ERIC ED434252: Resident Involvement in Community Change: The Experiences of Two Initiatives.

34 Pages·1999·1.1 MB·English

by  ERIC

DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 434 252
CE 079 271
AUTHOR
Walker, Karen E.; Watson, Bernardine H.; Jucovy, Linda Z.
TITLE
Resident Involvement in Community Change: The Experiences of
Two Initiatives.
INSTITUTION
Public/Private Ventures, Philadelphia, PA.
PUB DATE
1999-00-00
NOTE
33p.
PUB TYPE
Reports
Research (143)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
Adult Education; Change Strategies; *Citizen Participation;
*Citizen Role; *Community Change; Community Development;
*Community Problems; Demonstration Programs; Neighborhood
Improvement; Program Development; Resource Allocation
ABSTRACT
This paper looks systematically at the experiences of two
demonstration projects, Plain Talk and Community Change for Youth Development
(CCYD), and discusses their attempts to implement resident involvement
strategies. Chapter 1 is an introduction. Chapter 2 provides a brief overview
of the two demonstration projects that indicates all sites in both projects
experienced similar developmental phases in relation to resident involvement
as they moved from planning to start-up to fuller implementation, although
the projects differ in their goals and scope. Chapter 3 examines the
following: the roles residents played during the planning phase and their
relationships with site staff; how and why these roles and relationships
changed and became a great deal more challenging and uncertain during initial
program implementation; the strategies that sites used to overcome these
challenges; and the range of roles that residents adopted as implementation
progressed. The last chapter offers lessons from the Plain Talk and CCYD
experiences and explores implications of these lessons for practitioners,
program designers, and policymakers.
(YLB)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
I
S
U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
e?is document has been reproduced as
from the person or organization
e4ceived
originating it
0 Minor changes have been made to
improve reproduction quality
° Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OERI position or policy
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
!RESOURCES
TO THE EDUCA r riN
INFORMATIO CENTER (ERIC)
BESTCOPYAVAILABLE
esi
e
vex' e t I
in ®'
mmunity
ange:
C
The Experiences
of
Two
Initiatives
Karen E. Walker
Bernardine H. Watson
Linda Z. J covy
Board of Directors
Public/Private Ventures is a national nonprofit organ-
Siobhan Nicolau, Chair
President
ization whose mission is to improve the effectiveness
Hispanic Policy Development
of social policies, programs and community initia-
Project
tives, especially as they affect youth and young
Amalia V. Betanzos
President
adults. In carrying out this mission, P/PV works with
Wildcat Service Corporation
philanthropies, the public and business sectors, and
Yvonne Chan
Principal
nonprofit organizations.
Vaughn Learning Center
John J. Dilulio, Jr.
Fox Leadership Professor of
Politics, Religion and Civil
Society
University of Pennsylvania
AliCe F. Emerson
Senior Fellow
Andrew W Mellon Foundation
Susan Fuhrman
Dean, Graduate School of
Education
University of Pennsylvania
Matthew McGuire
Director of Private Sector
Initiatives
Wildcat Service Corporation
Michael P. Morley
Senior Vice President
Eastman Kodak Company
Jeremy Nowak
Chief Executive Officer
The Reinvestment Fund
Marion Pines
Senior Fellow
Institute for Policy Studies
Johns Hopkins University
Isabel Carter Stewart
National Executive Director
Girls Incorporated
Mitchell Sviridoff
Community Development
Consultant
Marta Tienda
Professor of Sociology
Princeton University
Gary Walker
President
Public/Private Ventures
William Julius Wilson
Lewis P and Linda L. Geyser
University Professor
Harvard University
BLE
,4
MAI
BEST COPY
2
Acknow0edgments
There are many people we would like to thank for making
This report draws on data collected over several
years by a
this report possible. Most important are the residents from
number of on-site research consultants. In Plain Talk, Judy
both the Community Change for Youth Development
Harper, Melanie Harrington, Gail Myers and Suzanne
(CCYD) and Plain Talk communities who participated in the
Tedesko conducted ethnographic research in four of the
initiatives and generously gave us their time as we conduct-
Plain Talk communities. In CCYD, Ginger Baber, Daniel
ed our research. They spoke with us both informally and
Brantley and Pam Smith collected both qualitative and
through formal interviews, invited us into their communi-
quantitative data in the CCYD communities. P/PV research
ties and homes, and graciously accepted the
presence of
staff who interviewed governance group members and
researchers as they went about their community work.
other residents involved in CCYD and Plain Talk included
Cindy Sipe, Laurie Kotloff, Yvonne Butler and Angela
Of course this work would also not have been possible
Jernigan. They all contributed their ideas to the question of
without the generous financial support of numerous fun-
resident involvement in community initiatives. For many,
ders. The Plain Talk research was funded by The Annie E.
that question was among the most interesting in both ini-
Casey Foundation. CCYD is funded by a consortium
tiatives, and the ideas in this report were developed
including: The Ford Foundation, The Annie E. Casey
through the team discussions we have had over the years.
Foundation, Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, The
Many other colleagues at P/PV also contributed their ideas
Commonwealth Fund, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation,
and insights to the report. Bob Penn, Laurie Kotloff, Gary
Charles Hayden Foundation, Surdna Foundation, The
Walker, Kathryn Furano and Corina Chavez all read early
Pinkerton Foundation, Booth Ferris Foundation, Altman
drafts of the report and made useful comments. Tamara
Foundation, The Clark Foundation and Merk Family Fund.
Wilson was indispensable in making revisions to and
keeping track of various versions of the manuscript.
We would also like to thank the staff of the lead agencies
Maxine Sherman guided the report through the editing
who helped manage the initiatives in their communities.
and publishing process with her customary and careful
They facilitated our presence in the communities and
pro-
attention to detail.
vided important information and feedback used through-
out this report. Specifically, those people are: Marta Flores
and Nancy Wallis-Bryant from San Diego; Tom Slattery and
Lisa Corbin Perry from Seattle; Linda Welsh and Kit Abney
from Austin; Tammi Fleming from New Orleans; Cheryl
Boykins and Jemea Smith from Atlanta; Otis Johnson,
Gaye Smith and Rhoney Triplett from Savannah; Bufus
Gammons, Jim Mills and Browning Spence from St.
Petersburg; and Annika Warren and Flora Pariskey from
Hartford.
5
3
Co Mentz
Ont..ducton
Ovenrtiew Of CCM and Nah Tao
Throe Phases
f Pesildetro2 Onvollventent
12
Enthusiasm in Planning
14-
Uncertainty in Implementation
17
Resident Roles: Strategies for Resolution
22i
nchoslon
7,,
L_d,E81 COPY
AVAILABLE
ntroduction
This report looks at adult resident involvement in two
strengthening the community infrastructure and the
demonstration projects: Plain Talk and Community
capacity of community resourcesresidents and insti-
tutionsto help shape, plan, implement and sustain
Change for Youth Development (CCYD). Plain Talk, a
five-site demonstration designed and funded by The
local change. These initiatives stress the importance of
Annie E. Casey Foundation, sought to involve local res-
partnerships between residents and institutions, and
idents in addressing the community problems of teen
often emphasize that sustained and committed resi-
pregnancy and transmission of sexually transmitted
dent involvement is essential for any community-level
diseases (STDs). The four-year initiative was complet-
change. Community residents can contribute an inside
ed in 1997. CCYD, an initiative designed by
view of the community's strengths and needs, access
Public/Private Ventures (P/PV),' is a six-site demon-
to social networks that can facilitate local buy-in, and
stration that endeavors to draw together local institu-
the legitimacy and moral authority to address certain
tional, human and financial resources to enhance the
"touchy" community issuesall of which are important
capacity of urban communities for supporting the suc-
to the success of the initiative. Involving residents has
cessful growth and development of young people ages
also been seen as a way to build community leadership
12 to 20. The design of CCYD called for "buy-in" by
capacity, which, in turn, could help expand and sustain
participating communities and for local residents to
initiative accomplishments. Finally, resident involve-
play a key role in all aspects of the initiative. Planning
ment has been viewed by all participants in communi-
in the three initial sites took place during 1995; imple-
ty-centered initiativesfunders, outside initiators and
mentation began in 1996 and will continue through
the target communities themselvesas a very power-
2001.2 Thus, the challenging process of involving resi-
ful political idea, particularly given the failure of pub-
dents in long-term change is still under way.
lic- and private-sector institutions to solve problems in
poor communities.
Both Plain Talk and CCYD represent a social policy
approach that is community-centered and aims to
These were all factors in the decision of P/PV and The
make basic changes in the environment, institutions
Annie E. Casey Foundation to make resident involve-
arid human interactions that shape people's lives. This
ment a critical component of the CCYD and Plain Talk
approach began gaining favor in the late 1980s and
initiatives. There was also a desire to generate infor-
early 1990s. It had become increasingly clear that the
mation for the social policy field about key questions
more limited interventions, which were designed
that arise when residents are involved as key actors
entirely outside the communities where the target
and decision-makers in community change efforts and
population lived and which had dominated social poli-
to share any lessons that might be useful in these
cy for several decades, were not having lasting effects.
areas. These questions include:
Thus, throughout this decade, a number of communi-
What are the most effective and realistic vehicles
ty-centered interventions have been implemented,
for resident involvement? Resident advisory groups?
focusing on areas that include youth development,
Governance? Outreach and education? Activity
neighborhood revitalization, school reform and social
planning and implementation? Political action?
service integration. Central to these projects has been
Should specific vehicles be used for different types
the notion that improving the lives of the poor requires
of initiatives?
Resident Involvement as
a
Recurring Social Program and
Policy Theme
What are effective strategies for helping residents
Grappling with these issues is important not only
develop the capacity to play a leading role in com-
because the process of involving residents has been a
munity change? Can resident involvement be sus-
challenge in the Plain Talk and CCYD initiatives but
tained over time?
also because resident involvement strategies have
cycled through American social programming and poli-
How can the initiative balance power and responsi-
cy repeatedly during the last century. The idea of resi-
bility between paid agency staff and resident
dent involvement in neighborhood-based social change
volunteers?
and poverty initiatives began in the early twentieth
century with the growth of urbanization and urban
While resident involvement in community change was
poverty. Progressive reformers and leaders of the early
central to the design of both Plain Talk and CCYD,
"settlement" movement introduced the notion of the
both were initiated by outside planners and funders.
local community as the unit for confronting urban ills
The original impetus did not come from the communi-
and developed the strategy of "organizing residents" as
ties themselves. Thus, an additional key question con-
a vehicle for improving neighborhood conditions. In
cerns the effect that outside planners and funders (like
the 1920s and 1930s, other community-based strate-
P/PV and The Annie E. Casey Foundation), with their
gies, such as Saul Alinsky's "Back of the Yards
own goals and timelines, have on the process of involv-
Neighborhood Council" in Chicago, called for organized
ing residents in these initiatives.
resident action.
However, it was the activism of the civil rights move-
ment in the late 1950s and 1960sand accompanying
demands by poor, mainly minority residents for a larg-
er voice in local planning and politicsthat gave resi-
dent involvement strategies prominence in community
initiatives sponsored by government, foundations and
community-based organizations. For example, the fed-
eral government responded to minority residents'
protests against the urban renewal policies of the
1950s, with federal mandates in the 1960s to involve
public housing tenants in management. Also, the feder-
al government's major anti-poverty programs of the
1960sthe Office of Economic Opportunity's War on
Poverty and the Model Cities programboth empha-
sized residents' roles in decision-making. Later, in the
1970s, citizen participation requirements were includ-
ed in the Community Development Block Grant pro-
gram and the Housing and Community Development
Act, which funded neighborhood planning processes in
numerous cities. In an attempt to be responsive to
community concerns, today's federal enterprise and
empowerment zone initiatives similarly require resi-
dent involvement.
LE
EST COPY AVA8 L, ,
8
. ,
Community-based organizations alSO used the resident
In.-sPite of the recurrence of "reSiderit involvement" as
activism of the civil rights movement to, achieve a vari-
a theMe in this country's social poliCy; there ha'S never
ety of :community reforths. For example; the Reidy.
been much clarity or agreerrient among policymakers,
Street. Settlement in NeW York initiated "Mebilization
funders or practitioners aboUt what iS:adnially Meant
for Youth," which used resident protests:and demands
by the term, and there haS been little study Of its on-
to pressure soCial institutions into, being more respon-
the:groinid iniPlementation in loW-income :conurtuni:
sive to community concerns. And many of the griginal
ties.se..that's,"lessOni learned" could be used to
=
community deyeloPm.ent corPorations (CDCs), were
improYe Practice. Over the years,_ COnithunityLlevel
created .around the Same-time as protest orgainiations.
tiatiVeS'-=:-frOin The Ford;FOUndation's Gray Areas'proj-
These groups emphasized "Community control' and
eCt; to the federal Model:Cities effort, to current foun-
dation-initiated and -funded projects like Plain
resident involvement in thedireCtfori and staffittg of
economic development activity.
and CCYDLL-hasie struggled to identify realistic and
tiSeftil roles- for tesidentS.:
With the implementation of the Gray Areas project in
the 1960s; The:Ford Foundation initiated the fOunda:
To begin to address this; issue the following paper
tion sector's use of the neighborhood initiative:as a
looks SySteMaticaliyatthO experiences.olthe Plain
response to urban poverty. The:Project provided fund:
Talk and CCYD Communities in their.attempts to
ing acid teahnical assistance to a niunber of inner city
implement resident involvement_ strategies. ChaPter II
neighborhoods for the development and implementa-
provides a brief overviemf-of the two demonstration
projects; While the
tion of acomprehensive neighborhoOdplan bY neigh-
differ in their goalS: and
borhood residents and a lead ageneY:Ford continued
Scope, all of the sites in both projects experienced
thi§:leadership in the 1970s by creating the Local
developmental phases in relation: to reSident
InitiatiVes SuPport Corporation to support thegrowth
involyement,aitheY moved from Planningto start-Up
to fuller implementation, and ChaPter,III.outlines these
of new and existing community-develdpment Corpora-
tions. In the 1980s, when there appeared to be little
planning
phases. Chapter ly lookg more clOsely at.
public policydesigned to addr6s the ongoing deterio-
Phase, the "roles residents. layed;:.during that tune, and
ration and neglect of poor, urban communities, other
their relationshiPS With sitestaff: ChaPter-V examines
foundationsffboth national and local began to get
how and why these roles and relationships changed
involved, directing attention and resources to commu- and became a great deal More challenging and uncer-
tain during initial program implementation; while
nity-centered initiatives that included strong resident
Chapter VI discusses the strategies that sites used to
involvement components. Many of these are called
comprehensive community initiatives (CCIs)long-
overcome these challenges and the range of roles that
term projects designed to build the capacity of resi- residents adopted as implementation progressed.
dents and local institutions to determine the broad
Chapter VII offers lessons from the Plain Talk and
CCYD experiences and explores implications of these
social, economic and physical needs of the community
and to take the lead in seeing that these needs are
lessons for practitioners, program designers and poli-
met. The Surdna Foundation's Comprehensive
cymakers.
Community Revitalization Program, Annie E. Casey's
Neighborhood Transformation and Family
Development Initiative, and Ford's Neighborhood and
Family Initiative are all examples. While the Plain Talk
and CCYD initiatives are less comprehensive in scope
than these CCIs, they are part of the same category of
community-centered approaches that call for the
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
heavy involvement of residents.
9
9
4tinge Var Youth
CCYD's aim is to build infrastructures that provide sup-
ports and positive opportunities for young people
throughout the target communities. By the early
1990s, it had become increasingly clear to the youth
policy field that existing programming was not suffi-
cient to address the spectrum of developmental needs
of large numbers of American youth. In addition,
although evaluations of youth-focused demonstrations
showed positive short-term outcomes, long-term
changes were difficult to achieve once programs came
to an end.3 Given the research findings, P/PV designed
The two demonstration projects, CCYD and Plain Talk,
CCYD to involve a wide range of key players in the
shared fundamental elements in their approach to resi-
community, who could work together to fill critical
dent involvement. Both provided a conceptual frame-
gaps in existing services for youth and build on the
work for community change and left it up to the lead
communities' assets to create structures and processes
agencies and sites to transform the concepts and goals
that would take root and endure.
into structures, processes and activities that drew on the
strengths and characteristics of their particular commu-
CCYD provides a conceptual framework that focuses
nities and addressed local needs in ways that community
local efforts on five "core concepts" central to positive
members determined would be most effective. Sites in
youth development: personal support and guidance
both initiatives faced similar broad challenges and expe-
from caring adults; work as a developmental tool; con-
rienced similar developmental processes.
structive activities that fill critical gap periods, such as
At the same time, the initiatives differed in several after-school and summer hours; youth involvement in
decision-making; and continuity of support through
important ways. Plain Talk's goal of protecting sexually
active teens from pregnancy and disease was contro-
critical transitions in adolescents' lives. Local commu-
nities are responsible for building on that framework
versial in many of the communities because it
by creating their own collaborations and governance
appeared to conflict with cultural and religious beliefs
structures, and by designing and implementing activi-
concerning the importance of abstinence. CCYD's goal
ties. Resident adults and youth financial resources and
of providing supports and opportunities for youth was
local service providers are the key to the potential suc-
more easily embraced by a wider spectrum of the com-
munity. However, the initiative's focus was more com- cess of local efforts.
prehensive than Plain Talk's, which has presented
Although six sites are implementing CCYD, the most
additional challenges for residents and staff.
intensive research has been in three sites: Austin,
Differences in the extent to which residents' roles
were initially defined, as well as in the amount of train- Texas; Savannah, Georgia; and St. Petersburg, Florida.
ing and support that the funder or intermediary pro-
This paper draws primarily on the experiences in those
vided for residents early on, also affected the ways sites. All the sites are urban, and all have relatively
that resident involvement took shape in the sites. high rates of poverty; but there are significant ethnic
and racial differences among the target areas, as well
as differences in educational and employment levels.
Residents of the target area in Austin are primarily
Latino, while the target areas in Savannah and St.
Petersburg are populated mostly by African
Americans. In Savannah, a tight job market has led to
high unemployment among youth in the target com-
munity, whereas St. Petersburg and Austin have much
BEST COPY AVM
LE
lower rates of unemployment.
10