An analysis of effective delivery systems for community development processes by higher educational institutions to rural communities

Material Information

An analysis of effective delivery systems for community development processes by higher educational institutions to rural communities
Brubaker, Chris Eric
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
ii, 79 leaves : charts, map ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Community development -- Case studies -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Community development ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )


Includes bibliographical references (pages 77-79).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Chris Eric Brubaker.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
13775041 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1986 .B7735 ( lcc )

Full Text

An Analysis of Effective Delivery Systems for Community Development Processes by Higher Educational Institutions to Rural Communities
Chris Brubaker
May, 1986

An Analysis of Effective Delivery Systems for Community Development Processes by Higher Educational Institutions to Dural Communities
Chris "ric Brubaker
Tn Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Planning and Community Development University of Colorado at Denver
Professor Herbert H. Smith, Thesis Advisor
May, 1986

Acknowledgments............................................ i
Introduction................................................. 1
Statement of Hypothesis................................ 1
Intended Outcomes of Study............................. 1
Thesis Format.......................................... 2
General Chapter Topics................................. 2
Chapter I: Defining Community Development................... 4
A Historical Overview................................. 5
Community Development Defined......................... 8
Determining Effective Community Development...........11
Community DevelopmentOho s Responsibility?.........12
The Importance of Community Development to Society...13
Community Development/Planning Relationship...........14
How Should Community Development be Supported?........15
Chapter II: W.C.R.C.P.A Case Study.......................19
A Historic OverviewHow it all got started........19
Initial IdealismThe Major Thrust...................22
A Look at the Results...............................28
Major Problems Encountered..........................34
The Major Focus Today...............................37
Defining Tomorrow...................................40

Chapter III: Community development delivery Methods
The Major Clements............................
Adult/Continuing Education Method.............
Broker-Linker Method..........................
Technical Assistance Method...................
Service/Learning Method.......................
Chapter TV: Putting the Pieces Together.............
Basic delivery Method Requirements............
Institutional Program Structure...............
Inter-relationship of Methods.................
Establishing Effective delivery 'lethods......
delivering Effective Community development...
j Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations.........
Findings and Conclusions......................
Mhy VCRCP was not Institutionalized...........
Overcoming the Problems.......................
The Larger Implications.......................
The Challenge Ahead...........................
List of Tables and Graphs.....................
4 2
, 72
Resource Materials and Interviews

Although this paper seeras only to scratch the surface of what the Western Colorado Rural Communities Program, VCRCP, was all about I hope that in some small way it helps set the Course for its' future direction. I would like to acknowledge all of the staff that has served this program over the years and commend them for their efforts towards helping the rural communities of Western Colorado.
I would like to personally thank my Thesis Advisor, Herb Smith, for his guidance, patience, and understanding of my five year battle to complete this project. His review of my initial project design along with his comments on my first rough drafts were most helpful.
Three other particular notables I would like to mention are Hr. Sam Burns, who not only first interested me in the field of sociology, but also hired me as a community assistant at the start of WCRCP and found ways to encourage me and expand my knowledge of community development; Dr. Dan Schler, who I also was fortunate enough to have as both a sociology instructor and a mentor. He has related to me a deep understanding about the principals of community

development and the true form of how WCRCP was envisioned to be established; and Mike Preston, who was a comnrade in the
VCRCP program c nnversations development and work.
and with whom I have had many stimulating as to the ideals involved in community how a community development worker should
Obviously the final thanks goes to my secretarial staff, liana Payne and Ronda Worrall, who typed, cut, pasted, copied, corrected, and retyped this document into its' final form. A special thanks to Barbara Paschke for proofing this thesis for grammatical errors.

The information presented in this document is based on the assumption that the reader will have limited knowledge about what community development is and how this effective community change process should operate within a rural setting. I intend to clarify the ambiguity of the term "Community Development"(CD) by giving a brief history of it's creation and defining how it will be used in the context of this thesis. This description will be the basis for my argument establishing a valid relationship between it and higher education.
The major thrust of this thesis is to identify and analyze four basic methods used in the delivery of CD activities to rural communities by institutions of higher education. I intend to show a positive relationship exists between the creation of effective CD activities in rural communities and its delivery as a role of higher education in our society today. My hypothesis is that; "Community development is an active educational process that can best be delivered by, and should be delivered by, higher educational institutions".

I will use the Western Colorado Rural Communities
Program, WCRCP, which has been involved in community development activities for the past eight years as my case study. Although this limits my study to seven institutions of Higher Education, the WCRCP consortium includes two major Universities, three four-year institutions, and two community colleges, all of which are public institutions. I feel that other institutions wanting to adopt these models, can, without having to do major overhauls to the methods themselves. The theory within this methodology is such that the concepts of community change processes can be incorporated and institutionalized by any who see the need to assist communities.
Included in the case study will be a historic overview of the consortium; how it got started and what the original basic assumptions were. A portion of this discussion will include an accounting of how the different methods for delivering CP evolved and what this meant in terms of obtaining "effective" community change activities. This section v/ill conclude with some accounts of how WCRCP is now conceptualizing the future directions of its program, its ideals and the realities of supporting the program.
Chapter Three is entitled, "Community Development Delivery Methods" and will explain what the elements of each method are and how they interact with each other and the institution. Each method presented will begin with a general

description of how it operates followed by the basic
resources needed. The benefits and constraints of each
(method will be presented with respect to the type of (institution utilizing that particular approach.
Chapter Four, "Putting the Pieces Together", will review the basic requirements needed in each of these methods and their inter-relationships. Also there is a discussion as to ithe appropriate program structure within the institution in order to effectively establish the methods. This section concludes with the ideal approach and timing in regards to delivering community assistance through these methods.
The final chapter of this thesis will consist of a presentation of findings and recommendations. Included will be an analysis of why WCRCP was not institutionalized and what actions need to taken. These in turn will lead to a number of other larger implications in terms of who should be responsible for community development and to what extent. In closing there will be a brief look at ideas on how one can affect major social change and a challenge to the future of community development in a democratic society.

Chapter I
Defining Community Development
Over the past four decades the term "Community Development" (CD) has come to mean a number of things to a number of different people and organizations. As one reviews the literature and history, a picture begins to materialize as to the different types of definitions based on the context of the activities in which CD was utilized. Uholistically, this activity could be viewed as a 'process', a 'program', and a 'method', which means that it can be either an activity and/or a description about an activity.
A brief review of when and how the term itself came into existence can help us better understand what it is and is not. Before delving briefly into its history, let us first look at a composite definition. This definition was presented by Dr. Dan Schler, Director of the Division of Planning and Community Development, University of Colorado, at Denver.
"Community Development may be defined as: 1) An Educational Process in which individuals come to recognize common interests and problems in a social environment, and

develop attitudes, knowledge and skills which will foster and make possible economic and social development; 2) An Organizational Process in which interpersonal and group relationships are so structured as to facilitate community problem definition, goal-selection, mobilization of resources, and execution of programs; 3) A Program of professional, technical and/or agency assistance designed to facilitate and enhance the two proceeding processes; and A) A Method of work by a professional worker which consists of the orderly application, through the use of certain learned techniques and skills, of a relevant body of knowledge, guided by certain value considerations, to help the community engage in a process of planned change."
An Historical Overview
The following brief history of the emergence of
community development as a professional field comes from a
review of "Communi ty development in America" , Chapter 2:
History of Community Development in America by Bryan M.
Phifer, with E. Frederick List and Boyd Faulkner.
Although one could claim that communities have always been developing, the "purposeful attempt to improve
communities under democratic conditions of participation" did not start until the turn of the twentieth century. It came
not as a divine revelation, but as a consequence of the convergence of a number of different inf1uences.(p.19) Historically communities have always been changing. As anthropologists and sociologists studied this change process

there emerged a theory on ways in which 'purposeful' change could be utilized to enhance, and possibly expedite, this community change process.
Two separate events took place in 1908 which began putting emphasis on this notion of "purposeful change". One occurred in the United States through the creation of the "Country Life Commission" by President Roosevelt, which determined that the major problems associated with rural people was their lack of organization. The other event, which took place in India, was minor in comparison, but started the foreign counterpart. Indian poet Tagore was urging young people to work together for village welfare. Later, with the help of Englishman Leonard Elmhurst, Tagore was able to found a rural institute which was associated with the government in 1914. That same year the United States passed the "Smith-Lever Act" which established the Cooperative Extension Service.
During the 20's, India established the first program aimed, on a national level, at assisting rural communities. It expanded also into Africa and other Rritish ruled colonial areas. In the United States the term 'community development' began appearing in the proceedings of the National University Extension Association, NUEA.
The 30's saw the establishment of the Coady International Institute by St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. This Institute was attracting

foreign students who were taught a 'grass-roots' type program for assisting their communities. There was, at the same time, a plea for university sponsored community development workers in the United States.
Distinct literature about this process became more visible in the 40's due in large part to the fact that many of the major universities were establishing programs in this field because of the actions of two notables; Baker Brownell and Richard Poston. Other activities during the 40's, which expanded the CD concept, were the India Village Rehabilitation Scheme in 1944 and the Cambridge Conference on African Administration in 1948.
It wasn't until 1956 that the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 was revised which enabled more funds to be used in placing rural development staff, through the Extension Service, into the field. This was a year before the National University Extension Association established a "Division of Community Development" within their organization. By that time a number of major universities were using the theories and methods established by Brownell and Poston.
CD activities got a major boost from President Johnson in 1969 when he declared "War on Poverty" and created the Title I Act of Higher Education. However there was a drawback to this method of funding since it took decisionmaking authority from the local community. There were a lot of strings attached to this type of Federal money and it

wasn't until the Revenue Sharing Act of 1972 that these strings began to be cut and some control was given back to the local communities applying for these funds. Also the Community Development Society was founded in 1969 an helped begin to draw definitive meanings to the types of activities that were taking place world-wide.
Community Development Defined
In October of 1956, the U.S. International Cooperation Administration sent out an airgram on the subject of community development guidelines. In that document, they defined it as follows:
"a process of social action in which the people of a community organize themselves for planning and action; define their common and individual needs and problems; make group and individual plans to meet their needs and solve their problems; execute these plans with a maximum reliance upon community resources; and supplement these resources when necessary with services and materials from governmental and non-governmental agencies outside the community."
It is this type of all-inclusive definition that makes the term ambiguous. The major reason being that the definition contains a variety of antonyms. Among them are 'planning, which is the thinking process; 'execute', which is the action process; 'common', meaning a group of individual community members; and 'individual', stated here to mean that individual needs or problems could be different from the

common needs and problems.
A further dichotomy of the terra shows even more the confusion involved in trying to find an exact definition for something that could be a 'process', a 'program', and a 'method', or any combination of the three. The word "community" can imply people in general, specific groups of people, a place, or both people and place. The term "development" can be an act, a process, or even a result. Placing these two terras together provides a person with ample opportunity to then define this process in any form necessary in order to apply the term to a myriad of varied activities.
Within the context of this thesis I would suggest a closer look however at some of the other words which make up the definition of CD as presented in the airgram from the International Cooperation Administration, in 1956. The terms, "process, organize, define, and solve", all take place in a "community", however defined, and with "maximum reliance upon community resources". I propose that it is this definition, antonyms included, that defines CD and helps to begin establishing a relationship between it and higher education. Further, these terms can be used to begin setting standards for determining what activity can be defined as CD and how its effectiveness can be measured.
In the realm of higher educational institutions, the student is constantly reminded that "knowledge" is not only a product, but a process as well. The student, no matter what

the discipline, must learn how to 'organize' that knowledge, 'process' that knowledge, and use that knowledge to 'define and solve* problems. The basic philosophy behind our institutions of higher education, in fact any educational institution, is that the knowledge, both product and process, is imparted to students to be utilized in the society so as to better that society. Educational institutions must communicate knowledge that builds the capacity of the student to deal with real world situations. Note here the key words 'builds' and 'capacity'. These will be used later to assess the effectiveness of community change activities.
For the purpose of this thesis, Howard McClusky has more succinctly defined the term to incorporate both the philosophy of higher education and the societal desire for improvement. He states that "community development helps the 'learner' make the connection between his learning and its application directly... relevance is the chief charactertistic of its approach...It is...a method of teaching adults the use of timing and the sequence of activities in bringing a project through successive stages to an acceptable closure."
Therefore community development, especially in terms of this thesis, is an active educational process, that includes a program of professional assistance to communities and a method of work to be incorporated by professionals working with community members, aimed at the betterment of both the individuals involved in the activity and the community as a whole.

Determining Effective Community Development
In defining CD, I pointed to some definitional terms that could potentially assist in setting some basic standards for identifying a community change process and measuring its effectiveness. Those terms were "process, individual, organize, common, problems, needs, define, plan, solve, builds, capacity, and execute." In order to use them as basic standards, what is necessary is to take those terms and phrase them into questions about an activity purported to be community development. Such questions should be:
1. Did the activity involve a process?
2 Did the process include individuals of a given
3. Was there organization to the process?
4 Did the process involve a self-study by these
5. Were common problems and/or needs identified and defined by these individuals?
6. Was a plan developed to solve theses problems?
7. Can the designed plan be executed?
8. Are community resources to be utilized?
9. Did the activity build the capacity of the individuals and the community to deal with future problems?
10. Was, or is, the community going to show betterment?

If the purported activity can state clearly an
affirmative response to the first seven of these questions, then in fact Cl) has taken place. If the activity is to be deemed "effective" then the responses to the last four questions must also be affirmative. Community development, to be effective, must not only leave the community improved, but the individuals involved in the activity must also gain a knowledge of the processes used and an understanding of its application to other defined needs or problems. This residual of learning is called 'community development capacity building', and is used by WCRCP as one criteria for determining the effectiveness of an activity.
Later in this thesis, \^hen I review the case study and discuss the methods utilized in delivering an effective community change activity, I will look at some of the tools used in determining community project selection. These instruments look from the outset at making sure the activity will be effective. You will notice that the questions listed above will be very similar to those used in determining which community projects are to be selected.
Community Development: Who's Responsibility?
"There are no passengers of the spaceship Earth.
We are all crew."
- Marshall McLuhan -

Now that I have defined CD and set some basic standards for determining its effectiveness, one must ask the all important question: WHY? Why, after over 2,000 years of human growth and settlement, is community development important to society today? We've survived this long, haven't we? And what is so special about rural communities? They also seem to have gotten along without the assistance of this emerging new profession.
These are the questions which have consistently perplexed those involved in community change activities, including those involved in the Western Colorado Rural Communities Program. As will be shown later, these were some of the problems associated with the institutionalization of the tfCRCP within the institutions involved. Support cannot be gained where the perceptions of individuals fail to understand or realize the importance of doing effective community development.
The Importance of CD to Society
To most, the rationale for delivering community development assistance has already been answered in both the brief history of this profession and the definitions given above. However I feel it is important to relate in more detail some of the problems associated with today's rural society in relationship to the future of society in general. We do in fact live within a finite world. There is but one total environment for the whole of mankind. Science is constantly reminding us that there exists a very real and

fragile network of physical environments in which man lives. Our relationship to that network is a concern of this thesis. The responsibility for improving or maintaining this network, lies with all of us, individually and institutionally. Although this is a very pragmatic response, the nature of community development is such that it cannot stand independent of itself. Whether or not it is viewed as a process, method, or program, it is an activity that cannot be devoid of people. People make it happen or not happen.
Community development seeks to improve the environments of man while maintaining the balance of the network. If by teaching people the processes involved in creating purposive change, then human betterment can take place without risk to our spaceship. "It becomes increasingly clear that the tendency to damage the physical-biological environment results in major part from lack of sufficient understanding about how to reorganize human systems to guide behavior in less destructive directions."(William Lassey, 1977; p.13)
Community Development/Planning Relationship
The importance of the rural environment is that it is the primary life-support system for everything else. According to William Lassey, in a book entitled "Planning for Rural Environments", there are a number of major obstacles associated with planning in rural regions. Without going into a lot of detail, they deal mainly with the changes in land-use brought about by urbanization, transportation systems, leisure and recreation, and natural resource depletion. He

notes that professionals, legislatures, government officials, and the citizens themselves need an improved 'knowledge base' concerning the issues of rural planning. He points to the fact that, "Rural planning concepts ought to be incorporated in programs which attempt to increase internalized and action-oriented understanding of the total environment." (p.57) This sounds like a community development activity.
Planning and community development go hand-in-hand. Planning is the physical, objective analysis of how people think things should look in the future and community development is the human, subjective side of how people feel about fitting into that future environment. Ironically it is this process of conceptualizing the future that makes people begin to see the rationale for planning, and at the same time see the usefulness of this tool in performing other decision making activities.
How Should CD be Supported?
In review of the definitions of CD, its historical emergence as a profession, its importance to society, especially the rural environments, and its direct link to planning, it is obvious that the responsibilities for effective community development/planning lie with three major socio-political systems; Educational Institutions, The Government, and The Community. Each must come to realize that they to have a stake in the future of this spaceship and that a combined effort is what is needed most. Each has certain duties and responsibilities for seeing that

effective, wholistic planning takes place.
Educational institutions, whether secondary or postsecondary, public or private, are organizations which declare a legitimate role in educating and training individuals within our society. At the secondary level this legitimacy is founded in the responsibility of these institutions to impart knowledge and understanding to students as to their responsibility as citizens, including the idea of democratic participation, group process, the right to agree or disagree, and the right to form consensus.
As for postsecondary institutions, they have accepted the role of assisting individuals beyond high school into degree programs and/or occupational training programs aimed at improving both the individual and the society as a whole. Lassey points to three key processes involved in effective planning; Educational, Communication, and Public Involvement. "Formal educational methods for diffusing information and internalizing knowledge are archaic compared with the potential learning capability of the human population." (p.74) "Effective public education must be complex if it is to be meaningful, "(p.75) "A carefully designed adult education program is needed to supplement what goes on in the formal academic environment and the public media."(p.57) Institutions of higher education must understand that beyond education and research, there is a direct need for service to communities, which can be designed to include the former.

The Government, Local, State, and National, is that body of people which are elected by the citizenship and* are directly responsible for the creation, interpretation, and enforcement of laws or policies designed to be for the public "good". "The mechanisms of local government are often not prepared to deal with the complexities of an urbanizing rural society."(p.37) "...the difficulties of local government often rest on the doorstep of shortsighted state legislatures."(p.37) "It is in the development of a legislative and legal framework for rural planning that many European countries are well ahead of the United States."(p51) "It therefore seems evident that legislative actions to increase the effectiveness of planning may be essential at three levels: federal statutes for issues that are clearly national in scope; state-level laws relating to issues that are primarily of concern to individual states; and local legislation for issues which are strictly local."(p.54) These governmental entities hold the basic keys in assisting in the promotion of effective community development. They can grant public sanction to projects, contribute needed resources, help obtain additional funds, and establish the statutes, policies, or laws necessary for implementation.
The Community, as used in this context, defines the citizenship at large, excluding governments and educational institutions, but including all other public and/or private organizations and agencies. This general populace must become involved in CD activities. They will be the determing factor for seeing that the important community issues are

identified and solved. This is the body of people who can bring the pressure to bear on public officials, educational and governmental, to get the necessary assistance.
"Citizens and public officials must understand the need for legislation to implement effective planning; they must understand the level of funding required and the investment-in-the-future nature of such funding; they must understand the implementation processes necessary to assure that worthy plans do not collect dust on musty shelves; and they must understand that professional planning knowledge and skills are necessary."(p.57 ) We are indeed the "Crew".

Chapter II
W.C.R.C.P.: A Case Study
Information for this chapter was derived from these major sources: "Rural Development and Higher Education: The
Linking of Community and Method"; Chapter 5 by Sam Burns, ND. "The Western Colorado Rural Communities Program". "The VCRCP: Higher Education in Service to Rural Communities"; Edited by Allen Wallis and written by numerous people involved in the WCRCP Consortium activities, ND. "Conceptual Models of a Regional Approach to Institutional and Community Change"; by Dr. Dan Schler as a paper and presentation to the 21st Annual Conference of the Western Social Science Association, 1979. Additional information came from the Annual Reports of the WCRCP Consortium submitted to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 1979 1983, and the yearly WCRCP Evaluations.
How It All Got Started: A Historic Overview
In October of 1977 a meeting was held between staff of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation of Rattle Creek, Michigan and representatives of Colorado State University and the University of Colorado at Denver, concerning the funding possibilities of a program aimed at creating a regional

community service delivery system to assist communities on the Vestslope of Colorado about to be impacted by energy development. Before that date a number of different discussions, mostly informal, were held between higher educational institutional staff concerning, what was perceived at that time, the imminent inundation of people into Western Colorado. This supposition about the great influx of population was the result of a new policy established by the United States which was then moving towards an "Era of Energy Independence", in order to lessen it's dependence on foreign oil. With the knowledge that vast reserves of oil, oil shale, uranium, and coal existed in Western Colorado, it seemed inevitable that population 'Booms' were about to occur in most all of the rural communities and regions.
Many discussions were held with staff of the Kellogg Foundation and many drafts of the proposal were written and rewritten. finally in January of 1978, a final proposal was submitted to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The proposal was titled, "Rural Development within a Regional System Wrider Energy Impact Conditions: A Proposed Experimental.Mo del for the Provision of Development Assistance Utilizing Resources of Higher Education in Conjunction with Western Colorado Rural Communities" and was submitted by Colorado State University, in association with Colorado Mountain College, Colorado Northwestern Community College, Mesa College, Western State College, Fort Lewis College, and the University of Colorado. Thus the "consortium" was established and

Service Area
Communities Served By WCRCP
'^WCRCP Community College, College Or University
Continental Divide

ilabled itself the "Western Colorado Pural Communities Program", or WCPCP for short.
Except for the two major universities, all of the institutions are located throughout the entire Westslope region of Colorado. The two universities are located on what is called the Front-Pange, in Eastern Colorado, and are seen as being more "urban" oriented. Colorado Northwestern
Community College and Colorado Mountain College are public, two-year, District Community Colleges. The remaining three; (Mesa College, Western State College, and Fort Lewis College are public, four-year, State Colleges. The map on the jpreceeding page identifies the location of all the institutions and denotes most of the communities they have given community assistance.
The proposal that was funded by the W.K. Kellogg jFoundation in September of 1978, was for a term of three (years for a total dollar amount of $998,710. This money was broken down into three yearly payments, the first being $363,010, the second year $333,850 the final year $301,850.
Two basic assumptions were made about the funding;
1. That as the Kellogg dollars declined each institution would makeup the difference and add extra dollars as needed to insure program continuation.
2. That within three years this program would be institutionalized to the extent each college would operate the program on a self-supporting basis.

First Year (78-79) $363,010 $190,367 $553,377
Second Year(79-80) 333,850 264,506 598,356
Third Year (80-81) 301,850 338,020 639,870
Grand Totals $998,710 $792,393 $1,791,603
Shown above is the estimated total costs for i mplementing
this program in three years. Approximately 1.8 million dollars may have seemed like more than enough money to start the project, however when you consider there were seven major educational institutions involved, covering all of the geographical area of Western Colorado, the total was not that unrealistic. Added then to that was the "Idealism" contained in the scope of work WCRCP proposed to undertake.
Initial Idealism: The Major Thrust
The organizational structure of WCRCP included three major component parts. This graphic, showing the interrelationships can he seen on the following page.

Colorado State University
Director of Cooperative Extension Service
Executive Director Associate Director
- Colorado Mountain College
- Colorado Northwestern Community College
- Fort Lewis College
- Mesa College
- Western State College
- Colorado State University
- University of Colorado-Denver
Presidents Policy Board College/University Presidents

1. The President's Policy Board, which consisted of the consortium presidents or their designees. This board was responsible for giving overall policy direction to the program and securing State Legislative support and funding. The Fiscal Management component was housed at Colorado State University under the direction of the Cooperative Extension Service. They provided the accountability for Kellogg funds.
2. WCRCP Program Administration,
consisted of an Executive director and Associate Birector,
with support help from the University of Colorado at Denver,
Center for Community Development and Design. They were responsible for providing overall operational direction and coordination of the program.
3. College Level Administration consisted of program
Directors at each Westslope institution, plus whatever staff they felt were appropriate and affordable. These Directors were responsible for the development, implementation, and management of each institution's program, to include the motivation, involvement, and guidance of faculty and students participating in the program. Supportive technical
assistance was provided by CU and CSU to local communities through the local institutional programming structure and process.
Within the established administrative structure were two major underlying objectives for those institutions of higher education involved in the WCRCP consortium.

1. That this program would assist each local institution in developing their own ability to more effectively serve their rural clientele.
2. The program would help establish a network of inter-institutional support for seeing the first objective realized.
The basic purposes of the WOFCP program, as detailed by Dr. Dan S c h 1 e r in his paper presented to the 21st Annual Conference of the Western Social Science Association, were as follows:
1. To provide community development, leadership development and technical assistance to communities on the Western Slope.
2. To develop the capacity of Western Slope colleges to provide the above assistance.
3. To provide the back-up support to Western Slope colleges by C.S.TJ. and C.U. to render community and regional assistance on the Western Slope.
4 To provide the stimulus and incentives to assess and refocus educational resources on the needs of Western Slope communities and their populations.
5. To provide the framework for inter-institutional cooperation in educational programming in providing community and regional assistance on the Western Slope.

According to Dr. Schler, the proposal and conceptualized program was designed under the following assumptions:
1. The forces producing community change are predominantly external.
2. There are practitioner fields which have developed over time associated with the "problem of community" and "problems in communities". (!ote: "Problem OF community" refers to the lack of the community to function adequately as a whole to solve problems. "Problems IN communities" refers more to functional problems such as water, sewage, housing, social services, etc.)
3. Purposively or non-purposively we would take a
position and adopt a stance and style relative to the
practice of "purposive change".
4. What we are about is importantbut it most likely
will not be the key influence in shaping 1 the future of
communities on the Western Slope!
prom these assumptions, a number of key issues were identified concerning higher educational institutions and their involvement in WCRCP given the setting and societal context of this program.
1. Should higher educational institutions be involved in the dynamics and processes of change in their respective areas?
2. If so, what should be their role and function relative to the content and method of operation?

3. What should be the nature of inter-institutional
relationships in rendering services to this Westslope region?
A. What institutional changes will be required to respond to this changing environment, including the changing role of the institutions.
Actual written responses to these issues were never developed. The only issue to be addressed was the first one and this was done by taking the Kellogg money and starting the rural community assistance program. As will be explained later in this chapter, the disregard of the other issues proved to be a major oversight in both the defining of what |WCRCP was to be and what was needed in order for it to become institutionalized.
The WCRCP program itself consisted of four major areas of program activity to be delivered to communities. Each of the five Westslope colleges could emphasize to a greater or lesser degree, one or more of the following, depending on local conditions and resources:
1. General Community development: This activity
encompassed all of the other three program areas and was aimed at helping local people with problem identification, data gathering and analyzing action alternatives.
2. Leadership development: The goal here was to strengthen the local human capacity, of both local leadership and local organizations, through the use of group consultation, workshops and seminars.

3. Technical Assistance: When local problems were identified and specific actions required, technical assistance was delivered. This activity included everything from designing community surveys, helping establish goals for comprehensive land-use plans, doing a site plan study, to designing public facilities.
4. Curriculum and Course Development: This activity was
designed to take place on two levels. The curriculum
development was to be the f o rmali zed structure for
institutions i n adding a Rural Studies component to their
existing institutional structure, and/or adding a Rural I Development Curriculum for practitioner training. The course development was to be a periodic, formalized offering of classes designed around specific local issues.
In conjunction with these above program areas there were three other initial activities to be performed by the ; institutions involved.
1. The establishment of a "knowledge base" that recorded the available institutional resources at each of the seven institutions.
2. Each Westslope institution was to identify community 1 issues and concerns within their respective service areas I through the use of planning charettes. These charettes were
to be designed by the local institution to engage local communities in identifying their local goals, priorities and leadership. This information was then to be combined with that of item one above and form the necessary knowledge base.

3. This total knowledge base would then assist in the
mobilizing of volunteer efforts aimed at solving those
problems utilizing the resources inventoried in the
c ommun i t y, i n the local institution, and at the major
To say the least, this was an ambitious and impressive undertaking. All of these activities, because time was of the essence, were scheduled to begin in phases with the funding of the program. The inventory, or knowledge base, was to be completed in the first year, the other activities, except for the Currieulura Development, were to continue throughout the total three years. Curriculum Development was to hopefully be put together by the end of the third year and extended indefinitely. This total package was to be coordinated by the Central Administration, implemented at each institution by the local Project Directors, and given overall guidance by the President's Policy Board.
A Look at the Results
Before I layout all of the problems encountered in trying this grand experiment, let us first review a number of the successes that happened as a result of this WCRCP effort. Not only did the program last for three years, but they were able to get two more years of Tellogg funding followed by a three year commitment of funds from Mountain Bell Telephone Company.

What follows, in both narrative and graphic form, is a review of the number of projects undertaken by the VCRCP Consortium, the different types of activities they became involved in, and the different types of resources utilized, including institutions, agencies, organizations, interns, students, faculty, and the hard and soft dollars committed.
The information given here is from the Annual Reports and Evaluations. It should be stressed however that two different styles of evaluations were done over the first seven years and the data gathered for Annual Reports came from a variety of instruments within this same time frame. Later portions of this thesis will deal with the problems associated with reporting activity data.
Number of Community Projects
Program Year
As can be seen from this chart, the VCRiCp started on a small scale and increased the number of projects developed on a yearly basis. What constituted a "project", was any activity within a given community or region which met any or

all of the four stated program areas listed above, (i.e. Community Development, Leadership Development, Technical Assistance, or Curriculum/Course Development). A wide latitude was given as to what constituted a community development activity.
The majority of these activities were of the Technical Assistance type and usually contained a Community Development component. A typical project would consist of a series of steps starting with the organization of a broad-based community group with some form of political sanction. This group would then he led through a goals and objectives process aimed at identifying issues around which group consensus could be formed and a specific project developed.
More often than naught this project included a physical component which needed technical assistance. Technical assistance in the form of physical planning, ( e.g. a Park or Building), would then be provided by a local institution via a major university. The project would end then with either the completed design, structure or a decision to postpone the construction until funding could be obtained. Some projects developed additional spin-off activities that were again taken through these steps.
The number of students and faculty utilized in VC.RCP projects was never fully documented because exact record keeping systems were never developed. A large number were used however through the assistance of the University Year in

Action program and the VISTA program, with proposals developed by the University of Colorado at Denver-Center for, Community Development and Design(CCDD)f which boosted the number of WCDCP activities tremendously those first three years. One report stated, that there were over 210 students utilized in the 81-82 program year. CCDD still continues to provide graduate students and faculty with assistance from funds provided by the Colorado ^epnrtnent of Local Affairs through a contract.
Number of Local Units Served
The term "Local Unit' was defined as any geographical area the given project intended to serve, including towns, counties, or multi-county regions. Ohat is interesting to
note here, relative to the above two graphics, is the substantial increase in activities between the 80-81 and 31-82 program years.
A number of factors contributed to this rise including the fact that the program was now in its third and then final

year of funding and was asking Kellogg for another two year conittment. The program had progressed to a stage in which staff and communities alike began feeling comfortable with the types of activities and processes of WCBC0. A more systematic delivery system had been developed for initiating, running, and finishing a project. This system was established by CCPP, because of the number of project requests, in order to help them identify and select more quality projects.
In the beginning local institutions took their programs to any community member who would listen and was interested. Political sanction was gained by soliciting at least one government official to be a participant in the hroad-based community group. As a track record of successes was developed more governmental support was gained. This support came in the form of having governments appoint representatives to the community group. By the fourth and fifth years requests for technical assistance by governmental agencies, and financial support, on a limited basis, was taking place.
Number of Staff (full-time or major assignments)

Dol lars
Although the graphic on the previous page shows a steady increase in the number of full-time staff at the institutions, what is not reflected is the turnover which occurred at almost every college or university. This problem will be dealt with later, but it is sufficient to say here that this increase in staff was a direct result of WCPCP being around long enough for institutions to begin understanding how staffing patterns could be developed to initiate and complete community projects with the broad definitions of acceptable program activities.
Program Support Dollars
The dollar amounts listed on the following page are exact as they pertain to the funds provided by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Those reported under the institutional heading are both hard and soft dollar commitments and some were likely exaggerated due to institutional staffing changes and the fluctuation of institutional priorities concerning WCRCP. Everyone wanted to show, at least on paper, that they

were behind the program. The combined five-year totals, 1979 through 1983, are given here to show the estimated amount of dollars spent in developing and supposedly institutionalizing the program.
Years 1 3(78-81)$ 998,710
Fourth Year(81-82) 442,330
Fifth Year (82-83) 332,800
Five Year Total $1,773,840
$2,334,233 $4,108,073
Major Problems Encountered
In review of the Annual Reports and Evaluations of VCRCP as reported by the Central Staff, there was one major problem area which was consistently reported. That was a problem with what some called "program identification". The ramifications of this can be seen in the other problems associated with institutionalization, staffing, funding, project reporting, and the methods employed in evaluating the program itself .
What was WCRCP? This question was always generic-ally answered in the context of the original proposal, the four stated program areas, and in literature distributed by the consortium. The answers were based on an assumption about what communities needed. In looking back one can see that

there was never the time taken to identify the full and exact amount of resources which would be needed to place the
(delivery system, as proposed, into actual operation. All that was in place in 1979 was the funding and a grand idea. Projects were started before a complete inventory could be | taken of the institutional resources, the community
resources, and the actual needs of any given community.
A number of the Annual Reports raved about the "commitment" and guidance given the program by the Presidents Policy Board, when in reality, the only thing which kept them meeting and agreeing was the $300,000 plus per year being given to them by Kellogg. The grant was always divided evenly without regard to actual resource needs | of each individual institution involved based upon their actual or proposed community activities.
Institutionalization, which will be a major focus of this thesis and dealt with later, was never fully achieved by any of the colleges. Although each institution reported on efforts to place the program within their respective institutions; as soon as the major funding ran dry the programs diminished. The curriculum component was designed but was never fully established at any of the Vestslope institutions, unless they already had an existing similar program area. VCRCP has hung on at each college only because there is commitment by existing staff to the true ideals of effective community development processes and how they should best be developed and delivered.

At only one institution does the original staff still exist today doing CD work on a full-time basis. Training of | the staff on what WCRCP was and how to actualize effective community development within their regions was started the same time community projects were developed. It was never fully formalized or consistant and most times was delivered in the form of either workshops or at consortium meetings. In regards to staff hiring there were never developed any position descriptions, from Central Staff down through Program Directors to local community staff. Staff turnover was reported in every yearly report and evaluation written. {Commitment to the ideals of community development was never given a chance to cultivate within either the institution or its staff. Money, like with the Policy Board, seemed to hold most in place for a while, but frustration over what WCRCP should be doing and how it should be doing it, soon led staff to seek other positions.
In the Annual Reports, funding was seen as a problem only when it began to run out. In reviewing the years I was j involved in the program and in talking with other WCRCP staff members, funding was a problem from the start. It wasn't the lack of funds, but how they were distributed. The money was {given in such a manner that there was never a system developed which made each institution accountable for the way in which they spent those funds. Although each institution had to developed a budget, the types and design of projects undertaken were left entirely to the institution. There were never any quality control measures established because the

money was viewed as "theirs" by each institution and the idea of a "consortium" was only that; an idea.
The problems associated with reporting of projects and their evaluation were evident from a comparison of the reports over the first five years of WCRCP. Actual numeric statistics were not found in the first two years of reporting. Reporting procedures were developed, over time, into what exists today. Evaluations were done by a private consulting firm the first two years and then by a university professor familiar with the program after that. The conclusion drawn from all this is that the consortium did not really know what it was supposed to be about. It took close to six years to develop and refine a reporting and evaluation system which began to hold the institutions accountable for the types of projects they did and how they were designed. All this came about when funding was reduced from $300,000 per year to $10,000 per year. The change from W. K. Kellogg money to Mountain Bell money.
The Major Focus Today
As the final year of Kellogg funding drew to a close the institutional staff met and decided to try and continue its' efforts with funding from a variety of sources. Proposals and letters were written to State officials and Mountain Bell asking for support of WCRCP. Tn September of 1983, Mountain Bell agreed to fund the program for three years at $10,000 per year and assist in finding other potential funding sources from around the state.

The staff recommended to the Presidents Policy Board that funding allocation proceedures he changed and in November pulled together the criteria to be used in determining which projects of the consortium would be funded and to what extent. What follows is a reporting on how that process works and the criteria developed for determining project funding.
On the preceeding page is a copy of the project evaluation form used in determining project funding. Initially $4,000 was the maximum amount of dollars given per project, and as of this writing it is now $2,000. The process itself consists of the requesting institution to submit a proposal to the consortium members prior to an established meeting date for their review and evaluation. When the institutions meet, the proposing college is given an opportunity to orally present their project and answer questions. All of the proposals for that session are presented, the evaluation forms tallied, the projects ranked by score against each other, and then a motion is made for each project to be funded. Bach institution has one vote with the applying member abstaining. Funding can be granted either in-full, partial, with the exact amount stated and what conditions apply, or none. In the latter case the review specifies what, if anything, can be done to the design so it could possibly be resubmitted.

Project Name:_
Name of College:^
Directions to the Committee: Circle the value of the criteria where "0" is the least and 3" or "5" is the most. Any mark below average requires a comment.
Community Basis
1. Community need for service demonstrated. (e.g. formal request; community sanctions; staff's positive judgement of need)
0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Community readiness and evidence of co-participation in the project, (e.g. specific group, agency, institution, or unit of government to collaborate in planning and implementing project; resolution passed by town board or county commissioners; individuals or outside resource people committed; implementable)
0 1 2 3 4 5
3. Attention has been given to continuity of longer term community objectives for improvement over time.
0 1 2 3 4 5
4. Community fiscal support for the project, (e.g. matching funds, in-kind contribution)
evidence of cash
0 12 3
Project Organization and Institutional Basis
1. Inclusion of one or more WCRCP objectives of community development, technical assistance, leadership development, and curriculum development, (i.e., service, education, and research objectives included)
0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Student/Facultv involvement in projects (e.g. class(es) to be
utilized; paid student internships; independent study; community residents registering as students for the project through workshops, seminars, classes; and faculty consultation).
0 1 2 3 4 5
Inter-institutional cooperation (e.g. two or more WCRCP institutions participating in planning and implementing the project; other institutions as appropriate).
0 12 3
4. Reasonable time-frame to complete the project (e.g. within quarter or semester; measurable product within at least two quarters or semesters).
0 12 3
5. Adequateness of proposed evaluation methods.
6. Budget reasonable for proposed project.
0 12 3
0 12 3
Full Funding
Partial Funding
No Funding

What makes this process so successful is that all of jthose involved make an open and honest effort to understand the project being presented and it's relationship to the goals of WCRCP. As the question and answer period is reached then the proposing institution can benifit from the entire staff on ways in which that project can be strengthened. I know from experience that the situation is somewhat
uncomfortable, but there exists a truly cooperative spirit between the members of the consortium. Because of limited funding we all want to make each dollar count. The projects must fit the criteria. This criteria is very similar to the j questions posed in Chapter One when determining whether community development was present in a given activity and if it could be termed effective.
This evaluation form is divided into two major sections: Community Basis and Project Organization/Institutional Basis, j The former begins with the most appropriate question. Is there a community need? This then excludes projects which in the past were developed by either an individual or the I institution. The second question is about community readiness and co-participation. Its aim is to make sure the project has a chance of succeding if funded and that all of the necessary actors are present in the process. This in turn leads to the question of continuity. Will this project assist the community in the longer term? Does it fit with their other long term objectives? Will there be a residual left by either the project or the process which will benefit the community? Will community development capacity building,

CDCB, be obtained? The final community question is on fiscal support. If in fact this project is a community need and t(iey are ready, are they willing to help defray some the the expenses? This can usually be seen on the
submitted with the proposal.
The first question in the second section asks specifically if the project is following WCRCP objectives. The intent is to draw conclusive proof that CDCB will be delivered. It then goes on to ask about the extent of student/facu1ty involvement and what, if any, inter-institutional cooperation exists. The next two questions make sure there is an established time frame for completing the project and that there exists a method for evaluating the projects success or failure. The final question is that of reasonableness of funding. Staff cannot use these funds for their own salary, but can buy interns, student travel, and other necessary supplies for the project. Budget dollars are to be wisely spent.
Defining Tomorrow
As a result of the staff discussions concerning project selection criteria and the future of WCRCP on a limited budget, there set in motion discussions on what WCRCP should be about. In putting together the proposals for Mountain Bell and others, the staff realized that it had never really answered the questions on how the organization operated as a consortium considering the differences in the institutions themselves and the placement of staff within them. Starting

in the summer of 1984 a number of brainstorming sessions were held in which two key questions were addressed. What is WCRCP? How should we be operating considering the response to the first question and the present economic realities within each institution and the Westslope?
The answers to these questions brought out a number responses which relate directely to this thesis. There was jconcern about institutionalization of the program and how each institution delivers community development activities. The models or methods which follow in the next chapter are a I result of these discussions. Also there was expressed the desire for a long term funding solution, with the realization that consensus had never been developed as to who's responsibility it is to provide rural communities with assistance. Is this a role of higher education or governmental agencies? The response given accents the
resolve of WCRCP to continue giving community assistance
within the bounds of limited funding and an eye towards a
more positive future. Higher education must evolve, with the help of WCRCP staff members, in its perceptions of its role in society to a point of direct interaction with the
communities they serve. The institutions must assist in
getting governmental and legislative bodies to acknowledge
that change through the passage of laws and appropriate

Chapter III
Community Development Delivery Methods The Major Elements:
Before presenting the four methods used in delivering effective community change processes it is necessary to first look at three essential elements contained in all of these methods. The first is delivery of assistance from a higher educational institution; second is the linkage of the community to the institution; and third the assistance process must contain community development capacity building.
As defined earlier in this thesis, community development, to be deemed effective, must be an active educational process, and in being so, should be delivered by an institution of higher education. This delivery then gives the community development assistance program it's full legitimacy and it is understood that staffing is done by the institution. The person(s) responsible for this delivery must have either knowledge or skills in the community development capacity building process, ODCB. Remember that a person can have knowledge and not skills, but never skills without knowledge. As each method is presented I will show when staff need CDCB skills and when they need to have at least knowledge about this process.

It is these people which are responsible for making the jvital link, or connection, to the community. As you will notice in the different methods, this linkage can come from either the insitutional person in the community or at the college itself. Credibility for the program, like legitimacy, comes when this connection starts from the college and extends completely into the community. The true measure of the programs effectiveness comes when the community sees the line between them and the institution as running horizontally, and that the two of them are on equal jfooting. In other words the institution is not forcing the community change process in a top/down manner.
The most important element for any community assistance project is that of 'community development capacity building', CDCB. This the key component necessary for giving any community project the potential for becoming effective. As I stated before, this is the ingredient needed in order to classify a community activity as being WCRCP justifiable. It is an active educational process that must be delivered in order to leave a residual in the community which helps community members identify and act upon other community issues. This proceedure assists concerned citizens in achieving their goals by promoting cooperative identification of needs and resources within the community. It aids them in gaining control over their future and realizaing the importance of democratic values in decision making. It is a method for learning about the community and utilizes

techniques which emphasize developmental change, improvement, and growth.
As a side to this element, there must be developed a strong belief in the CDCB process by both and institution and the community in order for the activities to be promoted and >enefical to both. Within the institution this belief must be held at all levels. Faculty and students must understand the purpose and positive aspects of this process in order to successfully complete their assigned tasks. Administrators Tiust accept this processes so that institutional resources can be justifiably accessed and delivered to the communities. \nd community members must be educated to realize that this activity will provide them with the necessary tools to gain control over their lives and their environment.
Now while each method contains a unique set of characteristics they cannot be clearly separated in actual X operation. In effective CT) programs an overlap of methods pccurs, over time, depending on the types of community project(s) being acted upon. All of these methods however are designed to assist communities in their problem solving efforts. Effective CD, like the college/conmunity linkage, is measured by its' ability to promote quality growth and development of both through cooperation in a wide variety of projects.

^dult/Continuing Education Method:
This method is designed primarily for use by community colleges because one of their major activities is the expansion of educational services into their legislated Service area communities. Part of the mission of two-year institutions is to bring educational resources to communities based on the communities desire for formalized vocational, avocational, and academic training. The coordination of :hese programs is facilitated by a local resident who works
[or the college and lives in the community. These
oordinators are most times assisted by a group of community residents who act as an advisory committee and help in identifying possible content areas 'to build classes around, local residents with expertise in teaching, and local classroom space. It is also necessary to state that funding for these educational courses is not through a local tax-base, but by the citizens themselves in a pay as you go type program. Service areas are dependent upon the local
community for support.

With this educational programming activity one could adopt the additional content area of community development. Through expanding the advisory committee to become more representative the coordinator can take this committee through an inventory and/or assessment process of community concerns and issues, prioritize them, and begin to look at local community and college resources for implementing a way of dealing with them. The benefit would then be two-fold in that there could be developed some formalized courses for the college to offer which would coincide with actions aimed at solving a specified community issue.
In order to achieve this method the folio wing basic resources would be needed.
1. The institution would need a person in the community and connected to the institution. This connection must be strong enough to permit this person to access the resources of the institution.
2. This person must have knowledge about both the community and the institution.
3. This person must have the skills necessary for community development capacity building.
4. As the primary community development worker they would need time made available to them to organize the community and implement activities.
The major benefits to this method is that the institution would have in place a person who lives in the

community and is related to the institution, thus a potential for a strong linkage. Also there would exist a method for programming educational activities around community issues which could generate funds for the service area. This does not always work since community members want solutions to their problems and not formalized education about them. However any successful activity would be a positive reflection on the local college.
The drawbacks to this delivery method would be direct^ly related to the manner in which this college position was established. There must be a strong linkage between the person in the community and the institution. It cannot be stressed enough the importance of giving this person the ability to access institutional resources. Also the college must permit this person time, either through additional office staff or release time, to organize community activities.
This A/CE method fits best into the two-year colleges because of the way in which they are legislated service areas. However there is a drawback due to the lack of adequate institutional resources. Because these colleges are designed to promote mainly two-year vocational and transfer programs, they have limited faculty and students with the expertise necessary to work on a wide variety of community issues. It would be necessary therefore to develop solid connections with other higher educational institutions.

roker-Linker Method:
This method looks almost like a mirror image of the A/CF, method, but instead of having that institutional person in the community, he is located inside the institution. The intent being to have that established person with real or perceived power who can identify and access, more readily, the appropriate resources within the college. This method then strengthens the connection of the institution to the community assistance program.
However two assumptions must be made about the community. One is that there exists within the community a way in which they can identify their own issues. This assumes that the community has already gained the CDCB process or there exists a community member with those skills. The second assumption is that the community will look towards the institution for assistance, and unless the B-L person has a strong tie to the community this will not necessarily happen. There are few actual resources needed in order for this method to be implemented.

1. The institution needs a person inside and connected in some manner to the community. As mentioned above this connection should be a strong one.
2. This person must have knowledge about the institution and some knowledge about the community.
3. They must have organizational skills at the institutional level and an understanding, or knowledge, about the CDCB process.
The B-L method is a necessary component for all colleges if their programs are to be successful. It is the only way in which adequate and appropriate resources can be accessed when needed. The benifit can be there if this 'Broker-Linker' is active in the program. Additional benifits, as with the A/CE method, can be gained through establishing formalized courses, if possible, which conincide with problem solving actions and can generate insitutional funds.
The major drawback to this method is the potential weak linkage between the institution and the community. Both parties need each other if the program is to operate at all. In order to overcome this weakness it is imperative that the person establish a solid working relationship with a community member skilled in the CDCB process.

Technical Assistance Method:
The first t\vo methods are related directly to a specific pprson and are a means for bringing educational resources and community problem solving activities together. These next two methods are educational activities in themselves aimed at solving community problems with assistance from a variety of nstitutional people.
This Technical Assistance method is designed to assist
iommunities in solving an already identified problem or ssue. The expertise can come from outside an institution or Within it through the use of either faculty and students or just faculty. Once the community has identified a specific issue then a request is made to an appropriate division of the institution. A plan of action is developed for providing TA which v/ill lead to the creation of possible solutions for that community problem.
This method is an activity which is brought into an already existing process. There is an assumption then made that the community has choosen this particular issue via the

CnCB process and that the appropriate step in the process has been reached whereby technical assistance is actually needed. The resources necessary can range from the need of a single faculty for one day to many students and faculty over an extended period of time. The basic institutional requirements would then be as follows:
1. There is a definite basic need for the students and faculty to be connected to the community.
2. Faculty must have organizational skills at the
institutional level in order to access resources when needed.
3. The faculty and students involved may or may not need CDCR skills depending on the type of activity requested. All however should have knowledge about the process.
Since technical assistance is being requested this method fits four-year institutions best due to a larger quantity of expertise. It has a unique characteristic that if done well the first time, it can be a benifit to the
insitution by adding credibility to that institutions'
program of community assistance. Another benifit is that most TA activities are short-term in nature and can take advantage of using smaller amounts of institutional
The major drawback to this method is that it is just an activity and there is no definite connection to the community. If the college accepts this role there are no guarantees that the community, as a whole, needs the service

let alone is ready to accept it. An A/CT and/or B-L method
should be in place before projects are accepted in order to assure a positive project outcome by seeing that the community is ready for the technical assistance at that given point in time. If the first attempt at community assistance is a disaster due to poor pre-planning, whether on the part of the community or the institution, then it could be Sometime before the college receives and/or accepts another request. Timing and organization are essential and can make or break a project.
Service/Learning Method:
Higher Educational Institution / \l
Servic Learn- i ng
The Service/Learning method is the essence of what VCRCP could be and what the true focus of higher education ought to be. It is with this method that community assistance is delivered by the local institution utilizing faculty and students in a timely manner, and with efficient usage of both community and institutional resources.

This method differs from TA in that the
delivered must include both students and faculty. Because of this student involvement it is necessary for there to be a learning process given which will benefit the students and ho po
pefully community members as well. There exists a high tential for this joint activity to include a presentation
ofj the CDCB process.
Again, as with TA, it is assumed there is a connection between the institution and the community. As opposed to the method, S/L has the possibility of assisting a community i[i identifying it's problems and concerns as a single project
1'n and of itself. Once issues are identified, then a close orking relationship can be established between the community tnd the institution to v/orkout the details on how and what fervices will be delivered. Care must be taken in this step n order to minimize expectations by the community as to what :he college will be able to do for them. Resources are more :han TA since students are involved and most likely, if well leveloped, this activity will take place over a longer period if time.
1. There is a need for both faculty and students to be connected to the community. The initial request for assistance must come from the community in some manner.
2. Faculty must have some knowledge about the institution and the community. This cannot be assumed and is a necessary component in order for the activity to be effective.

3. Because of the close working relationship, faculty must have organizational skills at the institutional level and knowledge about the CDCB process.
The benefits to this method are many and can have far reaching effects on both the college and the community if done in the correct manner. This is a method that can be done continually over a long period of time with many different resources of the institution being utilized, including many different faculty and students. The community projects that are done can be either Technical Assistance or they can be oriented towards assisting the community in understanding and defining it's problems and issues. This latter approach, being done at the first, enables the institution to connect together more than one project and help establish a more wholistic plan of action for the community. This in turn benefits not only the institutional faculty and students, but can provide positive growth for the community and establish a strong linkage between the two.
The only drawback to this method is it still lacks a direct tie to the community and again shows the need for a connecting link. This connection can come from either of the first two methods presented, A/CE or B-L. However the person(s) involved must be skillful in the process of CDCB so actual community identified issues are addressed and institutional resources readily accessed.

As with TA it is important for the first project to ceed so that the institution begins developing a positive
track record. In order for this to happen the project planning stage must address the concerns of the community members as well as meet the needs of both faculty and students as active participants within the process. A well developed plan with realistic goals and expectations must be designed if the CDCB process is to be delivered and the faculty/students are going to gain an effective real world experience. This method also fits best into four-year institutions because of the depth of faculty expertise that is available.

Chapter IV
Putting the Pieces Together
asic Delivery Method Requirements:
As mentioned eailer, none of these methods really operate independently of the others. The most effective qommunity assistance program in fact utilizes all of these methods, with emphasis on certain ones, depending on the type ^nd scope of assistance being given. The key ingredient in all of these methods however is the staff. In order to most effectively deliver community development activities there ieeds to be quality staffing. There are three basic staffing requirements for establishing an effective program.
1) Someone or some people who are knowledgable about and believe in the CPCR process as a viable way of improving c ommu ni t i es.
2) Someone or some people who have a location in the institution with either real or perceived power of influence.
3) Someone or some people who have the skills for delivering the CPCP process and live within the community.

These three primary needs, when added together, will then permit the community to access local institutional reisources when needed. It lends credibility to the assistance program as a whole and therefore helps is accessing other optside resources, including assistance from other public and private agencies in the form of materials, manpower and dollars. Community development is an activity that shows a cbncern for people and it is a need for concerned people that is necessary for truly effective community development ctivities to happen.
Institutional Program Structure:
In order to best show how the methods are inter-related
tet us look at one institution of the WCRCP program that has een the mainstay of WCRCP and demonstrated its competencies for delivering effective CP through the utilization of all four methods. From the inception of WCRCP this college has shown the other institutions involved how to best develop rural assistance projects for the communities they serve.
Fort Lewis College is a four year institution located in Purango, Colorado. Its' regional service area covers five counties in the southwest portion of the state. There are two major Indian Reservations within this area and, like most of the Westslope, numerous Federal lands including B.L.M., National Parks, and National Forests. Over time this program has developed strong linkages with the major universities on the Front Range; specifically Colorado State University and

the University of Colorado at Denver, Center for Community Development and Design, also known as CCDD.
Fort Lev; is has implanted a viable organizational structure with a Director located within the institution and a full-time assistant located in one of the nearby ommunities. The person within the college, Dr. Sam Burns, s a full-time sociology professor given release tine to operate the Office of Community Service. He is a strong advocate of the CDCR process, and being an instructor, is ^ble to convey to others not only the process itself, but the Importance of it as a necessary tool in doing community ievelopment activities. His perceived power within the institution is due to a combination of his understanding of community organization/interaction and his personality style. He is respected by other faculty, administrators, and all of the community members he has worked with.
Dr. Burns has supplemented the Office budget from contracts with various public organizations. He was instrumental in getting the regional office for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs to locate in offices next to his at the college, and has utilized their expertise and dollars as well.
Located within the community of Cortez is Dr. Burns'
full-time assistant , Mr. Mike Preston. Mr. Preston has
worked extensively with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, from
which a portion of the Office's funding has also come . He

has worked with the local town officials, the county missioners, and various public organizations within the
Mr. Preston also has a deep understanding of how communities function and the necessary role the CDCR process has in bringing about effective community development. He makes for a strong linkage between the community and the institution. Although preferring not to work directly with stfudents, he has laid the groundwork and set the timing for a number of student projects.
Activities developed by both Hr. Burns and Mr. Preston hlave utilized Fort Lewis College faculty and students as well s those from COD'D and Colorado State University. Over the ears Dr. Burns has had numerous interns work on a variety of projects in the communities that surround Durango. A number 6f his class projects and assignments have been aimed c^irectly at doing forms of research for different community Organizations, both public and private.
Inter-relationship of Methods:
In terms of the methods presented, Dr. Burns can be seen as the Broker-Linker between both the college and community and the college and universities. He has been able to mobilize resources not only at the institutional level, but his projects have been designed to assist in the solicitation of dollars and manpower at both the local and state levels.

Mr. Preston is the equivilent to the A/CE model with the exception being his only function is that of doing community development work and not the establishement of community
education curricula. He is the person who has the time and skjills to organize community members for the purpose of ther identifying community issues or establishing processes at developing solutions for already identified problems.
1 aimed
The types of individual projects done by the Office of oramunity Service at Fort Lewis College have included everything from strict Technical Assistance to Service/ Learning. In almost all projects Dr. Burns strives to have a Sf/L component for either FLC faculty/students or those from he major universities. The true inter-relationship of ethods comes through the efforts of a skilled staff both nside the college and the community. These individuals are ble to weave together a coherent plan which includes TA and /L for the entire area they service. This means the organization and orchestration of a series of individual plans that involve the town, county, reservation, and region.
(Establishing Effective Delivery Methods:
So as not to be too theoretical and more practical in presenting how one goes about establishing these community assistance methods within an institution, let me present the concepts in terms of needs and assumptions for implementation
and relate them to the efforts of Fort Lewis College.

There are three basic assumptions that need to be in place at the institution in order to have their support. The first is an understanding by institutional people of the importance to community development capacity building. They ed not know exactly how this process works, but see at ast that through this process solid community support for the institution is gained. Institutional administration must acknowledge that there will most likely be no financial return on the investment. It is hoped that the public relations generated from a positive CD program will assist the college not only in its' recruiting efforts for local students, but also in terms of local alumni support and the potential of financial endowments. Effective community development can definitely be a good form of positive public elations .
If this support is there then the next two necessary assumptions, in terms of institutional support, should be forth coming; staff release time and dollar committment. If
fhe program is to be effective then time is needed for the
taff to deal with community projects. This in turn leads to
the need for additional monetary resources in terms of secretarial support, materials, phone, travel, and such. It iis not a matter of having this in place before doing the community work, but the two must start together. An initial committment by the institution to this program of community assistance needs to be closely followed by the staffing itself.

f o
Once the institutional support is there then the need is r at least two full-tine staff; a Program Director and a
Community Worker. The Program Director is located at the institution and is responsible for establishing the program, must be in a position relative to the college which allows .m to access administrators, faculty, and students. He is the Broker-Linker in charge of getting institutional
resources to the community.
As with FLC, this person should be within the faculty structure since both faculty and students are necessary for Sbrvice/Learning to take place. This position also means the Director will have an understanding of what other institutional programs might be available and usable in community projects. Additionally release time from teaching g s necessary in order to perform project organization, travel to the communities, handle the required paperwork, and deal \f/ith the administration and others for continued program support.
It is impossible to say that the Director is any more important than the Community Worker, for without one or the other community projects could, not be done in an effective manner. The Community Worker, paid by the institution, must live within the community. This is a necessity so he is perceived by other community members as having a stake in the development of the community and an understanding or empathy for the problems and issues they are trying to address. This

vforker is the A/CE method and makes the connection for the community to the institution. He is responsible for the establishment of a broad-base group of citizens formed for either understanding their community and identifying the ocal issues, or formation of a group of citizens around a specific issue. Mr. Preston, at FLC is this worker although Dr. Burns places from time to time other interns into the c ommun i ty.
The people representing the A/CE and B-L methods develop community projects which are then delivered through the use of the TA or S/L method. The only difference between these two methods, as stated in the preceeding chapter, is that S/L necessarily involves the use of students while TA can be delivered by just the Director, Community Worker, another faculty person, or someone outside the institution. Suffice to say that all S/L is in the form of TA, but not all TA is in the form of S/L.
Delivering Effective Community Development:
TA is most times delivered after the community objective has been clearly defined. It can, when appropriate, utilize students in a S/L process. In terms of a given time-line, TA is given to a community at the beginning as an introduction to the CPCB process. This activity, usually performed by the Director or Community Worker, is where a representative cross-section of the community is brought together for the purpose of identifying

issues and concerns. With the leadership provided by the institutional staff person, the community group is assisted in formulating broad goals and objectives for the community and establishing, through consensus, what the major issues are that will be worked on over time. The CDCB process is
used as a way to inventory the community in terms of problems and resources and help define what institutional resources will be needed.
In this initial activity the linkage to the community is m^ide first and then the project is focused on a particular issue or event. Before S/L takes place it is important that ajn understanding is developed as to the role and expectation of the faculty and/or students. The critical test at the beginning of all community assistance programs is the erformance by institutional personnel. In order to gain the ost positive credibility for the program, the TA project ust be designed to provide the community with visible esults. For this to happen the initial project must be well lanned, well timed, and short term. The measure of true
community development effectiveness is from the enhancement and strengthening of the college/community relationship as a result of the initial project. Is the community requesting additional assistance from the institution?
In terms of the ideal approach and timing, TA is started with the Community Worker who introduces the CBCB process to the community group in order to help them define a particular community issue. The initial project, also TA, is delivered

by either the Program Director or another faculty person and is completed in a short time. After that success then the Community Worker again brings the community group together to plan a more wholistic approach to a varity of issues and concerns in which S/L is utilized. When done correctly this single project produces additional spinoff projects which require TA from the institution and other agencies outside. The S/L assistance from the college is delivered only when deemed appropriate and effective by the program staff.
These spinoff projects are another factor which tontribute to the effectiveness of the community assistance program. Effective CD projects can be done either on a continuous basis or in an episodic manner. The ideal is to link projects together in a logical and continual manner in order to reinforce the CDCB process and provide true community capacity building. The more community issues that are solved using this method, the quicker the community members are able to gain control over their future.

Chapter V
Conclusions and Recommendations findings and Conclusions:
Hypothesis: Community Development is an active
educational process that can best be delivered by, and should )e delivered by, higher educational institutions.
Within the first part of this thesis report I concluded that the most appropriate definition for effective community development was the composite one that stated "community development is an active educational process, that includes a program of professional assistance to communities and a method of work to be incorporated by professionals working with community members, aimed at the betterment of both the individuals involved in the activity and the community as a whole." Because it is an educational process for faculty, students, and community members alike it therefore belongs within the realm of higher educational institutions.
Additional support for this statement cones from a reviev/ of notes taken in interviews with persons involved in WCRCP. Community development is important to society because it can increase the probility of community members in

realizing their true human potential. In terms of the community, as a whole, CD helps bridge the gap between community wants and community resources. It helps push the growth side further in the growth/decline cycle, so as to minimize the amount of backslide when decline does occur. Iso it helps the community take hold of its* future by roviding them with information needed to make reasoned udgements and thus strenghens the 'grassroots' to enable decisions to be made from the bottom/up instead of in the ujsual top/down manner.
There seems to be a natural symbiotic relationship between communities and educational institutions. The former :.s a place to learn, the latter a place for teaching. The
[nowledge that is housed in institutions of higher education s considered to be neutral, objective, and value-free, and therefore is not a threat to community members requesting assistance. Communities want knowledge about how to define and solve their issues, but don't trust information that comes from either the government or outside sources other than the institution, unless presented through college representatives. The information passed on by colleges is not biased. CD projects are presented in terms of offering a variety of solutions to problems and ways in which they can be implemented. The institution has no preconceived idea of what the community should do. It acts much like a library and gives the people the information they desire which helps them make the decision.

Considering then what community development can do for communities, the knowledge base that institutions can bring to community issues, and the possibilities of sharing information for education, then obviously the majority of responsibility for creating effective community change aqtivites lies with higher education. Although pragmatically community development is everyones responsibility, the
nature of Cl), being a learning process, makes it logical that higher education should initiate the first steps. Mutual benefits can be gained from both sides. It would be a mistake however to assume that institutions should have to go it alone since the aim is to improve the entire community and hus the local government benefits as well as do the state nd national governments.
As the case study of WCRCP was presented it gave
Validity as to how the community assistance program was a benefit to all participants. As the program evolved there developed four specific types of methods used by the
institutions involved in delivering this assistance. The
most effective program was one \vhich had incorporated these four methods, along with program/project continuity, and had professional staff located within both the community and the institution. This proves that institutions of higher education can deliver effective CT)

W|hy WCRCP was not Institutionalized:
Although the Rural Communities Program could be termed a success, there has been a major concern as to why it was n^ver institutionalized. In review of the data submitted, interviews, and personal firsthand experience, I propose that the following list addresses that question. There was no other major single reason for WCRCPs failer to become an integral part of higher education, then the narrow perspective of the institutions involved as to their true role in society. This is borne out in the following list.
1. The program did not present education in the traditional sense and institutions were reluctant to change.
2. Both the communities and the institutions were not ready for WCRCP. The program was started all at once and not in phases as planned.
3. The initial groundwork was never done. Neither the communities nor the institutions were inventoried for their respective issues/problems and resources.
4. What WCRCP was and what it was going to do was never clearly stated. Neither the communities nor the institutions knew how WCRCP was to work and how the whole program was going to be developed and implemented.
5. Institutional staff selection and training was never developed. Few understood the CBCB process and its' value to the program.
6. Critical mass within the institution was never developed. A reward system for faculty was never established and therefore few were utilized in the program.

7. Because of soft dollars, Kellogg funds, the program placed either outside the main institution as an
endage or the dollars were garnered by an existing program ught to be similar in nature.
8. "It was just too good of an idea".(Mike Smith)
the Problems:
"Effective planning must rest upon a firm knowledge foundation arising from science and experience."(Lassey, 1977; p.58)
Because hind-sight is always better than fore-sight, it s best we try and learn from our mistakes so we don't repeat them. What follows is a list of recommended steps to be taken when setting out to incorporate community assistance programs into institutions of higher education. They are leased on the WCRCP problems mentioned above and tend to
[roduce a set of larger social change issues which will be elt with in the next section. These are my recommendations for institutionalizing a community assistance program.
1. Institutions need to change their perceptions about the value of teaching education in the traditional ways. Most college mission goals are built around "Education, Research, and Service", and these are listed, unfortunately, by priority rank. Those without a research arm focus directly on traditional education. What they are failing to see is that these three goals can be tied directly together.

A broader interpretation of what education really is opens up the opportunities for real research and service to take place :.n the communities around the local institutions. More emphasis should be placed on the value of Service as a meaningful way in which to educate students and improve communities.
2. The community assistance program should be developed in a deliberate manner. It should be clear and consice as to what its role will be within both the institution and the community. Methodologies should be well planned in terms of how the program will operate and how the assistance will be delivered. It is important that the program be started in phases, with the first being an initial inventory of the college resources and potential problem areas.
3. The progam must be placed within the institution in a definitive structure which not only secures funding but is perceived as a 'place of honor*. Care must be taken that this particular place is equal to other collegiate programs, so that the program director will still have access to other faculty on an equal basis. Yet at the same time it must be protected so that with a year of fiscal restraint it is not the first program to be eliminated. If given proper support this program has the capability to produce some of its' own funds based on financial commitments from other outside organizations, public and private, that it is assisting. This is a program of creative problem-solving and should be able to find creative financing as well.

4. Institutions need to establish a reward system for faculty who participate in community development activities and show ways that other departments and schools can be utilized in the process. These recommendations are not a request for institutions to just throw their money away at a large public relations campaign. It is imperative that the program adopted be educationally sound and the individuals who work in and with communities be paid, trained professionals. They need to have the skills, or at least the knowledge, of how communities function, the role of community development, and the value of community development capacity building. Staff selection and placement should be taken with ^he same care and thoroughness that is applied when faculty and administrators are hired.
The Larger Implications:
From these recommendations for institutionalization much larger implications for the future of higher education can be seen. What is being proposed is a major shift in the way educational institutions have thought about teaching, staffing and funding. A large portion of this thinking is a
direct result of the way in which major funding for the
institutions is provided, (e.g. state en titlements a n d
federal grants ) . It's one thing to try and change the
institution but quite another to try and change local,
state, and federal governments.

I would like to conclude this thesis with two suggested alternatives for pursuing this social change issue. Not all of the possibilities are clear and so I have left many questions unanswered. It is however a start at a dialog that should take place between institutional personnel, community members, and local, state, and federal officials.
One alternative for bringing about the necessary social change would be staying with the status-quo. What about accepting the fact that like all effective CD projects, they take time to develop, and that the best strategy is to continue working within the institution? If one can get other faculty to do the TA or S/L types of education, will the administration see it's true relevence in bringing education up a step? In doing this then capacity building could occur and critical mass could be gained at the intitutional level. It couldn't hurt to solicit the support of the local communities either.
The second alternative would be that if an institution had a social science department, then they would also have knowledge of a number of 'change strategies' that could possibly be utilized. These include 'collaborative', 'contest', and 'campaign'. Is it possible to use any of these strategies on the institutional administration? If so, which ones, or in what combination? How secure is anyone within the institution to do either contest or campaign? Are these to be done with ones own energy or is there additional help, (time, money, staff), from some other source?

What if we assume that the institution changes its' perceptions of education and adopts the community assistance program. If in fact WCRCP could become institutionalized, what then would the new community assistance program be like? Would the program become just another layer of bureaucracy, to be delivered in the 'top-down' fashion?
And in regards to bureacratic decision making I wonder if the CDCB process, which involves democratic decision making based upon consensus, would also be institutionalized? If so, this could be a definite threat to administration. It would be an ideal way to decide on project selection; but what about other college issues?
Community development has emerged as a vital force in democratic participation in community self-help during the last fifty years. During this time it moved from primary emphasis on economic development in its embryonic years to a holistic approach toward community capacity building. Whether it retains this emphasis depend largely on the courage, vision, and initiative of citizens and professional practitioners; it is much easier to look to government for solutions than to take the hard road of self-reliance. (Community Development in America, 1980; p.36)
"Formal educational methods for diffusing

and internalizing knowledge are archaic compared with the potential learning capability of the human population. It is increasingly clear that lifelong educational processes are essential for adequate human adjustment to changing job requirements and life-styles, but effective communication of knowledge crucial to public decision making is equally important if the planet is to survive(Lassey, 1977; p.74 paraphrasing Toffler, 1970.)

Tables and Graphs
1. "WCRCP Operating Budget, 1978-1981"....................22
2. "WCRCP Number of Community Projects, 1978-1984"........29
3. "WCRCP Number of Local Units Served, 1978-1984"........31
4. "WCRCP Number of Staff, 1978-1984".....................32
5., "WCRCP Program Support Dollars, 1978-1984"............33
6. "WCRCP Operating Budget, 1978-19S3"....................34
7. " Ad ul t/Cont inu i ng Education Method, A/CE"........45
8. "Broker-Linker Method, B-L"............................48
9. "Technical Assistance Method, TA"......................50
10. "Service/Learning Method, S/L".........................52

Resource Materials and Contacts
Thesis Project May, 1986
Personal Contacts and Interviews:
1. Dan Schler 2. Herb Smith 3. Mike Smith
4. Sam Burns 5. Mike Preston 6. Paul h e a t h
7. Lynn Murphy 8. Bernie Jones 9. Tom Clark
Resource and Reference Materials:
1. WCRCP Annual Evaluations, Reports, Minutes, Publications, Letters. Oct. 1977 thru June 1985.
2. "Rural Pevlopment and Higher Education: The Linking of Community and Method"; W.K. Kellogg Foundation; Rattle Creek, Michigan; 1980.
3. Lassey, William R. Planning in Rural Environments. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1977.
4. Naisbitt, John . Megatrends. 1982.
5. Pressed. , Paula L. and Harold L. Nix. "The Rural
Urban typology: Its Utility for Community Research and Development." Journal of the Community Development Society, Vo 1 13, Wo. 2, 1982.
6. Blakely, Edward J. and Ted K. Bradshaw. "Hew Roles for Community Developers in Rural Growth Communities." Ibid #5.
7. Uonadle, Beth Walter. "Managing Capacity-Building: Problems and Approaches." Ibid #5.

8. Fanslow, Alyce M. "Knowledge and Skills Needed by Community Members." Ibid #5.
9. Harris, Ian M. "An Undergraduate Community Education Curriculum for Community Development." Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1982.
10. McCannon, Roger S. "Serving the Rural Adult: A Demographic Portrait of Rural Adult Learners." The Action Agenda Project, Jan. 1985.
11. Hone, Karen A. "Serving the Rural Adult: Inventory of Model Programs in Rural Adult Postsecondary Education." The Action Agenda Project, Oct. 1984.
12. Sisson, Kathryn A. "Integrating Community
Development into Community Colleges: A Consideration."
Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1983.
13. Crawley, Richard. "Exploring the Dimensions of Democracy in Community Development". Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 15, No. 1, 1934.
14. Susskind, Lawrence, Kirk Emerson, and Kathryn Hildebrand. "Using Community Settings for Professional Planning Education". Unpublished Research Paper, Department of Urban Studies and Planning and the Division for Study and Research in Education, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, July, 1977.
15. Hay, Gloria. "The Role of the Adult Educator in Promoting Growth in Rural Community Problem-Solving Groups." University of Vi sconsin-Madison. No Date.

16. Littrell, Donald U. "The Theory and Practice of
Community Development : A Guide for Practitioners".
University of Missouri-Colunbia.
17. Schler, Dan. "Rationale for Dost-Secondary dpcation's Assistance to Rural Areas".
18. Turns, Sam. "The Meeds for a Cornmunity-Oriented Curriculum In the Context of Energy development and Other Rapid Growth Situtations". Position Paper, Energy and tTigher Education Conference, Western Ctate College, April 19S0.
19. Popenoe, David. "Community Development and Community Planning". AIP Journal. July, 1967.
20. Schler, Dan. "The Community Development Process". Chapter 5, "Community Development". Mo date.
21. Warren, Roland L. "Community Theory and Community Development". A Paper with no date or publication information
22. Schler, Dan. "A Perspective for Community Development". 1965.
23. Thullen, Manfred. "Approaches to Development". A P^per presented at the North Central Region Intensive Training Program for Mon-Metropolitan Development. Michigan
tate University professor. Mo Pate.
24. Christenson, James A. and Jerry W. Robinson, Jr.; Community Development in America; Iowa State Univeristy
r)r ess , 1980.
25. Rothman, Jack; "Three Models of Community Organization Practice"; from National Conference on Social-Welfare, Social Work Practice,1968; New York: Columbia University Press, 1968.