|
June 2006
|
       |
Contents
Editor's PageWords to the WiseSome JOE reviewers are complaining about the quality and correctness of the writing in some JOE submissions. Let me quote a message I received from a reviewer: "I must add that a number of papers I have read have not been well edited before we get them--the author(s) are not getting others to edit for style, grammar, or punctuation sufficiently before they submit their work." Another reviewer called me to ask if it was his responsibility to edit the text of the article he'd been sent to review. I told him that it certainly wasn't and that, further, if the problems with the text were that widespread, it might be grounds to reject the article or at least "knock it down a peg" in his rating. "What JOE Reviewers Want in JOE Submissions" clearly says: "JOE reviewers can't review your research or project, itself. They can only review what you have written about it. So ask several colleagues to read your article for clarity and correctness before you submit it." "Tips for Writing for the Journal of Extension" tells you to "ask at least one colleague to review your article to ensure that it's as good as you can make it before it goes through the formal JOE review process." Both of these documents and other good advice are available on the Help for JOE Authors page <http://www.joe.org/jhelp.html>. Whether you edit your article yourself or get a colleague to do it for you, you should see that your article is clear and correct before you submit it. The fate of your article in the review process just might hang on it. Bad writing can obscure good work. And who wants that to happen? June JOEThere are several articles on information technology of various kinds in this issue. I'm struck by the coincidence that the authors of the first Feature, "Perceptions of Extension's Desirable Future and the Role of IT," are from the Center to Bridge the Digital Divide and that the title of the second Feature is "Bridging the Digital Divide: An Evaluation of a Train-the-Trainer, Community Computer Education Program for Low-Income Youth and Adults." We have a Feature on "Cooperative Extension and the 1890 Land-Grant Institution: The Real Story" that says that "despite the many obstacles and limited resources, Extension at the 1890's managed to successfully fulfill its mission." And we have a Research in Brief, "The Effectiveness of a Public Nutrition Education and Wellness System Program," that demonstrates the truth of that statement. There's a thought-provoking Commentary on "The Ups and Downs of the Workplace," a Tools of the Trade that offers some very interesting "Tips for Communicating Agricultural Safety to Children," and much more. Laura Hoelscher, Editor
The Ups and Downs of the WorkplacePatreese D. Ingram All service ranks the same with God; Robert Browning, from Pippa Passes Within almost every organization there is a hierarchy among the employees that is based on position, title, role, and function. In some organizations, distinctions are made between exempt and non-exempt employees, union and nonunion employees, those who work with their hands and those who work in an office setting. In university settings, the distinction may be between faculty, administrative, and staff positions. In Extension, the hierarchy may relate to university-funded positions and county-funded positions, and agents, program assistant, and education advisor positions. Even in organizations that claim to have a "flat organizational chart," there are still three categories of employees--the "tops," the "middles," and the "bottoms" (Esty, Griffin, & Hirsch, 1995). Rank in the Workplace: An Unacknowledged "Ism"In some sense, hierarchical distinctions create a class system in the workplace. Unlike other issues such as race, sex, age, or sexual orientation, class in the workplace is largely unacknowledged; issues of class are largely under the table. Robert Fuller in Somebodies and Nobodies (2003) suggests that rank divides us into "somebodies" and "nobodies." More than most care to admit, we treat others--and are treated by others--based on our relative rank. The truth is that each of us has felt like a somebody some times and a nobody at others. A key to feeling like a somebody is being recognized by others. Without recognition from others, we may feel discounted, disconnected, marginal, or even invisible. The greater the recognition we receive from others via personal or professional achievement, the higher we rise on the status ladder. We measure ourselves and are measured by the rungs above and below us. There is truth in the popular song lyric, "You're nobody till somebody loves you" (Fuller, 2003, p. 52). Our position in the hierarchy signifies our level of power, who we have authority over, and who we are expected to submit to. If you think about it, one of the first questions people ask when they first meet you, both in and out of the workplace, is "What do you do?" Regardless of the answer, everyone from top to bottom has a strong desire for dignity and a feeling of connection. Rankism Has ConsequencesRank is generally earned and represents levels of excellence. The problem is not that rank counts. As Fuller (2003) states: When it signifies excellence, rank should count and it does. The trouble is that rank counts twice. No sooner is rank assigned than the holder of higher rank can use the power inherent in that rank to aggrandize themselves at the expense of those of lower ranks. Although some exercise their rank properly--within their area of competence and in a way that respects the dignity of those under their authority--others do not (p. 14). Rank is an important and necessary tool in the management of organizations. Within the area where it has been earned, rank deserves and commands our respect. However, rank-based mistreatment in the workplace can result in disrespect, inequity, discrimination, ridicule, and exploitation of those at lower ranks. Too often, classism in the workplace, or "rankism," goes unchallenged. Left unchallenged, resentment builds among those in the lower ranks. Most of us are pretty good at detecting condescension or indignity in the way others' treat us. No matter what our station, we have all felt it, and it does not feel good. Some recipients of rank-based mistreatment may look for ways to sabotage the organization; others may take their frustrations out on family and friends. For many, however, who simply work in quiet desperation, their frustrations are translated into lower levels of job satisfaction and performance, and lower levels of loyalty and commitment to the organization. Additionally, large class-like distinctions in the workplace limit communication. Oftentimes, those in lower ranks possess information that would be helpful to those at higher ranks. Respect and open communication across levels may contribute to the accomplishment of important organizational goals. Everyone deserves to work in a climate of dignity and respect. One way to make that happen is to protect the dignity of others as you would your own. Reducing Rankism in the WorkplaceThe following are suggestions to help reduce rankism in the workplace.
ReferencesEsty, K., Griffin, R., & Hirsch, M.S. (1995). Workplace diversity: A manager's guide to solving problems and turning diversity into a competitive advantage. Holbrook, M.A.: Adams Media Corporation. Fuller, R.W. (2003) Somebodies and nobodies: Overcoming the abuse of rank. British Columbia, Canada: New Society Publishers. View reader comments for this Commentary in the JOE Discussion Forum. (This forum is no longer accepting new entries.)
Perceptions of Extension's Desirable Future and the Role of ITMatthew Mitchell Bill Gillis Center to Bridge the Digital Divide IntroductionAs a network of state systems, Extension enjoys a long and celebrated history of promoting meaningful and beneficial development in the communities it serves (Peters, 2001). From its inception, Extension professionals have helped individuals and communities make good decisions that affect current and future conditions. However, the environment in which Extension operates has changed, and will continue to change (McDowell, 2004). Recently, many of these changes are driven directly and indirectly by modern digital information technologies (IT) and the resultant information revolution (Garibaldo, 2002). To remain relevant and responsive to its stakeholders, Extension is challenged to react to, and act in anticipation of, the accelerating pace of change driven largely by the convergence of IT with the social and economic structures embedded in our communities (Bull, Cote, Warner, & McKinnie, 2004). Like most organizations, Extension is dramatically affected by information technology, a profoundly powerful tool that can bring about often unforeseen and unintended results (Tenner, 1996). The future of Extension will be determined, in part, by the IT strategy implemented by the organization for both its internal processes and external services. To determine an appropriate IT strategy for Extension, a holistic approach is warranted that considers aspects beyond technology itself and examines the socio-cultural contexts of the organization. This article describes a small-scale demonstration project studying the possible, probable, and preferred futures as perceived by a small "snowball" sample of "IT early adopters" including both local and state-level leaders in Washington State Extension. Participants were interviewed using a specialized method of inquiry known as "Ethnographic Futures Research" (EFR); each was asked to give emphasis on the role of IT in Extension's past, current, and future activities. EFR as a tool for Extension's work was originally suggested by Robert Domaingue (1989). Motivation for this study was to demonstrate the potential value of EFR as a tool to enhance and advance the processes and practices of Extension. Analysis of these reflections and projections are reported here in the forms of:
The Extension EFR Demonstration ProjectThe purpose of the demonstration project was to assess how local and state Extension administrators in Washington State envision the future use of IT in the educational, research, outreach, and management activities of Extension. Because the project's scope is limited to a demonstration of the potential value of EFR as method for visioning and planning rather than a full scale EFR study, the sample size was limited. Six persons from Washington State Extension were included in the pilot study. A full-scale EFR study would require a substantially larger sample. Among this initial sample were persons from Washington State Extension's senior leadership, state specialists, and local faculty leaders. Each one-on-one interview averaged 2½ hours and produced a summary that was reviewed with the respective interviewee. The results and analysis have been condensed into composite descriptions of desirable future conditions organized into common themes, domains, barriers, and mechanisms of change. Should the leaders of Washington State Extension determine a more comprehensive EFR project is needed, the study can easily be expanded to include a much larger pool of interviewees. Ideally, all of Washington State Extension's administrative team and county office directors would be included in the sample. How Can the Future Be Studied?Because the future does not exist, it cannot be studied directly. It is possible, however, to investigate current perceptions of the future as articulated by a defined set of forward-looking thinkers from within the socio-cultural system being studied. One such method capable of studying perceptions of the future set within a holistic socio-cultural frame is Ethnographic Futures Research (EFR). Ethnographic Futures Research is designed to elicit and analyze scenarios of possible, preferred, and probable futures relevant to a specific socio-cultural system (Textor, 1990). This method solicits an "insider's perspective" of contextual current and future conditions relevant to targeted topics such as issues, phenomena, structures, policies, trends, and mechanisms of change. For purposes of this demonstration project, the EFR process (depicted in Figure 1) elicited from key Washington State Extension leaders detailed descriptions of three scenarios in the year 2020. The scenarios focused on an optimistic future, a pessimistic future, and a most probable future. Figure 1.
In developing their future scenarios, participating Washington State Extension leaders were first asked to look back 15 years and then articulate within their future scenarios the driving forces, mechanisms of change, and trends that shaped the present. For example, in 1990, the World Wide Web had just been invented. Extension budgets have generally tightened over the past 15 years. Articulating factors such as these help to frame perceptions of what is most likely in the future. After reflecting on the past and articulating some of the factors that have led to the present, the Extension leaders were asked to imagine that there are 100 possible future scenarios arranged along a continuum where the most desired possible scenario is at position 100 and the most feared possible future is at position 1. To frame their thinking about the future within the range of realistic possibility, the interviewees were asked to consider the optimistic scenario on this continuum at position 85 and the pessimistic scenario at position 15. Keeping within the EFR framework, each interviewee was asked to describe the future scenario they feel is most probable, drawing comparisons with and making contrasts between the most probable scenario and those described as optimistic and pessimistic. Finally, the interviewees were asked to explain what could be done between now and the horizon date (2020) to make the optimistic scenario more probable. The basic premise of the EFR method is straightforward: experience has amply demonstrated that without adequate and appropriate visualization of possible and desirable futures, the future that eventually becomes the present is not likely to be seen by the affected population as one they truly desire. FindingsThe six interviews conducted in the project produced over 15 hours of data. Each person interviewed was provided an opportunity to validate, correct, revise, and amend their descriptions of the past, present, and future of Extension. Analysis of the interview summaries was performed with a computer-aided tool designed for qualitative data. An interpretation of the data (illustrated in Figure 2) was made from an aggregation of the six summaries and organized into two central themes (i.e., communication and mission), four common domains (i.e., personnel, organizational structure, community engagement, and funding), a list of perceived barriers to the desired future, and a description of key activities that can be leveraged to influence the future. Figure 2.
Common Themes of Communication and MissionEach Extension professional interviewed shared in common a perception that both "communication" and "mission" are central components of the past, present, and future of Extension. The rationale and motivation driving both the communication practices and pursuit of mission by Extension were revealed as key determinants of how the future of Extension will emerge. Typically, the optimistic scenario was described in terms of a consistent practice of clear and open communication within Extension's organizational structure where ideas, information, and knowledge flow up, down, and side-to-side, and flow freely back and forth between Extension, the communities it serves, and external partner organizations, including Extension systems outside of Washington State. Open and free flowing communication at all levels was recognized as a core element of successful Extension programming in the past and in the future. IT was described by all interviewees as a key enabler for facilitating communication. Mission was described by the Extension leaders as the goal and rationale driving the work and influencing the approach of Extension. All of the interviewees were strongly concerned about Extension's mission as an important element of the desirable future. In the optimistic scenario, Extension will remain focused on its traditional commitment to the public good. Most interviewees noted that service to private interests as a way to attract extramural funding can be consistent with the Extension mission within reason. However, on this point the interviewees stressed the importance of keeping the service to public interests well ahead of service to private interests. IT was directly and indirectly mentioned by the interviewees as an essential tool for both refining and achieving Extension's mission. Domains of OpportunityThe themes of "communication" and "mission" run through nearly all aspects of Extension. In the pilot project, interviewees commonly described four aspects that are relevant to the future of Extension and presented below as domains of opportunity. PersonnelExtension leaders interviewed as part of the pilot project articulated several aspects of personnel hiring and support important to the future of Extension:
In general, the interviewees described the importance of hiring persons who are talented educators and are committed to deepening their own skills and knowledge to the benefit Extension and its stakeholders. In the Optimistic scenario, interviewees identified four policy opportunities important to achieving their desired future including:
Organizational StructureExtension's organizational structure within the land-grant system was also identified as a key element that will affect Washington State Extension's success in achieving its desired future. Specific topics raised by interviewees relevant to organizational structure include:
Interviewees described how Extension's organizational structure is critical in the formation of Extension's organizational culture. In the Optimistic scenario, interviewees articulated several specific changes needed in Extension's culture in order to achieve the desired future conditions:
Community EngagementWashington State Extension "engages people, organizations and communities to advance knowledge, economic well-being and quality of life by fostering inquiry, learning, and the application of research." To accomplish this mission, Extension seeks to deliver needed educational programming and information dissemination as well as to respond to local needs. Specific topics raised by interviewees relevant to community engagement include:
Interviewees described a strong tie between Extension's continued relevance and active engagement of stakeholder communities. In the Optimistic scenario, interviewees call for important changes in how Extension engages communities:
FundingExtension's funding base is diverse. Monetary support of Extension flows through local, state, and federal budgets as well as through extramural sources such as grants, contracts, and fees. Specific topics raised by interviewees relevant to funding include:
Interviewees described a strong connection between Extension's ability to attract needed funding and Extension's ability to be relevant and provide beneficial impact at the local level. In the Optimistic scenario, interviewees envision need for several changes in how Extension attracts needed funding:
Perceived BarriersIn achieving a desirable future for the Extension organization, interviewees described in their most probable and pessimistic scenarios several barriers that must be resolved: Resistance to Collaboration--At state and local levels, there is a notable level of resistance to share ideas, exchange information, and experiment with others in the provision of services, collection of data, and engagement with community members. Attachment to Past--As Extension responds to the new realities of the present and future, the preference to return to the objectives and practices of previous eras will hinder Extension's ability to evolve and remain relevant. Inability to Proactively Change--For any entity, change is difficult and often threatening. Change is often made as a delayed reaction to new condition, which can result in a pressured environment with limited options. Failure to Serve the Public Good--As Extension experiments with a move toward entrepreneurialism, there is a threat that the organization will realign its activities to serve private interests and neglect services that benefit the public good. Lack of University Support for Outreach--While Extension at Washington State University has adopted a university-wide strategy, there are fears that the university's leadership will narrow its focus to advance only research and teaching activities and withdraw its support for an outreach mission. Loss of Local Trust & Support--If Extension fails to serve local level stakeholders or is seen to be favoring private interests over the public good, local support for, and trust in, Extension will erode resulting in the compounding problems of diminished local level resources, loss of relevance and impact, and failure to accomplish mission. Lack of Funding--A lack of funding could drive Extension more towards a model where private interests are pursued over public interests. Sphere of InfluenceWithin each elicited vision of a desirable future for Washington State Extension, interviewees described several areas over which considerable control can be exerted to bring about desired change: Information Technology--By itself, IT is merely a tool; however, when guided by a firm understanding of the organization's values and goals, IT can be applied in such a way to bring about desired change. Innovation--As Extension grapples with strategies to adapt to the changing environments, Extension personnel at all levels of the organization can help build creative and proactive approaches to ensure the organization remains a responsive and relevant to all stakeholders. Commitment to Public Good--To be consistent with its mission, Extension's leadership can assess its activities and processes by the simple criterion of whether it is serving the public good for the greatest number of people over the greatest length of time. Engagement with Stakeholders--To be responsive to stakeholder needs and to deliver relevant services, Extension can regularly engage stakeholders using an appropriate blend of high-tech (IT enabled) and high-touch (face-to-face) techniques. Engagement among Personnel--Communication processes can be adopted that actively engage all Extension personnel in important activities such as the affirmation of University support for outreach, the development of inclusive organizational strategies, the assembly of information and knowledge, and the provision of needed services to the local level. Multi-State & International Collaboration--At the state level, Extension needs to overcome issues of branding and ownership in order to harness the potential of multi-state and international collaboration in research, education, and outreach. Desired Future for Extension and the Role of Information TechnologyThe interview data documents a perception that the needs of those served by Extension, the skills of the organization's personnel, the institutional environment in which it is situated, and the availability of funding have changed significantly over the past and will continue to do so in the future. As Extension moves through the next 15 years, it is clear that the organization will have to change in many ways. A question articulated by the interviewees is whether Extension will handle change well. A consistent message communicated by each interview participant is that Washington State Extension needs to become more proactive and inclusive in its management of change. This broader holistic perspective on the challenges and opportunities in the pursuit of Extension's desired future sets the stage for considering the role of information technology in providing relevant programming to stakeholders and our own effectiveness as an organization. Information technologies can (and should) play a vital role in achieving the desired Extension future in Washington State and other states. IT has indelibly influenced the services provided by Extension and the work processes that support its operations. Careful consideration should be applied to the future uses of IT in supporting desired communication practices. As depicted in Figure 3, the role of IT in Extension's future needs to be applied to both the content (solid wrapping line) and delivery (dashed line) of its internal and external communication practices and its execution of mission. Figure 3.
In the future, IT will affect how personnel connect with each other as well as with its external stakeholders and partners. Extension personnel will likely find themselves helping other learn how to collect, interpret, and disseminate information using IT. Examples of IT already in use by Extension's early adopters include IP-telephony, email, instant messaging, blogs, Web pages, interactive video, teleconferencing, application sharing, and mobile data communications. Regarding the content of Extension's future communications, Extension needs to expand the type of educational programming and information collection/dissemination processes for both its personnel and grassroots community members to be closer to the cutting edge of the IT revolution. IT will affect the way in which Extension performs its service to the public by leveraging integrated IT systems to deliver customized and contextualized services. As the needs of communities respond to the growing integration of IT into community life, Extension's mission should correspondingly broaden to meet these changing needs by developing new and more interactive methods to engage its stakeholders. As described by one interviewee, Extension is like a cake, and IT is like the baking powder. Without the baking powder (IT), the cake (Extension) will never rise. Despite the dramatic impacts IT can make on Extension's future, it is important to keep in mind that IT alone will not enable desirable conditions. Extension is an organization of people for people, and the future depends on how well the people of Extension manage the accelerating pace of change. The six people interviewed in this demonstration project believe Extension can and will be successful in mitigating the challenges that stand between the present and future. However, considerable proactive change produced through broadly inclusive processes is imperative. ReferencesBull, N.H., Cote, L.S., Warner, P.D., & McKinnie, M.R., (2004). Is Extension relevant for the 21st Century? Journal of Extension [On Line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm2.shtml Domaingue, R. (1989). Community development through ethnographic futures research. Journal of Extension [On Line], 27(2). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/1989summer/fut1.html Garibaldo, F. (2002). Information and communication technologies, organizations and skills: Convergence and persistence. AI & Society, 16(4), 305-331. McDowell, G. (2004). Is Extension an idea whose time has come--and gone? Journal of Extension [On Line], 42(6). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004december/comm1.shtml Peters, S.J. (2002). Rousing the people on the land: The roots of the educational organizing Tradition in Extension work. Journal of Extension [On Line], 40(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2002june/a1.html Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: Technology and the revenge of unintended consequences. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Textor, R. (1990). "Methodological appendix" in S. Ketudat's The middle path for the future of Thailand: Technology in harmony with culture and environment. Honolulu: Institute for Culture and Communication, East-West Center, xxii-xlv.
Bridging the Digital Divide: An Evaluation of a Train-the-Trainer, Community Computer Education Program for Low-Income Youth and AdultsMatthew S. Mutchler Stephen A. Anderson Umekia R. Taylor Wanda Hamilton Harry Mangle University of Connecticut Computers are rapidly becoming central to the daily lives of Americans. They are commonly used in school settings, in the home, and in social settings. Many resources that were once distributed to individuals in hard copy are now available on the Internet, including newspapers, magazines, and scholarly journals. Many agencies and programs, such as the Cooperative Extension System and its 4-H program, are using computers as a means of serving their client populations (c.f., Fairchild, Vigna, & Fassett, 2004). Children are using computers both at home and in school for educational and recreational purposes (Facer, Sutherland, Furlong, & Furlong, 2001). Studies have shown that regular computer use is correlated with the development of cognitive skills such as spatial representation, iconic skills, and visual attention. Furthermore, regular computer use has been found to be positively correlated with academic performance (Subrahmanyam, Greenfield, Kraut, & Gross, 2001; Subrahmanyam, Kraut, Greenfield, & Gross, 2000), self-esteem, motivation (Reaux, Ehrich, McCreary, Rowland, & Hood, 1998), and problem solving (Mayer, Quilici, & Moreno, 1999). In order to benefit from this technological advancement, however, individuals must possess the skills and confidence to use computers. Training has been shown to be effective in increasing skill and/or self-efficacy (Fletcher-Flinn & Suddendorf, 1997). Unfortunately, low-income families often have limited access to, or knowledge of, computers and the Internet, increasing their exclusion from mainstream America due to this Digital Divide (Eamon, 2004; Facer & Furlong, 2001; The Children's Partnership, 2005). As a result, less is known about how low-income youth acquire knowledge of computers, especially outside of school. The literature on after-school and other kinds of community youth development programs suggests that such programs are an effective means of improving youths' academic success (grades, motivation, commitment to schooling), vocational achievement, and social development (e.g., positive identity, personal efficacy, self-regulation, resistance skills, problem-solving skills and quality of adult and peer relationships) (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Roth, Brooks-Gunn, Murray, & Foster, 1998). This makes such programs an ideal setting in which to promote computer skills and confidence. Additionally, research has shown that having access to computers and the Internet helps youth-at-risk bridge the Digital Divide (The Children's Partnership, 2005). The study described here examined whether a community program for low-income individuals could facilitate computer skills in two ways. First, youth were enlisted to serve as facilitators or trainers of other youth and adults who received computer skills training. Both the youth facilitators (the Primary Audience) and the participants in the training (the Secondary Audience) were studied to see if their experiences in the program would produce positive outcomes. With regard to the youth facilitators, it was expected that the experience would enhance their knowledge of computers and sense of mastery or self-efficacy with computers. Further, the experience was expected to promote improved achievement motivation and empathy in relating to others. Active involvement in community service, leadership opportunities, and peer mentoring in other kinds of community youth development settings have been found to be associated with improved motivation in the classroom, self-expression, tolerance, and cooperation with others (c.f., Mahoney, Larson, & Eccles, 2005; O'Donoghue, Kirshner, & McLaughlin, 2002; Rhodes, 2002). With regard to the Secondary Audience of participants in the training, it was expected that they also would increase their knowledge of computers. As part of the USDA funded New Communities Project, a two-tiered computer education program entitled Parents, Children, and Computers aimed at increasing both skills and self-efficacy was implemented by the University of Connecticut, New Haven County Extension Center. The project involved collaboration with several community agencies in the New Haven area. The Primary Audience for this project was youth between the ages of 14 and 17 years who were trained as facilitators to teach computer literacy skills to a Secondary Audience of youth and adults living in their local communities. Persons in the Secondary Audience who received the computer literacy training were members of at-risk families, caregivers, and individuals working or volunteering in agencies serving at-risk populations. The Secondary Audience benefited from one-on-one instruction that was simple and offered in a non-intimidating environment. Because the sessions were held in a community neighborhood center or after school program, the participants were familiar and comfortable with these settings. The youth facilitators taught the participant by using simple terminology to guide participants in acquiring hardware, software, and Internet skills. Based upon anecdotal reports by participants, the youth facilitators were warmly and respectfully accepted as the experts by both younger or same-age peers and adults. Young children saw the youth as role models, while the adults respected the teenagers for their knowledge and ability to teach them. The project was based upon a "train the trainer" model of pedagogy that aimed at empowerment through knowledge and skill acquisition. The program emphasized the development of life skills and cultural literacy as a means of fostering a sense of personal accomplishment. This article reports on data from the first 3 years of the project. Youth in the Primary Audience participated in a 20-hour technology training before they taught as facilitators in the community setting. The training was designed to provide youth facilitators with a basic knowledge of the operation and the care of a computer. The activity-based hands-on guide had four modules. Within each module, there were four sections: "Words to Know" (terminology); "Learn It" (concepts and skills); "Doing" (activities to practice concepts and skills learned in section 2); and "Exploring" (Internet sites and activities that offer further enrichment in each area). In addition to the in-program training, youth were strongly encouraged to explore and further develop their computer skills in other community settings, such as schools, libraries, and local community centers. See Table 1 for a description of each module and its sections.
Evaluation MethodsPrimary AudienceThe primary audience consisted of 22 participants from five different New Haven area schools. There were 10 participants for year 1 (2001/2002), 6 participants for year 2 (2002/2003), and 12 participants for year 3 (2003/2004). After eliminating cases due to missing data, there were six year-1 participants, four year-2 participants, and 12 year-3 participants. Because of the small number of participants, all three years were combined into one cohort for purposes of analysis. Participants were between 13 and 17 years old, and most (59.1%) reported having "some experience" with computers. Sixteen (72.7 %) reported owning their own computer, and 18 (81.8%) reported that they used the Internet before this program. Four participants (18.2%) reported having attended a computer-training course prior to this program. See Tables 2 and 3 for primary audience demographics.
InstrumentsFour outcomes were included in the evaluation. These were Computer User Self-Efficacy, Achievement Motivation, Empathy, and Knowledge of Computers. Computer User Self-Efficacy (CUSE: Cassidy & Eachus, 2002) originally consisted of 30 Likert-type items with a maximum score of 180. Higher scores indicate higher levels of computer self-efficacy. One item was dropped from the measure ("DOS-based computer packages don't cause many problems for me"). This was done out of concern that participants would not be familiar with DOS due to the prominence of Windows and MacIntosh operating systems. Thus, the scale used had 29 items and a maximum score of 174, with higher scores indicating higher levels of Computer User Self-Efficacy. The CUSE is reported to have excellent psychometric properties, including internal consistency of a = .97 and a test-retest reliability score of r = .79. Tests of criterion validity were performed by comparing scores of software engineers, Internet users, radiographers, physiotherapists, and nurses. Analyses of Variance showed that the CUSE significantly discriminated between these groups such that those in groups that required more computer knowledge (e.g. engineers, Internet users) scored higher in the CUSE than those in less computer-oriented groups (e.g. nurses). Construct validity was assessed by correlated CUSE scores with scores on computer experience and number of computer software packages used. Correlations were significantly positive for both comparisons (Cassidy & Eachus, 2002). In the study described here, scale reliability was .92 at pretest and .91 at posttest. The Achievement Motivation Scale (Institute of Behavioral Science, 1990) measures an individual's motivation to achieve his or her future dreams and goals associated with job, family, and/or community. It has been found to have an internal consistency of .78, and consists of 13 Likert-type items with a maximum score of 65. Higher scores indicate higher levels of Achievement Motivation. Reliability scores for the study were .79 at pretest and .84 at posttest. The Empathy Scale (Bosworth & Espelage, 1995) measures one's ability to care, trust, and listen to others. It was found to have an internal consistency of .62. The scale consists of 5 Likert-type items with a maximum score of 25. Higher scores indicate higher levels of Empathy. Reliability calculations for the current study yielded poor results: the pretest alpha was .47, and the posttest alpha was .46. Knowledge of Computers was measured by asking participants to complete four "knowledge modules" designed by the program coordinators. The four knowledge areas were: Hardware & Software (13 items), Word Processing (15 items), Internet (5 items), and Power Point (4 items). Participants responded to True/False questions in each knowledge area. Only 12 of the 22 participants had complete data for the module evaluation. Primary Evaluation AnalysisUsing a paired sample t-test, significant results were found for Computer User Self- Efficacy, Empathy, and each of the four knowledge modules. For the Computer Self-Efficacy, the mean pretest score was 134.95, compared to a posttest score of 162.82. This difference was statistically significant (t = -9.69; p < .001). In regards to the Empathy measure, mean at pretest was 17.09, compared to 17.77 at posttest (t = -3.07; p< .01). When assessed on Knowledge of Computers, participants improved from a mean of 6.42 correct to 12.75 correct answers for the Hardware & Software Module (t = -14.09; p<.001), 10.67 correct to 14.42 correct answers for the Word Processing Module (t = -7.36; p < .001), from 4.25 correct to 4.83 correct for the Internet Module (t = -2.55; p < .05), and from 3.25 correct to 4.00 correct on the Power Point Module (t = -2.69; p < .05). Across all Modules (maximum score of 37), participants improved from a mean score of 24.58 at pretest to a mean of 36.00 at posttest (t = -16.04; p < .001). No significant changes were found for achievement motivation. Participants' performance on the CUSE and on the Modules indicated that the program was successful in increasing participants' comfort, self-efficacy, knowledge, and expertise regarding computer use. However, because of the low reliability for the empathy scale, this result should be interpreted cautiously. Secondary AudienceThe secondary audience consisted of 99 community members ranging in age from 5 to 56 years old. The wide range in age is related to the broad spectrum of different sites that incorporated the computer course into their programs. See Table 4 for other demographics. Most of the training occurred in elementary and middle school settings as well as neighborhood community centers. The mean age for youth participants was 8.71, and the mean age for adults was 35.00. Participants at each site were taught information and skills based on the Modules in which the Primary Audience were trained. All of the settings are located in Empowerment Zones within the city of New Haven, indicating high levels of poverty for residents (see http://www.empowernewhaven.org/).
InstrumentComputer Knowledge. The secondary audience completed a simple test of their knowledge of computers at pretest and posttest. This test involved them pointing to eight parts of the computer (on/off switch, keyboard, eject button, monitor, compact disk, CD drive, mouse, screen) and then performing six operations on the computer (turn on the computer, insert the CD, start a program, end a program, turn off the computer, connect to the Internet). The youth facilitators (primary audience) administered this assessment orally and gave a score of "can do" or "cannot do" for each item. Due to missing data, only 96 participants were included in the "pointing" analyses and 94 in the performance analyses. Secondary Evaluation AnalysisAcross all 3 years of data collection, participants' mean scores at pretest were 5.61 (pointing) and 3.47 (performance). At posttest, the mean scores were 7.97 and 5.88, respectively. It should be noted that all participants in year 3 (2003/2004) exhibited no variance on either scale at the posttest. All participants scored the maximum: 8.00 (pointing), 6.00 (performance), and 14.00 (total). A paired-samples t-test of this data revealed that the pre-post differences were significant. For pointing, t = -15.02 (p < .000), and for performance, t = -13.24 (p < .000). However, because the secondary audience was so diverse in its composition, with some coming from a presumably "normal" population of youth and others coming from a low-functioning adult population, subgroup analyses were also conducted. Repeated measures analysis was used to re-examine all of the dependent variables using age (operationalized as over 18 years of age or under 18 years of age) sex, and experience with computers (none, very limited, some experience, quite a lot, extensive) as between-subjects factors. These tests revealed significant interactions between time and levels of computer experience for both pointing (F = 5.96, p < .001) and performing (F = 5.792, p < .001), indicating that participants with more previous computer experience were able to perform more tasks and point to more items successfully at post-testing than those with less experience. A significant interaction was also found between time and age for performance (F = 5.39, p < .02). Adults performance scores (x= 2.00) were lower than youths' performance scores (x= 3.57) at pre-test, but showed slightly better improvement at post-test (x= 6.00 vs. 5.88). There were no significant interactions in terms of sex. Comparisons between low-functioning and "normal" adults were not performed due to a small sample. DiscussionThe results of the evaluation indicate that the New Communities Project in New Haven was successful at increasing computer self-efficacy, computer knowledge, and empathy for others within their primary audience of youth facilitators. These results are consistent with existing literature indicating training can facilitate computer skills and a sense of computer self-efficacy among youths (Fletcher-Flinn & Suddendorf, 1997). The impact of participation upon empathy scores is interesting and provides some support for the idea that engaging youth as trainers of others in the use of computers may be another facilitative context that can promote positive youth development outcomes (Mahoney et al., 2005; O'Donoghue et al., 2002; Rhodes, 2002). The results also support previous research indicating that involving youth in the use of computers can enhance psychosocial variables (Reaux et al., 1998). The lack of change in regards to Achievement Motivation was initially surprising. It seems, though, that the lack of change here may be due to participant selection. The primary audience was obtained through an application and review process facilitated by the Extension staff. It is, therefore, likely that these participants were already highly motivated to achieve. This measurement has been dropped for the final 2 years of the project. In addition to benefiting the primary audience, the project seems to have had important effects upon the secondary audience as well. Secondary audience participants demonstrated significant improvement in their computer skills (pointing and performance tasks) following completion of the program. Additional analyses indicated that those who began the training program with higher levels of computer skills were more likely to benefit the most. However, somewhat surprisingly, the subgroup of older adults who showed fewer computer skills at the start of the program showed slightly more skills at the end of the program than younger participants who began the program with higher skill levels. This latter finding suggests that the training can be effective with populations of older, low-income individuals who have had limited access to, and previous knowledge of, computers (Eamon, 2004; Facer & Furlong, 2001). Additionally, the lack of gender differences on the pointing and performing tasks supports existing research that indicates a narrowing of the gender gap in computer use and ability (Miller, Schweingruber, & Brandenburg, 2001; The Children's Partnership, 2005). There are several limitations to the study described here. In terms of the primary audience, one must exercise caution in generalizing the evaluation results due to the small sample size. Additionally, the CUSE (Cassidy & Eachus, 2002) was designed for adults, and applicability for teens is unknown. The reliability tests provide preliminary support for the scale's use with younger populations, but once again one must consider the small sample size. Finally, the poor internal reliability statistics for the Empathy Scale are of concern. In terms of the secondary audience, the existing results seem strong, considering the large sample size and consistent performance of the measurement. The lack of variance at the year-3 post-test raises some concern that the ceiling may have been set too low to capture more advanced learning and skills. That is, were the questions too simple, or did this strong performance simply show that the youth facilitators were adept at teaching the targeted skills? What other impacts did this program have on the secondary audience? Would the findings of other studies of computer use apply to this population in terms of the academic and psychosocial benefits? Unfortunately, due to issues of age, reading level, and mental health (in the adult population), we were unable to measure other possible outcomes. Despite the shortcomings mentioned above, it is clear that Parents, Children and Computers is having a positive impact on its audience. This project paves the way for future Extension-based programs aimed at increasing access to computers and decreasing the Digital Divide for youth-at-risk. Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the Connecticut "New Communities Project" (2001- 2006), Award #2001-41520-01137. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Center for Applied Research is a joint venture of the School of Family Studies and the Department of Extension at the University of Connecticut. ReferencesBosworth, K., & Espelage, D. (1995). Teen conflict survey: Center for Adolescent Studies, Indiana University. (Unpublished). Cassidy, S., & Eachus, P. (2002). Developing the computer user self-efficacy (CUSE) scale: Investigating the relationship between computer self-efficacy, gender, and experience with computers. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 26(2), 133-153. Catalano, R.F., Berglund, M.L., Ryan, J., Lonczak, H.S., & Hawkins, D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention and Treatment, 5(15), 1-106. The Children's Partnership (2005). Measuring digital opportunity for America's children: Where we stand and where we go from here. Retrieved June 9, 2005 Eamon, M.K. (2004). Digital divide in computer access and use between poor and non-poor youth. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 21(2), 91-112. Eccles, J., & Gootman, J.A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Facer, K., & Furlong, R. (2001). Beyond the myth of the "cyberkid': Young people at the margins of the information revolution. Journal of Youth Studies, 4(4), 451-469. Facer, K., Sutherland, R., Furlong, R., & Furlong, J. (2001). What's the point of using computers? The development of young people's computer expertise in the home. New Media & Society, 3(2), 199-219. Fairchild, P., Vigna, D., & Fassett, J. (2004). Celebrating 4-H, youth, and technology: The Nebraska 4-H cyber fair. Journal of Extension, [On-line], 42(3). Available at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/a1.shtml Fletcher-Flinn, C.M., & Suddendorf, T. (1997). Computers and 'the mind': An intervention study. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(2), 103-118. Institute of Behavioral Science (1990). Youth interview schedule: Denver youth survey. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado. (Unpublished). Mahoney, J.L., Larson, R.W., & Eccles, J.S. (2005). Organized activities as contexts of development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mayer, R.E., Quilici, J.L., & Moreno, R. (1999). What is learned in an after-school computer club? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 20(3), 223-235. Miller, L.M., Schweingruber, H., & Brandenburg, C.L. (2001). Middle school students' technology practices and preferences: Re-examining gender differences. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 10(2), 125-140. O'Donoghue, J.L., Kirshner, B., & McLaughlin, M. (2002). Introduction: Moving youth participation forward. In B. Kirshner, J. L. O'Donoghue & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), Youth participation: Improving institutions and communities. (pp. 15-26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reaux, R.A., Ehrich, R.W., McCreary, F., Rowland, K., & Hood, S. (1998). PCs for families: A study of early intervention using networked computing in education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19(4), 383-410. Rhodes, J.E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today's youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Roth, J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Murray, L., & Foster, W. (1998). Promoting healthy adolescents: Synthesis of youth development program evaluations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 423-459. Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P.M., Kraut, R.E., & Gross, E.G. (2001). The impact of computer use on children's and adolescents' development. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 7-30. Subrahmanyam, K., Kraut, R.E., Greenfield, P.M., & Gross, E.G. (2000). The impact of home computer use on children's activities and development. The Future of Children, 10(2), 123-144.
Learning from Latino Community EffortsPeggy Gregory Joe Camarillo Dave Campbell Steve Dasher Nicelma King Michael Mann David Snell Carla M. Sousa Yvonne Steinbring Kenneth Willmarth IntroductionYouth-serving programs in the United States rely on the willingness of parents and other community members to serve as volunteer leaders, mentors, and teachers. This article concerns if and how this volunteer model can be adapted to the needs and interests of California's rapidly growing Latino community. Persons of Spanish-speaking origin from Mexico and various Central and South American countries comprise at least 32% of the state's population (2000 census), with some communities having Latino populations as high as 80%. Understanding the dynamics of Latino community involvement is a high priority for program development and delivery among youth-serving agencies. The research project described here was initiated in response to the growing understanding among a set of 4-H Youth Development professionals that Anglo-centered approaches to recruiting volunteers were not working in the Latino community. Given substantial evidence that Latino residents are interested in and willing to be involved with efforts to improve community life, the difficulties are somewhat puzzling. A research team was formed to investigate alternative approaches. Their findings speak to how institutions and organizations serving all Californians can build on the rich history and deep caring about community among the state's Latino residents. Specifically, we wanted to find out:
Literature ReviewEstablished community service organizations across the nation need adult volunteers (Hobbs, 2001). As the state and nation become culturally and ethnically more diverse, administrators in service agencies and organizations have worked to expand the pool of non-white volunteers (Chambré, 1982). While some have speculated that volunteerism is less valued in Latino cultures, Kristin Goss (1999) notes that "Most evidence suggests that gender, race and marital status do not predict voluntary participation once the variables of education, income and employment are statistically controlled." In her review of the literature on the recruitment, training, and retention of volunteers in youth serving organizations, Barbara Sitrin (2000) concludes that the existing research is scant and largely inconclusive, particularly regarding cultural differences. A recent study in Oregon (Hobbs, 2001) sought to bridge this gap by conducting three focus groups with 18 individuals (13 of whom were Latino) who were involved in working with Latino adult volunteers. Results of this study indicate that while Latinos have a strong ethic of "helping out," their volunteer activities often take place in the context of family, neighborhood, and church, rather than in community-based organizations that serve a broader cross section of the community. Further, Hobbs found that the concept of volunteering brings with it significant baggage, since in many Latin-American countries it refers specifically to activities carried out by the wealthy on behalf of the poor. Thus, for many immigrants coming to the United States, volunteering is not part of their tradition, and once here, it tends to be associated with mainstream organizations with which they have weak connections. The broader social science literature makes it clear that Latinos have a strong history of creating organizations to improve community conditions (Camarillo, 1991; Cortés, 1998; Gallegos & O'Neill, 1991; Santiestevan, 1975; Guzman, 1966; Tirado, 1970). Generally, the organizations they founded served multiple purposes--economic, social, cultural, and political--and started in response to immediate problems. Most were membership organizations in which a few charismatic leaders activated the help of members in what can be viewed as mutual aid societies rather than volunteer organizations. The question that concerns us is how this spirit of community service can best be tapped or channeled by youth serving agencies or organizations. MethodsRecognizing the need to rethink traditional approaches, a University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) workgroup undertook a study to examine the voluntary participation of Latino adults in community activities benefiting youth and families. The group chose to learn from actual community cases in which Latino adults were involved on a voluntary basis. UCCE staff members throughout the state were requested to identify local programs in which Latino adults participated as volunteers. Five case studies representing different parts of the state and centering on a community-based project were selected based on their success in involving Latinos, their willingness to be studied, and the commitment of the local UCCE staff to facilitate research. The projects selected represent a variety of settings and activities, and were all initiated or led by Latinos. For each case the nominating UCCE advisor agreed to serve as the local project coordinator; in only one case was the advisor personally involved with the operation of the project. Three of the five cases involve adult volunteers with dance and cultural programs to benefit youth. One was a Mariachi festival, celebrating Mexican dance and music held in Orange County in urban southern California and involving residents of several communities. One was a youth Mexican folkloric dance group named "Sol Naciente" in the small community of Avenal in rural central California. And the third was a youth Brazilian rhythm and dance team named Bloco in the small town of Windsor in northern California. Another case located in the City of Modesto in central California involved parents affiliated with a local school-based Healthy Start program, and the final program engaged volunteers in a neighborhood council that sponsored community service activities that include youth-related projects in urban Chula Vista near the Mexican border. All five proved to be useful cases for gathering evidence related to our research questions. In each of the five case studies a bi-lingual "promotora" familiar with the local project and the community was identified. The use of promotoras (community liaisons) to validate and promote a new idea is familiar in Latino communities and used in a number of programs (Pramanik, 1998; Savinar, n.d.). The UCCE staff in each host county identified and recruited the promotoras, who were respected members of the community and involved in the projects being studied. Two were teachers, and the others were staff or volunteers of the projects. The promotoras facilitated the research by briefing the research team on their assigned community, recruiting project participants to be interviewed, and helping to identify persons who had not been involved. In Avenal, for example, the promotora organized a mini-fiesta where the Sol Naciente dance group performed. After food was served, the promotora introduced the interviewer to participating parents and helped set up interview appointments. A bilingual interviewer was employed in each case to make appointments, conduct the interviews, prepare a transcript of the interview in English, and brief the research team on the experience. The interview protocols--one for participants in the focal project, and one for persons who had not been involved--asked common questions regarding community volunteerism and solicited suggestions for groups interested in starting new programs. The protocols were piloted in a sixth community and revised after consultation with one of the promotoras. In each community, we recruited 10 adults participating in the focal project and 10 adults not involved with that project. Participants identified friends and neighbors who did not participate in the project as potential non-participant respondents, and the promotoras assisted in identifying additional non-participants. At the end of the interviews, respondents were given a $10 gift card to a local store as a token of appreciation for their participation. In all, 101 interviews were conducted, 50 with participants and 51 with non-participants. (One person had been identified inaccurately as a participant, so after that interview an additional participant was interviewed in order to have 10 participants for the sample.) Nearly 60 of the 101 interviews were conducted in Spanish. Table 1 summarizes demographic characteristics of those interviewed.
The research team analyzed data from each case separately, reading aloud the different answers to each open-ended question and agreeing on appropriate codes for that case. With each subsequent case, we added additional coding categories as appropriate, resolving any uncertainties through group discussion. Individual case reports were written, and two team members conducted a cross-case analysis after recoding all 101 interviews using a final revision of the codebook. As a further check on our work, we presented preliminary findings in two of the five communities; the resulting feedback affirmed our results. FindingsFindings from Participant Interviews (N=50)Best Things That Happened in the Local ProjectMore than half of the respondents (52%) mentioned benefits for children (e.g., children having fun, children learning new things, positive experience for children). Almost half (44%), identified personal benefits (learning new things, enjoyment of team work, meeting new people, feeling good to be involved, feeling useful), and 25% focused on being of service to the community. One-fourth of the respondents also mentioned the success of project events. Two-thirds of the respondents were totally positive, reporting no problems with the project. However, some participants wished more parents would help or that funding to support the program would continue or recognized that some problems were inevitable, but solvable. How They Found Out About the ProjectThe most frequent ways participants had found out about the project were from others who were involved (33%), from the schools (27%) and from other community groups with which they were associated (33%). A few (9%) had heard about it from their children, who were interested in joining. Why They Got Involved and Remained InvolvedThe single most frequent reason for getting involved was to be of service to the community (30%). More than three in four respondents cited personal benefits from participating (e.g., it looked interesting, to learn, need to be involved, enjoy being with others), and 29% mentioned benefits for their children (the child wanted to participate, or children need more opportunities for development). Getting Others InvolvedThe interviewer asked whether it was hard to get others to help in the local projects. The 40 persons who had an opinion were pretty evenly divided. Twenty-one said it was hard mostly because people don't have time (71%), they are not interested (25%), or they have family responsibilities (14%). On the other hand, 19 said it was not hard to get others to help if they are familiar with the program and its reputation (79%) and if you ask them to do a specific job (14%). What Skills It Takes to HelpMore than half (54%) of the 46 persons who answered said that it takes only willingness, effort, and the desire to help, and 30% said no skills were needed. Nine persons cited people skills (good communication, teamwork) as desirable, and four others identified a particular skill like teaching, fundraising, or translation. Findings from Interviews with Non-Participants (N=51)Current or Previous Community InvolvementTwo-thirds of the interviewees not involved in the local project were engaged in other community activities at some points in their lives. Only 17 had no history of community involvement. Of the 34 who had, 53% had been involved in church-related activities, 47% in child- or school-related activities, and 50% in other activities. Reasons for InvolvementWhen the interviewer asked why they had become involved in their communities, 65% gave reasons related to personal benefits (they like to help, feel good and gain a sense of accomplishment, like to know what's going on, and make friends), and 11 said for their children. Reasons for Not Getting InvolvedForty-one or 80% of the 51 non-participants interviewed gave reasons for why they were not involved in the particular project being studied in their community. The most frequent reason (54%) was lack of time, followed by lack of awareness of and information about opportunities (34%). Less frequently mentioned reasons included their need to take care of their families first (22%) and not knowing anyone who was involved (12%). Expected responses such as the cost of activities and lack of transportation were seldom mentioned. What Would Motivate Them to Get Involved?The interviewer asked non-participants what would motivate them to join with others on an activity in their communities. The most frequent theme in their responses was if it was a good cause that helped the community (28%), followed by if it benefits their children and families (26%) and if they had more information about it (19%). Findings from All Subjects (N=101)No significant differences were found in how the "participants" and "non-participants" in the local projects answered our common questions about community involvement. This section summarizes the combined responses. Kinds of Activities People in Their Communities Like to DoWhen asked what people in their communities liked to do, the only activity for which responses were similar across cases was sports (Table 2). The popularity of church-related activities and general youth-related activities varied across the case study sites. In one community, six of the 20 persons who responded to this question did not know what people in the community like to do. This was not surprising because it was a community with many recent arrivals to the United States.
Why People in Their Communities Do Not ParticipateAt least half of the respondents in each case (61% total) said that lots of people did participate in the activities they had mentioned. The interviewer then asked why people did NOT participate (Table 3). Lack of time and lack of information were most frequently mentioned, but not by the same proportion of subjects in each case. The non-participant group mentioned the need for Spanish-language information and activities, and several said there was a lack of inclusivity in the community. The participants in the neighborhood council had made it their business to let other residents know about services and activities and had first-hand experience to support their belief that lack of information kept people from participating.
Suggestions for Starting New ProgramsThe interviewer asked each person interviewed "to imagine that a group or organization wanted to work with people here on a program for children and their families. Knowing what you know about this community, what suggestions would you have?" Their answers fell into three major categories. Community Contacts: One set of suggestions (56 persons) was to make contacts in the community. Overall, schools represent the most frequently mentioned point of contact, followed by community leaders and other agencies. Local government, civic organizations, and churches were among other contacts mentioned.
Involve the Community: Forty-four persons suggested some form of involving the community when starting a new program, and those who did were vocal about getting community input from a broad base of potential support.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
