(.;ommunity Problem Solving Through an Urban Extension Program by Jaques W. Kaswan, Andrew I. Schweble, and Grayce M. Sills, The Ohio State University,, Columbus, Ohio It is now commonplace to think of "mental health" problems as closely related to difficulties of everyday living. As part of a survey research project in a typical midwestern lower middle class neighborhood, we asked residents about the kinds of problems they experienced, and their severity. Problems identified as from moderate to severe by 35% or more of those interviewed included: fear of being attacked in the streets at night; inadequate income, especially for food; enough places for teenagers to congregate; drugs in school; poor street lighting; stray dogs. Mental health workers are no more competent to solve environmental problems like these than laymen, and probably even less likely to be knowledgeable about specific aspects of the problems which exist in the localities where their clients live. If one assumes that many psychological problems are due to environmental characteristics about which mental health professionals know little, then one might conclude that there is not much they can do to resolve psychological difficulties. Recognition of this dilemma has recently led to a variety of proposals for using mental health workers as facilitators or catalysts of change rather than helpers w h o provide direct services. The central objective of such a facilitating orientation is to help people use their own capabilities and resources to deal with their concerns. Many helping professionals possess the knowledge and skills necessary to use such an approach. For example, they are able to guide people toward recognizing their problems; to gather and organize information about specific problems; to specify the consequences of defining problems in different ways, and to facilitate group interactions and to help people cooperate in problem solving. The paper describes an attempt to initiate an Urban Extension Program as a catalytic vehicle for facilitating a process through which community members can cope with their environmentallyrelated, psychosocial problems. Rationale The catalytic approach assumes that (1) most of the personal and social difficulties people experience are rooted in the cultural and immediate interpersonal context in which they function; (2) the resolution of these difficulties is usually best achieved within the socio-cultural settings in which they occur; and (3) many people have the ability to achieve satisfactory, or at least tolerable solutions to their difficulties by themselves or with peers, provided they (a) 36
have access to information regarding the variables which contribute to their problems; (b) can identify in the informal and institutional resources available to them; and (c) have the opportunity to experiment with varying approaches to their problems instead of relying on one particular resource system (e.g., welfare services, mental health clinics, etc.). These assumptions point to the usefulness of providing information and technical assistance to communities in their problem solving endeavors. Within the mental health field one conceptualization of such a "self-help" approach has been developed by Love and Kaswan (1974). Recognizing that effective solutions are often generated through active experimentation by those affected, they developed an "Information Feedback" technique which was based on the assumption that people can change their behavior if they can gain objective new information about their current, concrete environment, with minimal intervention from outside "helpgivers." Working with families and schools concerned about troubled children, these authors implemented an Information Feedback program by encouraging participants to review their actual behavior (e.g., videotapes of family interactions) and evaluating it (e.g., adjective ratings by themselves and others). Followup results of the children's school behavior indicated that the Information Feedback youngsters compared favorable with those who received more traditional interventions. The community information feedback model used in the present program differs from the public health model usually used in community mental health intervention projects. The public health model is an extension of a disease model (Broskowsky ~ Baker, 1974) and assumes that psychosocial difficulties result from the inability to adapt to stressful conditions (Cohen, 1971; Glidewell, 1972). From the public health perspective, prevention involves manipulating environmental conditions so as to reduce the stresses which lead to maladaption. According to this model, the helping professional is the expert judging what is maladaptive, and guides individuals, groups and communities toward more adaptive behaviors (e.g., toward "positive mental health"). However, there is growing evidence that judgements of capacity, appropriateness or adaptiveness of behavior are more a matter of social reactivity and values than a matter of fact (Kituse, 1962). In contrast, the catalytic model states that, in the absence of empirical knowledge, helping professionals have no basis for assuming thattheir ideologies, goals and preferred way of life should be accepted as more valid or adaptive than those of others in the community. Therefore, the helper functions more as a resource person than as one of the central actors in a change process. His or her job is to assist people to gather information, analyze issues, select and try solutions, and evaluate results in a way which includes as little as possible into the actual interactions among community members. While the value of such an approach is beginning to be recognized (Iscoe, 1974), there seems to be no professional role model or institutional framework for it in the human services area. Part of the problem is that helping professionals have presented themselves to the public as expert consultants who can guide those with problems 37
toward "better" solutions. A mental health center, for instance, is seen by the community as a place where people can be treated by experts who have "the solutions , (e.g., prescriptions, psychotherapy advice). Given such a percept=on, community people are confused when a mental health consultant goes out into the community with process role objectives like those outlined above. Such an expert, as they see it, has no identifiable role, no firm objective, no specific expertise. Urban Extension as a C o m m u n i t y Change Catalyst Urban Extension Programs may provide a framework which resolves several of the difficulties outlined above. Helping people to gather useful information is a major mission of a learning institution. Many land grant universities have extension programs which have provided community oriented education and consultation in rural communities and small towns with a wide range of problems for about 50 years. While their focus is often on agricultural production and other aspects of the physical environment, extension agents often become involved in the social and interpersonal concerns of their clients, as individuals and communities. Extension agents function as process consultants, helping residents clarify their situation; as technical and resource consultants, assisting people in finding and using information and resources they need; and as organized consultants aiding people in organizing to effectively consider and act on what concerns them. Though extension agents may occassionally advocate particular solutions, they usually leave decisions to the community, rarely take charge of the change process, and work themselves out of a job as soon as possible (Bennett, 1973). While there has not been much research documenting the effectiveness of their activities, extension programs are highly valued in most communities and are supported as a matter of course by land grant universities. Little resembling such extension functions exists in urban areas. In part, this may be due to a lack of contact between colleges of agriculture and the professional training programs in social work, psychology, or psychiatry, However, a more important factor may be differences in basic assumptions. In contrast to the extension model, problem identification and problem solving in urban areas in largely directed and guided by helping agencies. Their professional staffs assume that solutions require a rehabilitative process which they identify and conduct. Recognizing that solutions and methods which work in rural counties cannot be directly transferred to the city, the fact that extension programs have long been accepted in such settings is encouraging, and offers a precedent for the type of role models which we describe in the section below. THE GROUP FOR C O M M U N I T Y LEARNING (GCL)
Acceptability to Community and University Extending the information-resource role into urban areas is consis38
tent with the goal of many universities. For example, the Ohio State Centennial Study of Future Goals concluded that: There will be a need to shift the emphasis of instruction from the solution of visible and well-formulated problems to education in the process of problem identification, as well as in the conversion of apparently chaotic situations into manageable, soluble problems (Roaden, 1972). Such statements offer an opportunity for educational administrators, faculty and legislators to attend to current community problems as a regular part of the university's function and responsibility. The community, in turn, should be receptive to a school's efforts to help people learn and do more about their psychosocial concerns. Teaching in a community should be seen as a natural extension of a school's function and should be welcome if people see the educator as one who has come to help them learn what they want to know (rather than to "research" or "rehabilitate" them).
Project Planning, Staffing and Funding A community learning program was developed over several years by a cross-disciplinary group of faculty, students, and agency-based helping professionals. Called the "Group for Community Learning," members have participated largely on a volunteer basis, although students have received academic credit for their participation. Although there has been a great deal of variation over time, there are currently 40-50 community residents, students and faculty members involved in the project. As the project developed, the University and a local foundation have paid rent for a storefront and have covered other expenses, including two half-time staff positions. We consider it essential that the project be supported primarily with University resources, since extramurally funded programs rarely continue beyond their grant period.
Program Development The development of a polit program required specifying a limited geographical area for initial focus; identifying major areas of concern among area residents; developing university-community interactions to determine the type and form of learning opportunities to be offered; evolving specific learning opportunities and productive follow-up activities; formulating research designs to monitor and evaluate the program; and creating procedures for assessing the implications of the project for the University's functions and curricula.
Geographic Area Experimental and control areas were chosen, both containing a predominantly lower-middle class population, moderate to low mobility, with some, but not extreme social tensions. While the control area has more health and mental resources than the target area, both contain a population of about 35,000 people (with about 39
7% Black and 19% over the age of 65). Average income of residents ranges between $5-10,000.
Identifying Community Concerns Major areas of concern are identified in two ways. First, this information is obtained through interviews with community leaders and concerned residents. Second, a structured 60-90 minute interview2 has been given to 2% sample of the population in both the control and target area by paid personnel over a two-year period. This instrument elicits resident's expessions of concern about a wide range of issues, gathers information about efforts they have made to deal with their concerns, and assesses their satisfaction with these efforts.
Entry into the Community and Encouraging Participation
Community
The first step in our entry process was to speak with civic leader, ministers, politicians, businessmen, educators, helping professional and residents who seemed knowledgeable and concerned about the area. These individuals then referred us to others, and over a three-month period we met with fifty people, and attended meetings of the few active civic groups in the area. We presented our aim as an effort to build links between the resources of the University and those of the community. The brochure we distributed explained further: G C L believes that individuals in a community can best define their interests and issues important to community development. When problems about public services, social tensions or the personal needs of individuals arise, often the best solutions are those that you work out for yourselves. GCL is here to assist you in getting more information about your concerns, to encourage cooperation among community members, and to help you focus energy in trying out solutions of your choice. This effort is one extension of Ohio State University Continuing Education Program which seeks to offer opportunities for useful learning to all citizens. We also asked people what they s a w as the main concerns of people in the area, and described the community survey we were developing. With very few exceptions, residents were positive in their response, although often skeptical about what we would really do beyond collecting data. The second stage of entry began when we organized an advisory board. We asked civic groups in the communit.y to nominate five members. The other members were two high level university administrators and two members of the organizing group. From its creation, the board guided our policies, reviewed our activities and made recommendations. For example, after four months of work, 40
the board thought there was sufficient support to call a general community meeting to publicize our efforts and seek more input from residents. However, they warned us that no more than a few people would come, since area residents were generally uninterested in community affairs. In view of this, we mounted an intensive publicity campaign, using the local newspaper, leaflets and telephone calls. The thirty-five people who came to the meeting were told about our program and asked about their concerns. The meeting went well and we all felt sufficiently encouraged by the turnout to proceed further and to rent a store on one of the area's main thoroughfares.
Program Implementation The third stage of entry was marked by our first learning programs. Planning for these offerings involved several GCL members in providing organizational and technical assistance to help develop and maintain each learning group. The most effective way to convey the flavor of these offerings is with the following example of completed programs. 1. The "Housing Seminar-Workshop" and "Skill Exchange Program": One area of concern to the community was maintaining quality housing. A related issue was the difficulty in obtaining quality home repair services at prices people could afford. Community members and GCL developed a workshop to address these issues. Their work included (a) the preparation and implementation of a publicity campaign (communication media, leaflets, personal contacts); (b) the development of research procedures to evaluate the outcome of the seminar; and (c) the planning and coordination of eight sessions on home repairs, pest control, contract problems and rental arrangements, led by specialists from the university and the community. Follow-up interviews of participants indicated they considered it worthwhile. Since several had expressed an interest in trading skills with others to help maintain their properties, a group organized to plan a small skills exchange program, which would use the GCL storefront as a communications center. Skills which would be offered included those beyond home maintenance (e.g., automobile repair, shopping for shut-ins, typing, tutoring, etc.). 2. "Encouraging Self-Help in the Community." This is the title of a non-credit seminar-workshop offered through the Division of Continuing Education. Community residents, human service professionals and University students participated in this 10-week program led jointly by two graduate students and a faculty member. The group reviewed some of the differences between agency-provided help and problem solving through community efforts. In later sessions, using the area crime problem as an example, they contrasted viewing the police as a major resource with that impact on crime they might have if neighbors cooperated with each other. They talked also of studying the specific crime patterns in the area 41
to determine what point in the cycle an intervention might have the greatest impact. 3. "Concerns of and for the Elderly Resident": Involving both residents and students in the planning stages, this group first focused its energies on an analysis of the concerns of and opportunities for the elderly in the area. In view of their findings the group focused its attention on assisting in evolving more transportation options for the elderly. 4. "Quality Education": A small number of concerned residents asked our assistance in developing a group to explore a variety of education-related issues. Along with continuing efforts to involve parents and school personnel in discussions about school problems, two programs were developed. One was a Block Parent Plan, in which people put a sign in their front window indicating that they are available to assist children who are hurt, frightened or lost. The second was a peer tutoring program in which high school and junior high school students assisted younger children with their schoolwork. 5. "Consultation to Community Organizations": Working with the area's Community Council has been a continuting activity. The Council is composed of about thirty organizations (e.g., churches, civic groups). In continuous existence for over thirty years, the group has done little recently, although efforts to revitalize it are underway. Examples of GCL activities with the Council include: (a) Encouraging communications with an adjoining area. Leaders of the Council had never met those from the area immediately to the south of them, who are mostly poor blacks. Though the areas had many common concerns (e.g., capital improvements, crime, the elderly), there was much mutual suspicion and hostility between them. (b) Assisting in area rehabilitation planning. GCL members with expertise in city planning worked with the Council and the City Development Department to help evolve an area rezoning and redevelopment package. (c) Assisting in developing increased community participation in the Council. The other active community group is concerned with improving the physical appearance of the area. GCL efforts with this group are illustrated by our participation with them in a Children's Art Poster Show. Six GCL staff people helped organize the show, which displayed posters depicting local themes. Six schools and 450 children participated, focusing the residents attention on the area as a community. The show was also intended to encourage closer links between neighborhoods, schools, churches, businesses, and others involved in the project.
Staff Functions in Learning Groups In all GCL programs the staff follows a general set of guidelines: 1. Groups are started and maintained only if community people participate in planning them. The amount of such participation will vary. There was little in the "Encouraging Self-Help in the 42
Community" seminar, while a community member has taken full responsibility for organizing the group on "Quality Education." 2. During course planning, GCL staff usually help gather information about the concern, make contact with people who have relevant information, and facilitate communication among the planners and with outside resources. 3. The content of discussion at group meetings is specified by the community members. Staff members have varied widely in their level of activity but at no time suggest preferred solutions, although they might point out contradictions, help focus discussions, a n d / o r suggest topics for consideration. 4. The staff tries to model and encourage a problem-oriented, rather than a solution-oriented approach. Thus, when a problem like crime was brought up, and people moved directly to solutions (like police activities), the staff encouraged attention to the specifics of the suggested alternative ways of viewing it. 5. The staff tries to function as facilitators, often providing the spark that mobilized people to organize meetings, initiate programs and move to action. They try to stay at the periphery of people's actual efforts to work things Out with each other. Ideally, they are seen as educational and technical resources, not change agents. Research and Evaluation There are several different types of research being conducted. 1. Evaluation instruments are being developed to allow us to continuously monitor the learning offerings impact on participants. 2. As mentioned earlier, residents are being interviewed to examine the type and degree of people's concerns and what they are doing, or would like to do about them. Similarly, those who provide services (e.g., mental health agencies) are being interviewed to determine what they offer and what they see as people's concerns. The data collected indicates the type, frequency and degree of concerns in the target and control areas, as well as in particular neighborhoods. Since several random samples are interviewed in each area each year, the surveys may, in time, find differences between the target and control areas. 3. The Columbus Foundation has commissioned an independent evaluation of the total program which will be conducted over a period of a year. 4. A number of staff members are developing research projects. Topics include an exploration of how individuals define their neighborhood and the development of a procedure to assess the physical condition of houses in the area. Current Status A few community leaders enthusiastically support our efforts. One actually was our newsletter editor while several staffed the center. Other community members tolerate our well-meaning efforts, appear to be mildly curious, and may well be waiting to see what we will do 43
and how they might utilize us. We feel encouraged by the fact that the few individuals who initially saw us as intrusive and possibly troublesome have become active participants in our program. Thus, we seem to have passed through the entry process fairly well and now face the challenge of evolving program of use to both the community and the University. Activities planned for the next few months ~nclude a program of six courses designed by staff and residents to fit concerns revealed by household survey results (e.g., " H o w to Start a Food-Buying Club," "Neighborhood Crime Prevention," "Health Care in the Home," "The Joys and Problems of Advancing Age"). If residents are stimulated by these courses and actively experiment with solutions, GCL will be available as a facilitating resource group. In the long view, we see GCL as a vehicle which provides data for those involved in human service training programs to assess the payoffs of programmatic involvement of universities in Urban Education directed at current problems in the community. Similarly, we hope to gather data which will speak to the cost/gains of such a program to both the community and the university. Discussion Many of us in mental health recognize the need to deal with the social and ecological conditions which seem central to most psychosocial problems. Urban extension is one way to address such objecttives. Extension specialists work directly in the context of the conditions considered of major import in dysfunctional behavior. Such workers are there to help community people figure out what they want and how to get it, but the specialist remains an outsider. His job is best done when he leaves and is not missed. The urban extension specialist spends most of his time in the community, attending meetings, arranging and guiding educationa.I programs of direct relevance to community needs, participating in research designed to better understand the community and to evaluate the impact of programs. How should such a person be trained? Certainly he has different learning needs than the therapist or consultant who works in an office. Since we really know very little about how communities work, operationally, theoretically, or empirically, one might argue that there is not a great deal of a priori content that can be taught in the classroom. It therefore seems prudent to use an apprenticeship, undergraduate level, training program at this stage of knowledge. Through such a program, students could gradually learn skills from experienced community workers, deepen their theoretical knowledge, and acquire research skills.
44
References Bennett, Austin, 1973. Professional and staff contributions to community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 4(1): 58-68. Broskowsky, A., Et Baker, F., 1974. Professional, organizational and social barriers to primary prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44(5): 707-719. Cohen, L., 1971. Health and disease. Observations on strategies for community psychology. In C. Rosenblum (Ed.), Issues in Community Psychology and Preventive Mental Health. Behavior Publications, New York, N.Y. Glidewell, John, 1972. A social psychology of mental health. In S. E. Golann and C. Eisdorder (Eds.), Handbook of Community Mental Health. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, N.Y. Iscoe, Ira, 1974. Community psychology and the competent community. American Psychologist, 59(8): 607-613. Kituse, J. I., 1962. Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. Social Problems, 8: 247-256. Love, L., Er Kaswan, J., 1974. Troubled Children: Their Families, Schools and Treatments. Wiley-lnterscience, New York, N.Y. Roaden, Arliss, 1972. Centennial Commission Report on the Future of Ohio State University. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, p. 67.
Footnotes 1We are grateful to the Columbus Foundation, Columbus Ohio, for their support which, together with University resources, made our second year of operation possible. 2Copies of this questionnaire may be obtained from the senior author. This survey research is supported by a grant from the State of Ohio, Department of Mental Health, Division of Research.
45
have access to information regarding the variables which contribute to their problems; (b) can identify in the informal and institutional resources available to them; and (c) have the opportunity to experiment with varying approaches to their problems instead of relying on one particular resource system (e.g., welfare services, mental health clinics, etc.). These assumptions point to the usefulness of providing information and technical assistance to communities in their problem solving endeavors. Within the mental health field one conceptualization of such a "self-help" approach has been developed by Love and Kaswan (1974). Recognizing that effective solutions are often generated through active experimentation by those affected, they developed an "Information Feedback" technique which was based on the assumption that people can change their behavior if they can gain objective new information about their current, concrete environment, with minimal intervention from outside "helpgivers." Working with families and schools concerned about troubled children, these authors implemented an Information Feedback program by encouraging participants to review their actual behavior (e.g., videotapes of family interactions) and evaluating it (e.g., adjective ratings by themselves and others). Followup results of the children's school behavior indicated that the Information Feedback youngsters compared favorable with those who received more traditional interventions. The community information feedback model used in the present program differs from the public health model usually used in community mental health intervention projects. The public health model is an extension of a disease model (Broskowsky ~ Baker, 1974) and assumes that psychosocial difficulties result from the inability to adapt to stressful conditions (Cohen, 1971; Glidewell, 1972). From the public health perspective, prevention involves manipulating environmental conditions so as to reduce the stresses which lead to maladaption. According to this model, the helping professional is the expert judging what is maladaptive, and guides individuals, groups and communities toward more adaptive behaviors (e.g., toward "positive mental health"). However, there is growing evidence that judgements of capacity, appropriateness or adaptiveness of behavior are more a matter of social reactivity and values than a matter of fact (Kituse, 1962). In contrast, the catalytic model states that, in the absence of empirical knowledge, helping professionals have no basis for assuming thattheir ideologies, goals and preferred way of life should be accepted as more valid or adaptive than those of others in the community. Therefore, the helper functions more as a resource person than as one of the central actors in a change process. His or her job is to assist people to gather information, analyze issues, select and try solutions, and evaluate results in a way which includes as little as possible into the actual interactions among community members. While the value of such an approach is beginning to be recognized (Iscoe, 1974), there seems to be no professional role model or institutional framework for it in the human services area. Part of the problem is that helping professionals have presented themselves to the public as expert consultants who can guide those with problems 37
toward "better" solutions. A mental health center, for instance, is seen by the community as a place where people can be treated by experts who have "the solutions , (e.g., prescriptions, psychotherapy advice). Given such a percept=on, community people are confused when a mental health consultant goes out into the community with process role objectives like those outlined above. Such an expert, as they see it, has no identifiable role, no firm objective, no specific expertise. Urban Extension as a C o m m u n i t y Change Catalyst Urban Extension Programs may provide a framework which resolves several of the difficulties outlined above. Helping people to gather useful information is a major mission of a learning institution. Many land grant universities have extension programs which have provided community oriented education and consultation in rural communities and small towns with a wide range of problems for about 50 years. While their focus is often on agricultural production and other aspects of the physical environment, extension agents often become involved in the social and interpersonal concerns of their clients, as individuals and communities. Extension agents function as process consultants, helping residents clarify their situation; as technical and resource consultants, assisting people in finding and using information and resources they need; and as organized consultants aiding people in organizing to effectively consider and act on what concerns them. Though extension agents may occassionally advocate particular solutions, they usually leave decisions to the community, rarely take charge of the change process, and work themselves out of a job as soon as possible (Bennett, 1973). While there has not been much research documenting the effectiveness of their activities, extension programs are highly valued in most communities and are supported as a matter of course by land grant universities. Little resembling such extension functions exists in urban areas. In part, this may be due to a lack of contact between colleges of agriculture and the professional training programs in social work, psychology, or psychiatry, However, a more important factor may be differences in basic assumptions. In contrast to the extension model, problem identification and problem solving in urban areas in largely directed and guided by helping agencies. Their professional staffs assume that solutions require a rehabilitative process which they identify and conduct. Recognizing that solutions and methods which work in rural counties cannot be directly transferred to the city, the fact that extension programs have long been accepted in such settings is encouraging, and offers a precedent for the type of role models which we describe in the section below. THE GROUP FOR C O M M U N I T Y LEARNING (GCL)
Acceptability to Community and University Extending the information-resource role into urban areas is consis38
tent with the goal of many universities. For example, the Ohio State Centennial Study of Future Goals concluded that: There will be a need to shift the emphasis of instruction from the solution of visible and well-formulated problems to education in the process of problem identification, as well as in the conversion of apparently chaotic situations into manageable, soluble problems (Roaden, 1972). Such statements offer an opportunity for educational administrators, faculty and legislators to attend to current community problems as a regular part of the university's function and responsibility. The community, in turn, should be receptive to a school's efforts to help people learn and do more about their psychosocial concerns. Teaching in a community should be seen as a natural extension of a school's function and should be welcome if people see the educator as one who has come to help them learn what they want to know (rather than to "research" or "rehabilitate" them).
Project Planning, Staffing and Funding A community learning program was developed over several years by a cross-disciplinary group of faculty, students, and agency-based helping professionals. Called the "Group for Community Learning," members have participated largely on a volunteer basis, although students have received academic credit for their participation. Although there has been a great deal of variation over time, there are currently 40-50 community residents, students and faculty members involved in the project. As the project developed, the University and a local foundation have paid rent for a storefront and have covered other expenses, including two half-time staff positions. We consider it essential that the project be supported primarily with University resources, since extramurally funded programs rarely continue beyond their grant period.
Program Development The development of a polit program required specifying a limited geographical area for initial focus; identifying major areas of concern among area residents; developing university-community interactions to determine the type and form of learning opportunities to be offered; evolving specific learning opportunities and productive follow-up activities; formulating research designs to monitor and evaluate the program; and creating procedures for assessing the implications of the project for the University's functions and curricula.
Geographic Area Experimental and control areas were chosen, both containing a predominantly lower-middle class population, moderate to low mobility, with some, but not extreme social tensions. While the control area has more health and mental resources than the target area, both contain a population of about 35,000 people (with about 39
7% Black and 19% over the age of 65). Average income of residents ranges between $5-10,000.
Identifying Community Concerns Major areas of concern are identified in two ways. First, this information is obtained through interviews with community leaders and concerned residents. Second, a structured 60-90 minute interview2 has been given to 2% sample of the population in both the control and target area by paid personnel over a two-year period. This instrument elicits resident's expessions of concern about a wide range of issues, gathers information about efforts they have made to deal with their concerns, and assesses their satisfaction with these efforts.
Entry into the Community and Encouraging Participation
Community
The first step in our entry process was to speak with civic leader, ministers, politicians, businessmen, educators, helping professional and residents who seemed knowledgeable and concerned about the area. These individuals then referred us to others, and over a three-month period we met with fifty people, and attended meetings of the few active civic groups in the area. We presented our aim as an effort to build links between the resources of the University and those of the community. The brochure we distributed explained further: G C L believes that individuals in a community can best define their interests and issues important to community development. When problems about public services, social tensions or the personal needs of individuals arise, often the best solutions are those that you work out for yourselves. GCL is here to assist you in getting more information about your concerns, to encourage cooperation among community members, and to help you focus energy in trying out solutions of your choice. This effort is one extension of Ohio State University Continuing Education Program which seeks to offer opportunities for useful learning to all citizens. We also asked people what they s a w as the main concerns of people in the area, and described the community survey we were developing. With very few exceptions, residents were positive in their response, although often skeptical about what we would really do beyond collecting data. The second stage of entry began when we organized an advisory board. We asked civic groups in the communit.y to nominate five members. The other members were two high level university administrators and two members of the organizing group. From its creation, the board guided our policies, reviewed our activities and made recommendations. For example, after four months of work, 40
the board thought there was sufficient support to call a general community meeting to publicize our efforts and seek more input from residents. However, they warned us that no more than a few people would come, since area residents were generally uninterested in community affairs. In view of this, we mounted an intensive publicity campaign, using the local newspaper, leaflets and telephone calls. The thirty-five people who came to the meeting were told about our program and asked about their concerns. The meeting went well and we all felt sufficiently encouraged by the turnout to proceed further and to rent a store on one of the area's main thoroughfares.
Program Implementation The third stage of entry was marked by our first learning programs. Planning for these offerings involved several GCL members in providing organizational and technical assistance to help develop and maintain each learning group. The most effective way to convey the flavor of these offerings is with the following example of completed programs. 1. The "Housing Seminar-Workshop" and "Skill Exchange Program": One area of concern to the community was maintaining quality housing. A related issue was the difficulty in obtaining quality home repair services at prices people could afford. Community members and GCL developed a workshop to address these issues. Their work included (a) the preparation and implementation of a publicity campaign (communication media, leaflets, personal contacts); (b) the development of research procedures to evaluate the outcome of the seminar; and (c) the planning and coordination of eight sessions on home repairs, pest control, contract problems and rental arrangements, led by specialists from the university and the community. Follow-up interviews of participants indicated they considered it worthwhile. Since several had expressed an interest in trading skills with others to help maintain their properties, a group organized to plan a small skills exchange program, which would use the GCL storefront as a communications center. Skills which would be offered included those beyond home maintenance (e.g., automobile repair, shopping for shut-ins, typing, tutoring, etc.). 2. "Encouraging Self-Help in the Community." This is the title of a non-credit seminar-workshop offered through the Division of Continuing Education. Community residents, human service professionals and University students participated in this 10-week program led jointly by two graduate students and a faculty member. The group reviewed some of the differences between agency-provided help and problem solving through community efforts. In later sessions, using the area crime problem as an example, they contrasted viewing the police as a major resource with that impact on crime they might have if neighbors cooperated with each other. They talked also of studying the specific crime patterns in the area 41
to determine what point in the cycle an intervention might have the greatest impact. 3. "Concerns of and for the Elderly Resident": Involving both residents and students in the planning stages, this group first focused its energies on an analysis of the concerns of and opportunities for the elderly in the area. In view of their findings the group focused its attention on assisting in evolving more transportation options for the elderly. 4. "Quality Education": A small number of concerned residents asked our assistance in developing a group to explore a variety of education-related issues. Along with continuing efforts to involve parents and school personnel in discussions about school problems, two programs were developed. One was a Block Parent Plan, in which people put a sign in their front window indicating that they are available to assist children who are hurt, frightened or lost. The second was a peer tutoring program in which high school and junior high school students assisted younger children with their schoolwork. 5. "Consultation to Community Organizations": Working with the area's Community Council has been a continuting activity. The Council is composed of about thirty organizations (e.g., churches, civic groups). In continuous existence for over thirty years, the group has done little recently, although efforts to revitalize it are underway. Examples of GCL activities with the Council include: (a) Encouraging communications with an adjoining area. Leaders of the Council had never met those from the area immediately to the south of them, who are mostly poor blacks. Though the areas had many common concerns (e.g., capital improvements, crime, the elderly), there was much mutual suspicion and hostility between them. (b) Assisting in area rehabilitation planning. GCL members with expertise in city planning worked with the Council and the City Development Department to help evolve an area rezoning and redevelopment package. (c) Assisting in developing increased community participation in the Council. The other active community group is concerned with improving the physical appearance of the area. GCL efforts with this group are illustrated by our participation with them in a Children's Art Poster Show. Six GCL staff people helped organize the show, which displayed posters depicting local themes. Six schools and 450 children participated, focusing the residents attention on the area as a community. The show was also intended to encourage closer links between neighborhoods, schools, churches, businesses, and others involved in the project.
Staff Functions in Learning Groups In all GCL programs the staff follows a general set of guidelines: 1. Groups are started and maintained only if community people participate in planning them. The amount of such participation will vary. There was little in the "Encouraging Self-Help in the 42
Community" seminar, while a community member has taken full responsibility for organizing the group on "Quality Education." 2. During course planning, GCL staff usually help gather information about the concern, make contact with people who have relevant information, and facilitate communication among the planners and with outside resources. 3. The content of discussion at group meetings is specified by the community members. Staff members have varied widely in their level of activity but at no time suggest preferred solutions, although they might point out contradictions, help focus discussions, a n d / o r suggest topics for consideration. 4. The staff tries to model and encourage a problem-oriented, rather than a solution-oriented approach. Thus, when a problem like crime was brought up, and people moved directly to solutions (like police activities), the staff encouraged attention to the specifics of the suggested alternative ways of viewing it. 5. The staff tries to function as facilitators, often providing the spark that mobilized people to organize meetings, initiate programs and move to action. They try to stay at the periphery of people's actual efforts to work things Out with each other. Ideally, they are seen as educational and technical resources, not change agents. Research and Evaluation There are several different types of research being conducted. 1. Evaluation instruments are being developed to allow us to continuously monitor the learning offerings impact on participants. 2. As mentioned earlier, residents are being interviewed to examine the type and degree of people's concerns and what they are doing, or would like to do about them. Similarly, those who provide services (e.g., mental health agencies) are being interviewed to determine what they offer and what they see as people's concerns. The data collected indicates the type, frequency and degree of concerns in the target and control areas, as well as in particular neighborhoods. Since several random samples are interviewed in each area each year, the surveys may, in time, find differences between the target and control areas. 3. The Columbus Foundation has commissioned an independent evaluation of the total program which will be conducted over a period of a year. 4. A number of staff members are developing research projects. Topics include an exploration of how individuals define their neighborhood and the development of a procedure to assess the physical condition of houses in the area. Current Status A few community leaders enthusiastically support our efforts. One actually was our newsletter editor while several staffed the center. Other community members tolerate our well-meaning efforts, appear to be mildly curious, and may well be waiting to see what we will do 43
and how they might utilize us. We feel encouraged by the fact that the few individuals who initially saw us as intrusive and possibly troublesome have become active participants in our program. Thus, we seem to have passed through the entry process fairly well and now face the challenge of evolving program of use to both the community and the University. Activities planned for the next few months ~nclude a program of six courses designed by staff and residents to fit concerns revealed by household survey results (e.g., " H o w to Start a Food-Buying Club," "Neighborhood Crime Prevention," "Health Care in the Home," "The Joys and Problems of Advancing Age"). If residents are stimulated by these courses and actively experiment with solutions, GCL will be available as a facilitating resource group. In the long view, we see GCL as a vehicle which provides data for those involved in human service training programs to assess the payoffs of programmatic involvement of universities in Urban Education directed at current problems in the community. Similarly, we hope to gather data which will speak to the cost/gains of such a program to both the community and the university. Discussion Many of us in mental health recognize the need to deal with the social and ecological conditions which seem central to most psychosocial problems. Urban extension is one way to address such objecttives. Extension specialists work directly in the context of the conditions considered of major import in dysfunctional behavior. Such workers are there to help community people figure out what they want and how to get it, but the specialist remains an outsider. His job is best done when he leaves and is not missed. The urban extension specialist spends most of his time in the community, attending meetings, arranging and guiding educationa.I programs of direct relevance to community needs, participating in research designed to better understand the community and to evaluate the impact of programs. How should such a person be trained? Certainly he has different learning needs than the therapist or consultant who works in an office. Since we really know very little about how communities work, operationally, theoretically, or empirically, one might argue that there is not a great deal of a priori content that can be taught in the classroom. It therefore seems prudent to use an apprenticeship, undergraduate level, training program at this stage of knowledge. Through such a program, students could gradually learn skills from experienced community workers, deepen their theoretical knowledge, and acquire research skills.
44
References Bennett, Austin, 1973. Professional and staff contributions to community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, 4(1): 58-68. Broskowsky, A., Et Baker, F., 1974. Professional, organizational and social barriers to primary prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 44(5): 707-719. Cohen, L., 1971. Health and disease. Observations on strategies for community psychology. In C. Rosenblum (Ed.), Issues in Community Psychology and Preventive Mental Health. Behavior Publications, New York, N.Y. Glidewell, John, 1972. A social psychology of mental health. In S. E. Golann and C. Eisdorder (Eds.), Handbook of Community Mental Health. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, N.Y. Iscoe, Ira, 1974. Community psychology and the competent community. American Psychologist, 59(8): 607-613. Kituse, J. I., 1962. Societal reaction to deviant behavior: Problems of theory and method. Social Problems, 8: 247-256. Love, L., Er Kaswan, J., 1974. Troubled Children: Their Families, Schools and Treatments. Wiley-lnterscience, New York, N.Y. Roaden, Arliss, 1972. Centennial Commission Report on the Future of Ohio State University. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, p. 67.
Footnotes 1We are grateful to the Columbus Foundation, Columbus Ohio, for their support which, together with University resources, made our second year of operation possible. 2Copies of this questionnaire may be obtained from the senior author. This survey research is supported by a grant from the State of Ohio, Department of Mental Health, Division of Research.
45
