational, board, and community correlated negatively. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organiza- tional arrangements which provided well defined and manageable purposes-goals-objectives, skillful and committed leaders, used residents and nonresidents from a variety of professional backgrounds as volunteers, and had operational 114 mo. v Q «am. u mumsvm m haw. H m amuOB moo. vam. nah. maonucoo vao. mom. aao. apaCDEEOU moo. moo. Non. wumoucnao> hmo. wow. wow. oumom mmo. mmv. one. Hoocma omo. mum. oao. aOCOaumNaGMOMOIHoucH omo. mom. oqm. mo>auooflQOImanomImomomusm mom. mom. omv. moaya>auo< omcmno mumsvm m mumsvm m m mamauasz mOanmaum> Houoaooum .uoocom xn name uozomcwz mo ucoonom now meaomaum> Houoaomum ucoEomcmuud accOaumnacmmuo unmam wo pomosm m mo GOamwoumom mma3moumII.h.m canoe 115 controls on services and policies through documentation and evaluation showed a higher proportion of the manpower used in provision of the summer service to be paid by the funding grant for the summer program. Organizations ranking high on organizational arrangements which provided inter- opganizational relationships with other neighborhood organi- zations and associations, an informed community based ppgpd, and open communication with the community showed lower pro- portions of the manpower paid by the funding grant for the summer program. Percent Manpower Paid by Other Sources Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-Objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Percent of Manpower Paid by Other Sources." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, leader, staff, volunteers, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities gave a multiple correlation coef- ficient of .80 with a F-ratio of 2.98. This was significant at a = .05(F = 2.45, df 10,17). The null hypothesis of no significant relationship was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.8. As shown the correlation between the criterion, Percent of manpower paid by other sources, and the selected 116 mo. v a omo. u mumsvm m wow. u m amuoe moo. omo. was. someone moo. one. man. memuooum vao. mmo. moo. ammum moo. mam. own. mOaua>auo¢ mmo. mow. awn. maouucou Nmo. mom. moo. unmouc9a0> Nmo. vmm. amh. amoauaaom moo. mmm. mmh. noomma mom. ems. oeo. anneaumuacaououumucH mma. mma. aov. mo>auownOOIwamomImomomunm omcmnu mumsvm m ouwsgm m m camauasz moanmaum> Houoaooum .moouoom Hocuo ho camm Hozomcmz mo ucoouom now moaomanm> uouoaomum DOOEomcmuud aOGOaumnacmmuo cos mo Downsm m mo coammmnomm oma3moumII.m.m manna 117 subset of the organizational variables is 0.798 with a goodness of fit of 0.636. Within the selected predictor set the organizational variables inter-organizational, political, controls and funding correlated positively; purposes-goals-objectives, leader, volunteers, activities, staff, and programs corre- lated negatively. Organizations with high rankings on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided inter-orggnizational relationships with other neighborhood organizations and associations, political contacts with a variety of public Officials and funding agencies, uSed operational controls through documentation, evaluation and dissemination of services and policies, and used a variety of means for funding showed a higher proportion of their manpower paid by other sources than organizations with low rankings on these variables. Organizations with high rank- ings on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided well defined and manageable purposes-goals- objectives, skillful and committed leaders, use of residents and nonresidents from a variety of professional backgrounds as volunteers, involve residents in operational activities, have neighborhood oriented staff, and community oriented and defined programs showed a lower proportion of their manpower paid by other sources than organizations with low ranking on these variables. 118 Percent of Manpower Voluntary Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Percent of Manpower Voluntary." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including a subset of the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, staff, community, inter-organizational, political, controls, and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .76 with a F—ratio of 2.72. This was significant at.a = .05(F = 2.46, df 9,18). The null hypothesis of no signifi- cant relationship was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.9. As shown the correlation between the criterion, Percent of manpower voluntary, and the selected subset of organizational variables is 0.759 with a goodness of fit of 0.576. Within the selected predictor set the organizational variables purposes-goals-objectives, activities, programs, staff, board, and community correlated positively; inter- organizational, controls, and political correlated nega— tively. Organizations ranking high on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided well defined and manageable purposes:goals-objectives, involvement of residents in operational activities, community defined and oriented programs, neighborhood oriented staff, an informed 119 mo. v o ohm. u mumsom m ome. n m Hence oao. oom. owe. suacaeeoo aao. aom. mvh. ouoom mao. mom. awn. «Noam Hmo. «mm. amp. meromonm moo. mom. mom. moaua>auo< moo. ooo. who. aooauaaom who. mmm. amo. maouucoo aoa. vmm. moo. amc0aumwacmmu0IHoucH moa. mma. mmv. mo>auoonQOImamomImomomnsm omcmnu mumsgm m mumsgm m m mamauaoz mmaomaum> Houoaooum .mumucoao> nozomcmz mo ucoonom MOM moaomauo> Houoaooum ucosomcmuum aoCOaumnacmmuo czaz mo pomoom m mo COammoumom oma3mmumII.m.m canoe 120 community based ppggg, and open communication with the community showed a higher proportion of voluntary manpower than organizations ranking low on these variables. Organi- zations with high ranking on the possession of organizational arrangements which provided inter-organizational relation- ships with other neighborhood organizations and associ- ations, use of operational controls by documenting, evalu- ating, and disseminating information on services and policies, and had political contacts with a variety of public officials and funding agencies showed a lower proportion of voluntary manpower than organizations ranking high on these variables. Ratio Youth to Worker Null Hypothesis: The twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals—Objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities nor any subset of these variables will not be significantly related to the dependent variable "Ratio of Youth to Worker." A stepwise regression analysis was conducted. The multiple regression equation including the organizational variables of purposes-goals-objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, political, fund- ing, controls, and activities gave a multiple correlation coefficient of .70 with a F-ratio of 1.23. This was not significant at a = .05(F = 2.48, df 12,15). The null hypoth- esis of no significant relationship was not rejected. "Ratio of Youth to Worker" cannot be predicted by any set of the organizational variables. 121 Research Question 2 The second research question focused on the dis- tinguishing characteristics of effective neighborhood organi- zations. The performance measures Rating of success by external agent, Costpper youth, and Percent of manpowergpaid py other sources were used to determine a rank of effective- ness for organizations. These three measures were used for determining effectiveness because within the six sectors of performance under study these three measures were best explained by the organizational variables. Also, Rating by external agent was considered an unbiased estimate Of suc- cess since it was provided by an outside observer, the higher the rating of success the more effective; Cost per yppph was considered an objective measure and provided a measure of judicious use of resources in efforts to serve neighborhood youth, the lower the cost per youth the more youth could be served the more effective in reaching the target population; Percent of manpower paid by other sources was an objective measure and provided an indication of organizations success in acquiring multiple resources, the higher the percent of manpower paid by other sources the more effective. Effective neighborhood organizations were con- sidered as those organizations with the total highest ranked values resulting from the sum of their ranked position on the above mentioned performance measures. Based upon their rank from high to low the twenty-eight organizations were 122 divided into two groups, high in effectiveness and low in effectiveness. A stepwise discriminate analysis procedure was used because it looked for the set of variables accounting for the most differences between the two groups. The F sta- tistic based on a one-way analysis of variance test was used to choose variables which significantly contributed to the discrimination between the two groups with appropriate degrees of freedom. To test the null hypothesis, the means for the twelve variables were computed for both groups; low performers and high performers. The test determined if the means were all the same or significantly different. Null Hypothesis: There will be no differences in the twelve organizational variables: purposes-goals- objectives, programs, board, leader, staff, community, inter-organizational, political, funding, controls, and activities among the two levels of performance. A stepwise discriminate analysis was conducted. The vari- ables political, controls, and inter-organizational as a subset gave an F-value of 4.40. This was significant at a = .025(F = 3.72, df 3,24). The null hypothesis of no dif- ference in any of the organizational variables among the two levels of performance was rejected. The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 5.10. The results of the analysis show that the three variables, political, controls, and inter-organizational as a subset of the twelve variables significantly contribute to the discrimination between the two levels of performance as well as using all twelve of 123 mo.H oo.a Im.m oI.I HmeoHumNaemouOIumuca u ox om.e oo.o mm.m oo.o maouncou u aax em.a oo.a om.a oH.o Hmoauaaoo u ox WHGEHONHQQ mIHmEIHOMIHmwnH 30a swam Eooooum Houcm mo mmoumoo ou m mannano> coo: Imamwamc< muocafiauomao oma3moum mo humEESmII.oa.m canoe 124 the variables for discrimination. On each of the three vari- ables the means of the high performing group were higher than the means of the low performing group. Organizations with high rankings on the possession of organizational arrangements which show political contacts with a variety of public officials and funding agencies, controls on services and policies through documentation, evaluation and dissemination of such information, and have inter- organizational relationships with other neighborhood organi- zations and associations will be more effective than organi- zations with low rating on these variables. Summary In this chapter the results of the study were pre- sented and analyzed to test hypotheses related to the research questions. Multivariate statistical procedures were used to test the statistical hypotheses. Multiple regression was used to test nineteen sta- tistical hypotheses. Significance was determined by using the F ratio at .05 with appropriate degrees of freedom. Six sectors of post-performance representing nineteen measures were tested for correlation with twelve pre— performance measurements. Discriminate analysis was used to test for differ- ences in the twelve pre-performance variables on a combined ranking of selected post-performance measures which divided the organizations into high and low in effectiveness. 125 Summary of the Relationship Between the Organizational Arrangements and Perform- ance Measures Perceived Success of Service.--A subset of the orga- nizational variables was found to correlate significantly with one of the two performance measures pertaining to pro- gram perceived success. Rating of success by external aggnt was found to significantly correlate positively with pro- grams, board, staff, community, and activities; and nega- tively with purposes-goals-objectives and inter- organizational. The multiple correlation between these variables as predictors and Rating of success by external agent as the criterion was R = .70. No set of the pre- dictor variables was found to correlate significantly with the performance measure Rating of success by internal agent. However, a simple correlation was found between rating of success by internal agent and leader, r = .34. Quantity of Service Provided.-—No significant corre- lations were found between any set of the organizational variables and the two performance measures pertaining to program service. A significant simple correlation was found between ppogram hours and purposes-goals-objectives, r = -.36. Quantity of Service Received.—-No significant corre- lations were found between any set of the organizational variables and the five performance measures pertaining to 126 to quantity of service received by youth. A significant simple correlation was found between number served and board, r = .34. Cost of Service.--Subsets of the organizational variables were found to significantly correlate with five of the performance measures pertaining to service cost. Cost per youth was found to significantly correlate posi- tively with purposes-goals-objectives, leader, and funding; and negatively with programs, board, staff, volunteers, community, inter-organizational and activities. The multi- ple correlation between these variables as predictors and cost per youth as the criterion was R = .79. Cost per day was found to significantly correlate positively with board, leader, and funding; and negatively with programs. The multiple correlation between these variables as predictors and cost per day as the criterion was R = .58. Cost per youth per dgy was found to significantly correlate posi- tively with purposes-goals-objectives, leader, funding, and activities; and negatively with programs, board, staff, volunteers, community and political. The multiple correla- tion between these variables as predictors and cost per youth per day as the criterion was R = .77. Percent of grant for salaries was found to significantly correlate posi- tively with purposes-goals-objectives, leader, staff, com- munity, and activities; and negatively with board, political, and funding. The multiple correlation between these 127 variables as predictors and percent of grant for salaries as the criterion was R = .72. Percent of total service cost for salaries was found to significantly correlate posi- tively with purposes-goals-objectives, volunteers, community, inter-organizational, controls, and activities; and nega- tively with leader, staff, political, and funding. The multiple correlation between these variables as predictors and percent of total service cost for salaries as the cri- terion was R = .78. No significant set of the variables was found to correlate with the cost per hour of service measure. A significant simple correlation was found between cost per hour of service and community, r = .34. Supporters of Service.--Subsets of the organiza- tional variables were found to significantly correlate with all three of the performance measures pertaining to resource utilization. Percent manpower paid by funder was found to significantly correlate positively with purposes-goals- objectives, leader, volunteers, controls, and activities; and negatively with board, community, and inter- organizational. The multiple correlation between these variables as predictors and percent manpower paid by funder as the criterion was R = .72. Percent of mappower paid by other sources was found to significantly correlate positively with inter-organizational, political, funding, and controls; and negatively with purposes-goals-objectives, programs, 128 leader, staff, volunteers, and activities. The multiple correlation between these variables as predictors and per- cent of manpower paid by other sources as the criterion was R = .80. Percent of manpower voluntary was found to significantly correlate positively with purposes-goals- objectives, programs, board, staff, community, and activ— ities; and negatively with inter-organizational, political, and controls. The multiple correlation between these vari— ables as predictors and percent of manpower voluntary as the criteria was R = .76. Supervision of Service.--No significant correla- tions were found between any set of the organizational variables and the one performance measure pertaining to guidance youth received in the provision of the service. Summary of the Distinguishing Characteristics of Effective Organizations Discriminate analysis was used to test the statis- tical hypothesis of differences. Significance was deter- mined by using the F statistic for one-way analysis of vari- ance at .05 with appropriate degrees of freedom. Perform- ance described by high and low ranking on a combined measure for performance effectiveness was found to be best distin- guished by the organizational variables political, controls, and inter-organizational. On each of these three vari- ables the mean of the high in effectiveness group was higher than the means of the low in effectiveness group. This 129 subset of organizational factors was found to significantly discriminate between the two groups at a .025 level of con- fidence. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter a summary is given of the research project. Following the summary, the findings are discussed and some conclusions are stated. Based on the findings and conclusions suggestions are made about implications for practice in social welfare, adult education, and for further research. Summary of Project and Procedures Combining the goal model and the system model for investigating the determinants of organizational effective- ness this study was conducted to determine what organiza- tional means are predictive of effective performance of neighborhood organizations. Effective neighborhood organi- zations are the local citizen-based organizations which achieve their goals without undue strain on resources. It is important to better understand what distinguishes or identifies effective neighborhood organizations as social policy strives to involve local organizations in more participation in the delivery of services. It will be helpful to know what characteristics are most consistent with effective performance in service delivery. 130 131 A review of the literature revealed that organiza— tional effectiveness can be studied by the goal approach, system-resource approach, and an application of the two approaches through evaluation methods. There is consistent agreement in more recent literature that organizational effectiveness is multi-dimensional and as such no single approach to understanding effectiveness is all inclusive (Etzioni, 1960; Levinson, 1966; Zald, 1966). Since this study focused on providing comprehensive guidelines for assessing a neighborhood organization's potentials for the successful delivery of a service to the neighborhood it was considered important to use a compre- hensive approach drawn from the goal approach, system resource approach and applied evaluation methods. Studies were reviewed which looked at organizational effectiveness by examining organizational goals. It was found that the more explicit an organization's goals the more effective the organization performs, for explicit goals provide clearer roles and consequent behavior for persons in the social system (Perrow, 1961; Stein, 1962; Zald, 1963). Studies were reviewed which looked at organizational effectiveness from the system resource approach. It was shown that effective organizations adapt to their environ- ment and do not deplete or strain resources (Seashore and Yuchtman, 1965; Katz and Kahn, 1966). 132 Studies were reviewed which looked at organizational effectiveness in social welfare by evaluation methods. The studies showed that a combination of the goal approach and system resource approach should be used in identifying and measuring clusters of variables to evaluate various program components of an organization (Zald, 1966; Rothman, 1974; Patillo, 1975). Using a comprehensive approach to organizational analysis for effectiveness this study was conducted in two phases. The first phase developed a set of organizational arrangements describing administrative practices for effec- tive neighborhood organizations. Organizational arrange- ments for goal attainment, resource utilization, and daily operations were identified and agreed upon by a panel of experts as antecedent to the successful performance of a neighborhood organization. The second phase of the study examined whether the organizational arrangements agreed upon by experts were, in fact, interdependent with subsequent performance. In the first phase of the study a version of the Delphi technique was used to develop the organizational arrangements. A panel of nineteen persons with expertise in the development and growth of neighborhood organizations participated in the Delphi procedure. Two Delphi surveys were used. Each survey included statements for rating. The data were analyzed by use of the mean for level of importance and the variance for consensus. The results 133 of the first phase of the study provided fifty organiza- tional arrangements considered by experts as necessary for the successful delivery of a service by neighborhood orga- nizations. Forty-nine of these arrangements were used as criteria in the second phase of the study. The one not used was considered an output measure rather than an input measure and was not useful for our purposes here. Phase two of the study inquired into the relation- ship between the organizational arrangements selected by experts as necessary for the successful delivery of a ser- vice and the actual performance of an organization in the delivery of a service. To this end, the study selected a group of neighborhood organizations providing a summer service to youth and evaluated the organizations' perform- ance in the provision of the service to the community. The provision of the summer service was a goal for each of the organizations. How well the organizations adapted to the environment in use of resources in providing the service contributed indicators of performance which could be measured. To collect the first set of data for the second phase of the study a total sample of thirty organizations meeting prescribed criteria was chosen. Twenty-eight organizations participated. Selecting organizations pro- viding a similar service was deemed desirable because of the need to be able to utilize uniform measures of per- formance. 134 A research instrument was designed representative of the organizational arrangements selected from expert consensus to have importance for a neighborhood organiza- tion's success in the provision of a service. Using the research instrument, interviews were held with the head or designated representative of the sample of organizations funded for provision of a summer service to youth. The interviews asked for responses to questions designed to determine if the organization possessed the organizational arrangements under examination. Using the results of the interviews the criteria selected from expert consensus were applied to the organizations. Each organization received values for each of the forty-nine organizational arrange- ments examined representing the extent to which the criteria were observed in the organization's practices. The values on the forty-nine organizational arrange- ments were classified into twelve clusters for analysisI The twelve clusters in turn were classified under the major categories of goal achievement, resources, and Operations. Goal achievement was represented by subarea measurements on practices for purposes-goals-objectives and programs. Resources was represented by subarea measurements on prac- tices for board, leader, staff, volunteers, community, inter- organizational, political, and funding. Operations was represented by subarea measurements on practices for con- trols and activities. 136 Supervision of Service, was represented by one measure: ratio of youth to worker. These two sets of data served as the independent and dependent variables. Organizational arrangements served as the independent variqbles and were measured by rating the organization on the items selected from expert consensus. Performance served as the dependent variables and were measured by values on service statistics. These data were analyzed by multivariate statistical procedures. A series of hypotheses were tested to answer the research questions. Hypothesis Testing The first question focused on the correlation between the experts' selected organizational arrangements as predictors of effective performance and actual perform- ance results. Organizational arrangements were analyzed as twelve clusters known before performance and could be known before funding, with each of nineteen post perform- ance measures to see if they were associated with one another. Multiple regression was used to test the nineteen statistical hypotheses. Significance was determined by using the F ratio at .05 with appropriate degrees of free- dom. Testing the hypotheses enabled answering the first research question: Can the organizational arrangements selected by experts predict performance? 137 The results of the multiple regression analyses revealed the following: 1. The clusters or organizational arrangements are significantly associated with measures of perform- ance in the sectors of Perceived success of service, Cost of service, and Supporters of service. The clusters of organizational arrangements are not significantly associated with measures of perform- ance in the sectors of Quantity of service pro- vided, Quantity of service received, and Supervision of service. Some subsets of the clusters of organizational arrangements are significantly associated with some of the performance measures, but not all twelve clusters of the organizational arrangements are significantly associated with any one of the per- formance measures. The clusters of organizational arrangements found most useful in predicting the performance measures are purposes-goals-objectives and activities. Both of these clusters were found to be included in the multiple regression equations for eight of the nine performance measures showing significant associ- ations. The cluster found least useful was controls. It contributed to predicting only four of the nine performance measures showing significant associ- ations. Where subsets of the clusters of organizational arrangements were significantly correlated with measures of performance, it was found that the subsets included clusters of arrangements repre- sentative of goal achievement, resources, and operations with the exception of the measure Cost per day. Cost per day showed significance only with clusters of organizational arrangements represent- ing goal achievement and resources. The performance measures best associated with the organizational arrangements relate to costs. Four of the nine performance measures were found to be significantly associated with ten of the twelve clusters of organizational arrangements. The four performance measures are Cost per youth, Cost per youth per day, Percent of service cost for salaries, and Percent of manpower paid by others. 138 The second question focused on organizational arrangements which could distinguish the performance of neighborhood organizations. Discriminate analysis was used to look for differences in the organizational variables between high and low performing neighborhood organizations. Significance was determined by using the F test for one way analysis of variance at .05 with appropriate degrees of freedom. Testing the hypothesis enabled answering the second research question. Can the organizational arrange- ments distinguish overall performance? The results of the analysis revealed the following: 1. Of the twelve clusters of organizational arrange- ments, the clusters inter—organizational, political, and controls were found to significantly distin- guish between high and low overall performance. Discussion of Findings In Chapter IV of this study fifty organizational arrangements selected from expert consensus through a version of the Delphi procedure were presented. These fifty organizational arrangements received consensual agreement from experts that they were descriptive of the effective neighborhood organization. In Chapter V findings were pre- sented which related clusters of the organizational arrange- ments to a number of statistical hypotheses to test their actual validity in explaining the successful delivery of a service to the community. This section presents a discus- sion and interpretation of those findings. 139 The statistical analyses tested certain key admin- istrative practices as organizational arrangements identified by experts that could be known before performance against a predetermined number of possible post performance result measures. Then, the administrative practices identified by the experts were tested for their power to distinguish between a combined index of high and low effectiveness among neighborhood organizations. Administrative Practices as Relevant Measures for Deter- mining Organizational Results in Service Delivery The results of this study revealed that administra- tive practices agreed upon by experts have a relationship to the performance of an organization in the delivery of a service as defined and measured in this study, and the study identified performance measures that can be explained by the administrative practices. By administrative practices we mean the consistent methods used by neighborhood organiza- tions in the operation of the organization and its programs, i.e., the manpower of the organization includes community residents; program determination is made by residents; the organization maintains external relationships with other organizations. Significant relationships were found between nine of the ten measures in the performance sectors of Per- ceived success of service, Cost of service, and Supporters of service. No significant relationships were found between the experts recommended practices as a set and any of the 140 measures in the performance sectors of Quantity of service provided, Quantity of service received, and Supervision of service. A discussion of the ways of looking at performance and the administrative practices associated with perform- ance follows. Perceived success of service.--This performance sector contained two indicators which were to provide an indication of success as perceived by a subjective observer, the organization's program director, and an objective observer, the funding agent's program monitor. Those organizations where the directors rated the organiza- tions' services as successful were considered to have a high service rating for this indicator. Those organiza- tions where the monitors rated the organizations' services as successful were also considered to have a high service rating for this indicator. The measure rating by director showed no significant correlation with the administrative practices. The measure rating by monitor showed a signifi- cant correlation with administrative practices for purposes- goals-objectives and programs in goal achievement; adminis- trative practices in use of resources for board and staff, community relationships and relationships with other organizations; and administrative practices in activities for daily operations. This measure was found to be sig- nificantly dependent upon visible overt practices which 141 involve neighborhood people as board and staff members, participation in organizational activities and program definition, and less dependent upon covert administrative practices which provide for organizational relationships with other neighborhood organizations and written state- ments on clarity of the organization's purposes. This indicates that highly visibleppractices which project com- munity involvement in the organization will tend to lead outsiders to judge programs as successful. Administrative practices which are not readily observed are less important in perceptions of success by outside Observers. Qpantity of service provided.--Program days and program hours provided by the organization were used as the measure of service Offered and was considered to be indi- cative of the amount of service available to the community. Neither of the measures program days nor program hours showed a significant correlation with the administrative practices as a set. It was expected that administrative practices for use of resources and daily operations would be associated with performance in this sector. This was based on the idea that program service is influenced by the organization's resources and Operations. High scores on the resources and Operations variables would lead organizations to provide more service to the community. Yet, this was not found. It would still seem logical that thquuantity of service provided by an organization would be largely 142 influenced py an organization's resources and operations, but the elements of program days and hours as used in this study are inadequate measures of performance to be explained by the administrative practices examined in this study. The similarities of the programs provided, and the summer time constraint did not provide for much variation among programs on these two measures--they were short-run pro- grams. anntity of service received.--This sector was comprised of five measures showing an indication of the amount of service received by participants. High values on the measures were relative to a high service perform- ance for the organization. None of the performance measures in this sector showed a significant relationship with the administrative practices as a set. This was not expected. It was expected that the extent to which organizations showed a high amount of service received by youth would be associated with high ratings on organizational arrangements for goal achievement and use of resources. This was thought to be because, the performance measures counted the extent to which youth participated in the program. Specifically, the measure--percent utilization of program--measured the amount of youth participation achieved from the amount expected. Also, it seemed reasonable to assume that resource organizational arrangements which called for com- munity participation in the structure Of the organization 143 would be associated with the quantity of service received since the more involvement of the community in the planning and delivery of the service the more widespread would be the awareness of the program and the relevance for youth participation. While this study did not show a relation- ship between organizational arrangements and utilization of the organization's programs, it may be that the extent to which an organization's program is used by the community is, in fact, dependent upon appropriate internal arrange- ments for planning and communitypparticipation in that planning but not as defined and measured in this study. Cost of service.--The measures in this sector of performance were indicators of the organization's use of available resources. Lower unit costs indicated a greater potential for providing more service to the community with- out overtaxing its resources. The measures cost per youth, cost per day, cost per youth per day, percent of grant for salaries, and percent of total service cost for salaries showed significant correlations with sets of the adminis- trative practices. The measure cost per youth best describe the relationship between service costs and administrative practices. Low costs can be expected where community resources for manpower are used for board members, staff, volunteers, for program definition, and organizational relationships are established with peOple and other organi- zations in the community. High costs can be expected where 144 explicit and well-defined purposes are important, often pgid leaders are employed, and where funds are available from multiple sources. The significant correlations in this sector of per- formance are consistent with the literature when funds avail- able to the organization are considered as resources. An organization must adapt its resources to the environment for effective performance. Resources are used to define goals and operations, and modified as required for short terms. Seashore and Yuchtman (1967) showed that maintenance and production cost aspects of performance have to be adapted to organizational life in response to environmental demands and opportunities. Supporters of service.--This performance sector con- tained three indices which looked at the sources of support for the manpower involved in service delivery. A high man- power percent among sources of support indicated a high potential for success. This was an indication of the extent to which organizations and people were willing to support the provision of the program in the community. Each of the measures showed a significant correlation with administra- tive practices. The measure percent of manpower paid by other sources best describe the relationship between sup- porters of service and the administrative practices. Organizations with high prOportions of their manpower paid by other sources tend to show ability to gain multiple 145 sources for funds have strong external relationships with other organizations and political representatives and are strong in the documentation of their services. Internal practices for community orientation appear to be of lesser importance to the process of obtaining funds. Supervision of service.--This sector contained one indicator, ratio of youth to worker. A low youth to worker ratio was indicative of a high potential for success. This measure showed no significant relationship with the administrative practices. While no significant relation- ship was found, ratio of youth to worker may be a valid indicator of performance, but the administrative practices identified in this study are not suited for explaining such performance. It may be that this measure is more appropri- ate for explaining outcomes in a qualitative manner. Discriminating Value of Administrative Practices Administrative practices for inter—organizational and political relationships in use of resources and prac— tices for controls in daily Operations were found to dis- tinguish high performing from low performing neighborhood organizations. The first areas--inter-organizational and political relationships--are characteristic of the manage- ment of the organization's resources. Those organizations which are more "outwardly oriented" are more likely to be successful in the delivery of a service to its community. 146 Outwardly oriented activity consisted of an organization having relationships with community councils and associa- tions, other neighborhood organizations, and contacts with municipal agencies, i.e., mayor's office, city hall, police precincts, and agencies handling funds and information on sources of funds. The second area--controls--consists of characteristics of the management of the organization's operations. Where organizations use more controls in docu- menting their operations, i.e., services, financial data, policies, the more successfully the organization performs. This is also linked with the organization's open vote by members on policies, dissemination of organizational reports and organizational evaluations. This suggests that overall the distinctive elements of success among neighbor- hood organizations are external relationships with relevant organizations and documentation and dissemination of the organization's policies and services. While the other administrative practices were not found to be significantly correlated with measures of success in short-run programs such as these, they obviously cannot gO unattended in the long-run for they too are necessary as judged by experts and each may add a small degree to the probability of success I Conclusions As was indicated in the Review of the Literature, Chapter II, there is evidence to support the convergence 147 of the goal model and the system resource model to deter- mining organizational effectiveness rather than the use of one model alone. This study concurs with converging con- cepts from both models. In fact, all of the performance indices which were found to correlate significantly with sets of the administrative practices showed a relationship to one or more of the practices for goal achievement, use of resources, and daily operations, with the exception of cost per day in the performance sector cost of service. This measure only showed significance with administrative practices for goal achievement and use of resources. Yet, this is still consistent with the multi-dimensional aspect to understanding organizational effectiveness, in that no single approach can be used to explain effectiveness, but rather, a comprehensive analysis of various aspects Of the organization must be taken into account. Therefore, it makes more sense to look at both models for a fuller under- standing of organizational effectiveness among neighborhood organizations. Based upon the findings of the study and the answers to the research questions the following conclusions can be drawn. 1. Characteristics of effective neighborhood organi- zations can be identified and measured. 2. A neighborhood organization's performance is related to its administrative practices. 3. Administrative practices defined in this study can explain and can distinguish high and low effective- ness among neighborhood organizations. 148 Based upon the above conclusions some implications can be suggested for both practice in the fields of social welfare and adult education and further research. Implications for practice.--As was stated in Chapter I, the major purposes for considering the charac- teristics of effective neighborhood organizations were: (1) To provide information on organizational effectiveness among small scale citizen-based organizations. (2) To provide information that will identify the effective neighborhood organization prior to performance and that can be used for rational decision-making to assist in the allo- cation of scarce resources. Knowing that an association between a neighborhood organization's administrative practices and performance exist should lead those who allocate funds for social wel- fare to select neighborhood organizations for funding not merely on subjective opinions, protest strategies, community participation and the like but in conjunction with objec- tive administrative practices used in the Operations of the organization. More importantly, funding agencies should be as clear as possible of what they want to look at in terms of effectiveness. As shown in this study, depending upon what you define as effectiveness you look at differing sets of administrative practices. Where it is important that a program is perceived as successful, funders should look for 149 organizations which have neighborhood members on their board, have neighborhood members as staff, involve neighbor- hood members in the planning, development, and implementa- tion of organizational activities. Where it is important to minimize cost and maximize service delivery, funders should look for organizations that use community resources for their manpower, i.e., board members, staff and volun- teers, and have working relationships with other organiza- tions in the neighborhood. Where it is important that organizations are able to obtain additional funding, funders should look for organizations which have external relation- ships with other neighborhood organizations, municipal agencies, political representatives, and exercise control of their organization through documentation of their policies and services. Where it is important that all three of the above performances are achieved to some degree funders should look for organizations with external relationships, and that document, disseminate, and evaluate their policies and services. Likewise adult educators should encourage and facilitate the development of neighborhood organizations along lines which will promote their use of the adminis- trative practices identified. Implications for further research.--The results of this study revealed that no significant relationship existed between the complete set of experts assessment of essential 150 characteristics and performance as defined and measured in this study. However, subsets of the characteristics did show significant relationships with some performance mea- sures, and discriminating ability among high and low per- formance. These findings have the following implications for further research. All of the characteristics may indeed be representative of effective neighborhood organizations but have little relationship to some of the performance indi- cators as defined and measured in this study. Future research should seek other indices of performance for test- ing actual validity of the experts organizational arrange- ments as indicators of effectiveness. Before the organizational arrangements are tested against other performance measures it may be necessary to increase the objectivity in applying the criteria to the organizations. This may be accomplished by use of a panel for judgment. This procedure may provide for greater degrees of variations among organizations in their adminis- trative arrangements. The study that was done here deserves replication-- replication--with a larger sample size of organizations carrying on short-run programs such as these and of organi- zations conducting longer-run programs similar enough to each other with regard to services provided so as to make possible objective comparison of performance in relation to the organizational arrangements deemed by experts to be essential. 151 Attention should be called to the possibility that the limited dispersion of the performance data may have accounted for the failure to show significant relationships between some of the clusters of organizational arrangements deemed important to organizational success by experts and performance measures, arising in part from the necessary limitation on the programs under study and in part from the small sample size. Moreover, the techniques used may not have been sensitive enough to provide a wider spread of data within the sample used for study. Any replication should, therefore, involve a larger sample and an increased refine- ment of the performance measures rather than an outright elimination of the measures based on the results of this study. A review of the significant correlations on pagesSHl—9l which show the single clusters of organizational arrange- ments which are the best predictors of performance measures provide for a series of hypotheses to be presented as a basis for further research. 1. Personnel of an organization perceive the organization's programs as successful when the leader of the organization is knowledgeable and committed to the organi- zation and the neighborhood which it serves. 2. Personnel of agencies which fund neighborhood organizations perceive an organization's programs as success- ful when the staff of the neighborhood organization is community oriented. 152 3. Organizations which focus on being available long hours for service to the neighborhood focus less on using organizational resources for goal clarification. 4. Organizations with boards that are capable and representative of the neighborhood will attract more mem- bers of the neighborhood to participate in the organiza- tion's services. 5. Organizations which include representation from the neighborhood in their operations, have good relation— ships with the neighborhood, and utilize volunteers will attract more members of the neighborhood to participate in the organization's services which results in lower unit costs of services. 6. Organizations having a single source of funding have clear and specific purposes. 7. Organizations having multiple sources of fund- ing have broad and unspecified purposes. 8. Organizations which obtain multiple funding sources deploy their resources toward outwardly activities, i.e., building relationships with political representatives and other organizations and use few resources for inwardly focusing on goal clarification. 9. Organizations dependent on multiple funding sources lose self-directness, while organizations with single funding sources tend to be self-directed and clear about their goals. 153 10. Volunteers serve in organizations which are clear and explicit about their goals and have few political contacts. 11. Organizations increase their operational con— trols by letting volunteers assist in the recording and documentation Of the services provided. Though there are many aspects of organizational effectiveness that could not be captured in the current research instruments and methodology, still the procedures did show differences in administrative practices and per- formance among neighborhood organizations. More trial and refinement of instruments and procedures should make it possible to identify even more consistent and explicit dif- ferences in characteristics and performance. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DELPHI INSTRUMENTS APPENDIX A DELPHI INSTRUMENTS June 2, 1977 Dear United Community Services is presently engaged in research efforts to develop guidelines for assessing the potentials of neighbor- hood organizations for providing services. The aim of the research project is to develop a base of information which would serve as likely indicators of success for neighborhood organizations. If satisfactory guidelines can be determined, the information will be helpful to UCS in long-range planning. You have been recommended as a person with knowledge and expertise in the area of organizational effectiveness and/or neighbor- hood organizations. We are asking you to participate in a version of the Delphi Approach to assist us in this policy analysis. Our study is to be confined to those organizations which are legally constituted, autonomous, self-initiated groups or those initi— ated by a sponsoring organization, serving a neighborhood (beyond a single block) and engaging in several program areas. We do not wish to include in the study single-purpose block clubs, important as they may be to their neighborhoods. The groups to be looked at are more commonly defined as volun- tary associations or local neighborhood groups which are task oriented, who operate in the neighborhood, at grass-roots level, and whose prime Objective is to improve the general welfare of the neighborhood. While these organizations are not very formalized in operations, they: (1) are state incorporated, with constitutions and by-laws, (2) possess a 501(c)3 Federal Tax-exempt status of a non-profit Operation, and (3) operate in the field of social welfare or human services. 154 155 June 2, 1977 Page 2 We will be submitting to you a series of two questionnaires to determine through consensus, those elements judged to be crucial for the success of these organizations. We look forward to your participation in assisting us in this endeavor. Thanking you in advance, Forestina Warren Research Associate S. Sidney Newhouse Associate Executive - Research 156 INSTRUCTIONS The Delphi Approach is cumulative. The first round is largely exploratory and designed to open up new areas of thought. In the second round the areas of interest will be narrowed. On both rounds the reason- ing of participants will be fed back to all respondents for their appraisal and information. You may respond to any particular question, sub-question or alternatives presented in the following manner: You may choose not to answer a question if you feel your judgement would be risky, or if you do not feel sufficiently knowledgeable. You may choose to rewrite a particular question and answer your version if you feel the original is misleading. You may suggest questions you would like to see in the next questionnaire if you feel they would clarify an issue or raise a new alternative that the group should consider. You may express short arguments or comments on any judgement about which you feel confident. When a consensus is obtained on an item it will be dropped from further exploration on the second questionnaire. If a polarization of views occurs, we will attempt to develop questions to highlight and hopefully resolve different perspectives and viewpoints. Specific Instructions: 1. You have been provided two copies of the Delphi questionnaire. Return only one; the other you may keep for reference in respond- ing to the second questionnaire. 2. Please return your response within three to five days after the questionnaire reaches you so that tabulations may begin for con- struction of the second questionnaire. 3. Enclosed is a stamped and addressed envelope for your return. 4. The second round questionnaire and a summary from the first ques- tionnaire will be provided within a week after all responses from the first questionnaire have been received. 5. Do not hesitate to call the UCS Research Department if you have any questions on the instructions or the questionnaire. We may be reached on the following numbers: Forestina Warren (313) 833-0622, Ext. 48, and S. Sidney Newhouse, Ext. 49. 157 QUESTIONNAIRE Organizational Characteristics The attached questionnaire refers to information about the goals, resources and operations of an organization. Many of the items may or may not be crucial elements for the success of neighborhood organiza- tions. We are asking you to respond to each item with an expression of your judgement as to the applicability of each item in assessing the potentials of neighborhood organizations. WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN ARE THOSE FEATURES OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT ARE LIKELY TO GUARANTEE ITS SUCCESS. Following is an explanation of the rating scale for judging each item: Importance (For organization's success) Very Important A most relevant point First order priority Has direct bearing on major issues Is relevant to the issue Second order priority Significant impact but not until other items are treated Ought to be kept in mind Important Less relevant Third order priority Has little importance Not a determining factor to major issue Slightly Important No relevance No priority No measurable effect Should be dropped as an item to consider Unimportant Return to: Forestina Warren Research Department United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit 51 W. Warren Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48201 158 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Goal Achievement Purposes, goals, objectives: l. Well-defined statements of purposes and objectives. 2. Evidence that purposes and Objectives are congruent with community needs. 3. Organizational Objectives stated in quantifiable terms. 4. Evidence of a periodic review of organization's objectives with adjustments and modifications as required. 5. Evidence of long-range plans. 6. Identification of the orga- nization with a specific geographic area. 7. Other (please specify) Programs: 1. Objectives manifested in the programs of the organization. 2. Programs determined by residents. 3. Programs determined by a broad constituency. 4. Short-range projects. Very Important Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks 159 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Programs (continued): 5. Programs which provide immediate assistance to residents. 6. Programs with high quantity outputs. 7. Programs which are cost efficient. 8. Programs with quality outputs. 9. Other (please specify) Resources Manpower: Board members or steering group: 1. Elected to office by the membership. Appointed to office by a board. Selected from the "broader" community. Include representation of persons from the membership of the organization. (The members would include those persons who pay dues or clients.) Include representation of Very Important persons from the neighborhood.(__) Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks 160 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Manpower (continued): Board members or steering group: 6. Include representation of persons from the business and corporate community. 7. Include representation of persons with knowledge of the programs provided by the organization. Leader (president, chairperson, etc.): 8. Trained in the area of the organization's program. 9. Educational and experience background adequate to carry out the programs of the organization. 10. Practical knowledge of the neighborhood in which the organization operates. 11. Knowledge of the organiza- tion's impact in the neighborhood. Staff and Volunteers: 12. Representative of persons served by the organization. 13. Trained in the area of the organization's program. 14. Educational and experience background adequate to carry out the programs of the organization. Very Important Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks A. 161 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Manpower (continued): 15. 16. 17. 18. Staff and Volunteers: Volunteers from neighborhood. Volunteers from the "broader" community. Professional volunteers from a variety of backgrounds (accountants, lawyers, edu- cators, social workers, etc.). Other (please specify) Organizational Relationships: Community: Meetings open to neighbor- hood residents. Publication Of organization's purposes, programs and achievements to neighborhood residents. Interpretation of organiza- tion's purposes, programs and achievements to neighborhood residents. Inter-organizational: Affiliation with a national organization in the area of the organization's program (5) . Very Important <__) Important I—I U >«C‘I C1 r-Ifd f0 «I-JIJ IIJ III-I CH 3‘8. ”8. H5 5 m a - Remarks 162 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Organizational Relationships (continued): Inter-organizational: 5. Working relationships with other neighborhood organi- zations similar in program emphasis. 6. Joint programs with similar Operations. 7. Participation in community associations or councils. 8. Affiliation with another organization for base level funding. 9. Association with another organization for technical assistance. Political: 10. Contacts with political representatives on com- mittees which relate to the organization's programs. 11. Other (please specify) Funding: 1. Membership fees. 2. Grants from foundations, government, community councils, etc. 3. Neighborhood based fund- raising activities. Very Important Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks 163 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Funding (continued): 4. "Broader" community based fund-raising activities. 5. Donations from individuals and/or groups. 6. Other (please specify) Operations Controls: 1. Evidence of adequate book- keeping. 2. Evidence of operating on an annual budget. 3. Audit of financial records. 4. A required number of board meetings annually. 5. Policies and issues voted on by group's members. 6. Policies and issues voted on by small executive committee. 7. Well defined statements of policies. 8. The number and type of com- mittees consistent with the organization's purposes, goals, and programs. 9. Records of services provided. Very Important (_ Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks A. 164 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Controls (continued): 10. Records of persons served. 11. Evidence that records kept are used to modify and strengthen organization's program. 12. Reports which portray the operating results of the organization and its pro- grams. 13. Other (please specify) Activities: 1. Evidence of active recruit- ment of members. 2. Assessment of community needs.(__) 3. Information source for resi- dents on matters which affect the neighborhood. 4. Facility open for use by the community. 5. Other (please specify) Remarks 165 What do you believe are the key attributes of successful neighborhood organizations? What information about neighborhood organizations can be deceptive in assessing their potentials for success? General Comments: 166 July 26, 1977 Dear Thank you for participating in our Delphi survey on neighbor- hood organizations. Of the selected respondents we have received a return of 86%. Tabulations on these returns are now complete. Where a consensus was obtained on an item as likely to guaran- tee a neighborhood organization's success it was dropped from further exploration. Also dropped from exploration were those items which lacked consensus, or which by consensus was judged unimportant. Three items are being repeated due to polarization of views. In this instance we have made attempts to incorporate differing viewpoints. Thirty-seven new items are being added for exploration. We are submitting to you at this time the following for your information only: 1. A summary table of the results from the first-round survey. 2. A copy of the first round survey designating items receiving consensus and items deleted for lack of con- sensus. 3. A listing of the remarks to the two open-ended questions about neighborhood organizations. WE ARE ALSO ENCLOSING FOR YOUR RESPONSE A COPY OF THE SECOND ROUND SURVEY, WHICH IS BLUE. Two copies of the second round Delphi questionnaire are being provided to you. Return only one; the other you may keep for reference. Please return your response within three to five days after the questionnaire reaches you so that tabulations may begin for con- struction of the final report. Enclosed is a stamped and addressed envelope for your return. The final report will be provided within two weeks after all responses from the second round questionnaire have been received. 167 July 26, 1977 Page 2 If you have any questions please call the UCS Research Depart- ment. We may be reached on the following numbers: Forestina Warren (313) 833-0622, Ext. 48 and S. Sidney Newhouse, Ext. 49. Thank you for participating in this policy issue with us. Sincerely yours, Forestina Warren Research Associate S. Sidney Newhouse Associate Executive - Research FW:dm Encl. 168 Questionnaire Organizational Characteristics (Second Round) The study is confined to those organizations which are legally contituted, autonomous, self-initiated groups or those initiated by a sponsoring organization, serving a neighborhood (beyond a single block) and engaging in several program areas. We do not wish to include in the study single-purpose block clubs, important as they may be to their neighborhoods. The groups to be looked at are more commonly defined as volun- tary associations or local neighborhood groups which are task oriented, who operate in the neighborhood, at grass-roots level, and whose prime objective is to improve the general welfare of the neighborhood. While these organizations are not very formalized in operations, they: (1) are state incorporated, with constitutions, and by-laws, (2) possess a 501(c)3 Federal Tax-exempt status of a non-profit opera- tion, and (3) operate in the field of social welfare or human services. The attached questionnaire represents items added by respondents to be considered for exploration by the group as crucial elements for the success of neighborhood organizations. We are asking you to respond to each item with an expression of your judgement as to the applicability of each item in assessing the potentials of neighborhood organizations. WHAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN ARE THOSE FEATURES OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT ARE LIKELY TO GUARANTEE ITS SUCCESS. Following is an explanation of the rating scale for judging each item: Importance (For organization's success) Very Important - A most relevant point First order priority Has direct bearing on major issues Important - Is relevant to the issue Second order priority Significant impact but not until other items are treated Ought to be kept in mind 169 Slightly Important - Less relevant Third order priority Has little importance Not a determining factor to major issue Unimportant - No relevance No priority No measurable effect Should be dropped as an item to consider Return to: Forestina Warren, Research Department, United Community Services of Metropolitan Detroit, 51 W. Warren Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48201 170 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Second Round) Goal Achievement A. Purposes, goals, objectives: *6. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Identification of the orga- nization with a specific geo- graphic area (service area and/or functional area). Communication of the orga- nization's purposes and objectives to paid staff. Communication of the orga- nization's purposes and objectives to volunteers who assist the organization. Member consensus as to pur- poses, goals and objectives. Visible goals that can attract support. Reachability of goals. Established milestones, or time period, for reaching goals and objectives. Ability to be measured. Specificity of objectives even though difficult to quantify, i.e., objectives of community cohesion, community morale. *Items repeated for clarification. Very Important Important Slightly Important Un— important Remarks 171 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Second Round) A. Purposes, goals, objectives 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. (continued): Statements of goals and objectives, well-defined, but flexible enough to accommodate unanticipated action to be protective and reactive to community issues as they arise. Flexibility in long-range planning to accommodate unanticipated projects or programs. Leadership group which takes seriously the definition of the organization's mission and involves many factors in decision making. Leadership group which tries to differentiate the organi- zation's role from the role of other organizations to which it may relate. Availability of resources for the implementation of orga- nization's goals and Objec- tives. Planning with, rather than for, community residents. B. Programs: 9. 10. Qualitative and quantitative programs that satisfy those who are to benefit. Programs vital to community development. Very Important Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks B. 172 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Second Round) Programs (continued): 11. 12. Programs by and for the community that meet welf- defined needs rather than needs defined by others. Programs with physical (visible) results. Resources Manpower: *6. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. The Board includes repre- sentation of persons from the business and corporate community whether residents of the community or outside the community. Board members who are pro- fessionals from a variety of backgrounds who reside within or outside the com- munity. A president or chairperson with knowledge of the organization and its programs with chair-type skills. A president or chairperson willing and able to learn, with commitment to the organization and its pro- grams. Staff with technical com- petencies. Staff who identify with persons served. Very Important Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks A. D. 173 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Second Round) Manpower (continued): 23. Staff able to relate to persons served. 24. Professional volunteers as consultants from a variety of educational backgrounds. Organizational Relationships: *6. Joint programs with similar organizations. 10. Coordination of programs and services with other organi- zations in the area. Political: 11. Contacts with mayor's office, city council, neighborhood city hall, police precincts. 12. Contacts with agencies handling revenue sharing funds, other financial grants, or sources of funds. 13. Awareness of policies and projections regarding service trends and emphasis. Funding: 6. "Broader" community based fund-raising activities which do not result in loss of local autonomy. Donations from individuals and groups committed to the organization's interest without strings attached. Very Important Important Slightly Important Un- important Remarks 174 ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS (Second Round) Funding (continued): 8. Incorporation into existing federal, state, or local projects. 9. Funding from religious organizations or religious foundations. Qperations Controls: 13. Rotation of board members (a method for turnover among board members). 14. Semi-annual and/or annual evaluations. 15. External audit of financial records. 16. Independent monitoring of the organization's programs and operations by a non- affiliated group. Very Important Important «IJ JJ >~§ C v-I (U IJ-IJ l-IJ 5H CH 3‘8. ”8. HE S (OH - Remarks APPENDIX B DELPHI PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX B DELPHI PARTICIPANTS Mr. William Hawkins Director Professional Skills Alliance 16500 John C. Lodge Detroit, Michigan 48221 Mr. Paul Hubbard Director Self-Determination Groups New Detroit, Inc. 719 Griswold Room 1010 Detroit, Michigan 48201 Mr. Thomas Stewart Executive Director Franklin Wright Settlements, Inc. 3360 Charlevoix Detroit, Michigan 48207 Geneva Williams United Community Services - Detroit Division 51 W. Warren Detroit, Michigan 48201 Professor John E. Tropman, Ph.D. School of Social Work University of Michigan 2545 Frieze Building Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Stanley Seashore, Ph.D. Institute of Social Research Room 2240 P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 Mr. Charles Eising Director for Corporate Resources YMCA of Metro Detroit 2020 Witherell Detroit, Michigan Ms. Barbara Mays Director Black Applied Resources Center Suite 616 10 Peterboro Detroit, Michigan 48201 Mr. William Finn Executive Director Family and Neighborhood Services of Wayne 24365 Van Born Road Taylor, Michigan 48180 Prof. Richard H. Price, Ph.D. Department of Psychology University of Michigan 580 Union Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Mr. James L. Cox Director People's Community Services 412 W. Grand Blvd. Detroit, Michigan 48216 Mr. Walter R. Tarpley Director United Community Council 137 E. State Street Columbus, Ohio 43215 175 176 Mr. Fred Cox, Ph.D. Director School of Social Work Michigan State University Baker Hall East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Mr. Kenneth Strazalka United Community Services - Wayne Division 24321 Van Born Road Taylor, Michigan 48180 Mr. William Mills Director of Professional Development Education Office of Continuing Education University of Detroit 4001 W. McNichols Detroit, Michigan Mr. James F. Coughlin Director Catholic Youth Organization 305 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Mr. Donald Roberts Executive Director Neighborhood Service Organization 51 W. Warren Detroit, Michigan 48201 Mr. Orian Worden, Ph.D. Neighborhood Service Organization 51 W. Warren Detroit, Michigan 48201 Co-Director Institute of Gerontology University of Michigan 520 E. Liberty Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Professor Harold Johnson ‘ APPENDIX C PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS APPENDIX C PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS Detroit A Family is Waiting Operation Getdown Northwestern/Goldberg Community Improvement Association Jefferson-Chalmers Adults for Youth Association Latino Mental Health Outreach Program Concerned Citizens of Franklin-Wright Chalfonte Community Council Dav-Joy-Lin-Dex Community Council Herman Gardens Community Council Inner-City Sub Center Virginia Park Citizens District Council Project Child Hubbard Richard Community Council Cass Corridor Youth Advocates, Inc. Detroit American Indian Center Casa Maria Fountain Court Cooperative - Consumer Housing Ren Outreach Center Moore Community Council Wayne County - Excludigg the City of Detroit Growth Works Inc. Children's Center for Social Change Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services Malcolm X Cultural Center Oakland County Community Advisory Council Positive Options/Alternative Programs, Inc. Gateway Crisis Center Jefferson Community Advisory Council Macomb County Anchor Bay Community Council 177 FF” APPENDIX D RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS FOR INTERVIEW AND FOLLOW-UP SURVEY I I1. APPENDIX D RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS FOR INTERVIEW AND FOLLOW-UP SURVEY Interview Schedule Date of Interview: Time: Section I: Background Information Name of Organization: Name of Summer Program: Address: Name of Interviewee: Position of Interviewee: 1. When was started ? (name of organization) (year) 2. Was the organization initiated by a group of citizens or another organization? Group of citizens Another organization (specify which one(s)) 3. Are you a branch or division of a larger organization? __No Yes If yes--When was your branch set up? (year) 178 179 Does the organization have certain geographic areas to operate within or does it operate throughout the city? Geographic area (specify boundaries) North South East West Other Throughout the city Is the organization an independent organization, a sub-unit of a sponsoring organization, or a federation of groups? Independent Sub-unit of sponsoring organization (specify) Federation of groups (specify) a. Is the organization a part of any coalition? No Yes (specify) Does the organization have a 501(c)3 tax exempt status? __No Yes When was it obtained? (year) a. (If no), do you operate under some other organization's 501(C)3? No Yes (if yes) specify organization? How many heads of the organization (i.e., presidents, Chairpersons) have held office since the organization was started, or within the last 5 years? Since the organization started Within the last five years 180 What type of organization do you call A. Clubs/Associations (name of organization) 1. Block 2. Civic (service) 3. Social 4. Special Interest (specify interest) 5. Other (specify) Council 1. Church 2. Community 3. Agencies/Organizations 4. Other Community Center Which years were you funded for the UCS supported summer program? 1. Other (specify) wa Recreation Social Services Multi-Service Other (specify) Church Self-Help organization/association for community development and/or improvement '0 (Check all that apply) 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 181 Section II: Organizational Goals, Purposes, Objectives, and Programs 9. I would like to ask you about some goals for your organization and how you see the program of the organization relating to these goals. Of the goals listed on this card (hand respondent white card), which is most important to this organization? Check column A below). Which would be the next important one? Check column B below). The least important? Check column C below). A B C All Important Income security and economic opportunity Provision of basic material needs Health Opportunity for the acquisition of knowledge and skills Environmental quality Individual and collective safety Social functioning Assurance of the support and effec- tiveness of services, through organized action 10. More specifically, how would you state the main purpose of (name of the organization) Main purpose: A. Are there other purposes? No Yes (specify) 11. What kinds of programs and services have been developed in order to carry out the purposes of the organization? I." 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 182 How are your programs determined? By residents By broader constituency Other factors (specify) ‘W Besides programs and services related to the specific purposes of the organization, has the organization done anything else during the past year because of other issues and problems that came up in the community? ___No ___Yes What type of things has the organization done, and what was the reason for doing them? Have there been any major changes in the purposes of the organization over the years? No Yes (specify) a. What about changes in terms of programs and activities? What type of things have interferred most with the organization accomplishing its goals and objectives? a. Generally, is the organization very successful, successful, moderately successful, or not very successful in accomplishing its goal(s) and objectives? very successful moderately successful successful not very successful How is your organization's role and services different from other organizations within this community? 183 17. What do you see this organization doing 5 years from now? Section III: Resources it A. Manpower Board or Steering Group: 1. Does the organization have a board of directors, advisory board or another type of governing body? Has a governing body Does not have a governing body 2. How many members does it have? 3. How are they selected? -____QElected by membership I_____Appointed by a board _____Other (specify) 4. How many are males? 5. What are the occupations of your board members? a. Are any of the board members lawyers, accountants, educators, social workers, corporate executives, bank Officials? 6. How many of your board members would be representative of the membership of the organization, that is those persons who pay dues or clients and recipients of your services? 7. How many of your board members have training and experience in the programs provided by the organization? 10. 11. 12. 13. 184 Residence of board members: How many of your board members live: a. in the neighborhood, that is within the geographic boundaries of your service area? b. outside the neighborhood but within the city? c. outside the city? How are your board members recruited? How often does your board meet? Weekly Semi-annually 2-3 times a month Yearly Monthly Only on special occasions Quarterly Other (specify) About how many attend these meetings? Would you say all, most, about half, less than half, or only a few? All (100%) Less than half (16-39%) Most (70-99%) Only a few (1-15%) About half (40-69%) Generally what is the average length of time these board members have been with the organization? Would you say it's less than a year, 1-2 years, 3-4 years, 5-6 years, more than 6 years? Less than a year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-6 years More than 6 years Do you have a method for turnover among board members, such as a limited number of years in which they may serve? No Yes (explain) Staff: Does the organization have paid staff members? No Yes Are the paid staff members full-time or part-time? Full—time Part-time How many are full-time? 185 How many are part-time? How many of the paid staff members are male? Generally in what area(s) do the paid staff have training and experience? What is the average length of time the paid staff have been with the organization? Less than one year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5—6 years More than 6 years What is the experience and training of the Director of your UCS supported Summer Program? How many of your paid staff members live: a. in the neighborhood (within the service area)? b. outside the neighborhood but within the city? c. outside the city? Volunteers: Does the organization have volunteers other than board members? NO Yes How many volunteers does the organization have excluding board members? How many are males? Generally in what area(s) do the volunteers have training and experience? 186 What is the average length of time the majority of the volunteers have been with the organization? Less than 1 year 1-2 years 3-4 years 5-6 years More than 6 years In general what do the volunteers do? How many of the volunteers live: a. in the neighborhood (service area) b. outside the neighborhood but within the city c. outside the city On the average how much time do they contribute to the organization? Would you say they contribute several hours a day, a couple of days a week, a couple of days a month, or mostly during special occasions? Several hours a day A couple days a week A couple days a month Special occasions Other (specify) In general what would you say the organizational commitment is among board members, paid staff, and volunteers? Would you say it is very high, high, could be better, low? Board members Paid Staff Volunteers Very high High Could be better Low 187 Organizational Relationships: Community: Are any of your organizational meetings open to neighborhood residents? No Yes (specify) Do you publicize your purposes, programs and achievements to the neighborhood? No Yes (if yes, how is this done?) Inter-Organizational: Are you affiliated with a national organization? No Yes (specify which one(s)) Do you work closely with any local neighborhood organizations? No Yes (specify which ones) Have you had any joint programs with other organizations? No Yes (specify the organization and the joint program) Organization Joint Program a. b. c. d. Is your organization a participant in any community associations or community councils? No Yes (specify) 188 Have you received any assistance for the development of your organization or the programs provided by your organization from any of the following organizations listed on the white card? Hand respondent white card. Professional Skills Alliance (PSA) Black Applied Resources Center (BARC) New Detroit, Inc. Area Service Association Brightmoor Community Center Catholic Youth Organization Family and Neighborhood Services of Wayne County Franklin-Wright Settlements International Institute LASED Neighborhood Service Organization People's Community Services St. Peter Claver Community House YMCA - Metropolitan Detroit YWCA - Metropolitan Detroit a. What was the nature of the assistance you received? (record under the organization identified above. Political: Do any board members or staff have contacts with any persons in the following offices or positions? Mayor's office City Council Neighborhood City Hall Police Precinct Political representatives on committees which relate to the organization's programs Funding Does the organization have any joining or membership fees? No Yes (specify) (amount) (year) Does the organization have sources of income other than dues or membership fees? No Yes 189 What are the sources and the type? (Check all that apply) a. About what percent of the budget do these sources contribute? Source % Contribute Type, Public: Federal I State Local Contributions from foundations Fund drives Donations: Individual Group Income from investments Proceeds from sales Neighborhood based fund raising activities Broader community based fund raising activities Other (specify) Have there been any changes in the organization's major source of funding over the years? No Yes (specify) Section IV: Operations A. 1. Controls: Who keeps the organization's books (I mean who does the bookkeeping)? What are their qualifications? That is what are their preparations and training? 190 Do you plan an annual budget from which you operate? No Yes Do you have an audit of your financial record? No Yes How often are your financial records audited? Who performs the financial audit? Internal External (specify who) How are the organization's policies determined? Voted on by a small executive committee Voted on by group members Both Do you have any standing operating committees? No » Yes (Specify the number and type Of committees): Number Type Do you keep a record of services provided to persons or groups? No Yes Do you keep a record of persons and groups served? No Yes Do you evaluate the records of persons and groups served, and services provided? No Yes If yes, proceed with next question, if no skip to question 10. a. For what purpose(s) are the records evaluated? b. How often are the records evaluated? Daily Semi-Annually Weekly Annually Monthly On special occasions Quarterly Other 10. 191 Do you prepare an annual report of the organization's operations? No Yes (If yes) a. Who is the report distributed to? Activities Do you have a permanent facility? No Yes If no, ask the next questions, if yes skip to question 2. a. At what location(s) do you have your meetings? b. At what location do you receive your correspondence? What is the address of your facility? What type of facility is it? Office Space Building Other Do you own, rent, lease the facility or is the space donated? Own Rent Lease Donated by Other What hours is the facility open? Is the facility open for use by neighborhood residents? __No Yes a. If yes, for what purposes? Do you see your organization as an information source for residents on matters which affect the neighborhood or your particular con- stituency? No Yes 192 Section V: Constituency of Organization (Memberships and Recipients of Services) Now I would like to ask you some questions about the organization's con- stituency. By constituency I mean organizational members or recipients of the organization's services. 1. Does the organization have memberships? No Yes (a. If answer is yes proceed with question 3. If answer is no skip to question 12.) 2. How many individual members or group members belong to the organization? Members Number a. Individual b. Group 3. Are the membership fees the same (if any) for individual and group members? No Yes a. What are the membership fees annually? Individual members $ Group members $ 4. Are the members mostly males, mostly females, or equally mixed? Mostly males Mostly females Equally mixed 5. Generally, what are the age groups of members? Are most of them under 25, between 26-35, 36-45, over 45, or all ages? Under 25 Over 45 26-35 yrs. All ages 36-45 yrs. 6. Are the members composed of mostly one race? No Yes a. If yes specify race and percent. (race) (%) b. If not 100% of one race ask question 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 193 What would be the races of the other members and about what percent would they comprise? (Enter % next to those specified.) Black White Spanish Americans American Indians Latinos Oriental Mexican Americans Other Arabic Have there been more, less, or about the same number of members joining the organization in the past few years? More Less Same Does the membership live mainly in the local community or generally throughout the city? Local Community Throughout the city Generally, what is your major method of recruiting members? Is this the membership who elects the board of directors? NO Yes (If.§2 explain) Recipients How many recipients of services are served by the organization annually? Approximately. Individual recipients Group recipients Are the recipients of your services mostly males, mostly females, equally mixed? Mostly males Mostly females Equally mixed Generally, what are the age groups of recipients? Are most of them under 25, between 26-35, 36-45, over 45, or all ages? Under 25 Over 45 26-35 yrs. All ages 36-45 yrs. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 194 Are the recipients of services composed mostly of one race? No Yes a. If yes specify race and percent. (race) (%) b. If not 100% of one race ask question 16. What would be the races of the other recipients and about what percent would they comprise? (Enter % next to those specified.) Black White Spanish Americans American Indians Latinos Orientals Mexican Americans Other Arabic Have there been more, less, or about the same number of persons receiving services from the organization in the past few years? More Less Same Do the recipients of services live mainly in the local community or generally throughout the city? Local community Throughout the city Generally, what is the major method of recruiting persons for services? Explain Do any of the recipients of services have a voice in the election of the organization's board members? No Yes a. If yes, specify how? Is the organization mainly serving members, non-members, or an equal number of both? Members Non-members Both 22. 23. 195 What is the primary way the organization finds out about the needs and concerns of the community? Is it mainly from members, non- members, or recipients of services? Members Non-members Recipients of services a. How is this achieved? Surveys: Mail Door to door Telephone Other Meetings Individual contacts Would you estimate the average income of most of the organization's members and/or recipients of services to be under $3,000, between $3,001—$5,000, $5,001—$7,000, $7,001-$9,000, or over $9,000? a. Column A Members, Column B Recipients of Services (circle below) A B Members Recipients of Services Under $3,000 $3,001—$5,000 $5,001-$7,000 $7,001-$9,000 Over $9,000 Not applicable NA ()1wa)“ IUIIDWNI-J 196 Leader Profile What is your full-time occupation? If respondent states that leading his organization is his full-time job, ask A. If respondent states that his full-time occupation is something other than heading up his organization, omit A. a. Do you have any other paid employment? NO Yes (specify) How long have you been of (name of organization) - length of time Have you held other positions in the organization? No Yes a. If yes, what other positions have you held? (specify) Do you receive any kind of pay for serving as the head of your organization? No Yes How many hours a week would you say you work for ? (name of organization) 1-10 hours 31-40 hours 11-20 hours 41-50 hours 21-30 hours Over 50 hours How long have you lived in this area? (area) (length of time) If you don't live in this area, where do you live? Where did you live when you were growing up? Check race of respondent: Black Latino White Mexican American American Indian Other Arabic (speci fy) 10. 11. 12. 13. 197 How many years of school did you finish? Some grade school Twelfth grade (high school) Finished grade school Some college (8 years) Graduated from college Ninth grade or more Tenth grade Eleventh grade What experiences have you had for your job with the organization? How old are you? 19-25 years 56-65 years 26—35 years 66-75 years 36-45 years Over 75 years 46-55 years How do you feel the community perceives this organization and its program(s)? Which two officials of the organization do you work with: Most frequently: The best: Does the organization have a constitution? Yes No Does the organization have by-laws? Yes No a. Are there any written records kept of organization matters (i.e., minutes, reports, etc.)? Yes No b. Do you have a list of officers or any other literature on your organization? (If yes, may I secure copies if possible.) 198 Date: Study of Organizations Follow-Up Information Name of Organization: Person Responding: Title of Person Responding: Read each of the following questions carefully. Please check only one answer for each question. 1. Which of the following applies best to the 1977 summer program provided by your organization? A program which served as many youth as possible A program which served few youth with an excellent program A program which served as many youth as possible with an excellent program 2. How did the youth enjoy the program? ____Enjoyed very much ____Enjoyed _____Could have enjoyed more ____pid not enjoy 3. How well did the staff paid by the organization relate to the youth served? Very well Could have been better Not too well 4. Did the staff paid by the organization know as much about the organization's purposes and objectives as you would like for them to have known? Yes No 10. 199 If volunteers assisted the organization during the summer program did they know as much about the organization's purposes and Objec- tives as you would like for them to have known? Yes No Did not use volunteers Do you know as much about the organization and its programs as you would like? Yes No How frequently do you have occasion to learn new information for furthering the organization and its program(s)? ____Very frequently ____Frequently ____Seldom Never Do you feel your knowledge of parliamentary procedures and Robert Rules of Order are adequate for conducting meetings? Yes No Would you be interested in learning information for the development of your organization? Yes No How would you rate your commitment to the organization and its summer program? Commitment to the Organization Commitment to Summer Program High High Medium Medium Low Low 11. 12. 200 Which of the following best describes the manner in which your organization plans for achieving its goals? Plans its goals with target dates for completion Plans its goals with target dates for completing specific objectives to reach goal Plans its goals and works toward them until achieved Are any of the organization's goals visible? Yes No If "Yes" a. Could you give an example of one of the organization's visible goals? APPENDIX E FORMAT FOR ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS 1 I III. 201 «2.3—2...- eso IS...» a. discus...— I... I9... ._= 33.3 .3 nous-so 2.2.2.... to 253...... I... .3... .25 2:... :2 .2352... .3.- .52. £652.93. .- 3...... Inc .. we. 0 c..- oe 0.... 9.2... 39.32.... s9...» 2... .32. so... a...a._.o.5_a..uu>.uoaq n. :33: £033.... .33.! Ion—.393 2... no access:— « p 1.0 3.33-1.39... Ices..- .= 928...!- on < 0.: 5 2.5.2.9 Leann A... 90 30:... 0.320.. .0285...- no» c :03 one... 2.3. 5.0 .1... .2. 3.38:5 I:— .k..: Isl-co 0.... no 2.32.8 a... w 380.. a... use... 6.8 2...: toad-sagas I... 5!. h..- . 6.3!... r... a... I. .25 an... .2... . sol-onu- 4 a soccer-“.— 0 5.: Ia . as! :60 o..- on): a 0...... .3 3.33.9. 285E309 .859... I330 z... 089......— 3 soc—£3... 3.82.. .52. I... a... 9... a... .9: 3.82.... .9. III 0:32.20 9..- .: Rd. .3 ca. .3 :8: east... .: .. Rum .. m4... .. 3.3.8328 .8... . III. R. . .33 9cm“. . oi. .38.... 03.0.9. -e_.o.. Io..— acaoh 03......— ~33 POI“! 0 $4 (.1 can I my I. V sou bar—:26 boa-0.3: Vofixafimmm? “59.05% can“... On a? 3 I». Enhancing In Dr 2.5a- ».EI—ua be 85.3.55 ...au 3...... 3 3.32.... .23.... 9.3.7.3. 3. .3... 3...... 5... :8. 3. 2....- .3 .38.... 3» 3.3“. 3. 3.3:... 3.. 3.... 3.8.3.33... 5.55 .3...) c. 3.3.. 2... 3.7.8.... .2... 2.3:... o... .o .2... 2...... 333...... a... .22.. 9.1.3... 3.. ...o..:... 3.. 3 .3633... 3.3.3.... .9: .39....- 3» 2.... 1.... ...eu 3.333.593 o... .3 .5 o... «2...... 9.92.... 03...... :3 .2... :8. 3...... .2: 202 .32.... 3» 2...... .p... 3.3: a... .. 53.3.3. 1... 33...... 3.33.3... n3 3... 2...... so... .. 3.... 9335...... 3.. «6...... .333... .93 o... .. .3. 2... .33.}... 3 3... .33. .2. 33...... 3.833.383 2.. a. 333.53.... .i. 3i... 3» 2...: 3... 3.x... .3» .. 3.39.7.0 .13 33...... 3.3.3:...- I... 3... .39.. an... .. a... t... a... a... .6... d...- o... 3 .2... 1...... .2. 33...... 3.2.3.2553 I... .3 333.530 4.: 9...... .212... .3... 3a . 3:229 v .3... :3: .vk *. . «n.3,. 6. 0.95%qu .4 (a. .v .58....- 2...... . (.3 3.5328; 8‘ a 95...".- ..rwnt. kc spake—at‘ AME“ . 203 .1. .12.... Ill-‘1 .3 '5’... 0.3 :— .... 0!... 30.3 0003...... 1:0 00:00— ....30 «0 00:00 I3 00..» 300.. 0.3 95...... 00—0 8555.3 0...... .3300 €00.90...— .... 0300—. 2.0:...- 2... 00.. 80300.00»... :0...— gal-33:00.. 0.3 90 009...... 03.0030 0 p 3.....‘800 03 9.... an. .0000 00.. 30.... 0.3 3 03......— 0003000 I00... 09.0.7000— 0. .o .00.... I .0... 8. 1.3.09... 3...... 96...... 5.2:... .0... .310! 0.3 .0030 us... 00 00:00. 0. .r. 0000 00.3 00030...— 3..0.0000 3 003 .03 00:00. 0.030 00 00000 0000.. 0:0 0030300.— -2 .3... .8. o... 2...... a. 3 :2... 0...... 00—0 85.3»..0 000.. 00300 a a $0300.... 309000000 «‘9... 0.... 009.0”.“3003fi 3 09.500 03.00: .0000 05 00 00 0r: a... 00020.. :00 a 00.. a0.... 00 0—0'00 0.... 00 0000—0.— 0003000 .00030030 0 0.00- ... .3... 88...... .o. 3.02.. 8.....- n; 3.. 0.. 3.8.3.... A... no... I! .0 000300.. < _. :50 :04 .33.: 3 3.0.3.2.. 30.5.... p 3300.030 000 0000......— ..050 000 000.— 0000 00030030 .0 .3... 3.9.0.... .33.... 1.... £0. .8. 0 2.06.. 5.5.8.0 .5: 9.300 00.: .21.... .3... O r %..,? o. 0%.»... a. 00» 0 0300...... “Av J KN 0V 2.000.030 .3. 8......6 v .0 Am. a «a. 2...... Efren—8g 3‘ 2 figs 2938: to S—PQc—at‘ 204 u: 1.98 .3... 3.535189 9.. as: 3.5: m. .33 fuse—=80 Lou ole...— ol... 9.8.. 38...... an... .033... 9:- 39.99..— sezzpcss nae—:2. 9.... clean...— 3 an... 4 p .3035:— ocsou $.35 . S — p $83.... a 26: 3533. clouds»... Lac» 0..- .x... 9.0..” :— .3..3:=9. b. 90.." 530.. 009.99... 65 .n39§ a: e:- .......au.:cuuo he a): w 100:?- a... algae...- am no» inch—P:— e... no...» 2..- .xi noose!— cal—I8 $83-32 use 23 ha .53»?!— can.» use. .3.- olasuosm 3.05.; 2533—593 .3 .882; .35.. .265... 283.2580 4 a .3 89...... 3... 2.9.3. .8331... 1.3 I... be 0.59:. 0.3 .3 13:35! 8.38.8 .8. Ill .5 a .5 a... .2 3.82.. .2 mm. .36—.33.... 1:. 0|..- e—iuo :- 42: I: I9!- :« IOU-.26 2:53... 12:. .5303: an. 8 .3332... .: .2. -33 a... .o .88»... 2: out: .I 4:: can a. onus-.1 5.! 5.0.1..— ..80 .2: 9.3.06.“ '33-.— I3— .Jflfl .21.... 38 O i g l O «a s e by. a 9 1 ~ Q ¢ .. a . m. ,9 v \a e mum. owrfin, & 58% a. Q4 «a». “M 5%”qu 0%....“- I05 I baa-0:...— QN‘LV A7 0800...:- . 2%: .8 5:15 .w on.» am. 3:... Cl “ADV V..~ . .8 a “I Q- 0 a. anknnzcg Id 2 955: :55 LG Sara—ad; 205 45%.... 1... so 3...... 5...; cabs—.5 3.. .8393...- 38 c ”39.9....— 0.... A07... 3...... a... 3.. a... «4...... ,‘LUO... 4.223: =- .31. 2.3.3.... In 5.85 as... «89.0352... 5....» 3 a... 1:9... I939... null 2.9— 22.—3...... 3 o..- ...... 3:33 uh p no .30....- no..... I959... c 0.... 3 an... coo—.3- 032: a no 3... .2... tions....— .3 88...... u.» . A... a... .o 5...... .6... .5 333...... 4.: v9.9...- ...»E. 8.. .2. 3......8 3...... as a 5... can? .6: o .3. £9.50...— d 83...... 3...... p a... .53352055 .18.. .40... 3 02.3....- .o.. 5333.... 8.82 :33. . 33...... .28.... .3. .39.!— o :35 :9... goo—PS... 3.0 .n... 3...... .950...- .9— .Aa.§'oo 05 a. 5.. in an... ole—ac...— a... 2.....— .o..... .o 02.3... so.» as... 0.... 93...... on? .55»..- 239 53.3.... n... 0.3 .2. .5303593 05 an 089......— 3:92.. a. a... .o 3...... .8... 3... 3 .33... 33:8 a... -8... .13.. 3.3.3.... 32-2.. 32.... 2.0 .5. £8 .5. 9.3... lo..— 333... . 33.8.. .39.. e a. o t 2.» - am? .u. k3 @056. .5031... L 2. .3. 8.....3 3 :3. EWKURM. ammvfiamu. 2...... E—PQNpId—EO It 2. aha-RH.— ~=fig so 8nh¢°3t< 206 ~00}??- ..:0~ no .9— 3:03.00.- ..00 3:020 .3 00.: 53:03-05 3 $050 00.... h!— 25 0.80.3.- 0005 50:01:09... 1.300 0.. 339.0 also 60300.59... 0.... go .2305!- 05 50 3.1.5.0... — not. 20:030.: ac!!!— ulal 05 go 0.3300003: c p 0.: 0...: 0.80.5.- 30—30—0... .053! .303 05 3.5: 0.5.000 1.03 90 53350930.. .33 .3 S 2.3. a. 28» .3 Pl 3.. 0.9.“... 3.32.. .5: .2. £23... a -8323; a = .38 :38... :8!- . a .6... 2: 9. 8:... 3.1.3.1! 0. 38a .53 a: a... a... «.03.. 3 .38: .5. . .:: ad .5. 9.0 .=: 2...... .5. .=_ $.54: ‘ 0.”. J: 585...... .3. .2 N63. ma...“ .= 38.58... .: .0350 3 12.30.. 0.00.. 5.: 4 a 505: 0.30: 900200 . I570 000. 30.3. « 2.0300309 000.50...— 35'00 05 .85 SI :00 0060300.- : .505 0.3 an: «.6 6.5 3 0.059.; .3.— 0—u..«.0a000.u— 9.30.. '0..— a 5318.. 38 20W? 5 $4. fa. 00» 0 5302...: Ekvkafi “A 0' 0.3030..- ..8 .3536 .v a». 2:8 Erna—3g Id 8 955- ugs 59 8592.: 207 .00.»..00 .0 9.00.... mm. .200 0000000.. 00» .0 00300.08. 6.0 .9... n. .3050. 0.3. £53.20. n $.00 0009—00.- 00» 1.0.. 00 02000.. :6 .9... 1.0.0.. 0... ... .00.. p 1|. .05—.3738... mm. .3706.— 00.» 0.... .0 0000—00... 4.... 880.... 8. :3. a. .28..- ..6 .0... 18...... .5: 9000.20.20. .0... a»... 0.: final .0... 2.0.... 4...: .00...00.00-..0 0.... £033.03 h. 20300.... 000.. 1.0 0.... b. 009.00.... 000..- ..0..... 0.... .0 00.5. p I0... 0.... 0. 000030000 000 0 I005. .3... 0.0.0.0.. 0.0.100 209.70....03 000.. 009.000 0000.. .0 00:02-00:30. .33 .3 Q... 2.... 3 .0... .o 0.... a... a... .9. .00.... .3: .04. 00.. 7.00.300. A; 60.0.0.2. 0.. 0.09.0 000.3 .0... 0.000303 00.00.. ...00....0....u.0.. a 10.0.. 0.6.0.000 0.5... 0.3 00.... 0000.9. 00: 0.00.1 0000.0 7.00.. .0005000 7.00.. a .0 00.00.500.00. .33 .0 n). 0.... 2 .e 8.32.... o... .n... .03.... .9: 9.30.. 9.30.. 00..— 05.000.. 0 000.. 30% ~38 p... p i 0 l. V s \ M § .6 I? .0 9 4 be N06. .4... 05“.. (v. a... 00» 0 . 00 .5030...“ .0. 00:20.6 0300:...— ¢ 01 .0“. a. 55.6.... «6.3. Bahia—808° 5 8 FEB. 5.5.3.— hc 8:19:00. 208 - 0000000.. 0. .000 £0... .. 88...... 3.08 .5 0.0.... 2.0 .0... ...0...00.00u00 3 .000 0...... 0. 88.0.... 0.000 8 0.3.... 2.0 .0... $3000.30. ...0..0000.0. 00 0.300.900. .000 000 0000. 3 000.0002... .000... 3 88...... .0. . 33.. .0 .8203... 0.0 .0... -.......u0n....aunaeuauunu «00.02000... .. 1......0 .3... .0000. 0:0. .0 ...00_.0.000.. 0.... n 0 0. 030 ....0 .0. 00. 0030000.... 00.000... :2... 000030.000 00 .88.... .2. . .0102... a. 03.23... .0 .0... 0.83.9... . .09: .0003000 3300.000 00. 0.000000 00...... .0 0.5. 030000.. 000 0000-5000.. 330000.. 3009.000 00. 0. I00.— .0 0000.000. :6 .Nd 0.2.0 0.... 00.0.... .3 .0 0000000.. .0... 0.00.. m 0.. 0 00300.00. :0. 00 0000.0... 0.. 100 a '00 0.3 .0 0000.000. 03.00.0500 0.... .0000 0000 .3... 00000....«30 00 .00000000 00.. 0 00 00... 00. 8 a... 6.0 2.00.0000 0 9... 23.00 00.. :23... .3... O ) 0 l ' r. . 0.... 0 0.. ecze a 9 o .7 4 .. .22 .. 0. 0. 0 00. 0 00.00.00. 1... Kw 9 hr .0330.- ..0. 0...:00 0 a... a .0 a... 2...... i..hcfl.l<.lc 5 .F 2....”- ..§ 8.. 2:39.45... 209 . :33... 20200.... Ilia—0.1 '00s?— Iuofinsmo 32.09.... 0.... 50 0!...- ....0.. 00 :30 .0 £00 .— 3 a n ._ c w :0...- 0... .2... 5.9.00 an. 22.0.5030 .05—0003.0 .32. 1000.300 :30 3 30:93.0 0.0.9.0 ..0 9:30.... 00007.0; 30.. u0 0000.09.00 .33 on. .5000 0000—00000 900 -00 go 5008—0090 nos :00.- u0.0.5 no 000... 0.0 .0‘ «00030030.. .5:— ...9.a .9... an. .0030..- 50 300.300.. 0.... .0 5.3?- !3 .80... 00 0000 0.3 0a 0000 .3 :03... 90 000: 9.0.9.; mm. .020 “00.8703 030000 5 00: = a0. «0 00003001 99.9.0 0‘00 oco‘ 000.0000 00 00—300.:- :— mw. 003002-0050 05 00.000 1.0 0000 007500 0. .0003... 00: 000020;: «0 n} I?» 50 000030; 5.9 o..— h.u..0...00..lu..0 05 000000 0000 an. .0000 00.0000 0‘ 0300.- .0000000 0 ' .00.. .0 00330000.... . 200.1330 ~53 ~0 a} 1950 be 0000301 $6 9.; 00.. uuSu .05: Ill .5: 13. 2: man: .2: :30 .2: 9.30.. 03— 7.3.8.... .38 \' ’k‘0 l e s . . meme... .vQQov «w. 00» 0 5‘- 0! 2.00330 . .8 5:15 8.8:... “90 A? \w‘: 2.3. Ephcunlcic It a 3.55. Eran!— LO Bra—3;; 210 — .0003 .0. p . 1:29:13». _ 0.. “Us 18:59.33: 00...— m\.n #00 a: 00:02-00: 9.0 .e... 000010....» .9:— .....II..... ....: mu..." 4... dam .5: 9.03.5...» :0: 2.00.30 4.00.00 0.0.0 a 5:0» 0...— 3 30.0.- :3: N 3.0.— 0.. 30.0.. 0.. :2. 0.... .2. 85...... 0.: 0:. :2. a... To ..... o...- 0030 .22: 2.4. .7... ...0_..00_:0a.-0 0.... .2. 000.33.... 0...— 3 30.0.. mm. 30: 0. 0.1.0.053: 180300500 .3... 9.2.7.0.. n....300_..0u..0 0.3 5 .3 3050.350 00030.. ..0_. 0....» 00b .00.. 90» 000.. 02.03.0000 0 00.. .05 005000500 ‘95 a6 .9... 50300—00900 0.... .8.— I..0._..0._ 50.3 00 000 . . 0.. 0.00.. 0.3 0.. 030—0.. v . . nn. .1 00 000303..» be .8500 05 a0...— 0 0.: L 10.00910...— 13 9:50.: .31. cal—I00 0000.. 00.39.0000 u0 8030.....— o....~00 50 02.07.0500 080 up... 81......- ..8 08.. 05...... .0 .8... 1.0;... .50 ...:: 0“.“Pfi0h... 9.30.. '3 — 0 000.. .33 ~33. 5. O .r l V 0 0 .030 9 3.0 «v.04 f3 0.; 0 ..0 00 .0— akomhv 6.3 5w 0? 0r 2.000.220 8.. 3:..56 a : 0 ..v 0.». a... a. «a. 3...... . a ' .6. 8:83.23: .3 E nah—Es 5.5.2 3: S—hcc—MEQ 211 00.. 00.... ~25 3:52:33... 2‘ a «ESQ... 5.5.2 30 labia—at. 6.033.092... .0: p.50..0......u.0.. 0.. 0.0000003: w 0... 0.. 0.0000003: 9:0 1 . .0l00000.. €009.05. ...0....00..0 .6500 0000300.. €009.00.— 0...‘ 0.003030%: .0 001.00.05.00 500 00» 00.0.3.0. 80» 3. «6.6... 00300.12... .9..— .0...0...000 0.. . 01.0 0......000 100.0-.00: < p €003.52}: 0.. 8335...... .35... :. .... .5... .e 0.. a... :20... .8... 3.5.2.. .2: III .3: 0...... .8: m... ....: 5...]... .2: .2. a .0: m4... .2. 3.00.03... 30......50! .0: 03. .10....0000300 6000.5...» .0000000 .3000 a. 01500030.. «000.000.00.— 00 0000.02.00 000 00.0.00. .00300...‘ .000» .5003... 0.... .000. .0 .0 00000 70000.. 1.9 .p... :00. .0.....W.0...000. d . 0.30.0 00.... 00 .30800000 0.0.000. 0 0000 n. 0.0500000... 100.000.00.— 003... 9000.. . 0003.0..00 «000.0 08...... .3 0.... .. 0. .83....08 .6 .n... .82.. 4...: 0.....00 l0.— 0.....000.. .30... O .r l 0.0:. .0 . 3&9)... 0 4 .. .3. .. .2 . 00a 0 0500...: 4.1—“.0. 212 .20 6:23.! p 3......- .8 .8338... 0.... :2; 3.8.2309 ¢ .3 5.3.-23:... an... a. 50 33.0.3005- u... :— «cl—2.3.3; - .8... p 3...! c. .33 I... .3... null-8 no» .3333... .39» o— «6.3... . 55.93....- 4.... .3703... Issue...- 3— .3— it... 5833—..53 .53....598 32:92.1: . . 32.932... .2... c 12.— u... .3... :00...- . .3... 5:30.83.- 88...... 8. f... :2. a a... .a... -9. 2.4:... .9: .I . -.. .9: 3.8: mum .8: 33.3.5.3 .3..- .9:— .26.... 3.3%.... 3 3...... ugsiuo- 1:03.... Sign?! a .5 3 3.8.2.3....- 131 < a 603...... 3.3: . 43:91. In 00.3.... £95.— ..‘1595 i . 53:09... no .83 .3... u 2 :8 .3. 8.33.... .8. 8 «6.3. 3.93.5... .2: 9.3.... I... :38... .3... O t o . V \ \ .l .e b .. . .. . .. .3... i . . .8. 8.9.1.9 BABE... . fiefiLme? .wauw ............. 8953.8: 8‘ a 95—5.: 22.-I— nc antac—att 213 .m ..c . an. a... 2...... a... .23 .3... e. unit—co.- aon d 3......— he 09......" 99.6. J. an. 3...... 3...... . a... 3 88...... 2.. . 1.5.2.... .2... “6...... .55.... 5.. 99.....- .3 .n u... . has. 5...... 7.2.2.... 50...... an. 3.1.. h. .9 .xzfi.o.. p 3...... 5.2....- 2:52.. .2253 he... .33.... 3.5.3.... aao.-Eaton .02.. 2.2.3:... 2...;- o..-eu-I3!..8..-o.. cos c 2.7.0.! 0.2.0.... «6.9... .3... 3.3.8... .93.— R. 32...... 8:... t. P... :7.— ..z. 3.3.2... 2 . .28....3; 6.2.39... 3.....— nn «.2380 5.... A... .3 coc.u..._0hu...ao..ou o... 3. Jul. 3... .521... . c. 2...... .I .3... 3o... . I .2. 32.30.. :- nn 8...... I25? 3 1.0.. up... .23- ..o 9.2.]. . .00.... 3.3:- 5... _ .3 88...... 8. . 7...... .5 a. .66.... 3.3.8 :8: . .....: fl... 9.: .3 .2... .83.... .2: u.....-.. 9...... I3. ..a...... .51.... .3... .39... l A. 5%. § ¢ a... .. 9...... .9... 9 no» a 9“- A' 18.0.0... .3.— ..e.._:e.5 sea-0.....— cwwovxaw atom» 0%.. 2...!— U r... e... a». .n. 32.538215 5 E. akin"...— Zrns LC Susie—9.... .832... u... 3...»... .28... .. n. 3.8... 3 83......- a a 89.35.13.303...- aloo... a. 8...... . c p a... o... 3 23...... a. 4...... .. 3:8... .8. ............... 2.8.... a 23.97:... 3...... 3 88...... .0. a 8.... .838... n....:.. .9... 283...... .5.— £88.... .8... a. ..o. .. 3:... .9. 3. .3... 214 5:530. 90 Ed £8. .5.“ ho COL-5- . II I... C ' .03.)...00 0.8-...- . 33...... .28.... a... J3... 2.327.... 1.... 3...... .5... 3.5!... 38...... 8...... 8. . 3...... .88... .65... 13.8.... .8: ....-J..-..:.... . 1...... I... 3 3...... 6.3.3.... .3324... .. 2.... .88... .. n . 2.33-15. 1.... 3:8... :38... .2... 3.3.5.8.... 86...... 3.1.2.3... .8: £9.39... .8... a... 8.. 8... 5.... 5...... .2. .3. ..... p I88. 5.. .8! a. ......I 0...... 3...... J...- 3...... 8.... .2...- o... .8... a. n p 3......- 3.83.1.8. .38.. 3 .53.... .3. at... I. 3...... .65.. . I... 3...... .8: - .i .2. 03. .2._ ..-.....-.. .2. 3...]. .2. 2...... .3. 3...... .3... ..h . ‘a‘W‘. .Q $6. .88.... .a 32...... .38.... .. a? Way A. 2...... ...p Enragugg 8‘ E. 0.55: at! 5.. 8:895... 215 2.0:... nix-l... 33:...— a 1.39.. 039:...— 0.5.3.3.: .4. 3 .8 99....- 2......— e 9.3!.- .....8- b. .8 .38 1.8.. I: a... a... a. a .... ... c 31:... .9:— s. 3:...- 2:23:9— .oo..soo ~£3§ I: al.559— 95 1...: .9... 25.53.. s. undue-c: 5....» an :2...— -.~ .3 81 8» £ .6 5... $23.59.: at: 5:8. 9.. 3... 5.9.9.. so 2833—.— $7.... .03.»...3 2.1.... 4:5.— eoal. .5929. 3:... 2..- ...2. 5.3.39...- IPC 01:...— agaeoou 5.... 89:03.29... 2 .U... 5%. 1:9... all 3.32:3 a2! nix... 0.3 9:300: .342... 9.2.3. 3:53.. o...- 50 2633 .39....- uo 9.1.1.3 u...- u==csr :95... 73.2.... 2833—3—86 «.9 .9..— as- .359 .3 :30 .33- .aiugoo I9: 23:: «all... 3833-55.... 0. 2.1.3503 3.1!...- .8_8t 3:313... a. a: 18. as to .9... .3 8.1.3. .5: .2: 5“: 3: c“: .3: 3.3.80 .4:— ._: .35. Adm .5 £2.95... .. 9.3-.- u: 3!. I...— ouficofl? ,o 0!... c ~33 3. a: h . 01.9 A? .3?an .6».ka do» 1 Rank-.0. .0 dis-33. s .3 a. .2... 3:236 3 = _ r .1 z. «(0% 2...... D.” k. $.37 e... pa .m— E-Fcu—gcg 3‘ a 95.8“: 22.3.3 5: sumac—e.,: 216 out... .28... no... a... .38 .83... '95.... 3.3.1259... a... < a 28...... o... ... a. .3... a no .59.... .03....- .I 0..... 2.39.8... a... 53.3.. 2.. .6... I... 8 2... .2... 5.4.33... 5...... 28...... 2.5.... .33 28...... .6 7.03.. a v .23.... 23:... . .1.........§ 8. .. .8. .8. 2. a... .2... ..o .28.... 6:... 25.. $3.... 009...... .0 1.30.. . « €31.52. 02......- u .15.!!! 2.. .. a... .8. a. 5...“... .a .28.: .9... 7...... .359...» .032... . to... 9.3...- 833.53.... n .6 .1... 07.2.0.- .83...) no» as 0.0.... 0..: 39.0 .9... .2573 .3.- 60.. a. 833:3... .. 2.... 8.... « . -29. .o 3:89.... .3. .59... I... .1... 9.0 .9... 3.231.... .9... 9...... I...— o......... .3... #3 l a. bi § ¢ f 2.» u .mvg- % “Revowmw . . .503... .. no . .3. 5:3... 3 :2. a. .35... 2...... .w. E—hcgncsa 8‘ Oh 6.558 “.'—.2 LO subduga 217 6...... -32. 3...... .22.... . 00.... 0.00.0.0... 00.30 on :0... 00.30.. 003.03 .8 23.2.7...- 0. .3. 0..—:02... .0 ..0......... 1.00 .5. .. .5... 2... .9... .0000» 0.... 00.... 000— 0..» 00300183.... 0.... .3... 000.. 000.. 0.00.0300 0.3 ..0 3...... cut... 3...... .00.00 cm. 000 0.00» .0 0030.20: 0 5.0050 0000 .00» «0000100 900.... no 000000.... 00.. 10.300 . 2.... .8. 8 2... .0... «0.1.000 7.00.. 00 00300—00000 0.... 5... 000.. 6.2.000 .0 0..... 000.. 002.000 9.00.. 003 p 3000300000 00300 .0000» 03 00.3, 000.. .0 5000a 000000: 9.0 «.0 00 00.0.3.8 .3... a... . o a: . and a... 33...... .5: 300300.000 1.2.00 . 530.00.01.30 2.300.000 07.000.- 05 p 00 >08 .00000 3 00000000 00» 0 000 009.0 .0! 30.9.0... I3 .33: 0030.. I0: .31.... .3... l a. 0 0 00A 0 “N00. § 30003030 .3. 5...}. 8.8:... .0 so}... \K‘Iam. 2...... .5. , Egg .0 a Bi 2.5.: be 855‘... 218 450.95.100.00 0... 00:..0 :01... 0...... .1030 .00.. 1.1.09.0 < a I..- 00 0..-00.00. . '0...— 000.0000 .0...:..0.. 0.... E .5300...— 0001000 00. 009.000 00... 0... 8:13.... .: .o. S... 3:09... 2.0 .n... -05.... .2:— nn. .350 an. 0..-.5. .53.:2. mm. 000...»... mm. 0.000.... 4:00.00 0.... .0 00.0002. .03 0000.. an. 00.0.00 .0 0.00—5.00: 0.3 ....9.0 030 0...... 00: 100.000.... 0.... 50.. 5.000....— 0 a 01000 3.5!". .0 mm. 00000.4. 0.3 0. 00.0. «“6 .2... 00.00000 4!:— .0......0.000 10.0 I12... .3230 00... 0.0.. on. {0.0.5.350 000.. 00.30.. .000...‘ .3. 0000...... 003.0300 00303.... 003.200.. .0 00.300 0..—.00 J... b.0000 .0... .5... a. .5... a. .0 .0... £8 .5:— 0.....0.. 0.. 30.. I0..— 0—0.0..0.. 0 000.. 0 .0090 5. .0. .— 0 i 0 l . . m . .. m. a... . .2 .4 .0. 0..» 0 00M.“- Jo ‘9 . (thf .0003030 .3. 00220.6 00.00:...— vkow Am: .- hwfhu. 2:1. 4%0' .9 a” J 2... .0 . 2:02:56 .0 .F 2.; 22.! n: 3:80:05. 219 3:01:02. ~12...- uou .3 has he. so :5 p 18.0 .5 ca 85 53... 52.0 53:08 2... 8.... 3 532... 3 .8 .. 9.8.. as... a... .9... .5339 I... .380335 3 02. Lou Ex... < a 3 on: .5.— .860 p 3» has: 2: a 3. 5.. 35.... .5: 42333.50 53.6 :35!— 585 .3 18:53:32. p 05 «3.:- zoui 9.3..- .8 3.83:.- ..8 09:8. 53' 33...: 5 on 53-35-55 a: .59. 8. 8» 8 56.2.. ...8 .8:— u£a¢¢b 9.3: no..— o—uflfl .312... 38 ' ' 0 l e v. s . § ¢ “9.9 my %%4 fl: 9.: a :5 c 93.2....— K LV 9 ‘9 5? 9.8-3...- ..8 82:26 Vac». % emu gave 22... .9 BEEN—.cg cc Pr 95.2 2‘8 3 auto—as APPENDIX F FORMS FOR COLLECTION OF PERFORMANCE DATA ‘13 is!“ £332.. . ill- . I lolly-ll . E. III-81-3.2881. 220 221 «2 H N v m o .ow2:MHm mamumoum cam meuH>Huom :H COHummHUHuumm nuao» mo ucmuxm .m <2 H m w m m .muwwuano> :usom Eouw wocmumHmmm mQH>Hmowm .h 42 H N v m m .mumwucsHo> uHsvm scum mocmumwmmm mCH>Hwomm .m «2 H m e m o .mwmum «emu we... uwz mo mEmumwmmH can coflmflfiomam .m «2 H N v m o .Uum .mmman .ucmEmHzUo .mmHuHHHomm .mCOHuMNHcmmHo huHGaEEoo nonuo mo me .v dz H N v m o .oum .ucmEmszm .mHoom .mocsou@>MHm ..m.H .meuHHHomm Hoonom mo mm: .m «2 H m ¢ m m .oum .mHoom mcHEEH3m .mxumm amHm UHHnsm mo mm: .N .2 H N v m o 68qu mm; ”.23 3233583 A ":H Emumoum HwEEBm any mm3 HammmGUUSm 30m mHnmoHHmm< Hnwmmmoosm Hammmmuoam Hawmmmoosm Hawmmmoosm Hammmmoosm qummmoosm uoz ICD >um> IGD um£3mfiom >HuHmm mum> o H m m w m w .mmum comm CH mmz Emuuoum HmEEDm H50» Haummmoosm 30: mmnHHommc pmwn umnu ucwEmumum 30mm onme mumnsfic mo mmfluwm may Scum uwnsfic mco way wHouHo mmmmHm .Emumoum HwEEbm wnu mo mmnsoo may vcHHsU Havoc >Hcosfioo 50Hn3 mEmuH MH vmumHH mum sonm mmmcHsmmmmooam bhmH I mfimumoum HmEEDm cmuuommsm mob mo uuommm m.uouowHHQ 222 £2 H N m v m o .Ewuwoum umesam H50» mo mmeUSm HHmnm>o .MH £2 H N m v m o .uouHcoE moo Eoum wocmumHmmm mCH>Hmomm .NH cz H N n v m o .mcoHumuHcmmno Ho mmsoum >uHCSEEoo “mayo Eouw coHumuwmooo .HH fiz H N m v m o .©m©H>oum uwnEBC msmum> nmummswmu Hwnezc ..w.H .Emumoum Hao> on monocaH mo :onH>oum m.>uHo .oH <2 H N m v m o .omCCMHQ mEmuwoum cam mmHuH>Huom CH mucmmHOHuHmm nusox mo EmmHmnnucm .m “CH Emumoum umEEum mcu was Hammmwooam 30m mHQMUHHmmd Hammmmoosm Hammmmoosm Hammwmuosm Hawmmmoosm Hammmmoosw Hammmmoosm uoz 3:: >um> ICD umn3meom >HuHmm >um> o H N m w m m 223 Director's Report Summer Program Page Three 1. Was there anything which interferred with the summer program pro- ceeding as planned? (excluding lunch problems) No Yes (Specify) 2. What, if anything, would you improve in your summer program next year? 1. Name of organization: 2. Name of summer program: 3. Signature of program director: FW:mjv 7/21/77 224 «2 H N v m w .UwccmHm mEMHmOHm cam mmHuH>Huom :H coHummHoHuHmm £u50> m0 unmuxm .m 42 H N v m w .mHmmuc5H0> £550» EOHM mocmumHmmm 05H>H000m .h dz H N v m o .mHmwuq5H0> uH5pm EOHM mocmumHmmm mcH>Hwomm .w Hz H N v m o .Hmmum «emu new owz Ho mHnmumummH new conH>ummnm .m <2 H N v m m .050 .mmm5n .ucmEmH5vm .moHuHHHomm .mcoHuwNHcmmHo >9H55EECU Hmnuo m0 own .0 «2 H N v m o .oum .ucwEQH5U0 .mHoom .moc50Hm>MHm ..0.H .moHuHHHomu Hoonom m0 mmD .m ¢z H N v m m .050 .mHoom mGHEEHSm .mmem amHm UHHQ5Q m0 omD .N 52 H N v m o .UmGGMHm mm3 umnz mCH£mHHmEOUU¢ .H "CH EMH¢0HQ Her5m on» mmz H5wmm0005m 30m anmoHHmmd H5mmm0005m H5mmm0005m H5mmmwoo5m H5mmm0005m H5wmmwoo5m H5mmm0005m uoz IGD >Hm> lab umn3ofiom hHHHmm >H0> o H N n v m o .mmHm 20mm cH mmz EMHmOHm Her5m wnu H5wmwmoo5m 30a mwnHHomoo ummn umnu ucmeumum £000 wmewQ menE5c m0 mmHHmw mnu 80Hw HmnESC 0:0 map mHoHHo mummHm .EMHoOHm HmEE5m mnu mo mmH500 on» ocHH5U H5000 hHCOEEOU aoHsz mEmuH MH woumHH on 30H0m meCHHHM mmMUUDm han I mEMHOOHm HwEE5m pmuHomm5m mos m0 uHomwm m.HouHcoz 225 ¢z H N m v m o .EMHmOHQ Her5m H50» m0 mm0005m HHmH0>o .MH «2 H N m v m o .HouHcoa mo: EOHM oocmumHmmm mcH>Hwomm .NH dz H N m v m w .mcoHumuHcmmHo Ho mm50Hm »uH:5EEoo Hmnuo EOHM cOHHMHmmooo .HH <2 H N m v m w .00CH>0HQ HmQEDC m5mH0> Umumo5on H0QE5: ..0.H .EMHuOHm H50» 0» m0£055H mo conH>0Hm m.»uHU .OH dz H N m w m w .poccmHm mEMHmOHm cam mmHuH>Hp0m 5H musmmHOHuHmm £550» m0 EmmHm5£ucm .m “5H EMHmOHQ HmEE5m on» was H5mmm0005m 30m mHnmoHHmm< H5wmmooo5m H5mmmwoo5m H5umm0005m H5mmm0005m H5mmm0005m H5mmm0005m 502 as: »Hm> In: amazoeom »HHHMh »H0> o H N m v m m 226 Monitor's Report Summer Program Page Three 1. Was there anything which interferred with the summer program pro- ceeding as planned? (excluding lunch problems) No Yes (Specify) 2. What, if anything, should be improved in this summer program next year? 1. Name of organization: 2. Name of summer program: 3. Signature of monitor: FW:mjv 7/21/77 APPENDIX G SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO FREE-FORM QUESTIONS FROM DELPHI SURVEY ON ATTRIBUTES AND DECEPTIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS 10. ll. 12. 13. APPENDIX G SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO FREE-FORM QUESTIONS FROM DELPHI SURVEY ON ATTRIBUTES AND DECEPTIONS OF NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS What Do You Believe Are the Key Attributes of a Successful Neighborhood Organization? Involvement and commitment of residents. Local leadership. Open membership. Democratic decision processes. Some local base funding. Response to neighborhood needs as defined by residents. Useful programs--offering a service. Participating friendship. Trained, well paid staff. Services which relate directly to the people in the area. Adequate decision making process (good working Board). Staff competence. Adequate budget for carrying out organizational goals. 227 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 228 Energetic, thoughtful leadership that generates ideas of mission and role, programs, and action yet listens carefully to community and stands for election periodically. Leadership that identifies the real problems of such neighborhoods, selects those it can handle, works to get others to handle (or monitor others handling) problems beyond its means. Leadership that can identify what it is impossible for an organization so constituted to do, as well as what it can do. Shared sense and experience of ownership of the organization. Clear purpose/mission clearly communicated and under- stood. Energetic, competent leadership at policy and opera- tional levels. Good records. Realistic measures of results. Benefits, however defined, exceed costs, however determined. Capable leadership. Informed staff and a relevant program. Good channels of communication linking the board, leadership, staff and program of the organization. Effective planning. Strong commitment. Clear identification of needs. Availability of significant staff consultation. Full use of existing resources. Availability of professional leadership training. Exercise of residual authority as taxpayers to hold public and private agencies fully accountable for service availability. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 229 Measurable, documented goals. A community feeling that "this is our center." _Solidarity and diverse participation. Continuity. Competence of Board and staff. Resourcefulness. Results. Viewed by the residents in a positive, enthusiastic, useful manner. The leadership, volunteers and lay is not difficult to recruit and retain and the funding, either from individual or other resources if achieved in an orderly manner. Acceptance of organization by community. Program geared to suit needs of community. Program facilities accessible to clients. Allowance for direct input from clients served. The quality of leadership of the board and the director, to identify the needs of the specific neighborhood and to translate those needs into pro- grams of service. The organization has the capacity to deliver the service and record those activities. Inexhaustible fund of resourceful, knowledgeable, well-disposed trustees. East access to services for neighborhood participants. Visible, sensitive and resourceful leadership. Organizational adaptability. Organization strives consciously to become a part of the community and in the process makes the community a part of the organization. The delivery of services that are well thought-out, adequately funded and enthusiastically delivered. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 230 Defined needs. Community acceptance. -Commitment of memberships and staff to organizational goals. Positive working relationships between Board members and staff members. The ability to "stay in touch" with community needs and residents. The ability to "make do" with limited resources, their creativity. The ability to be realistic; the authority to provide what will work. The ability to foster self-determination. Focused political constituency and power. Clear goals, explicit problem focus. Community participation. Technical competence. Links to power centers outside the immediate locale. Adequate, broad based, leadership to insure con- tinuity. Knowledgeable, involved membership. Technical assistance available and appropriately used. Paid staff is possible--not leading a puppet board. Well defined mission/purpose. Commitment to resolution of a problem or addressing a community need. Capable of developing clout and constituency. Leadership that can and does identify with the local community and articulate its interests, but at the same time has a capacity to understand and accommodate the interests of other (other neighborhoods, etc.) while maximizing its own. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 231 What Information About Neighborhood Organizations Can Be Deceptive in Assessing Their Potentials For Success Rhetoric Gossip Spokesperson Motives Large external funding Competition for leadership posts Large size of membership roster Much talk regarding community needs--1ittle data. Reports which are prepared by the organization for public consumption. Most of the formal trappings--constitution, by-laws, etc. Information in the form of positive or negative per- ceptions, impressions, subjective assessments by users of the organization's services, by providers of the service, and by the leadership--board and opera- tional. Staff qualifications Quantity of people served Written Public Relations material One person leadership that dominates, vested interests that place securing jobs for themselves as sole or primary goal. CriSis situations to which city-wide leaders over— react. Reaction to repressive tactics by police, etc. Steering by professionals and politicians based on their own agenda. Inability to move from single project to broader planning. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 232 Inadequate analysis of human resources. Paper organization with no substantive backing. Probably the most deceptive is information relative to the number of people served. Overabundance of promotional activity and vocal political participation. Whether or not they really have the support of the community they claim to serve. Criteria that does not reflect the kind of services that are offered, and is not a priority area of the funding source. All too often most groups and com- munity based organizations have limited skills in reporting the specific nature of their programs, nor have they developed the kind of system that adequately captures the services that they provide. Most organi- zations only respond to the reporting system that is presented to them by the funding source that may not respond to the particular needs of the group or organi- zation. Information that deals with plans only and not with outcomes. Information that confines itself to the letter of things but omits the spirit of matters at hand. Extent of internal commitment of each member and staff. Adequacy of needs assessment. Willingness of community to support organization's goals. Board composition, i.e., the "movers and shakers" The physical facility. Salary ranges of staff. Membership size and diversity. Sharp staff snowing a Board. Verbal leaders--no backing. Misreading potential, clout, and constituency. 233 37. Lack of bureaucratic sophistication/polish. 38. Over-reliance on quantity. 39. Lack of track record. APPENDIX H LISTING OF EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS I. APPENDIX H LISTING OF EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS Goal Achievement A. Purposes-goals-objectives 1. Evidence that purposes and objectives are congruent with community needs. 2. Statements of goals and objectives, well- defined, but flexible enough to accommodate unanticipated action to be protective and reactive to community issues as they arise. 3. Communication of the organization's purposes and objectives to paid staff. 4. Communication of the organization's purposes and objectives to volunteers who assist the organization. 5. Evidence of a periodic review of organiza- tion's objectives with adjustments and modifications as required. 6. Specificity of objectives even though diffi- cult to quantify, i.e., objectives of com- munity cohesion, community morale. 7. Established milestones, or time periods, for reaching goals and objectives. 8. Visible goals that can attract support. 9. Flexibility in long-range planning to accom- modate unanticipated projects or programs. Programs 10. Objectives manifested in the programs of the organization. 11. Programs with quality outputs. 12. Qualitative and quantitative programs that satisfy those who are to benefit. 234 13. 14. 15. 16. 235 Programs by and for the community that meet self-defined needs rather than needs defined by others. Programs determined by residents. Short-range projects. Programs which provide immediate assistance to residents. II. Resources A. Manpower Board 17. Elected to office by the membership. 18. Include representation of persons from the neighborhood. l9. Include representation of persons from the membership of the organization. (The members would include those persons who pay dues or clients.) . 20. Include representation of persons with knowl- edge of the programs provided by the organi- zation. Leader (president or chairperson) 21. A president or chairperson with knowledge of the organization and its programs with chair- type skills. 22. A president or chairperson willing and able to learn, with commitment to the organization and its programs. 23. A president with knowledge of the organiza- tion's impact in the neighborhood. Staff 24. Staff able to relate to persons served. 25. Staff representative of persons served by the organization. 26. Staff with educational and experience back- ground adequate to carry out the programs of the organization. Volunteers 27. Volunteers from the neighborhood. 28. Professional volunteers from a variety of backgrounds (accountants, lawyers, educators, social workers, etc.) B. 236 Interpretation of organization's purposes, programs, and achievements to neighborhood Meetings open to neighborhood residents. Publication of organization's purposes, pro- grams, and achievements to neighborhood Participation in community associations or Working relationships with other neighbor- Contacts with mayor's office, city council, neighborhood city hall, police precincts. Contacts with agencies handling revenue sharing funds, other financial grants, or Neighborhood based fund raising activities. "Broader" community based fund raising activities which do not result in loss of Organizational Relationships Community 29. residents. 30. 31. residents. Inter-Organizational 32. councils. 33. hood organizations. Political 34. 35. sources of funds. Funding 37. 38. local autonomy. 39. Donations from individuals and groups com- mitted to the organization's interest without strings attached. III. Operations A. Controls 40. Evidence of adequate bookkeeping. 41. Policies and issues voted on by group members. 42. Records of services provided. 43. Reports which portray the Operating results of the organization and its program. 44. Well-defined statements of policies. 45. Semi-annual and/or annual evaluations. 46. Records of persons served. Activities 47. Assessment of community needs. 48. Information source for residents on matters which affect the neighborhood. 49. Facility open for use by the community. 50. Evidence of active recruitment of members. APPENDIX I all“. _ .o._.- ek_. Hac.- rec.- nac.- csH.: HHH. sec. acc.: _p_. n.c.- ccc.- _s_. as..- Ha..- can.u ¢H~.u c-.- sac. eac.- «_o. HHH. mHH. aas. H¢~.- .¢_. m¢_. Has. :c«. as“. me... e... cc..- ecc.- ea..- Hse.- are. nm_. ch. HH~.- ec~.- cr~.- m¢_. acc.- _HH. Hec.a acN. Han. na_. Hem. oHc. .HH.- ccc. cHH. can. cn~.- ~nn.- cec.u ch.- c_n. o_~. ne_. a»..- .cn.- use. HHH. H¢_. «NH. HH_. on..- c.c.- can. mac. _Hc. occ. H_H.- use. ae«.- mNC. “HH. HcH. ncH. «N..- mac. ~m.. oHH. oc_. can.- oec.- Hae.u ene.- ch. HHH. c-.- ne~.- HHN. cc“. an_. H_p. occ.- «cc. ~c~.u Ncc. -_. caH. «HH. c.~.: ea... «_c.- kno. moo. emn.- «Ho.- Nae.u e~e.- cmc. cHH. men.u «a..- co.. Hue. HNc.- ~__. c.c.- .nc. H_c.- ecc.- Hoc.- mo_.: .5..- mac. -c. .ac.- Hoc.; sac. aao. HcH. “He. eHc.u _cc.- as... am... th. rec. enc.: HN_.: one. HoH. aHH. aao.- oeo.a aao. _oH.- noH. :,=.- _sc.- =~c.- sn_.- mac. .HH. HoH. ~s¢.- mec.: mac. eo_.u n¢.. ce;. Hcc.- «kc. .Hc.- c... .HH. HHH. «_c. aao. ans. H.... «.9. «.c.. .__.. c~c.- Ho..- m... an“. use. HHH. _mc. _nc. ~cc.- NHH.- okH. c:H.- cHH.- HH~.- aao.- HSH. mcH. Hcc. HnH. cue. cac.- =-.- HaH. ¢.=.- cc.. no_. x__. an. HHc.-. cHN. HaH. smn. mam. Hes. ¢-. no..- an. NSH.- os~.- ~c~.- enc. asc.: «HH.- mHn. any. ~mn.- :Hs. mechlnlu HHy __x cHH ax ax Hx ex nx ex is ex .2 mousmai: possessing; cc: mazvaazatu4 _::c_chHctau: .2 :_Hmt: ::_H:_3.t:r 1237 238 sec.— 2;. r2. 8s. I31- 3.... Sn. 2:: SN. 2:. :3. cmH. 2x coo.H cHM. cec.u mmo. ouH. NcH. NNH. NNH. m—m. nso. mNH.u :x ace.— oHH. ceH. ch.s cmm. ch.u moH.n m~c.u Nuo.n coc. o: ccc.— CNH. «he. ccH. mm~.- ch.u muc. HmH. oHN. ox ccc.H o2..- ccc. seq. cec. cmH. mmc.o mew. ex cccH can. 72.. SN. NcH.- 2.... SN. Hx cccH HNH.- NHH.- c2..- meH. Nee. ex ccc.H ch. HmH.u Ncc.u NcH.- mx ccc.H ~m~.- ecN. SE; 5:. mow. Hx musoaoxccuu< anoHunanmwuc Co xHuucr c:.H:chtoc ccc.H nmc. NH Q a; r. 239 COO.— OHH. ch.I ~_N. «_c.l o_—.l «an. noH.l ocn. NoH.l ocH. No0. can. ncN. hue.l Hnn.0 Nmo.l ooH. nun. . [I aH» coo.— aao.! nae. nn_. nae. nnN. nnN. o—c. Hem. ~_—.a oco.l aao.- aao.! ocH.I men.t aao.: aao.! 000. our 6.5 . _ can.l ocN.I «n~.| new.l son.l aao.- nan.o NN—. ONH. aao. aao. 00H. QNH. onH. NHO. 04—.l ha» coo.— «_c. om¢. «to. no—. «no.3 NQH. on—. new. HNH. cHN. n—O. oncJI «_N. wOH. hnN. 0H» ace.— coo. co~.c NHc. oNN.I nco.l _Nc.l mHO. «no. 609. mac. Nee. co_. c~o.n ocN. a.» sec.— o-.a soc.— cmo.l eN_. Goa.— on—.n ace. QMH. ccc.~ Hmo.| owe. sea. n—o.0 GOO.— soc.l «$3.0 naH.l <@_.l nn—.l nNo. QHN.I HQN.0 QNN.I No—.I c—c. m_N. nuc.l 90—. n—c.l Hco. sac. c—e.l ccc. can.l sNo. non. oun.l hon. Noc.l nno.l Nec.l can.o a—c.l sn—.l one. H~e.- can.. «an.. Ho..- nHH. cos. Hae.u soH. Hem.n emu. c_~. ch.- on“. one.. «Hr H_» H.» H5» cHr coc.H con. as“. hoe. who. no—. em“. a» ace.— as». am». ONN. ace. oaN. oou. 5» mL¢=m<flx moz occ.— I H» OH» oHr «H» OH» BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Afifi, A. A., and Azen, S. P. Statistical Analysis a Computer Oriented Approach. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Austin, David M. "Poverty and Organizations of the Poor." Encyclgpedia of Social Work. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Social Workers, 1973, 906- 915. Bennis, Warren G. Changing Organizations. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966. Caplow, Theodore. Principles of Organization. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1964. Cornfield, Jerome, and Tukey, John W. "Average Values of Mean Squares in Factorials." The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 27(1956), 907-949. Dalkey, Norman, and Helmer, Olaf. "An Experimental Appli- cation of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts." Management Science 9(April, 1963), 458-467. Dressel, Paul L. Handbook of Academic Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Publishers, 1976. Etzioni, Amitai. "Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion." Administrative Science Quarterly 5(September, 1960), 257-278. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern Organizations. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1964. Friedlander, Frank, and Pickle, Hal. "Components of Effec- tiveness in Small Organizations." Administrative Science Quarterly 13(September, 1968), 289-304. Georgopoulos, Basil S., and Tannenbaum, Arnold S. "A Study of Organizational Effectiveness." American Socio- logical Review 22(l957), 534-540. 240 241 Gibson, James L.; Ivancevich, John M.; and Donnelly Jr., James H. Organizations: Structure, Processes, Behavior. Texas: Business Publications, Inc., 1973. Gurin, Arnold. "Social Planning and Community Organiza- tion." Encyclopedia of Social Work 2(1973), 1324- 1337. Johnson, Harold R. "Neighborhood Services." Encyclopedia of Social Work 2(1973), 865-872. Katz, Daniel, and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966. Levinson, Perry. "Evaluation of Social Welfare Programs: Two Research Models." Welfare in Review 10(1966), 5-12. Lipsky, Michael. "Protest as a Political Resource." American Political Science Review 62(December, 1968), 1144-1158. Lipsky, Michael. "Rent Strikes: Poor Man's Weapon." Trans-Action 6(February, 1969), 10-15. Marris, Peter, and Rein, Martin. Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967. Martin, Don T.; Overholt, George E.; and Urban, Wayne J. Accountability in American Education: A Critique. Princeton Book Company, 1976. Mogulof, Melvin B. "Neighborhood Service Centers." Encyclopedia of Social Work 2(1973), 857-865. Mott, Paul E. The Characteristics of Effective Organiza- tions. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972. Patillo, Roger W. "Guides for Assessing the Administrative and Management Capabilities of Social Service Agencies." Vancouver Planned Program Budgeting Systems Project, United Way of Greater Vancouver (September, 1975). Perrow, Charles. "The Analysis of Goals in Complex Organi- zations." American Sociological Review 26(December, 1961), 854-866. 242 Price, James L. "The Study of Organizational Effective- ness." The Sociologipal Quarterly 13(Winter, 1972), 3-15. Price, James L. Organizational Effectiveness: An Inventory of Propositions. Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968. Ross, Murray G. Community Organization: Theory, Principles and Practice. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1967. Rothman, Jack. Planning and Organizing for Social Change: Action Principles from Social Science Research. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974. Seashore, Stanley E. "Criteria of Organizational Effec- tiveness." Michigan Business Review 4(July, 1965), 26-30. Seashore, Stanley E., and Yuchtman, Ephraim. "Factorial Analysis of Organizational Performance." Adminis- trative Science Quarterly 12(December, 1967), 377- 395. Simon, Herbert A. "On the Concept of Organizational Goal." Administrative Scienceyguarterly 9(June, 1964), 1-22. Stein, Herman D. "The Study of Organizational Effective- ness," in David Fanshel, ed., Research in Social Welfare Administration: Its Contributions and Problems. New York: National Association of Social Workers, 1962, 22-32. Stein, Herman D.; Hougham, George M.; and Zalba, Serapio R. "Assessing Social Agency Effectiveness: A Goal Model." Welfare in Review 2(1968), 13-18. Suchman, Edward A. Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. Tatsuoka, Maurice M. Multivariate Analysis: Techniques for Educational and Psychological Research. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971. Turoff, Murray. "The Design of a Policy Delphi." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2(1970), 149-171. 243 Van De Ven, Andrew H., and Delbecq, Andre L. "The Nominal Group as a Research Instrument for Exploratory Health Studies." American Journal of Public Health 62(March, 1972), 337-342. Van De Ven, Andrew H., and Delbecq, Andre L. "The Effec- tiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting Group Decision Making Processes." Agademy of Management Journal 17(December, 1974), 605-621. Vanecko, James J.; Orden, Susan R.; and Hollander, Sidney. Community Organization Efforts, Political and Institutional Change, and the Diffusion of Change Produced by Community Action Proqrams. Report #3: Final Report of Phase I of a National Evaluation of Urban Community Action Programs. University of Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, NORC Report #122, April, 1970. Warner, W. Keith. "Problems in Measuring the Goal Attain-_ ment of Voluntary Organizations." Adult Education 18(1967-68), 3-14. Warriner, Charles K. "The Problem of Organizational Pur- pose." The Sociological Quarterly 6(1965), 139-146. Weiss, Carol H. Evaluating Action Programs: Readings in Social Action and Evaluation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1972. Weiss, Carol H. Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Wechsler, Henry; Reinherz, Helen 2.; and Dobbin, Donald D. Social Work Research in Human Services. New York: Human Sciences Press, 1976. Yuchtman, Ephraim, and Seashore, Stanley E. "A System Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness." American Sociological Review 32(December, 1967), 891-902. Zald, Mayer N. "Comparative Analysis and Measurement of Organizational Goals: The Case of Correctional Institutions for Delinquents." The Sociological Quarterly 4(1963), 206-230. Zald, Mayer N. "Organizations as Polities: An Analysis of Community Organization Agencies." Social Work 11 (October, 1966), 56-65. 244 Evaluation and Accountability in Human Service Programs. Eds., William C. Sze and June G. Hopps. Massa- chusetts: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1978. Emerging Developments in Mental Health Program Evaluation. Eds., William Neigher, Roni J. Hmnmer, and Gerald Landsberg. New York: Argold Press, 1977. Evaluating Social Programs: TheoryLiPracticey and Politics. Eds., Peter H. Rossi and Walter Williams. New York: Seminar Press, 1972. Health Sciences Computing Facility Department of Biomathe- matics School of Medicine University of California, Los Angeles. BMD Biomedical Computer Programs, ed. W. J. Dixon. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1977, 305-330. Health Sciences Computing Facility Department of Biomathe- matics School of Medicine University of California, Los Angeles. BMDP Biomedical Computer Programs P-’ Series, eds., W. J. Dixon and M. B. Brown. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1979, 711- 733. Readings in Evaluation Research. Ed., Francis G. Caro. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1977.