Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Blending voluntary and governmental organizations for community development planning Lau, Amy Yee-Mei 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1979_A8 L38.pdf [ 10.58MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0094765.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094765-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094765-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094765-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094765-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094765-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094765-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

BL ENDING VOLUNTARY  AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAL PLANNING  by  B.S.Sc., C h i n e s e  AMY YEE-MEI\JLAU U n i v e r s i t y o f Hong Kong, 1976  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOE THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES in Community  ie  the School of and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u l y , 1978 ©  Amy  Yee-mei L a u , 1978  In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  f u r t h e r agree  for scholarly by h i s of  this  written  in p a r t i a l  fulfilment of  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  make i t  freely available  that permission  for  Columbia,  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  this  representatives. thesis  It  is understood that copying or  f o r f i n a n c i a l gain shall  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2 0 7 5 Wesbrook  Place  Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  J u l y 19,  1978  Columbia  that  thesis or  publication  not be allowed without my  permission.  for  study.  purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department  Department of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g  Date  the requirements  i i  ABSTBAC.T  The applies  term  *community  t o an urban  community  planning  planning  implies  concentration  on  organizations  as  resources NIP/LAP  into  of  the  strengths  of  illustrate  the  this  identify  their  develop  local  City  social  and  of  The p u r p o s e  mobilize  leadership  them  for  planning.  developmental  planners can leave behind  mobilized  local  community  betterment.  The of  leaders  When  capable  community  governmental  organizations  about  this  kind  thesis  looks into  o f making  developmental c a n complement  a n d how  from  residents  participation initiative  i n  community  o f organized  future  and  and  initiations for  i s on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a 1 p r o c e s s  of developmental why  local  local  a team  Planning)  as v i e w e d  NIP f u n d i n g i s e x h a u s t e d ,  focus of the t h e s i s  achieving  Area  The  a s an example t o  be t o h e l p  neighborhood  community  development,  i s chosen  future  the  o f o r g a n i z e d human  / Local  f o ractive  make  potential;  o f NIP/LAP,  would  of  would  different  Program  thesis  developmental  human  physical  Vancouver  perspective,  needs,  planning  the mobilization  Improvement  concept.  developmental  as  i n this  the ideology  Community  realization  f o ra balanced  of  community  the  well  used  1  Incorporating  developmental.,  {neighborhood  program  a  neighborhood.  development  community  development  they  p l a n n i n g . V o l u n t a r y and each  other  planning i n l o c a l ought  to  be  to  bring  areas.  This  blended.  The  Riley were  Park  NIP  chosen  Committee  to represent  and  the  Kitsilano  and  voluntary  Two  research  for  community  developmental  studies  are  conducted  to  identify  of  organization.  of each  investigates generation  achieving  the  of  understand  type  social  the  role  of  network.  tactics  of  locally-initiated  models,  static  thesis  for  neighborhoods.  and guiding  House  r e s p e c t i v e l y governmental  agencies  weaknesses  Neighborhood  dynamic,  the  local The  planning.  The  strengths  first  mobilization  second  citizen goals  unique  plans.  a r e recommended  developmental  at  planning  the  attempts  participation and  research  through  research  adopted  Two the  and  to in  blending end in  of  the  urban  i v  TABLE  PAST  ONE.  CHAPTER  BACKGROUND  2  ...................................  3  .............................  •  5  ...............................  6  Statement  Of Purpose  Statement  Of Methodology  CHAPTER  CONTENTS  .....  I . INTRODUCTION  Organization  OF  Of The Thesis  I I . INTRODUCTION  7  TO  THE  CONCEPT  OF  COMMUNITY  DEVELOPM ENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ' v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / 9 The  The  Roots  Of Community  The  Education  The  Social  flork  Definitions  Community  Root  .....................  12  .............. ....................  12  Root  ................................14  And G o a l s  Development  Conclusion:  Development  Towards  Of Community  And Community  "Community  Development  Planning  . . . . . . 16  ...........  Developmental Planning"  23  . 2 9  V  CH&PTEB  I I I . VOLUNTARY  COMMUNITY  DEVELOPMENTAL  Organizational The  Theory  Analysis A.  Organizations  Communication  The  LAP/NIP:  The  Riley  A  Park  Voluntary  Governmental  And  TSO  EXAMPLES  Agency  Neighborhood  OF 63  For  Community  ....................  Kitsilano  Conclusion: Organizations  Committee  ....................  A Voluntary  Agency  72  F o r Community  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ......74 Movement  In Vancouver  Neighborhood  Real  66 69  Of Settlement Houses  47  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » « • , * , . . . . . . . . . • 66  NIP C i t i z e n  Diffusion  40  Governmental  ORGANIZATIONS  E v o l u t i o n O f NIP  Planning  34  ...........................,42  PLANNING  House:  34  ..,.,39  I n Vancouver  Developmental  The  Networks  .............................  NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE;  Planning  Neighborhood  The  AND  Legislative  LAP/NIP  Of  ...............  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  DEVELOPMENTAL  Developmental  The  Nature  Analysis  Communication  Communication  IV. LAP/NIP  COMMUNITY  FOR  ............ ....................  Of I n t e r p e r s o n a l  Formal  ORGANIZATIONS  . . 31  Of O r g a n i z a t i o n a l  Different  CHAPTER  GOVERNMENTAL  PLANNING  Analysis  B. I n f o r m a l The  AND  House  ................  74  ....................  76  ....................  81  Organizations ,..  Vs  Ideal-type 82  vi  PABT  TWO.  CHAPTER  EMPIRICAL RESEARCH  ..............................  V. H Y P O T H E S E S : T H E R O L E  Hypotheses  OF L O C A L M O B I L I Z A T I O N  86  .............................................88  Operationalization  CHAPTER  Data  THE S O L E  OF L O C A L M O B I L I Z A T I O N . . . 98  Methods  99  Collection  Methods Research  Findings  VII.  PA B T I C I P ATX ON Theories Tactics  101  Of S t a t i s t i c a l  Conclusion  CHAPTER  95  V I . METHODOLOGY:  Sampling  Of The " R o l e  HYPOTHESES:  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103  Of L o c a l  THE  107  Mobilization"  HOLE  OF  Research  Participation Participation  ...........  124  CITIZEN  * • • « • • « • • • * * * * • »-v • • • • • • • * • #  ••••** •  Of C i t i z e n  Analysis  And I n t e r p r e t a t i o n  Of C i t i z e n  Hypotheses  85  * » 125  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 135  vii  CHAPTER  VIII.  P A R T I C I P AT 10 N Research  METHODOLOGY:  THE  ROLE  OF  CITIZEN  . « . . . . . . • . . . . . * . . * • . . . . . . .. . .  Findings  Conclusion  136  And I n t e r p r e t a t i o n  Of T h e  "Tactics  Of  .........138  Citizen  Participation"  Research  . . . . . . . . 117  Conclusion: Community  PAST T H R E E .  CHAPTER  Of  Both  Agencies  Jn  .......................148  CONCLUSION  ,  BLENDING  150  MODELS FOR COMMUNITY  DEVELOPMENTAL  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ..... •  Purposes  Organizations  Of  Conclusion  Blending  Governmental  And  Voluntary  On  Blending  Models  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 163  Of F u r t h e r  Research  ..............................164 -  LITERATURE  . 151  .. •-. * . . . . .*-«-«............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . « 154  Recommendations  Areas  Roles  Developmental Planning  I X . TWO  PLANNING The  Different  CITED  \ *  •  •••. •  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165  viii  APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... ....... .... 174 Appendix  A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . .....175  A p p e n d i x B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... * .......•.••176 Appendix C  178  A ppendix D  .............................................179  Appendix  E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... .... 180  A p p e n d i x F ...... . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....•..182 A p p e n d i x G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... ...........183 Appendix  H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .... •.... • 184  A p p e n d i x I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 A p p e n d i x J ...... .........................................186 A p p e n d i x K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... Appendix L  187 .188  A p p e n d i x H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ..... ...,.......189 Appendix  N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... 190  A p p e n d i x O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . « . . . . * ....191 Appendix  P  192  Appendix  Q  .............................................193  Appendix  S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195  A p p e n d i x S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............•*....*...196 Appendix T Appendix  .............................................197  0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ ... * •• • • 1 "  • A p p e n d i x V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 A p p e n d i x W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200  ix  L I S T OF TAjBJ.ES  TABLE 1. RATIONAL DEVELOPMENT  PLANNING  PROCESS  AND  COMMUNITY  PROCESS . , . . ........ .... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28  TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS ORGANIZATIONS  OF  GOVERNMENTAL  AND  VOLUNTARY  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57  TABLE 3. SAMPLE S I Z E  AND SAMPLE FRACTION  .....101  TABLE 4. SELECTION OF MEASURES ....................... ....107 f  X  LIST  OF  I1GUE1S  FIGURE  1. THE MEANS AND  O B J E C T I V E S OF N I P & L A P  FIGURE  2. T H E MEANS  O B J E C T I V E S OF A NEIGHBORHOOD  FIGURE 3. THE MOBILIZATION FIGURE  4,  AND  RELATIONSHIP .  DYNAMIC  FIGURE  BLENDING  MULTIPLEXITY  <B)  &  MODEL  89 (A)  FRAMEWORK  ......................160  OF  STATIC  (B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6. O P E R A T I O N A L  MODEL  HOUSE 80  . .....  FIGURE 5. CONCEPTUAL MODEL  BETWEEN  ...........71  ORGANIZATION  . . . . . 161  OF ....  BLENDING  STATIC .  BLENDING  , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162  xi  A C K NOWLEDG E H E N T S  I  would  Hightower, Planning, to  Professor  to of  My  express the  f o r h i s patience  completion.  Sociology  like  and  thanks are  Department  my  Schcol advice  thanks  to  Dr.  of Community and in directing  extended  this  Henry Regional thesis  t o Dr..George Gray o f  f o r h i s guidance i n conducting  the  the  research  my  friend,  study. I wish to express Joy,  who  smoothed  the  preparation  my  my  writing  f o r my  deep  appreciation  skills  planning  and  career  gave me  to  moral s u p p o r t  throughout  the  in  past  two  supported  me  years. Finally, financially  I am  indebted  i n making my  t o my  planning  parents  who  s t u d i e s come t r u e .  1  BLENDING VOLUNTARY  AND GOVERNMENTAL  ORGANIZATIONS  121 COMMUNITY  DEVELOPMENTAL  PLANNING  2  PART  ONE  BACKGROUND  J  j I J | | j | |  ,  .  :  ,:  P a r t one i s t h e t h e o r y and background to the empirical research of the t h e s i s . , I t analyzes different types of organizations f o r community developmental planning. The historical b a c k g r o u n d a n d f u n c t i o n s o f t h e two cases, the Riley Park NIP Committee and the Kitsilano Neighborhood House, are introduced for later empirical studies.  ,  J J \ | J | J I  I  3  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION  \ | j | i  T h i s chapter e x p l a i n s the purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s | and the v a l u e s embedded i n t h i s purpose. .The J overall methodology adopted i n accomplishing | t h i s purpose i s a l s o s t a t e d . J ..  '  -..„.-  J  4  Planning the  realm  arguments as  a  with  of  standards  choices. towards stage.  process  The  selection  goals  that  A l l three  of  choices,  o f value-judgements.  their to  reality.  by t h e i r  own  adjust  their  The  substantiating purpose  value  the  beginning of  formulation  In brief,  In order  values,  planners  a  a  selection laden  series  guided  of  action  of the planning  alternatives,  the  of objectives, are  value-free  t o make  which  value  planners  decisions that  must  be  made  and p r e j u d i c e s , and c o n s t a n t l y  do  a r en o t  aware seek  of  facts  systems.  the writing of this  selection a topic  underlying  explicit.  own  world-views  Similarly, effort.  and  of  i s  own  are collected  of issues  involves  selection  their  and h i s  examples  process  the  products  hampered  criteria  i n  are  a r e s e t a t the very  of  exist  choice  alternatives  setting  not  support  and o b j e c t i v e r e s e a r c h ,  planning  be removed, f r o m  studies, data  The planner's  measurement,  The t o t a l  c a n never  planners  research  1  choice.  of  which  Although  •scientific  investigation  activities.  a  values.  matter  require of  of  i s  this  of  a  topic  involve value entire  thesis and  i s a  the  commitment.  effort  should  value  motivation This be  laden for  i s why t h e first  made  5  ST1TJJJNT  OF PURPOSE  This principles  making  countries.  organizations  community  complementary organizations  nations, The  generate  main  purpose  a r e recommended  i n of  i s t o examine  how  agencies  i n  principles  of  and  and two models  just  i n communities  Some  voluntary  universal  not  governmental  developmental.  between  some  planning  but a l s o  can complement  planning  mix  to  developmental  of the developed  developing  voluntary  attempts  so as t o guide  communities the  thesis  governmental  are built  on  these  principles., To thesis  accomplish the general  will  f o c u s on f o u r  purpose  specific  described  above,  the  objectives:  1.  I l l u s t r a t i o n o f t h e u s e o f t h e community development concept i n community planning. 2. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and analysis of organizations as an environment for community d e v e l o p m e n t a l p l a n n i n g . 3. I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t strengths of voluntary and governmental organizations. 4. R e c o m m e n d a t i o n of some m o d e l s t o b l e n d v o l u n t a r y and governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r community d e v e l o p m e n t a l p l a n n i n g . , 7  The of  certain  state  main  personal  these  assumptions social  completeness  chapters.  i s actually  I t i s assumed  developmental o f community and t h e idea  aspects  participation,  of c o o r d i n a t i o n  should be f o s t e r e d  t h e above  thesis  I t  i s  a  reflection  important  values at the beginning, as they  of the thesis.  and  resources,  of this  values o f the author.,  personal  encouragement  that  purpose  values w i l l  form  i n this  the  awareness  of  planning  mobilization i n bringing  are basic of  the  efforts, of  human  a system  e r a . I t s h o u l d be  t h e framework  to  of the r e s t  to  noted of the  6  STATEMENT  OF  METHODOLOGY  The abstract select  whole  and c o n c e p t u a l some  typologies* the  collected  can  relevent t o form  whole  purpose  with  the  coordination  The  from  for  the null  governmental  purpose  'theories*  Empirical hypothesis.  will  an  i s to  and  'ideal  This  brings  data  are  then  Since  the  main  how v o l u n t a r y  agencies,  with  the  organizations hypothesis  organization  be s u f f i c i e n t  i s  without  f o r community  planning.  thesis finishes level.  o f fby c l i m b i n g Verified  f o r b u i l d i n g community  two b l e n d i n g  competition  developmental  The  nor a governmental  o f the other  begins  falsification.  down-to-earth.  conceptual  principles  thesis  o f ideology.  indicators  a voluntary,  developmental  than  the  o f t h e t h e s i s i s t o examine  neither  Finally,  level  so as t o f a l s i f y  be b l e n d e d  the  of  hypotheses  thesis  that  to  structure  models  are  planning.  up t h e  hypotheses  developmental  which emphasize  recommended  f o r  ladder  become  workable  planning  coordination  practising  back  models. rather  community  7  ORGANIZATION The  OF  One  chapter  into  on  development Kitsilano  of  two c a s e s Part 'role  of  House.  It  roles  governmental  step  further  and  respect  and  makes  elements.  Two  models  helps  implied  shift  these  blending  theoretical  the governmental The  derive of  historical  for  some  attempts  from models.  for  agencies.  recommended  a community  the f i r s t  As  the  for  of  the  to take  developmental two  divergent and t h e  developmental there  i s an  i n the adoption this  a  voluntary  t h e young  community  on t h e  and  results  community  and  planning.  to i t s maturity,  end  citizen  conclusions  f o r blending  t o the second  At t h e very  studies, of  voluntary  t o converge  deeper  NIP C o m m i t t e e  developmental  respectively.  t o bring  Park some  models  and  research.  use o f t h e r e s e a r c h  are  a  development  the  and  NIP Committee  provided  for empirical  organizations  chapter  planning  i s  i n community  This  communities  which  Park  community  strengths  planning.  mature  i n  I t has a  o f two e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h  to  by r e c o m m e n d i n g  governmental  planning*.  examined.  to the Riley  attempts  Three  •community  m o b i l i z a t i o n * and t h e *t a c t i c s  agencies  Part  chosen  i s composed  with  of incorporating  the Riley  two d i f f e r e n t  local  community  elements,  House,  research  of  analysis,  are  to the  concept  developmental  examples,  are also  Two  participation*  different  'community  two  the  the relevancy  Neighborhood  understanding  Kits  introduces  organizations,  of  parts.  and b a c k g r o u n d  o f t h e two d i v e r g e n t  voluntary  the  I t  organizational  differences  These  t h e theory  and argues  development*  the  i s  of the t h e s i s .  development  the  THESIS  t h e s i s consists of three  Part study  THE  thesis,  of  some  areas of f u r t h e r  r e s e a r c h are  suggested.  9  CHAPTER I I INTRODOCTION  TO THE CONCEPT OF  COMMUNITY  DEVELOPMENT  T h i s c h a p t e r d e f i n e s t h e c o n c e p t and i l l u s t r a t e s the goals of community development. The e d u c a t i o n and s o c i a l work roots o f community d e v e l o p m e n t a r e t r a c e d . Two t y p e s o f g o a l s , t a s k and process goals, are i d e n t i f i e d . I t i s often t h e p r a c t i c e o f community d e v e l o p m e n t t o stress the p r o c e s s g o a l s f a r above t h e t a s k g o a l s . And the dominant theme of this thesis i s to i n v e s t i g a t e the operations of t h e process goals. At the end of this chapter, community d e v e l o p m e n t i s compared t o community planning. The purpose i s to argue that community development should be incorporated into conventional planning p r a c t i c e s so as t o guide r e p l i c a b l e growth i n u r b a n l o c a l a r e a s . ,  10  The  concept  o f community  dates  back  to  common  good.  Many o t h e r  social  the early  planning  organization',  'community  the  like  (Wiledon,  governmental as  work*,  'resource development*, redevelopment'  are  used  i n  those  used  •local  literatures,  community  improvements',  'mass  self-help More  added  development*  recent  and  a l l share  and  1  such  B u t no m a t t e r  they  and  'community  1974:13).  1970:78).  I t  fora  work  as  S t a t e s have  area  new.  f o r  'community  Milson,  not  social  terms  education*,  (Wiledon,  i n  'community  i n the United  i s  t o work t o g e t h e r  been  such  1970:78;  efforts  area  have  include  'fundamental  o f men  especially  literatures,  These  education',  efforts  terms,  development.  development  terms 'local  what some  terms common  characteristics. Firstly,  each  i s  philosophy,  that  local  have  the  privilege  both  objectives  a n d t o make  preferable  that  knowledge  and  appropriate  community.  social systems  each This  facilities, as  working  and  their  in their  decisions.  citizens, of  democratic  local  community,  to set their I t  equipped  their  the  i s  with  local  own  therefore sufficient  needs,  make  f o r themselves. i s concerned implies  but changing  well.  with  responsibility  own  understanding  decisions  harmony  people,  local  Secondly, the  i n  Community  not  with just  people's  improving  conditionsi n  improving attitudes  development  i s  p h y s i c a l and and  based  on  value the  11  assumption that  that  ' i t i s  change  importance  process  progress  agree 1  participate  c a n be a c h i e v e d  local  and  on a change  (Lecheler,  understanding,  a s broad  c a n be c h a n g e d ,  local  and t h e  that the  1962)., only  through  initiative  participation  and  as  development  and  possible. of  local  make d e c i s i o n s i n t h e p l a n n i n g  i s stressed. addition,  development  of  The assumption  of the  Potential  of improving final that  assistance  each  a l l resources,  community*.  purpose  local  and  private  agencies  levels.  both  These from  emphasizes  physical  resources  characteristics  resources  community.  terms  a  balanced  a n d human, i n t h e  are pooled  together  f o r  t h e community.  from  and p r o f e s s i o n a l  the  federal  that  with  values  a s an i m p r o v e m e n t  o f mass e d u c a t i o n  to  In  •total  and group  the c i t i z e n s  of local  self-help,  leadership  the  contends  development  local The  not until  c a n be r e g a r d e d Each  the  individual  shared  by t h e s e  outside,  advice,  regional,  including  a r e t o b e made  outside resources  terms  technical  available to  i n c l u d e both  municipal,  i s the  public  provincial  and  12  THE  BOOTS  OF COMMUNITY  Community  P M E L O P J ENT  development  forerunners.  But the roots  contributed  most  are  'education*  The  Education The  historical United  has  a  long  o f community  to the evolution  and * s o c i a l  history  and  development  of i t s process  many  that  and  have  philosophy  work*.  Root  contribution forerunners  Kingdom  o f education  o f community  dependent  i s especially  development  territories,  clear  i nthe  the  former  in  where:  the concept of community development originated i n the search f o r a program to compensate f o r the limitations of conventional school system, and to enable education to provide f o r the progressive evolution of the people (United Nations, 1956b:13). In was  British  defined  the  community to  and adopted  earlier  development  a  preventing  school which  term of  education  educational  of  and  to  placed  Colonial  This  extent  on c o m m u n i t y  i s used days  led of  development  Nations,  local  replace  i n the rural Britian, communities of  problems  to the effect the  of  conventional  'determined t h e emphasis  o f t h e p e o p l e who for  to  of  as essentially  1954:3).  The  i s , then, t o develop capable,  leaders race  1969:26)  interrelatedness  the sphere  a large  (United  which  development*  t o educate c o l o n i a l  the  f a r beyond  development  and  the  development.,  process'  public-spirited community  In  was u s e d  community  has been  community  Canada.  •community  (Brokensha,  'mass e d u c a t i o n ' ,  appreciation  system  t h e term  i n 1948  development  deeper  extending  experience,  will  turn  initiative,  aim  as of  trustworthy, to their  self-help  own and  13  responsibility. Another  way  of  educational  process  Development  as  community knowledge  an  can  be  community  seen  Educational  development reguired  viewing  should  development  i n J . D.  Mezirow* s  Process". equip  for participatory  people  planning.  the  To  an  "Community  Mezirow with  as  thought skills  him,  and  community  development i s : ...a planned and organized effort to assist individuals to acquire attitudes, skills and concepts required f o r t h e i r democratic participation in the effective solution of as wide as possible of community problems in an order of priority determined by their i n c r e a s i n g i e v e l of competence (Mezirow, 1960:137-8).  Mezirow's  view  Education,  the  was  development  these  the  programs  potential  of  for  improvinq  urban  the a  local  United  areas.  In  later  urban  their  people  and  areas,  programs rural  United  education  years,  when  American geared  of  to  them  to  meet  community  universities the  counterparts,  provide  root  Agricultural  proqrams attempted to  States.  became t h e  States.  extension  education  living.  education,  of  education Like  the  form  invaded  continuinq  the  as  rural  extension  communities.  university  in  developed  of  throughout  extension  development  needs  developed  adopted  especially  community education  was  needs  of  these  to  develop  with  skills  14  The  Social  Work  Boot  Social  work  Community  development  programs  and  Two  work's  Work  of  Secondly,  of  The  social  system  social  work  first  Pray,  work  relationships explicitly  or  of  Social  Work  the concept  place  of  service*.  i n  1956,  reviewed of  She  as  influence of  the  Intergroup  the  development  in  process.  core  of  development.  of Pennsylvania  aspect  professional  value  papers  as  School  one  defined  and  an  to  Social  (Kramer  as  interest  community  implicitly,  concerned  Specht, the  community  1969:16)  concept  'enabler*  with  of  of groups  and the  seeking  objectives.  Violet  H.  Sieder  the development  community  community  'The  particular Both  »community  Newstetter  primarily  social  Later,  I.  process  to  welfare  an  d i d much  in  welfare  development  Wilber the  social  was  University  a  o r g a n i z a t i o n worker  of  by  community  community achieve  1947  development.  known a s  1948:205-217)  of the  1948:194-204)., social  been  community  practice  with  with  there  in  paper,  work  practice,  as a  of  expressed,  the  presented  Work, e m p h a s i z e d  development  has  II,  (Newstetter,  (Pray,  problems  War of  o f community  associated  and  World  root  Pittsburgh, presented  Kenneth  Social  been  papers  Process*  professional  has  philosophy  thinking.  University  of  After  outstanding  this  another  institutions  organization*. social  i s  at the and  development.  development  in  New  York  successive She  social  School emphases  emphasized work  said,  Community o r g a n i z a t i o n becomes a direct s e r v i c e when t h e c o m m u n i t y , a s a d y n a m i c living organism, becomes the client needing h e l p with s o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n and s e e k i n g s e r v i c e from t h e worker ( S i e d e r , 1956).  as  a  the  'direct  15  These  forerunners  place  of  the  in  community  social  work  development  work  practice  development  grew  in  the  organizations  and  of  people  promote  the  work  root  cf  community capacity help  community  of  a  people to and  learn  work  done  integration  of  meet  social  and  the  and  action  institutions  to to  significant  professions  during  of  professional  social  to  meet  in  a  to  solve  scale as  of  achieve  The  social  a  for the  is  and  the  community  community  and  including  local  and  designed  importance,  inauguration  information  needs  attitudes It  of  felt  individual  Activities the  to  experience  the  potential.  resources  services,  the  participation.  its  needs.  formulated  of  changed  needs  cf  out  together,  their  their  of  emphasizes  by  work  diffusion are  citizen  develop  their  stock  to  committees social  how  part  States  motivated  arrange take  a  development  community  things  goals.  to  behaviour  problems, organize  and  as  United  evolving  get  social  the  nineteen-fifties. Community  to  in  determined  of  to to the  ad  hoc  discussion  aforementioned  16  HI  DEFINITION  AND  GOALS  •community •education* local  and  consensus commonly  on  for  recognized  At t h e end  definitions  are  comprehensive One community Conference Chuin  1  for of  picture of  the  development  intelligent  and  be  'Community as  representative and  this section, to  Since  basic a  representative  was  at the  in  Office  1948  and  United  was  no  several listed  are suggested of  the  complete  in  definitions Kingdom's  presented  of the United  Development  i s  and  development.  earliest given  there  elements more  both  i s to prepare  development,  synthesis,  some  as  definitions,  provide  o f community  viewed  education  action.  comparison  a t Cambridge  Territories*,  can  purpose of  summarized  of the C o l o n i a l  outlined  The  DEVELOPMENT  t h e d e f i n i t i o n s f o r community  chronologically below.  COMMUNITY  development*  'action .  citizens  OF  Kingdom  United  by i n  Kingdom  follows:  It i s a movement designed to promote better living for t h e whole community with the a c t i v e participation and, i f possible, on the initiative of the community, but i f t h i s i n i t i a t i v e i s not forthcoming spontaneously, then by the use of techniques for arousing and stimulating i t i n order to secure the active and e n t h u s i a s t i c r e s p o n s e t o the movement...{Community development) embraces a l l forms of betterment. I t i n c l u d e s t h e whole r a n g e o f development a c t i v i t i e s i n the d i s t r i c t whether t h e s e are undertaken by government or unofficial bodies...(Community development) must make use of the c o o p e r a t i v e movement and must be put into effect i n the closest association with local government bodies (United Kingdom C o l o n i a l O f f i c e , 1958:2).  of  Colonial  Wilfred a  H.  paper  Overseas  17  The United  International  S t a t e s gave  Cooperation  community  Administration  development  another  of  definition  the i n  1956: 'Community development' i s a process o f s o c i a l a c t i o n i n which t h e people of a community organize themselves f o r p l a n n i n g and a c t i o n , d e f i n e t h e i r common and i n d i v i d u a l p l a n s t o meet t h e i r n e e d s and s o l v e t h e i r p r o b l e m s , e x e c u t e these plans with a maximum reliance upon community resources; and supplement these resources when necessary with s e r v i c e s and material from government and non-governmental agencies outside t h e community (U.S.: The I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o o p e r a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; 1956:3}. In  t h e same  definition  which  •community  year,  the United  i s widely  development'  accepted has  come  Nations  b y many into  denote:  s t a t e d an nations.,  international  official The  term  usage t o  , . . . t h e p r o c e s s by w h i c h t h e e f f o r t s of the people themselves a r e united with those of governmental authorities to improve the economical, social and cultural conditions of communities, to integrate these communities into the l i f e o f t h e n a t i o n , and t o enable them to contribute fully to a national p r o g r e s s ( U n i t e d N a t i o n s ; 1956a:20).  This  complex  elements: efforts  of processes  First,  on  their  their  provision  of technical  support  i n  cooperation, to  make  ways  development  made  up  initiative,  and other which  o f indigenous  i s essentially  both  as  much  i n  reliance  as  l e a d e r s h i p and t o people, and  with  the  governmental  initiative,  education  essential  themselves  Second,  In relation an  two  supplemented  services.  encourage  more e f f e c t i v e .  of  of the people  conditions with  own  development  these  then  the participation  t o improve  possible  i s  voluntary self-help community  organization  18  process  {United  people  to  develop  social  and  economic  because  i t  institutions channels  Nations,  1971).  values  and  skills  improvements.  reguires to  I t i s education  make  the  And  which  more  are  i t i s also  creation  self-help  because  or  i t  helps  conducive  organizational  reorientation  effective  to  and  to  of  provide  f o r governmental a s s i s t a n c e . Two  years  later,  the  Division  chairman  of  National  University  development  in  1958,  of  Extension  Richard  Community  B.  Poston,  Development  Association,  defined  the  of  the  community  as: organized educational process which deals comprehensively with the community i n i t s e n t i r e l y , and w i t h a l l of the various f u n c t i o n s o f community l i f e as i n t e g r a t e d p a r t s of the whole. Thus the ultimate goal of community development i s to help evolve through a process of organized study, planningand action. a physical and social environment that i s best s u i t e d to the maximum growth, development and h a p p i n e s s o f human b e i n g s a s i n d i v i d u a l s and as productive members of their s o c i e t y (Poston, 1958:20).  In  the  same  community  development  perceived  community  Curtis  H.  democratic improving emphasis  Hial, social  their on  year as  who  defined whereby  environment,  'manner o f  Poston  educational  development  process  own  an  that  as  a  stated  process, social  community citizens notes  that  his  view  another action  scholar process.  development  participate the  process  proceedings'.  This implies that i t i s possible to follow an orderly progression from e x p l o r a t i o n and i n i t i a t i o n t h r o u g h study and d i s c u s s i o n t o a c t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . It p u t s the e m p h a s i s , t o o , on t h e l o c a l group, on local intiative, on local participation. Finally, i t puts the  of  as  a  fully  in  puts  the  19  emphasis on full responsible participation and action by a l l the people~affected (Mial, 1958:277-282). In many  the early  definitions  1960's,  Frank  o f community  H,  Sehnert,  development  after  , decided  analyzing  t o view i t : a process f o r changing communities towards d i r e c t e d g o a l s . Included i n t h i s process are study, t r a i n i n g , education, planning, organizing and action that brings about the cognitive purposeful change towards the community goals (Sehnert, 1961:21). In concept view. the  1962, L a k s h m i r  o f community  He  stressed  following  Bharadwaj  development  the importance  'workable  made  from  a careful  the international  of s o c i a l  definition'  study of the  action  and  point  of  suggested  development  :  Process of social action by which voluntary efforts of the people a r e combined with those of government towards an overall improvement - i n c o n d i t i o n s o f community l i v i n g w i t h i n a n accepted n a t i o n a l p a t t e r n of s o c i a l and economic progress (Bharadwaj, 1962:80). Finally, what  community  a former Prime  development  was  Minister i n Canada  of  Canada  explained  i n 1966:  ...As a philosophy and a method, community development o f f e r s a way of involving p e o p l e more f u l l y i n t h e l i f e of t h e i r c o m m u n i t i e s . I t g e n e r a t e s s c o p e and i n i t i a t i v e s and c u l t u r a l l i f e of a nation. I t p r o v i d e s , above a l l , a b a s i s for a more profound understanding and more effective use of democratic process. These are the essential elements of Canada's social policy (Pearson, 1966:52). Pearson's  explanation  development can  be  Nations'  found  i s  the  i n  of most  the  definition  Canada's  was  recent  attitude  toward  representative  literature. and i s s t i l l  However, widely  definition  the used  community  1956  i n most  that  United o f the  20  developed many  and  developing  nations to Six  1.  3.  4.  5. 6.  can  There may  are  not  be  elements derived  a  variety  possess  special  types.  include  a l l these  On  the  other  purpose However,  that  they  people  other  develop 1955;  new  adoption  emphasizes  Ross,  ideas  of  words,  s e l f rijel£  from  the  the  a  an  concept  preceding  the  a  what  example  of  for  * community  definitions:  1955).  The  for  idea  as  variety  f o r changing  develop  rather  and  than  the  do  bettering  (United of  people  than  environment. unigue  better  are  i n common i s  important  development a  thus  programs  change  f o r improving: the  achieving  programs  communities  attitudinal more  and  of  programs have  far  community  employed  development  ingredients,  great  these they  makes  means  above  hand,  i s regarded  £ £ 2 £ ® s s  community  while  single  what  of  activites  communities.  towards  of  a l l the  the  Nations,  provides  I t i s a process of s o c i a l action which emphasizes the nature of i n t e r a c t i o n and coordination b e t w e e n t h e p e o p l e and t h e governmental agencies. It i s a process of education which eguips l o c a l people with the s k i l l s and values necessary for democratic participation. The b a s i c g o a l s o f community d e v e l o p m e n t used in urban a r e a s are t o improve the e c o n o m i c , s o c i a l , p h y s i c a l and cultural conditions of communities, and to integrate these communities into the developmental goals i n a wider metropolitan context. Self-help which emphasizes citizen participation i n a d e m o c r a t i c manner i s the basis f o r a c h i e v i n g these goals. Technical assistance i s made available from p u b l i c and o t h e r a g e n c i e s . , Community o r g a n i z a t i o n s and institutions are created or o r i e n t e d t o b r i n g about l o c a l s e l f - h e l p i n an o r g a n i z e d m a n n e r .  2.  which  It  follow.  basic  development*  countries.  is  community.  solution  the In i t s It  itself.  21  This  self-help  experience future  process  and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e  community Summing  goals be  identified  community  the  specific  (National  gjaals  outcomes  'action  of and  (Kramer or  system*.  These  of  can  divided  action  interaction  among  take  other the  on  under  bonds  between  systems.  integration  extra-community  Workers,  local  level  of different organizations  engaged  i n  on t h e  other  of  planned  hand,  who c o n s t i t u t e  the  of  and l o c a l  which  enables affect  (2)to enable  organizations and s o c i a l  goals  the  groups.  The  individuals  them.  Specific  strengthen  individuals  i s directed  This  level  changes  to with  towards  o f t h e community  about  the  i s  communication  systems.  at bringing  and  within  a r e : (1)to  of interaction  the  enhancement  relationship  (3)toincrease  aims  composed  of i n t e r a c t i o n  of i n t e r a c t i o n  level  interaction  level  issues  and  system'  of participants..Process  residents  residents,  A higher  to  of interaction  level  roles,  goals,  refer  primary  identifying  action  1962)  of  1969).  two l e v e l s  social  this  leadership  organizational  the  of t h i s  action  objectives  The  goals'  and t h e development  among t h e p e o p l e  goals  into  "Task  activities in  and Specht,  two  development can  goals.  organizations  t h e competence  system.  strengthening  with  development,  by t h e 'community  •interactional'  strengthening  assume  ££ocess  Social  the relationships  be f u r t h e r  with t h e  competently  o f community  planner's  sought  groups  action  with  social  and  developmental  •Process'  to  t o deal  o f community  e x p l i c i t . The g o a l s  Association  collective  people  problems.,  as t a s k  individuals,  whole  needed  local  the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of objectives  the  deal  the  up t h e d e f i n i t i o n s  a r e made  involve  provides  with of  i n the  22  policies  and  objectives  the  attitudes  include:  (1)to  inter-organizational encourage  the  and  participation  in  As community task of  their  In  order  thesis  is  interaction,  to  of  Through  these  goals,  community  planning  initiatives  two  by and  develop  planning  Specific and  systems, and  mechanisms  to  help  the  and  often  process  citizens  means o f  (2)to  political  for  the  citizen  to  local  residents  l e v e l s of  become  the  the  possible  practises  ways  trustworthy  participation.  local  of  of the  aware  process  and  governmental  a  more  most  residents and  above  dominant  i n t e r a c t i o n embodied  development  far  s e l f - h e l p , the  Therefore, the  practice  goals  i n d i v i d u a l s becomes  investigate  local  i s  local  amonei  which  i t  stress  development.  both  °£23Sizationsj,  to  to  developing  i n community  this  and  administrative  before,  responsibilities and  of  bureaucrats.  policy-formulation.  development  organizing goal  (3)to  city  intra-organizational  communication  suggested  goals.  the  develop  utilization  leadership,  of  of  essential theme  of  imjarovincj between  authorities.  i n the  process  developmental  approach  leaders  are  developed  for  23  COMMUNITY  DEVELOPMENT  Though urban  community  contexts,  development  in  can  planners  plan  This  into  The with  the  that  time,  live  and  there  was theme  has  steadily  which  'a  of  community  argued  that  community  community  planning  i n urban  local  developmental  planning*.,  i n the  the  was  United  social i s the  in  Policy  'new'  of  a  p e r s p e c t i v e s on  new  field,  methods  and  analysis,  not  become  can  be  began  1969b:23). place  At to  that  City  Planning.  just  territory,  'social  tools  planning  and  Depression  of  planning',  urban  programming  groups urban  and  that  contexts.  better  Great  so  States  (Kahn,  as  the  people*,  A  the  meant  days  and  upon  interrelated  interest  A  'social  function  of of  thoughts  regards  social  body  efforts  social  streams  to  of  i s an  and  the  planning  budgeting, operational  (Kaufmann,  define  planning  and  (Qadeer,  be  summarized.  planning  as  a  which  i t economic,  can  generic be  elusive  literature  can  n e e d s and be  planning'  substantial  multi-disciplinary  concern,  of  rural  1974:115-6;  1968) .  1977:86).  human  they  both  are  ground.  this  However,  to  how  Movement  until  city  emerged.  instruments  idea  into  changes  Beautiful*  a change  of  It i s  in  focus  E x p o s i t i o n i n Chicago  Not  gained  advocacy  Webber,  an  will  areas.  progressive  'City  that  gradually  thesis  incorporated  emergence  led to  i s used  Planning  grow. an  development  local  Columbian the  PLANNING  * community  City  The  and  be  section gives  integrated  COMMUNITY  this  urban  development can  AND  explain 1977; One  approach  incorporated  p h y s i c a l or  has  term emerged the  Kahn,  line  and  1969b).  Two  i s  any  sociological.  through  scope  of  which with  (Qadeer,  The  reasoning sensitive functional emphasis  24  is  on  the  restate goals  process this  are  thought  of  in  this  Kramer  and  more e m p h a s i z e d  than  focuses  on  the  theorists,  social  with  programming  the  definition  Dyckman  planning;  and  servicing  the  the  Brooks  of  which  physical*  to  participation, and  f o r the  on  a  closely  goals.,  To  delivery  (1968),  and  of  includes  to  in a  to  (2)client  with  centeredness  groups  and  approach  and  System  and  people's  (4)emphasis  analysis  decision  'non-  i n general  and  policy  *human»  and  'justice*  i n particular,  of  concludes  the  (1969b:3-4)  'equity*  social  process r e q u i r e  ( 1 ) f o c u s on  Kahn  first  ideology  Qadeer  planning  are:  the of  latter  society.  social  deals  s e r v i c e s . , Kahn•s  levels  the  of  these  which  leans towards both  inclines  They  specialty  social  planning  Budgeting  developmemt,  to  these  development  by  emphasizing  physical of  and the  a  balanced  community  citizens process  to or  four  as  them  of  improve  development social,  viewed  a community help  to  Physical, are  defined  elements  attempts  human.  Furthermore,  planning  task  functional  process  such  theories  as and  methodologies.  Community  local  and  elements.  decision  Planning  aspects  content  groups  disadvantaged  Community  living  stream  i s *non-market»  rational  research  Another  i s a  the  To  goals.  social  (3)concern  content.  task  c o n d i t i o n s of  Cans  the  the  (1970:4)  four  not  terminology,  (1970:27)  necessary  dimension  relates  of  and  Specht's  and  disadvantaged  presence  Program  planning  (1969b:15)  thought;  that  approach,  as  an  i t s implementation  this  chapter,  social  planning.  overall  community  of  a l l  economic  and  integrated  organizer achieve  in  may  control (Popenoe,  resources cultural  whole.  also over  organize a  given  1967:259-65).  25  Community  development  community.  The p r i m a r y  and  aspirations.  people  i n  the  commitment  lies  expressing  a  also  helps  enhanced. policy  community's  Mannheim  Social  a  needs  and  m o b i l i z e s and  equips  i s  of  actually  I t s special  identifying  (Qadeer,  the  of  process  and  1977:88). I t and  community citizen  and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n a r e  that extensive  programming  needs  i n the planning  o f democracy  of the  o f human  development.  and norms  Through  stated  dimension  planning  process  to participate  the values  choice,  develops,  o f community  promoting  process.  t h e 'human'  i s the s a t i s f a c t i o n  education  tradition i n  participation,  into  participation.  citizens  development  focus  Adult  f o ractive  rooted  looks  local  resource  participation  allocation  i s  i n the  0  important  v e h i c l e f o r combining  democracy  (Mannheim,  decentralization 'consumer' a l s o a cooperator  on  his  (Kahn, and  own,  becomes  1969b:54).  can  an a s s e t  voluntary According  community  be  brought  And  and the  protection  according  i fi ti s utilized  participant,  i n programs  i n  organized  output  1951:29).  a policy  and  planning  an  the consumer  (1977:88),  i s an o u t p u t about  by  of s o c i a l  the  i s operating  "a  bodies  mobilized  planning".  practice  the  evaluator  a s s o c i a t i o n s , or i n o f f i c i a l t o Qadeer  Kahn,  t o make  an i n i t i a t o r ,  whether  to  of  This  of  community  f o r t h e disadvantaged  groups i s  development. As considered, ghettos  far  services  t h e concern  community  development  o f t h e American  organizations rundown  as  are  cities.  not  neighborhoods.  One  confined  However,  f o r the disadvantaged  i s p r a c t i s e d i n many can  argue  that  to the physically  they groups  usually  deliver  i n particular.  slums and community  and and  socially provide  F o r example  26  the  settlement  movement,  university  students  into  British  American  cities,  and  aspirations  of  the  Finally, planning making  Neufville,  evaluating putting  This  It  goals,  these  environmental  factors  and  McLoughlin  (1969)  problem  (6)  e v a l u a t i o n and  The  reason  and steps  of  a l l  realized.  be The  a  of  cyclic the  rational decision-  process  mechanism the  systems  (de  environment,  courses  of  actions, and  evaluates  initial  process  was  new  stage  of  analyzed  by  analysis.  They  are:  reorientation  systems  development's  approach  CC.  Taylor  development  has  and  fourteen  elements  be  correlated  with  by  McLoughlin.  development needs  by  identified second  step  by  of  other  a  suggested Sehnert  community.,  i s to c a r r y out  the  or  four (1961)  planning  Taylor,  systematic  agents  by  development  rational to  process  clarified  community  the  i n v o l v e s the of  been  F.H.  According  members  planning  (1956:34-42)  into  can  felt  of  community  community  c f community  can  that  the  stated  commonly  needs  in  and  appropriate alternatives  to  of  identification  Sehnert.  them  procedures step  six steps  goal formulation plans formulation plan s e l e c t i o n plan implementation  to  or  possible  cycle  (2) (3) (4) (5)  expanded which  into  needs  itself  , scanning  returns  This  the  approach'  A feedback  (1)  comparable  basic  by  neighborhoods  society. i s  dynamic  selecting  action.  environment.  Taylor  a  philanthropic  with  the  'system  determining  into  of  development  begins  scanning  is  groups  as  alternatives,  class  concerned  rational  planning  relocated  working  was  neglected  1971).,  formulating  the  community  process. treats  which  the  first  discussion These  felt  spontaneously  initial  self-help  27  project is  selected  to  by  mobilize  The  resources  Through  this  objective  and  stage,  to  the  establish self-confidence, self-help  The  third  step  development community and  of  in  groups.  self-help  initiate  new  It  select  achievement. community common into  fourteen  the  how  to  development  people  to  and  follow  a  periods  defined.  encourage  social  community  and  leading  the  .stage local  are  able  initiative. the  completed  resources  from  of  local  self-motivated  i t s groups  them  (steps)  H.  a  to  develop  seek  and  an  of  can  be  (1961)  leading  compared  and to  a  plan  to  goal  concepts  synthesized  framework  seven  periods  planned  initiate  different  procedural  the  education-for-action  action  Sehnert  comparison  development, control  problem,  H i t h i n the seven  analysis. This  and  twenty-six  into a  The  community  becomes  course  Frank  time.  of  initiate  define  analyzing  of  groups  local  results  whole p r o c e s s  helps  After  The  this  tackle.  learnt  elements  systems  page.  to  characteristics  are  step  and  of  promote  local  and  i s to  competence,  development,  seven  steps  final  and  Community  process. and  The  issues  has  changes.  seguence  experience.  Through community  the  p h y s i c a l , economic  self-confidence  of  community.  local  responsibilities., to  the  and  periods, their  their  divided fourteen  corresponding  McLoughlin»s  i s summarized  of  on  the  model next  28  i | i I |  — r PLANNING P R O C E S S J i r Systems Approachj  i 1. 1  Identify Problem  ] I i  Formulate Goal  j J i  j 3.  2.  | J 3.  j  1  Time  Periods  Preliminary  Planning  4. Organization  5.  to 1 4. F o r m u l a t e g r o u p s i n i t i a t e CD p r o c e s s I 5. P r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y o f situation  1 6. E s t a b l i s h objectives  A  g o a l s and i  i  organizational 1 7. Form structure leaders 8. T r a i n administrative skills  Operational  | | | | J  9.„Administer r e s e a r c h , operate project committee 10.Conclude research S publicize results  Select  |  I 5, ] t r | 6.  Implement | Plan i _ _._,, „„ ,..,„_.,._ _... i . 1 Evaluate | 7. , Continuation  _ ... .„_ - i  I 1. I n i t i a t e i d e a s others 1 2. I n v o l v e 1 3. L e g i t i m a t e I d e a s  1  1 4.  _  i  •i  Elements  Training  | | 6.  i  i  •i.  PROCESS  i  Formulate Plan  Plan  DEVELOPMENT  ] | 1. Introduction  j 2.  COMMUNITY  \ | J I J I J _j  i n  11.Evaluate CD p r o g r e s s 12.Expand process i n community 13.Consult finally with professional advisors 1 4 . F o l l o w up , _ _„ ., ._ ,_ i  TABLE 1 M l l O J l i f PLANNING P R O C E S J i T H E R E L A T I O N S H I P S BETWEEN P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTPROCESS S o u r c e : P a r t i a l l y A d o p t e d From Barcham 11965)  29  C0HC1USICN: TOW1BDS ^COMMUNITY Community  development  respect t o a developmental regional  or  community  environment use  i s still  f o r man t o l i v e  attempts  of  Furthermore,  although  development  i s geared  and  secondly, planning  growth  area  planning with  (Friedmann planning  social  developing  and in  planning human  describe  i n t h e community. goals,  community  i n two ways.  Firstly, planning;  involvement  plans.  Douglass,  Douglass,  planning  1976)  through  human p o t e n t i a l 1976).,  To  ina apply  and  as  a  o f human r e s o u r c e s and human r i g h t s i n  Community  development  resources  of  the  paves a path  provides  urban  p h y s i c a l l a n d use p l a n n i n g  and making u s e o f  self-help community.  programs f o r ;  f o r community  growth p l a n n i n g  term  •community d e v e l o p m e n t a l  this  kind  of  the  u r b a n c o m m u n i t i e s i s t o move t o w a r d  move toward a k i n d o f r e p l i c a b l e the  emphasizing  perspective implies  methods o f i n t e g r a t i n g  community d e v e l o p m e n t  and  by  o f human w e l f a r e a s an end i n i t s e l f ,  community. with  community  as well as r e a l i z i n g  t o the realization local  planning  and  good  influencing the  a l l f a c e t s o f community  (Friedmann  changes,  a  d e v e l o p m e n t , on t h e e t h e r  identical  i n a developmental  with  at e i t h e r  create  i t emphasizes the n e c e s s i t y of c i t i z e n  t h e improvement  the  to  goals  have  to integrating  developmental  means  they  and i m p l e m e n t i n g  progressive certain  same  concept  Planning,  t h e f e l t - n e e d s o f t h e people  Planning replicable  the  s u p p l e m e n t s community  it  new  and grow i n t h r o u g h  and d e v e l o p m e n t o f l a n d . Community  satisfaction  a  planning context. level,  hand, a t t e m p t s t o a c h i e v e  in  DEV ELOPM ENTAL PL,&Ji|l I NGI!  developmental  planning  To  conclude,  planning  i n local 1  planning  to  areas,  i s applied to in  urban  30  neighborhoods  or  developmental  planning  administrative  local  regions,  areas used  as in  opposed homogeneous,  to  regional nodal  or  CHAPTER I I I VOLUNTARY TWO  AND GOV EBNMENTAL  ORG AN12 ATIO NS z  AGENCIES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAL  PIANNIJG  This chapter provides a s o c i o l o g i c a l perspective on organizational a n a l y s i s . , The p u r p o s e i s t o r e c o g n i z e and a n a l y z e t h e ' o r g a n i z a t i o n * a s t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o f community d e v e l o p m e n t a l p l a n n i n g . The first part of t h i s chapter points out t h e importance o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l , both formal and informal, network-analysis in looking at community d e v e l o p m e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The second part i s a theoretical analysis of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between g o v e r n m e n t a l and voluntary o r g a n i z a t i o n s . B e c a u s e t h i s a n a l y s i s i s b a s e d on theories or i d e a l - t y p o l o g i e s , many of their d i f f e r e n c e s a r e being dichotomized in a clear cut manner. Though one may n o t e x p e c t t o f i n d a •real organization* of either type possessing extreme c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f i t s own t y p e , t h i s c h a p t e r i s o f g r e a t v a l u e i n p u l l i n g o u t some s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i c a t o r s f o r empirical research.  32  The  previous  'community to  development'  the third  analysis,  governmental living  community social  aims  (Bharadwaj,  1962).  community  developmental  practice,  which  formulating process  i n  attaining a  planning  on  This  i s  the  only  planning.  In  order  to  importance  of  an  complements  analysis  however,  in  organizational  i s  the physical of  only  become  differentiates  with  planning  the task  plan,  deficiencies that  i n  necessary  analysis  the  community the  in  and  citizens  authorities  analysis  countervail i t  of  i n of  the  context i s  often  community existing  organizational developmental  present to  of  whereas t h e  organizations  mean  concern  function  orqanizationa1  among  does n o t  of  conventional  community  brief,  condition  the  f octis  organizational  planning  efforts.  stereotypes,  plan  coordination  focus  developmental  that  In  The o r g a n i z a t i o n  from  goal of  o f t h e community  the  Here  concerned a  organizational  chapter.  members  This  moving  the chief  t o improve  planning  implementing  Before  the  governmental  themselves.  of formulating  neglected,  of  i s more o r l e s s  and  on  improve  i s not simply  ends  on  to organize to  coordination  context.  i n the last  c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e community. the  of  summarize  authorities  development  the use o f t h e c o n c e p t  focus to  described  important  and  will  appropriate  development  communitY  and  i s  discusses  i n a planning  which  development  community with  chapter,  i t  community  chapter  planning  highlight  the  process  of  33  community  development.  In types  achieving  the  of organizations  local  people ,  can  and  1  share  to  i t s needs,  formulate process  plans  attempt  discusses  some  the natures  typologies common  based  on  ideal  typologies  tend  developmental  planner  empirical indicators.  characteristics assume  the sociological  their  analysis  noted  theories  to  express  with  a valuable a  greater  organizations,  this  from  a  chapter  I t does n o t attempt  of existing  total  characteristics,  and  that  are Before  of organizations  of organizations.  models  dichotomizing  the theory  of  to  During the  purposes.  two t y p e s  two  and  two o r g a n i z a t i o n s  common  of  t h e community  conditions.  these  be  These  i t s resources  living  of these  I t should  'organizations  of helping  mobilize  these  d e v e l o p m e n t , two  authorities'.  purposes  development',  achieve  reality,,Ideal  community  identified;  improving  viewpoint.  ideal  deduce  from  to  i s made t o d i s c u s s  sociological  to  for  to  differentiating an  t h e common  o f 'community  coordinated  be  of  'governmental  organizations identify  goal  organizations  rationality  of social  and  systems,  are  although  differences  in  they  t h e community  provide  frame ability  of  terms  reference  t o seek  of  for  comparable  34  ORG A N I Z A T I Q N A L  The  Theory  ANALYSIS  of Organizational  Organization facilitiating the  •system  Or of  persons'  of  defined  and  generally,  One  of these  postulates  t h e maintenance  that  that  the basic  need  of the i n t e g r i t y  behaviour  means  to a presumably  (Selznick, system  to  to  self-maintenance.  terms o f i t s r o l e  include  (Gans,  needs  organization  this  i s  o f two  or  light,  of rational  focuses  on  may  the  This  means  have The  basic system  and d a y - t o - d a y  i n maintenance  (functional imperatives)  This  systems  of the system  of  needs  that  needs,  a  and and given  essentially  develops r e p e t i t i v e  activity  and d e f e n c e  be  formal  contemporary  system  more  formal  of a l l empirical  relates  a  action.  organizations  stable  1948:29).  i s deemed  of self-defense,  generic  responsibilities  and c o n t i n u i t y  variable  related  through  i s •structural-functional analysis•.  Structural-functional analysis  empirical  for  purposes  i n  itself.  mechanisms  agreed  formal  approaches  personnel  activities  Viewed  to  of  formal  coordinated  approaches  of coordination  analysis  o f some  i s the s t r u c t u r a l expression  Several  is  more  (Barnard,1938:73).  described.  arrangement  functions  consciously  organization  system  the  t h e accomplishment  allocation  1936:66).  i s  Analysis  i s interpreted i n of the system.  of a formal  the following: 1, T h e o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole must be secured against possible changes or threats from social forces i n i t s environment, and from the actions of others. The f u n c t i o n of feedback from the lower hierarchial level i n the organization i s r e g a r d e d a s an i m p o r t a n t way of forestalling possibilities of  The  organization  35  encroachment from the external environment. I f there i s no in-house department of operational research, o p e r a t i o n a l f e e d b a c k h a s t o r e l y on the subordinates a b o u t what n e e d s t o be done and how i t c a n be done ( K a t z and Kahn, 1966:245, 248-50). 2.  The l i n e s of a u t h o r i t y and c o m m u n i c a t i o n must remain stable: The persistent reference-point of administrative decision i s the continued ability of l e a d e r s h i p t o c o n t r o l and t o have a c c e s s to the personnel. I n t e r n a l communication within an organization i s of great importance f o r channeling commands down the hierarchy and/or f e e d b a c k s up t h e hierarchy. I n t e r n a l communication helps the formal organization to be i n t e g r a t i v e , and a s u b s t a n t i a l part of the communication i s to keep the o p e r a t i o n on an e v e n k e e l . A l t h o u g h the human-relations school argues that l a t e r a l communication i s u s e f u l i n both formal and i n f o r m a l s i t u a t i o n s (Perrow, 1970:19), on the other hand, the s c i e n t i f i c management s c h o o l a r g u e s t h a t communication should be vertical i n o r d e r t o keep lines of authority and responsibility c l e a r ( P e r r o w , 1970: 1 9 ) ; the structural-functional school i d e n t i f i e s the n e c e s s i t y of both lateral and vertical communication to bring about the integrated and coordinated systems within t h e formal organization.  3.  The stability of informal relations within t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n : T i e s o f emotion and self-interest are evolved as unacknowledged but e f f e c t i v e mechanisms of adjustment of individual and subgroups to the conditions of life w i t h i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . The s t r u c t u r a l functional school, like the human r e l a t i o n s school, argues that these t i e s cement r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o h e l p s u s t a i n t h e f o r m a l a u t h o r i t y i n d a i l y o p e r a t i o n s and increases the opportunities for effective communication. Consequently, attempts - t o •upset* the informal structure will normally result i n considerable resistance and increased tension within the organization.,  4.  A homogeneity the meaning  o f outlook with respect t o and role of common  36  understanding of the character of the organization. When this agreement i s disturbed, as i n s i t u a t i o n s o f i n t e r n a l c o n f l i c t , the c o n t i n u e d existence of the o r g a n i z a t i o n i s e n d a n g e r e d . On t h e other h a n d , a s t a b l e and healthy organization is able to orient and socialize i t s m e m b e r s a n d s l o u g h o f f t h o s e who cannot be conformed to the e s t a b l i s h e d pattern of the organization. 5.  The c o n t i n u i t y o f p o l i c y and achievement of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l g o a l s : For each level within the organization and for the o r g a n i z a t i o n as a whole, there i s a sense that action taken i n the l i g h t of a given policy will be oriented in attaining the organizational goals, at t h e same time, the organization will seek stable roots (or firm statutory a u t h o r i t y or p o p u l a r mandate) s o t h a t a sense of the stability and the l e g i t i m a c y o f i t s a c t s w i l l be achieved.  according proponents  of  imperatives are  the  the  *adapting  between  external  (196 6)  elaborated  devoted  to  larger  society  and or  of  'managerial  to a  control  existing certain  The the  them.  of  on  the  (1960),  this  in  by  and  there  focus  upon  one  stage  Katz  calling  an  their  and  and Kahn  organization  roles  in  the  coordination  and  the  'political'  subsystems  the  different  organizations  in  and  the  a p p l i c a t i o n of  organization'.  between  functional  may  the  functional  'static*  other.  for  of  organization';  'adaptive  trade-off  imperatives  of  the  the  people  people  organization*;  above  in  'maintenance  not  maintenance'  idea of  are  one these  organization  'pattern  resources,  of  They  An  environment'  problems  ideal-types  Parsons  time.  socialization  degree  functional  over  needs  the  Talcott  structural-functional school,  change  interactions  meeting  to  This  d i f f e r e n t emphases  reflects of  the  organizations.  imperatives in  information  are  general.  used A  to  more  describe in-depth  37  perspective community  on  the  Sieder's  purpose.  Sieder  organizations  as  Professor  (1962)  and  readily Therefore,  jargon  The servicing  Sieder  and  including agency  community  work  The  describes  referrals, on  support  ideology;  and  initiation,  resulted  operated  and group  of  three  of  functions (1)  i t s  governmental  requires  a  ties  Helen  i n  (Perlman,  of  most 1965).  i s actually  are  a  direct  e f f e c t i n g change i n organizations  exchange  which  or  and  joint  (2) m o b i l i z a t i o n  program,  community  of  community  interorganizational relations,  financing  resources,  combination  of and  including  of  services  clients.  fields  multiplicity  under both  specialization  by  to  1969,  1969) .  work  i t sclients;  of the agency*s  both  work*  community  of  1960*s. I n  that  work"  for  of  'community  development*.  of  are:  of  " f o r the purpose  'community  revision, elimination  in a  one  specific  referred  (Thomason,  work*  this  functions term  cover  responsibility  change  The  of  this  usually  interorganizational  Specialization has  name  f o r the agency,  on b e h a l f  to  development  and  behalf  (3)  was  practises  purpose  three  work*.  'community  that  t o serve  that  work  term  definition  direct  action  the  concerns  services.  (1962)  out  f o r * community  major  the  development* i n t h e  embracing  Sieder's  work  and  t o use  case  for  example  of social  community  (as) an with  community  organization  'community  used  perlman chose  simplicity  an  pointed  planning  Thcmason  organization  needed  i s  encompass  'community  social  work  i n the profession  Harris  of  development i s appropriate  thesis.  work*  functions  and  within  unique and  network  and  fields  of  autonomous  voluntary  practice agencies  auspices.,  of well-defined  and  This  linked  38  services, without into  i f  each  organization  gaps or d u p l i c a t i o n .  play  top-level  engaged i n community or  lodify  which s e r v i c e s o r  of  cooperation  with  agency's  at l e a s t  g r o u p s and  political, focused  and  and  significant value  the  availablity  the  community.  characteristics, may in  c r e a t e new community  of  agencies  A  climate  attitudes  organizational  and  links  The  (active  mold  to  the  (2)  and  public  a  links  community's  comprehensive, the  potential),  opinion;  which  support  e x i s t e n c e of  in  the  come t o a c c e p t  policy and  and  the  (3)  community,  the  necessity  a or  for,  specific functions.  organizations  practising  unmet needs and  b r i n g about changes i n  community  change i n community r e s o u r c e s i n the  s e r v i c e s , as  Shifts  community  (1) t h e  life;  through  inadequacies  and  establish  i n other  network which r e a c h e s  i t , will  d e v e l o p m e n t must i d e n t i f y  because of the  to  planners'  influential  social  who  addition,  resources.  a c t i o n s . Planners  mobilize  o f , a p r o g r a m ' s g o a l s and  In  community  to  clients  process  parts of  brings  services.  three conditions:  groups  socialization  and  personnel  formal  two-way c o m m u n i c a t i o n  individuals  and  as  organizations  decision-makers,  key  through  ability  religious  effectively  plans a r e exchanged or shared.  imparted  agency's  d e p e n d s on  decisions  with  i s as e s s e n t i a l  An  function  work must r e c o g n i z e t h e need  relationships  maximizing each  to  I n t e r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l exchange  policy  with  practices  is  in  variety,  economy, p o l i t i c a l  p r o b l e m s which organization  quantity,  w e l l as t h e c h a n g i n g a  demand and  community's situation  and  corresponding community  i s needed guality nature  of  population social  values  adjustments  services.  Thus,  39  community programs must not be conceived  as ' s t a t i c g i v e n s * , but  f l e x i b l e p r o j e c t s that can change to meet  new  o l d e r d e f i n i t i o n of community o r g a n i z a t i o n  as *a balance  needs  and  resources*  conditions.  between  must be a l t e r e d t o i n c l u d e the concept o f  community programs a s a system i n moving e q u i l i b r i u m , the  The  in  which  place and weight of t h e p a r t s must s h i f t i n r e l a t i o n t o one  another as well as move forward together  A n a l y s i s Of I n t e r p e r s o n a l  (Sieder,  1962).  Communication - Networks  Chester Barnard s t a t e d t h e importance of communications. In an exhausive theory o f o r g a n i z a t i o n , communication would occupy a c e n t r a l place, because the structure, extensiveness and scope of the organization are almost entirely determined by communication techniques (Barnard, 1938:91). Interpersonal formal  organizations  decision-making explicitly  communication and i n f o r m a l  rely  or  upon  implicitly.  used to channel i n f o r m a t i o n  the A  networks  is a  communication  process  information  flows  et are  communication  network.  changing  complicated  channels.  and  The  either  or commands down or up the h i e r a r c h y  system f o r processing  (Bormann  both  communication network i s u s u a l l y  Modern  organization  information, s e t t i n g  making plans and d e c i s i o n s , implementing a c t i o n s and results  in  groups. Power, l e a d e r s h i p and  or a c r o s s the same l e v e l o f t h e h i e r a r c h y . itself  exist  a l . , 1969:1). channelled  Formal  by  Around the formal network  the  and  goals,  evaluating informal  interpersonal  s t r u c t u r e i s an ever-  of  informal  communication  structural-functional  approach  to  analyzing  40  organization  focuses  relations  on  approach  the  within  flows  information  understanding morale,  to  organization. level  of  Formal  The  can  is  environment, operation.  organization  to  channel  seldom  in  a  these  channels  community  resources  more  of  develop  messages  formal ;  in  upward  actions  communicate  in  that  of  the  and  the  effectively  the  their  Direct  flow  feedback  level  their  of  the  equilibrium.  However,  long.  their of  are On  can is  of  disrupts  people  led  to  the be  the  in  with  the  their in  hand,  identified  channelled  the  in  two the  upwards  the  response  of  upward  kind  are  to  cooperate  other  i s largely  hierarchy  changing  communication  organization  perceptions  A  personnel  Another  formal  formal  always  routine.  supervisors.  of  downward  feedback  This  role  very  they  information  certain  bottom  for  in  pressure,  and  organization. the  major  operation  in  way  change  from  the  the  a  d e v o t e some o f  must  such  with  the  in  informal  development.  maintained  must  They  communication People  keep  organization.  ideas  the  human  work,  mobilize of  the  of  a  divide  circulation  community  attitudes  upward  through  achieve  and  organization,  to  Leaders  organizations.  formal  Through  may  understanding,  resulting  the  cf  function  objectives,  the  perform  i s  'equilibrium*  kinds  better  the  communication  willingly  that  whereas  Communication  Sithin  changing  the  organization.  performance,  mutual  organization  A.  the  provide  evaluate  structure,  highlights  communication the  formal  can  be  found.  encouraged  environment.  In  to this  41  case,  people  i n the bottom  initiators  for  one  kind  upward  the  kinds  done.  of  Hall  that  concluded  f o r market  accepting  that  change,  c e n t r a l i z a t i o n would  organizations  which  more  market  of  Organizations flexibility process  keeps  with  of  changes  the  workable  (Hall,  an  can  finally  restores success  equilibrium of  determines  formal  to  the  communication  the e q u i l i b r i u m  of  the  within whole  To the  i s from  bureaucratic  provide the  and  i s  the  entire  adjusting  suggests  're-equilibrium*  organization.  be  1977:188).  Through  s t r u c t u r a l - f u n c t i o n a l school a  would  organization.  flows  stimuli  be  by  i t s clients  the  the  reach  of  with  to  changes.  level  insulated  disequilibrium, organization  can  environment  types  contact  environmental  on  environment i s  bottom  communication  innovative  perceiving  the  external  that  decentralization  certain  regular  two-way  f o r more  of  hierarchy  ways t h i s  essentially  more  become  information  the  hand,  i s  be  and  change,  other  organization  channel  met  from  also  (1966:245) i n d i c a t e d  organization*s  f o r change  and  aware  t o be  the  hierarchy  i s to  technical  I f , on  t h e bottom  Kahn  i f the  stable  Therefore,  the  and  ought  or  initiatives  appropriate.  Katz  of the  communication  of needs  monitored  most  change.  level  state  that which  summarize,  the  organization  orqanization.  42  B.  Informal  Communication  Besides which  channels  network should in  t h e formal w o r k commands  generated  both  be e x a m i n e d .  the  i n t e r p e r s o n a l communication  following  and feedback,  within  informal  and b y t h e f o r m a l  The term  'network*  way  denote  to  the  i s used  the  network, social  organization  by Barnes  complexity  (1954)  of  social  relationships: Each p e r s o n i s , a s i t were, i n touch with a number o f o t h e r p e o p l e , some o f whom a r e d i r e c t l y i n touch with each other, and some o f whom are not. S i m i l a r l y , each person has a number o f friends, and these f r i e n d s have t h e i r own f r i e n d s ; some o f anyone person's friends know e a c h o t h e r , o t h e r s d o n o t . I find i t convenient t o talk of a s o c i a l f i e l d o f this kind as a network. The image I h a v e i s o f a s e t o f p o i n t s some o f w h i c h a r e j o i n e d by l i n e s . T h e p o i n t s of t h e image a r e p e o p l e , or sometimes groups, and t h e l i n e s i n d i c a t e which people i n t e r a c t with each other (Barnes, 1954:43) . Of kind. total  course,  For  the  network  network  present  that  which  and a d v i c e  removed  will these  which  inferior  not mean  to  organization. daily  life  Informal  the  within  Most  formal the  of  the  formal  o f our mutual from  however,  of  and chains  vertical  formal  around  the  inevitably  and h o r i z o n t a l  I n other  informal  contacts  This  communication  play  are  network.  informal  networks  this  of the  organization  i n f l u e n c e among  formal  of  theportion of the  work-oriented.  t h e impact  i s not gained  networks,  however,  a r e formed  intentionally  that  networks  as t h e informal s o c i a l  networks  that  generates  when t h e g r o u p i n g s  to  system  social  are  necessarily  remains  be d e f i n e d  life  purposes,  belongs  command  words,  a l l social  does network within  friends  not i s the  i n our  o f communication.  a role  i nmobilizing  community ways.  resources.  First,  S o c i a l network  they  interrelationships  describe  which  tend  some to  homogeneous  groups  Secondly,  they  an awareness  forces  generated  within  organizations  network  concepts  analytical  organized  i n corporate of  have  By  summing  of  understood community the  the  nature  who  to  act  of  Social  becoming  people  of  or group  1965: 9 8 ) .  existence  help  types  a of  who  new some  are not  analyze  i n an  social  the  informal  roles  Host  and l a t e r a l )  can  the  be  and  favour  The  of  first  and  plan  of the by  organization.  communication commands  channelled  organization  are  down  makes  can within  imperatives  (19 48)  rely The  on  the  socialized  The g o a l s  hierarchy, and  the be the of this  internal  the s t a b i l i t y  possible.  by  network  i s that  network  functional  a formal  and work  social  formulation  Selznick  formal  generated  argument  at the communication  within  of authority  within  and  mentioned  network  of i n v e s t i g a t i n g both  i n  forth.  organization.  i n  the  may  network  arguments  looking  organization  personnel  This  setting.  of behaviour  different  the n e c e s s i t y  brought  by  vertical lines  show  persons,  decision-making  communication  both  two  organizations  (both  up  social  organizations, are  social  for  complex  frameworks.  informal  analysis  different  unit  two  relatively  complex  potential  clearly  groups.  the  i n  more  between  (Eisenstadt,  i n terms o f d i f f e r e n t  organizational  process  They  a  the  wider  of  any s i n g l e  have  of  the  i n t e r r e l a t i o n s between  relationships network,  and  and s o c i e t i e s  also  tool.  differential  and  within  are useful  develop  closed,  promote  concepts  of of and  integrated  44  through  interpersonal  communications other  at  one  within  time  Informal  network  structure  of  human  work  of  the  their upward in  of  in  those  and  adjustments indicated  to  communication, and  who  one  for  organization communication  bottom  of  the  tracing  of  be  by  the  that  the  are  nature  citizens  needs. for  (1948)  resources  which  and  engage in  Therefore, systematic  these  plans to  initiate down  adopt.  development by  both  the  Sieder  had  to  plans  the  of the  develop  from  the  organizational An  encourages the  to  and  initiates  aims  the  sensitive  contents  originally  in  encourage  more  Selznick  who  any  maintained  people  hierarchy  lines  simply  formulated  At  communications.  o r g a n i z a t i o n which  personnel  plans  by  not  community  importance  organization in relation  the  discover  formal the  emphasizes  local  i n community  should  other  with  the  An  the  organizations that  and  mentioned  them.  channel  for  resources  can  adopts  then  hierarchy  By  another.  organizations should with  each  Hence,  can  internal  i t i s often true  to  at  organization.  formulation  dealing  security  changes  top  and  In  forces  resources  i n an  organizational hierarchy  the  community  other  the  development  community  given  (1962).  complementing  relationships.  informal  plan  informal  even weaken  emphasizes  and  community  social  be  each or  command  community  the  ensures  bypass  and  organizational values  development,  opportunity  feedback  plans  of  community,  level  changes  both  formal  initiative  community  the  and  communication.  bottom to  both  local  to  with  i n f o r m a l network  concept  local  conflicting  school  patterns  means o f  Since  the  Formal  o r g a n i z a t i o n can  tends  relations  rate,  an  a u t h o r i t y and  investigating  by  and  contacts.  top  effective two-way and  the  45  bottom. The  second  reason  network  generated  these  participants  community.  The term  Lazarsfeld  to  from  mass  the  local  This  network  citizens  •opinion  leader* key  the  local  219;  Berelson  Lazarsfeld,  passing  influential (196 9) which  is directly  organizations participants influence  are  through  network. of  social an  member  who  group  the  of  Therefore,  and L a z a r s f e l d ,  Katz,  and K a t z , and  mass  media  positive  personal  and  Hill, 1955;  1955:33).  importance  groups. opinion  Bauer, to  the  masses.  Therefore,  the establishment  who  Katz  Coleman, et  1960).  Katz  of  and  Booth  In addition  to  opinion personal  and  Nicholas  i n formal  variable voluntary  organization  demonstrate  of the s o c i a l  and  as  i s a dependent  formal  and  a l . , 1957;  passives,  persuaders  influence  leaders  1954;  1955; Coleman  r e l a t e d t o t h e membership  or  social  interpersonal  of as a  formulation  and  1959;  as  that  A l l  sector  *g i v e - a n d - t a k e '  demonstrated  figures to the passive  proved  the  ideas  1948:180-  from  both  adopt  and  ( L a z a r s f e l d e t a l . , 1948; M e r t o n ,  Larsen,  act  first  Katz  making i n  Menzel  information  leaders  have  by  their  and d e c i s i o n  1955; M e n z e l  and  of  (Katz  e t a l . , 1954; L a r s e n 1955;  who  used  of communication.  role  i n opinion  community  Lazarsfeld,  DeFleur  part  be t h o u g h t  area  first  that  of  to the less active  relationships.  i n this  influence  was  social  i s  leaders*  of an i n t e r p e r s o n a l  integral  can best  participants  cosmopolitans  the ideas  communicator  studies  personal  those  a r e p o t e n t i a l networks  a  Other  i s an  a t the informal  'opinion  leader*  by means  personal  relations  the  •opinion  and pass  looking  organization*s  become  denote  media  everyday  plays  by t h e  for  personal  network  i n the  46  local  community,  identical also  t o those  possess  community less  needs  mobilize  local  The  resources  to  implied  reach  of opinion  to  individuals  mass  function  pass  less  These  their  active  not belong on o t h e r  residents  the  opinion informal  public  leaders  i n  social  through  i s  of  the  as  they  their  those  of m o b i l i z a t i o n  general  are linked  through  Therefore, networks  i n a local  goals.  of neighborliness i s  than  affairs  of  will  resources  to the intra-community means  and  opinion  program*s  local  to  leaders  mobilization  organizational values  population  leaders.  of organizations  addition  t h e community  opinion  Other  the  influence  mold  or a  The s e n s e  to participate i n local  leaders  the  which  they  among  opinion  personal  i n mobilizing  contacts.  rely  local  of these  investigate opinion  do  must  leaders  residents.  social  media),  cohesively  the  who  therefore  through  In  these  out that  n o t be  media,  ideas  i n d i v i d u a l s who  argument.  out to the l o c a l  interpersonal  through  might  a s an a w a r e n e s s o f  community.  community,  process  organizations  transmitted  on  such  to initiate  the  points  leaders  t o t h e mass  the organizational values  i n Sieder*s  community  and  (1962) depends  accept  function  in  resources  Sieder  only  characteristics  i n the local  on a s o c i a l i z a t i o n  come  opinion  a r e exposed  population  ideas  and  these  and a w i l l i n g n e s s  initiating  persuasion.  who  eguivalent  active  local  although  the  daily  isolated network, (such  together bridging  i t i s necessary generated community.,  as  by  to the  47  THE  DIFFERENT  In usually  NATURE  community  serve  change.  As a n  community,  both  housing  In  order  city  t h e most  to  concerning  formal  surrounding  strategic The  explain  organization  organizations  and  other  tasks  about  of  various  become  problematic policies  welfare  and  departments,  redevelopment  agencies  organizations.  effectively,  understanding t h e agency  a  community  of the  i s  a  nature  part  and  the s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n s o f t h e  influenced. the history  Some  basic  Elements  t o change,  be t a k e n  information  and philosophy  and p o l i c y - i m p l e m e n t i n g  should  planned  agencies  o f community  good  of  structure  the attitudes,  o f which  community.  and  into  o f t h e agency and systems,  including  organizations  such  as  and  access  appropriate  account  i s  to  to the  resources  i n the formulation  judgements. organization theory  a framework  bureaucratic help  with  departments,  require  inducements  influences  provides  deal  and i n f o r m a l l i n k a g e s t o other  organization,  of  be  decision-making  for  formal  voluntary  t o change  system  organization  the  that  recurrent  knowledge  its  the  and  schools  considerable  its  of  planning  planners  the institutional  reguired  ORGANIZATIONS  bureaucratic  t o manage o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c h a n g e  developmental of  part  modes  authorities,  among  GOVERNMENTAL  a s t h e o b j e c t s and the i n i t i a t o r s  governmental  of  AND  development,  conditions. Efforts  practices  are  VOLUNTARY  integral  institutionalized social  OF  f o r understanding  agencies,  and o f f e r s  the behaviour draws  discussed  early  i n this  the character  chapter  and r o l e  of  t y p o l o g i e s and hypotheses t o  of the p a r t i c i p a n t s .  attention to the rational  This  theory  and f o r m a l  of  aspects  48  of  the  organization,  dimensions. in  the  Studies  voluntary  and  does in  since  there  It  broadly  planner  reveal  has  to  of are  in  the  their  i s usually accepted  analysis  major  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  3.  4.  5.  of  here by  bureaucracy a  Both  types  to a  of  they  both  types  the  organizations, any  community However,  possess  rationality  in  identical  management,  of  bureaucratic  model*. start  with  'bureaucratic  based  of  bureaucracies.  that of  informal  decision-making  which  are  mean  of  and  complexity  different  definition,  type  2.  deal  'bureaucracy  meant  structure  with  degrees  many  i t s non-rational  the  agencies.  i s appropriate  1.  to  social  necessarily  terms  organizations  as  governmental,  not  natures  what  the  private  and  developmental  of  of  well  bureaucracy  governmental  this  as  on  (Weber,  bureacratic  Max  a brief  indication  organization'.  Weber's famous  1922),  points  out  organization  The r e g u l a r a c t i v i t i e s r e g u i r e d f o r the purposes of the organization are d i s t r i b u t e d i n a f i x e d way as official duties.•, The o r g a n i z a t i o n of o f f i c e s f o l l o w s the p r i n c i p l e of hierarchy; that i s , each lower office is under the c o n t r o l and supervision of a higher one... O p e r a t i o n s a r e g o v e r n e d by a consistent s y s t e m o f a b s t r a c t r u l e s . . . (and) consist of the application of these r u l e s to particular cases... The ideal official conducts his of f i c e . . . (in) a spirit of f o r m a l i s t i c impersonality,"Sine ira et studio", without hatred or passion, and hence without a f f e c t i o n or enthusiasm... Employment in the bureaucratic organization i s based on technical q u a l i f i c a t i o n and i s protected against arbitrary dismissal. It constitutes a career. There is a system of •promotions' according to s e n i o r i t y or to achievement, or both (Blau, 1956:2834).  are:  One  idealthat  the  49  Bureaucracy  is  essentially  management. I t  operates  impersonality,  specificity,  expertise. system. by  Any  Its  bureaucratic internal  i t s technical  other  needs.  special  r o l e s and  needs.  One  can free  such  are  and  implies  One  (Litwak  et  structure  of  and  goal  goals  realization  to  organizations  to  a  He  and  to  relatively  bureaucracy  described  (1966)  described  which  i s characterized most  are  by  Max  the by  definite,  the  strict  in  of  tasks  social  the  apparent  of  of  types  to  a  the  the  goals.  for  goal  relatively of  efficient. bureaucracy  relations,  hierarchy  of  generic  structure  become  model  of  et a l . ,  part,  criteria  to  The  organizational  pursuit  Weber a p p e a r s  types  number  that  and  some  types  the  rationalistic  impersonal  and  (Litwak  reduce  in  these  impersonality  describe  related,  rationalistic  actions,  Litwak  out  i t s tasks  of  limited  determinate  repetitive,  Litwak  points  i t s  bureaucratic  1  different  to  as  relatively  governing  i s used  by  for  certain  degrees  by  only  organization.  are  so  achievement  and  rules  i s presented  1966).  standardized  there  an  not  organization  elements,  to  social  also  'rational  classifying  scheme  goals are  of  a  providing  primary  various  bureaucracies  such  a l . ,  organization's Where  of  that with  method  conceptual  variety  to  purely or  professional  i s determined but  of  stresses  constitutes  f u n c t i o n a l l y important  1966).  great  a  and  bureaucratic  geared  personal  organization  characteristics  the  method  basis,  rules  labour  within  from  bureaucratic His  of  goal-achievement  find  organizations  rationality.  of  hardly  explanation  bureaucratic  exist  use  organization  of  rational  instrumental  the  activities  organization,  above  an  division  problems  There  elements  on  a  detailed  authority,  job  50  specialization, privileges  and  knowledge,  delineations  evaluation  training  illustrated legal  narrow  by  and  success  government  contrast, goals  to  interpersonal  require  bureaucracy efficient  merit.  rather  Except  for  of  duties  merit  job).  This  which  follow  and  (such  as  type  i s  detailed  i s  and  as  the  as  arrangements  segregated  administrative  basis  the  of  merit,  opposite  the  broad  to  those  model.  agency  critieria  and  third  human form.  as  departments) (Blau 1962).  and  personal rules,  basis  This  of  such  mixed,  the  tasks  bureaucratic  type  type  of  complement  the  seems  organization,  of  develops authority  contradictory  1962:60-74; of  as  both  structures  Examples  the  techniques  bureaucracy',  Scott,  of  relations  r e l a t i o n s elements  parallel to  are  more  employment,  human  of  a  the  the  work  and  on  of  definition  the  social this  likely  detailed  evaluation  *professional  (such  Kornhauser,  than  non-standardized,  efficient  approaches  represent  determines  interpersonal,  most  to  and  for  r e l a t i o n s * form  structure,  which  example  and  and  and  small  rationalistic  known  and  an  diverse  'human  rather  organizational goals  to  internal  A  are  criteria  r e l a t i o n s model e x h i b i t s  characteristics  house  both  is  human  the  a  appear  goals,  model.  combining emerge  to  ambiguous,  tasks  hierarchial  on  standardized  impersonal  and  techniques,  evaluation,  possesses  When  1957  the  are  policies  than  promotion  neighborhood  and  The  general  rationalistic  which  uncertain  organization's  and  both  on  goals  likely  structure.  colleagial the  are  i s more  relations,  model  basis  bureaucracies  where  achieving  pay  the  occupational  regulations. In  of  on  of  Solomon,  professional  51  bureaucracies oriented  industrial In  is of  a  include  bases  performance; or  than  organizational  extreme  Although  predominate  i n  they  system  f o r managing  tend  have  personnel  structure.  organizations  are  Feedbacks  opinions  and  encouraged. bureaucracy.  Final  when  or they  and  merit  i ti s relatively  rare  rules  model.  small  of  and  the  Instead,  independent  model'  administered  Most  decisions the  four  governmental  and  decisions,  of evaluation.  on s p e c i f i c  the  from  than  model.  analysis  by  rather  Since  especially  made  class,  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l form.  the 'rationalistic  regulations  or social  deliberately  t h e non-merit  this  and  nepotism,  organizations,  efficiently,  organizations,  hierarchial  of  rely  t o adopt  above  appears t o resemble legal  to  to approach  the  bureaucratic  types  intrusion  on  bases  appear,  a distinct  organizations,  From  by  other  religion  non-merit  there  t o the achievement  relationships  may  forms,  of personnel  Dependence  o f race,  illustrate  organizations  businesses,  irrelevant  personal  identify  organizations  small  research-  by a s i g n i f i c a n t  are introduced.  conditions  large  large  criteria  on  goals  these  and  three  f o r the evaluation  the basis  emphasis  nondeliberately,  for  merit  goals  on  organizational  hospitals,  t h e above  characterized  conseguently  discrimination and  t o and u n l i k e  model'  other  systems,  organizations.  addition  'non-merit  school  top  which  through i n  the  level  subordinates  are  types  of  organization i s  governed  a  vertical  governmental administrators. theoretically  h o w e v e r , a r e made b y t h e t o p o f t h e  52  In  contrast,  neighborhood  houses  •human r e l a t i o n s stress than  the  are  model.  1  somewhat  incumbents  in  the  effective  carrying  and  and  communications the  bureaucracy  to  The  first  bureaucratic the  not  the  and case  initiator  The  the  rather  governmental  the  decision-  ideas  easily  from  accepted  These  and more  degrees  Three  principle permit  difference in  not  and  the  among  theoretical  and  voluntary i s  more  standardized  work  appropriate  for  planning.  i s , intended  human  the  of  of  the  of  obey  is  relations only  in  top  nature  from  These to  of  in  internal  demonstrate rationalistic  mechanisms  will  be  influence.  initiative.  initiative roles  rationality  principles  communication  who  as  of  organization  i s  organization.  that  i s encouraged  follow  structured  governmental  routinized  of  subordinates in  of  dissimilar.  i s the  such  Patterns  organization.  organizations,  organizations  hierarchy.  initiate  voluntary  purposive,  i s more  differing  humanistic  formally  governmental  out  patterns  agencies  incorporating  organization  i s also  different  considered  that  the  work  those  made b y  change-oriented  Besides governmental  than  influence  voluntary  incremental  less  organizations  subordinates.  nature  imply  the  are  the  organizations in  are  voluntary  in  voluntary  r e l a t i o n s h i p among c o l l e a g u e s  and  Personal  differences  whereas  They  different  Decisions  staff.  the  private social  supervisors  organization. field  and  of  interpersonal  between  making  most  of  only  at  level  the  top  superordinates  well-defined. model.  Ideal-type of who  But  this  i s  role  of  an  administrators  but  The  53  also  in  the  lower  hierarchial  pattern  incumbents  of  theoretically is  implied  ready  to  level allows  the fits  human  the  initiate  the  colleagial  I f the  of  from  of  of  than  from  a l l  organization  bureaucracy,  organization  a l l levels  rather  ideas  voluntary  r e l a t i o n s model  voluntary  plans  The  initiation  organization. the  that  personnel.  tends  the  to  i t  be  more  organizational  hierarchy. The  second  principle  i s  more p r e - e x i s t i n g i n f l u e n t i a l in  an  the  organization  higher  the  organization.  and  the  intensity It  and  principle  of  intensity.  'content*  of  the  Here,  religious The  1969;  link  of  one  simply  economic the  called  'multiplex* observation,  relationships intense  which than  i t can a  several  links  the  to  the  other  hand,  be  are  network. in  which  in  one  only  one  relationships  containing  more  relationships 1962:27).  assumed  exchange  common  (Mitchell,  contain  those  which  1969:22).  contents  studies  (1955:19; safely  measure  the  * single-stranded *  multiplex  which  illustrate  (Mitchell,  research  Gluckman  have  those  by  of  the  concepts,  friendship,  'multi-stranded*  by  two  context  kinship,  contact,  members o f  through  o b l i g a t i o n etc.  the  two  The  persons  come i n  used  normative  as  called On  t  are  the  Network  are  t i e two  introduce  i s usually  concurrence  1955).  intensity.  relationships, to  recognized  •uniplex .  content  Kapferer's  more  such  been  to  communication  place,  of  has  of  to  interaction  simply  here  Intensity  refers  beliefs,  Gluckman,  focus  than  takes  importance  network  or  flow  of  they  r e l a t i o n s between  *multi-stranded*  •content*  interaction  frequently  i s appropriate  •single*  principle  relationships that  more  of  the  are  single-stranded  that stronger  or From  those and  (Kapferer,  54  1969:213). is  based  Since  on  a  depend  of staff  multi-stranded  members  of  the  governmental this  and  a  recruitment, Mayer of  an  paper  type  from  i n order  an  to bring  than of  conception  an  kind  of instrumentally  (1969:301)  discussed  of  within  links  communication time.  An  specific network,  a  that  the  i s reinforced  under  set'  personal  other  most  be  ends.  inferior  purpose  therefore, brings hand,  Mayer  a s an  over  a  into  denotes  Mayer's  of  network  called  the  'action-set'. a special  Harris-Jones as a s e r i e s  describes short  ego's  period  i n terms  being.  from  o f goods and  network.  i s delineated i t  In  be c o n s i d e r e d  which  bases o f  the nature  make  of 'action-set'  network  to  borrowed  f o r t h e flow  may  o f the  of m o b i l i z a t i o n  the merit  people  personal  Mayer's concept  that  i n  are  can  of information  activated  fora specific  transaction  desired  intense  the  differentiated  a r e used  'action  'action-set',  on  about  to  unlike  Thus,  organization  the use that  t h e flow  His  an  'information-network'..  analyzed  tends  and  the forces  o f *a c t i o n - s e t *  single-  volunteers  friendships  result,  the  friendship i n  about  staff,  influence  f o r analysis.,Mayer  he  rather  brings  o r g a n i z a t i o n . -Besides  o f network, l i n k a g e s  services  mutual  As a  the concept  'action-set*  personal  among  pre-existing  voluntary  (1966),  This  are usually  organization  organization.  of a governmental  (1966:122)  linkages  a n d members.  organizations.  of  voluntary  organizations  merit-evaluation,  incumbents  relationship  of  of  pre-existing  organizations,  persuasion  those  and  voluntary  situation  voluntary  the  nepotism  governmental  model  among  contrast,  upon  recruitment and  resulting  In  i n most  rationalistic  relationships stranded.  recruitment  A  of  of the  personal  a set of linkages  which  55  exist  simultaneously  persist  beyond  action-set isolated defined  may  in  community Program, emerges  looked  terms  of  between  would in  of  concept  of  as  the  agency  leaders  community.  concerned. of  population the  intervening  i t s coverage  more as  the  range  than  as  A  coverage  a  provides reach  variable  background  with  the  the  better  above  small  same  i t s coverage  organization i f  the  the  large  one.  The  can  reach  may  be  is the  of  the into  clients  in  a  measuring given  resources  r e l a t i o n s h i p by  one  with  for a  to  *Bange*  insight  i t s own  with  the  is similar  some  used  of  theory,  heterogeneity  circumstance  and  the  social  to  that  larger  social  contact  large  house,  the  direct  a  neighborhood  In  in  concept  in  nature  people  organization  variable.  the  (1969).  normal  modifies  different  the  case,  tasks.  Hheeldon  with  this  *action-set*  coverage,  maximum  network  Improvement  by  i s  community  *range*  of  An  organizations  maximum c o v e r a g e .  organization  Onder  a  l a r g e r the  However,  in  in  an  In  defined  This  •range*  •reachability*.  of  which  instrumentally-  characterizing  principle  combined  And  specific  The  of  personal  Neighborhood  organization's  as  a  1969:40).  transient  i n d i v i d u a l s of  number  capacity  a  and  'range'  of  short-term  the  for  principle  defined  individuals  be  is  people  aspect  governmental  as  principle  an  of  i n t e r e s t s and  particular transaction.  (Mitchell,  such  contexts  effective  an  specific  often  the  mutual  any  as  last  contacted.  the  a  of  of  incumbents  most  specific  more  the  upon  development,  communication  are  basis  duration  be  The  number  the  the  i n t e r a c t i o n a l content  relationship  the  on  target  available, should  acting as  be. as  an  effective  small  organization  has  voluntary  organization,  such  more  people  because  a  staff  56  can  deal  local  with  area  more g r o u p s planner,  dealing  with  agency.  In  organization  a  case,  but  again,  results  contact  and  higher  The  following  comparing  in  the  includes their to  own  reflects  table  range  natures set  reality dichotomy  contact  of  voluntary  context  not  and in  agency.  a  just  special  nature.  socially  as  This,  heterogeneous  of  provide  voluntary  a  summary  and  governmental  characteristics model,  whereas  communication  by  the  shows  the  second  set  network  communication  are  within related  bureaucracy.  organizations.  sheds  governmental  i s organized  to  P r i n c i p l e s of  of  generalization  many  the  to  community.  of  the  resources  governmental  of  a  professional  his  multi-purposes  attempts  dichotomization  the  the  a  of  of  of  special  bureaucratic  organization.  voluntary  of  a  wider  first  of  models o f  of  than  part  organization  p r i n c i p l e s concerning  their  types  that  reachability in  The  types  The  and  a  devote  'range*  usually  different  organizations. different  bureaucracy  the  i s  day  the  in achieving  temporarily,  given to  voluntary  'action-set*  task  in  a  has  i s larger than  Furthermore, an  who  superiors this  in  exceptional light  on  organizations.  the  organizational of  the  I t has cases  to can  ideal-type be be  characteristics of  pointed found.  governmental out  that  However,  theoretical differences  between  in this two  57  i  I ORGANIZATION y j — |GOVERNMENTAL JVOLUNTARY  | CHARACTERISTICS  ,  I | | J ]  llMe§ Of B u r e a u c r a c y daily activities o r g a n i z a t i o n of o f f i c e systems of r u l e s recruitment basis  I  J | | I  Communication initiative intensity coverage  Aspects  +.  lrationalistic Jfixed duties |more h i e r a r c h i a l |formal |merit based  |human r e l a t i o n s | experimental Jless hierarchial I informal |nepotism  I  I  | Itop-down Isingle-stranded jlow r e a c h a b i l i t y  j Jtwo-way |multi-stranded |high r e a c h a b i l i t y  1  u  TABLE  i  2  DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS GOVERNMENTAL In  The  organizations role  traditionally political voluntary the  i n the  social  democracy.  important Arnold  and  play  roles differently  (De  Thus,  o r g a n i z a t i o n has  De  majority  the  i s a legal  of  observed  means f o r  the  a stable that  the  countering  T o c g u e v i l l e , 1954,:203). T h i s d e f i n i t i o n  of  the  stated  that  went on  to s p e c i f y three  prevent  a concentration  voluntary  and  proposing  1  persuading  in  emphasized  maintainer  Tocgueville  and  been  and  a  theory,  Another of  contemporary  ' p l a y a major r o l e  the  governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) ; they  help  functions  of  structure',  i n America democracy'.  centralization  of  an  sociologist,  social  major f u n c t i o n s : v o l u n t a r y and  others  a s s o c i a t i o n remains  research. *a  a s s o c i a t i o n s i n the they  as  voluntary  to  f o r theory in  their  theory  function of  focus  Rose,  voluntary  natures,  a s s o c i a t i o n i n America  opinion  role  different  voluntary  •moral power o f t h e  specific the  of  OF  VOLUNTARY. ORG AN IZ ATI ON S  addition to their  governmental society.  AND  J  He  associations  power  i n d i v i d u a l s to  (in  most  understand  58  how  political  social  change  processes (Hose,  These, perspective  of a  course, more  of  function  i s  voluntary  association,  their of  i n the  respect  to  apparent  need  democratic continued that new  ideas  and  and  nature  of  interests  are  around  necessarily makers,  but  maintaining which  come  the  opinion develop  from  so as  formed  interest  as  staff  means o f when  which  and the  order  suggest  permeable  top  level  are  not  these  facilitates  the  Voluntary  interests a  the  decision-  Once  others.  enough  that  preventing  the  recognize  (Craig  issues  members.  to  continued  interests  fulfilling  the  ensuring  Gross  in  an the  emphasize  maintained  thus  is  for  in  association  enduring  there  and  influence  people is  with  remain  interest  opinions  to  opinions  assures  cluster,  the  of  complementary  can  crystallized,  spread  be  power  by  be  a  aware  Edward  permeability  of  been  to  and  in  strengthen  Since in  first  made  analyses  i s to  membership  relevant  protection of  organizations  each  have  organizations  for  this  uniting  more e a s i l y  face.  Craig  o l i g a r c h y . New  opinions  likely  This  formulated can  John  and  appropriate  most  i f democracy  1970).  towards  are  participation  voluntary  By  interests  enhancement  they  From  d e r i v e d . / The  v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s must  by  tendency  be  common  viable,  participation,  and  with  problems  remain  particiation  mechanisms  politically  interests.  formulate  to  Gross,  new  they  membership  and  are  statements., of  A s s o c i a t i o n members  for  in addition  list  collective  those  specific  organization  summary  s t r u g g l e f o r the  interests  they  o r g a n i z a t i o n s may  promote  interests.  their  are  specific  voluntary to  and  1954:50) .  functions  themselves  operate;  and  similar and  are or  distinct  59  enough  to  *be  collective  action..,*  voluntary  of  organization for  they  would  in  in  the  larger The  have  of  significance and  is  a  of  it  may  part also  channel with  to  society the  social  isolated  lives  and  organization voluntary  involving  the  processes  the  with  to  be  in  of  individual  what  i s  may  be  has  occurring  however,  the  social  (Edwards  meeting  the  understanding of  processes  i n t o the  limited the  Booth,  on  the  voluntary  ties  back  into  of  the  and  the  as  Further,  of  a  ties  voluntary  social  change.  to  one  only  of  society,  serve  formal  Such  type  of  instrumental  1973:4).  function  psychological  The  of  mechanics  enable  for  and  to  organization  community.  processes  are  the  voluntary  leaders  relationship,  i s  human  As  said  f a c t u a l knowledge  knowledge  mechanisms  emphasis  persons.  and  community  emergence  assoication  from  member  the  voluntary  The  political  provides  a  and  political  Another  as  future  functions,  organizations  a  of  through  cases,  the  therefore,  into  generally.  participation  voluntary  and  political  their  organizations  social  way  contact  It  insight  events,  society's  delineated  what  a  and  organization,  promote  train  for  to  promoted.  is  and  most  a f f e c t i n g the  in  association  consequence.  of  government  an  In  belong  i t  cultural  promotion  society.  voluntary  tends  see  exposure to  educational  events,  as  force  believe  words,  social,  Hence,  a  People  to  other  the  source  like  effective  1954:50).  becomes  because  in  society.  another  (Rose,  members.  and  individual  more  i t s  association,  the  cf  organization  behaviours  stands  capable  of  voluntary  needs of  individuals  organization  brings  i n t e r a c t i o n with  other  those human  60  beings. has  The  satisfaction  political  membership, to  the  relevance.  'the  organizations  distribute  last  two  organizations  are  structures  and  to  separated  social  organization potentially  i s  to  a  and  are  by  met  would  society  association  by  tend  ...  diversify  mediate  facilitiate units. said  to  powerless  Seeman,  association  to  contribute  (for)  voluntary  and  influence*  power  (bureaucratic)  a  function and  Seeman,  information reference their  by  out  own  of  to  voluntary  activity  of  and  the  1953).  large  in  the  notion  mediating  between  isolated,  hence  state'  linkage  Neal  social  voluntary  and that  (Neal  enables  control  the  over  their  Seeman  found  powerlessness  organizational  collection  and  make  environment*  ties*  processing  provides  i n d i v i d u a l s *....>can the  voluntary  information  This  organizations  and  and  massive  greater  of  The  of  between  *...the  lack  1964:226).  which  small  environment.,  the  of  participation  have  supporting  of  flow  Social  family  evidence  the  Nisbet,  non-human empirical  between  individual,  1964:216; his  functions  *..,mediate  and  (Neal  of  interrelated  individual  is  needs  organization  character  needs  1954:59). The  and  psychological I f these  voluntary  democratic  (Rose,  of  a  sense  (Young  and  of  frame  of  out  of  Larsen,  1965:186). Hausknecht verify the  the  made u s e  of  and  functions  of  relevance  1960*s  notion  (1962)  that  of  the  American  voluntary  factual  knowledge  however,  has  diminished  insight. the  The  secondary  voluntary  society.  organizations  and  some  do,  His in  importance  of  to  organizations  in  data  fact,  spread  data,  supported contribute  of formal  associations  the to  education, in  this  61  context—the observed  greater differences  (Hausknecht, insight upon  and awareness  mean  the  hard  to  to  things  done  educational  o f 'how  o f how  that  opportunity are  For  F o r example,  learning deny  level  the  learn  of  about  opinion  i s spread  personal  o f an  Therefore,  Although  governmental  channel  has  but i t i s a  better  that  voluntary  may  be The  contribute  should  not  blind  organizations  and  and Gaudet,  for  are originated may  derive  of  to both  personal opinions.  i n the interaction  originate from  through  1948:150).  for  spread  may  Political  persuasively  as the context  channels  or  organization  of opinions.  Berelson  of opinion  tends  that  perspective.  organizations  a s s o c i a t i o n , however,  i n the local  argument  of the voluntary  seme  authorities  o f how  end.  as  members,  Hausknecht  proper  citizenry'  organizations  f o r the spread  individuals  i t s  pervasively  serve  The v o l u n t a r y  automatically  assoications  i n the dissemination  not a l l 'opinions'  organizational  media.  utility  (Larasfeld,  may  knowledge,  operate,  The  voluntary  concluded  voluntary  interaction  non-member.  'informed  most  contact  non-members  not  member  voluntary  role  may  the  a r e not dependent  mechanisms  much  the achievement o f t h i s  a  membership  how  for  play  a r e done'  i n  to certain continuing  s t i l l  things  seen  us  Hausknecht  and  highly-educated,  be  t o the growth  the smaller  or to supplement h i s understanding  functions  skepticism  the  association  the  should  education  members  social  than  diminishing  of  between  1962:111).  membership.  today  the  attention  from  of  some  t o t h e mass  c a n be p e r c e i v e d i t s members  and  as a other  community. to conclude  that  the roles of  voluntary  62  organization have  diminished  conclusions role  of  society Two  i n educating  should  will  different  be  this  organizations  By by  light need  to  i n educating  community  simply  examined  played  and  contemporary be  by  comparing the may  be  means  opinions  However,  f o r granted.  existing  The  i n present  the  different and  be  whether  shed  for citizenship  on  i n order and  the  actual  in  natures  governmental  his  Canadian  of empirical research  coordinated  development..  crystallizing  society.  taken  organization  thesis.  roles  organizations,  for  not  voluntary  of  results  in  citizenship  Part  and  the  voluntary these  to achieve  crystallizing  two  better opinions  63  CHAPTER IV AREA PLANNING/NEIGHBORHOOD hMQ TSO  IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM *-  ' NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE' :  EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAL PLANNING AGENCIES  I | | I I 1 | j I | I i |  L  This chapter discusses the historical J development of two types of community 1 development a g e n c i e s , ' l o c a l area planning with 1 neighborhood improvement program* and | * neighborhood houses*, The former r e p r e s e n t s the [ governmental agency, whereas the latter | r e p r e s e n t s the voluntary agency. The R i l e y Park | NIP Committee and the K i t s i l a n o House are chosen 1 f o r e m p i r i c a l case s t u d i e s . They a r e both r e a l | organizations i n the community. T h e i r d i f f e r e n t \ degrees of b u r e a u c r a t i c behaviour and r o l e s of { community developmental planning are | i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the next c h a p t e r . | '.  J  64  Due of  to the different  organizations,  the  voluntary  organization  each  o f community  and  coordination discussed  with worx  latent  the  Vancouver  example  chosen  Neighborhood with  City  Department,  1973: 1 ) .  and  come  into  Although  residential, decided  Some  Local  given  i n  their  the  different about  organizations  will  the be  Area P l a n n i n g together  Program  some  only  while the City  LAP s i t e  offices  to  City  of  to and an  Planning  separate  Program  LAP  LAP h a d  designated f o r  Assistance  dealt  quality  i n the past,  i n neighborhoods  N I P a n d RRAP  neighborhoods,  difficult  attempt  aspects  (Vancouver  i s  (LAP) a l o n g  an  the  social  because,  Rehabilitation  i s  affect  and  Program  Planning  (NIP)  that  of Vancouver  Improvement  Area  environment  existence  to establish  example o f  conclusions  of Local  I t i s sometimes  i n the City  Residential  funding.  o f examining  the physical  neighborhood's  usually  model  variables  individual  NIP  be  the  chapter.  Improvement  o f both  both  facilitate  will  and v o l u n t a r y  f o ranalysis.  a l l the  requires  (Vancouver)  implementation o f Neighborhood  effectiveness  and  to  A local  functions.,  types  people and t h e governmental  organization  of governmental  i n the last  The  one  living.  o f t h e two  planning  authority  c h a p t e r s f o r t h e purpose  manifest  with  of local  leqislated  o f t h e two t y p e s o f  following  developmental  organization of  improvement  community  natures and r o l e s  NIP  (RRAP)  with s t a b l e ,  primarily  Planning  Department  i n unstable  ( i n terms  65  of  land  use)  established NIP for  can  assumed  improving  local  areas of  t h e o t h e r hand,  social  agencies  work there  with  •neighborhood voluntary  Services  association  Mainland,  was  organization  Neighborhood the  house'  declares  needs  were  LAP  and  authority  They  small  associations.  organizations  as  analysis. (N.S.A.)  neighborhood  as a  voluntary  are either  of residents'  chosen  f o rfurther Assciation  called  that  of a community.,Therefore,  finally  itself  so  development*.  representing  offices  governmental  formal voluntary  integrated  LAP  of convenience,  a r e many  o r some t y p e  a r e n o t many  the  the  Vancouver.  there  f o r *community  deal  of  t o be a n i n t e g r a t e d  organizations  However,  most  i n NIP a r e a s . F o r t h e s a k e  be  On  neighborhoods,  'community  an  example  This  of  a  i s because the  of Greater houses  the  of  development  Vancouver, the  Lower  agency'...  A neighborhood house i s the organized effort of people interested i n and concerned about t h e development and improvement o f a neighborhood and i t s relation with t h e c i t y o f which i t i s a part...The organization of local r e s i d e n t s f o r community development i s a continuing function o f the neighborhood house {National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, 1973).  The  Bajor  family  goal  and neighborhood This  goals  of the  and  chapter functions  organizations,  LAP w i t h  N.S.A. life* will of  i s  to  'improve  (N.S.A., A n n u a l be  these  an  the Report  introduction two  of  1976-77).  to the origin,  community  NIP, and n e i g h b o r h o o d  guality  house.  development  66  1 1 2 H NI£i  MI  A GOVERNMENTAL  AGJNGX  FOR  CO MM ON 1 D E V E L O P M E N T A L  PLANNING  li§  legislative Tne  but their  Basically,  Federal  programs  concentrated  not  municipal profit  the  ultimately both  NIP  1940 *s  Urban focused  the  social  the urban  that  renewal  the  process i n  effects  Renewal  Policies.  the social  removal housing.  of housing  'redevelopment* As  Cross  and  under  housing  these  which  the  are recent  Canadian  recent  activity  both  i s  N I P a n d REAP  rehabilitation  of  improvements co-ops  encompass  f o r community  in  (REAP)  include  Association,  aspects  (NIP)  but a l s o  and c o u l d  deeply  programs.  include  stock  rooted  implications  1960 's  housing  and s o c i a l  on  with  would  Barnard  program  was  replacement  then,  their  (Peter a  into  projects  services,  where  the physical  (  This,  and s o c i a l  neighborhood  deep  Program  neighborhoods t o which  physical  groups  go  the rehabilitation  i n certain  Program  Assistance  emphasizes  are applied. only  roots  NIP  Improvement  Rehabilitation  policy.  funds  Qf  Neighborhood  Residential programs,  Evolution  a  non-  well-defined  1973:1),  development  or  to  NIP  which  i s  upgrades  o f a community. , the  Urban of  National renewal  the  Little  and  policies  blighted attention  clearance.,It became  Housing  was  t h e new Collier  Act  i n the  areas was  and  paid  not  until  intention (1967:1)  stated: The objective of t h e newly f o r m u l a t e d • u r b a n r e n e w a l * p r o g r a m was t o g u i d e t h e public and private process of redevelopment, rehabilitation and conservation i n the l i g h t of social, economic and p h y s i c a l o b j e c t i v e s agreed  to  of had  67  on by merely course. This clearer  change  i n the  the community, as allowing the market  of  1970»s  attitude  towards  (Hellyer,  1969).  opposed to to take i t s  urban  renewal  Lithwick  {1971)  became reported  that: I f the aim of a decent home for every Canadian i s to be realized, housing p o l i c y must p l a c e f a r greater emphasis on c o n s e r v i n g a n d r e c y c l i n g o u r e x i s t i n g housing resources., This 1973,  which  program, for  gave  and  and  allowed  HEAP,  the  of  an  f o r the  rundown  inadequate time' cost is  by of  social  on  to  some  funds  events  1973),  The  the  their  the  combined  community  The  stabilize  the  participation  leading  to  deterioration  ideals  of  community  the  mere  few  Housing to  and  of  income  are  housing  and  NIP  at  one  land  for  low  improvement of  NIP  and  neighborhoods  disrupting  the  redevelopment  developmental  of  living  Neighborhoods  objectives  and  on  amenities  f o r housing  and  This  loans  Although  lower  a  and  acquisition  BBAP.  housing  and  substandard  facilities. to  than  housing  (CMHC, 1 9 7 4 : 2 1 ) , of  of  Mortgage  improving  June,  individuals,  rather  Central  in  rehabilitation  concentrate  assistance  and  and  to  Financial  revitalize  encouraging  of  NHA  rehabilitation  and  basis  public  provided through are  the  the  contributions  purposes  and  accommodation.  BBAP  The  to  housing  families  makes  residents  NIP  allocated  the  neighborhoods  the  for  national  neighborhood  f o r renewal.  municipalities  selected  assist  entire  (CMHC)  of  first  amendment  government  Corporation  conditions  the  income  federal  designated  older  to  moderate  rehabilitation blocks  to  a u t h o r i z e d the  NIP  low  rise  cycle (Coll,  planning  are  68  carried  out. t h r o u g h  conditions the  and s e r v i c e s  renewal  underway,  The c h i e f stability  turnover. citizen  In  implementation  (Chan,  an  neighborhood  broader  planners  afforded  basis.  basis  have  have Major (City  on p h y s i c a l  t h e vagueness the  citizen  Many s u g g e s t e d whereas  RR&P  been  input  i n  rate  been  by  the practice of  made  than  1976).  regarding  include  o f Toronto rather  RRfiP  Planning social  should  be  needs  be  Board,  citizen on  a  retained  allocated (Dennis  i n  planning  funds  NIP s h o u l d  the  delays  forlegitimate  of  to  residential  (Gauthier,  concerns  to individual  forwarded  of  program  that  has been  i s i t s contribution  applauded  of provisions  designation  according  have  the  by t h e  o f t h e program.  neighborhoods  1972:304).  neighborhood  rehabilitation  o f t h e program  criticisms  and  for  minimizing  overemphasis  1975),  poorer  merit  t h e NIP a p p l i c a t i o n s  participation  in  by u p g r a d i n g  as encouraging  and c r i t i c i s m s  addition,  many  processing  as w e l l  assistance  by  involvement  However,  1974),  federal  many c o m m e n t s  planners.  programs  process.  Since  greater  these  and  on  a  Fish,  69  Local  Area As  policies  Planning  the federal  i n  Department as  'Local  planning more  the came  up w i t h  some  needs,  while  context  a very  (LAP).  local close  localized  reconsidered the  I t was  delivery level look  City  planning  based  renewal Planning  approach  known  on t h e b e l i e f  that  systems  c a n be a c c o m p l i s h e d  than a t the  city  scale.  at t h e communities'  Planning  a r e summarized  i t s urban  Vancouver  c o n c e r n s a r e examined  (Vancouver C i t y  f o r LAP  Vancouver  a decentralized  service  at a  In  1970's,  and  affords  reasons  early  Planning'  effectively  NIP  government  Area  program  wide  With  within  Department,  The  particular the  city-  1973:1).  The  as:  1. P l a n n i n g would become more e f f e c t i v e , provided that a strong conceptual overview o f the f u t u r e form of the c i t y i s a d h e r e d t o . More effective planning would result because the information base would be i m p r o v e d t h r o u g h LAP and t h e c o n c e p t u a l p l a n o f t h e c i t y would be l o c a l i z e d t o f i t i n d i v i d u a l needs of the city. 2. L A P would bring the planning process c l o s e r t o the people. I t might instill confidence i n area residents, i n that t h e y would be a b l e t o a f f e c t t h e future of their community; e s t a b l i s h two-way communication between r e s i d e n t s and c i t y hall; tend to humanize civic bureaucracy; and a t t e m p t t o c o r r e c t t h e e x i s t i n g i m b a l a n c e s among n e i g h b o r h o o d s . 3. L A P might lead to more cooperative working relationships between area r e s i d e n t s and c i t y h a l l i n the planning of individual communities (Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Department, 1977).  70  One  type  of  LAP  government-initiated community 27.2  living  the  conditions  City  less  i s  depend  RRAP.  This  City  upon  needs  improve  Neighborhood (1974),  Woodland  (1976),  case  study  f o rfurther  i s usually  and  i n Riley  empirical  Park  analysis.  RRAP social of  undertaken more  by or  years of funding  Programs (1974),  Riley  (1977)  of  year  i s based  a  27.1,  and  grants from  Cottage  (1976),  Kensington  underway  NIP  first  Improvement  Cedar  Grandview  now  Section  the physical The  as  guality  LAP seems t o be w o r k i n g  fit. Pleasant  project  o f the  and p r o v i n c i a l  (1975),  NIP  under  o f LAP l o c a t i o n  Eastside  The  the  f o r NIP. S u b s e g u e n t  of operating  Kitsilano  established  LAP o f f i c e s  the federal  system  highlighted  improving  neighborhoods.  The s e l e c t i o n  qf Vancouver,  include  to  and f i n a n c i n g  on t h e community  being  the a s s i s t a n c e  able  existing  itself.  will  the  With  i s  for  i s N I P a n d RRAP  LAP of  establishing the  program  a n d 2 7 . 5 o f NHA.  funds,  which  park  and Kiwassa h a s been  NIP a n d well  i n  t o date Downtown (1976), (1577),  chosen  as a  NIP  /  LAP providing opportunties a s a means  ISSUE PARTICIPATION ~>| ISSUE IDENTIFICATION NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING o b j e c t i v e s achievement through opportunties  UPGRADE NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS FOSTER NEIGHBORHOOD BELONGINGNESS CHANNEL GOVERNMENTAL ASSISTANCE  ultimate  purpose  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAL PLANNING  FIGURE  1  A MODEL SHOWING THE MEANS M i l OBJECTIVES OF NIP S LAP  NIP  gitizen  Biley the  City  great for  variety  the Biley by  Avenues,  The  together  the the  Park  on  1,  2,  dollars,  neighborhood  Area;  the  and  were c a l l e d Committee"  f o r t o form (N.I.P.  a  2.  37th  by BBAP, t o public of  At the end o f "Biley  Park  Committee),  o f t h e NIP C o m m i t t e e a r e :  role  of  the  NIP C o m m i t t e e  stated  i n t h e terms of  i s : 1.  and  residents  o f N I P a n d BBAP.  a  rectangle  The f i r s t  local  with  governments  supplemented  improvements.  of  announced  16th  municipal  1976, t o i n f o r m  and the purposes  Planning  and  side  T o p l a n a n d make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o C i t y C o u n c i l f o r t h e e x p e n d i t u r e o f NIP f u n d s a l l o c a t e d to B i l e y Park; and To make r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o C i t y C o u n c i l on o t h e r m a t t e r s o f c o n c e r n t o r e s i d e n t s of the area including zoning, development permits, s o c i a l f a c i l i t i e s , changes i n s o c i a l mix, housing p o l i c y t o deal with these and similar issues. ( M i n u t e s o f t h e R i l e y P a r k C i t i z e n ' s NIP P l a n n i n g C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g , J a n 4, 1 9 7 6 )  The reference  on D e e p ,  purposes  Streets  provincial  on t h e e a s t  1 9 7 6 , N I P was  Improvement  Fraser  million  class  I n May,  physical  volunteers  N.I.P.  The  1,9  public  designation  Citizen's  and  federal,  was h e l d  meeting,  groups.  Neighborhood  Ontario  neighborhood  I t i s a working  of ethnic  allocated  spent  hearing  i s an u r b a n  of Vancouver,  bordered  be  Park  Committee  T h e N I P C o m m i t t e e s h o u l d be e n d o r s e d by the City Council as r e p r e s e n t i n g the views of Riley Park residents on p l a n n i n g m a t t e r s . T h e NIP C o m m i t t e e will advise the City Council. City Council has t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to make final decisions. I t w i l l be t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e NIP Committee to ascertain the opinions of local residents at the early stage and throughout the planning process and t o publicize i t s decisions and  73  3.  4.  5.  The Hall  recommendations w i t h i n t h e community. I t s h o u l d n o t be o n l y t h e m a j o r i t y view i s made k n o w n o n a n y i s s u e but also a reasonable degree of information about other viewpoints or alternatives that may be s u g g e s t e d by r e s i d e n t s . I n m a t t e r s a f f e c t i n g B i l e y P a r k , t h e HIP Committee w i l l r e l a y i t s recommendations to whatever b o d i e s a r e d e a l i n g with t h e matter. The NIP Committee will continue to initiate and/or review and make recommendations on requests for NIP funds u n t i l t h e program i s completed o r u n t i l NIP f u n d s a r e e x p e n d e d . , (Minutes o f t h e R i l e y P a r k C i t i z e n * s NIP P l a n n i n g C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g , J a n 4 , 1976) stated  i n the terms  relationships  of reference  o f t h e NIP C o m m i t t e e  to City  include:  1. T h e P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t a n d Biley Park Planner will a c t as a resource f o r the local community by providing general a s s i s t a n c e and t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e . 2. T h e Biley Park Planner and Planning S t a f f w i l l be fully entitled to free expression of their personal and professional viewpoints., 3. A l l d i v e r g e n t viewpoints between the Planners or City Staff and t h e NIP Committee c a n be expressed before the City Council. 4. C i t y Council may d e s i g n a t e a n a l d e r m a n to liase with the NIP Committee. ( M i n u t e s o f t h e R i l e y P a r k C i t i z e n * s NIP P l a n n i n g C o m m i t t e e M e e t i n g , J a n 4 , 1976) Membership residing  or working  community NIP  area  Any  three  b u t have of  his/her  out  membership reason  the  or  of  a clear either  Committee  five  interest  i n the future  three  A n d a n y member  percent  to  people  of  major  outside the  of Riley member  t h e Committee  consecutive  fifty  who l i v e  c a n become a  i n joining  open  representatives  t o those  meetings.  missing  i s  and a l s o  category  interest  by m i s s i n g by  NIP  i n t h e NIP a r e a ,  organizations  person  declares  of  '  i f he/she  and  can l o s e  meetings  Park.  attends his/her  without  o f t h e meetings  over  good as i x  74  month p e r i o d . The members, three  but  at  Committee was  the present time, there  category, that  NIP  area.  These  empirical  study  as  with  about  are a t o t a l  NEIGHBORHOOD  i s , they reside  forty-three  the  g o v e r n m e n t a l community  THE  started  twenty  of  forty-  members. E i g h t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e p r e s e n t members b e l o n g  to the f i r s t Park  NIP  'core  A  members  were  decision-making  development  HOBSE;  o r work i n t h e  Eiley  chosen group"  for of  a  agency.  VOLUNTARY  AGENCY  FOR  COMMUNITY  DEVELOPMENTAL PLANNING  The•Diffusion The  Of  The  terms  Settlement  Movement  'settlement  house'  are o f t e n used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . agencies  have  settlements, The  called  university  confusion  and  Sometimes  themselves settlements  among t h e s e t e r m s  'neighborhood neighborhood  social or  centres,  deep i n t h e  o r i g i n s o f t h e s e t t l e m e n t movement i n B r i t a i n The  term  Barnett  'settlement'  originated  used i t t o d e s c r i b e  in  and  England  prevailing  conditions.  became p o p u l a r i n A m e r i c a service  centres  which  philosophy of ' s e t t l i n g earlier  The  term  not  centres. different  in  America.  'settled*  'neighborhood  emphasize  settlement  the s e t t l e m e n t s today, the neighborhood  in a  totally  house*  and  multi-  the  i n a working c l a s s neighborhood*  Christian-rooted  A.  u n d e r s t a n d and t o  with the spread o f a c t i v i t y did  social  when Samuel  a g r o u p o f p e o p l e who  working-class neighborhood, i n order to b e t t e r improve  serving  multi-service  i s rooted  house*  basic  of  the  movement. .However, i n a l l {or t h e  'local  area'  as  75  defined  by  accepted  as  in  England  the the in  revolution, growing the  base the  "rich  poorer".  Arnold  attempt  Hall,  into to  at  an  was  search  settlements  a  Beturning  most  famous  the  social  In  1911,  the  the  state, To  held  work  profession  coodination  in  can  States,  was  high  esteem  by  (Handasyde, be  found  among  so  share  days o f  the  of  the  an  the  general  he  Hall  the  late  a l l kinds in  1886  in  Hull By  House  1900,  issues American  p u b l i c and A  high  individual  settlement  the of  United and  neighborhood  experience  1949:21).  i n  the  Settlements that  to  those of  established i n the of  to  Toynbee  e s t a b l i s h e d one  international  golden  in  in  named  in  1910,1930).  could  movement  prevalent  America,  well  were  him.  Toynbee  Federation  States  of  bring aid  established  n a t i o n a l and  centre,  America  she  in  become  * National  the  to  new  poor  illiterate..Although  problems  (Addams,  had  United  conclude,  were  social  United  Centers'  across  local,  the  attempt  the  neighborhoods  North  settlements  movement  Neighborhood  welfare.  to  to  industrial  philanthropists  remembrance  Addams v i s i t e d  Street i n Chicago  settlement  centres  to  an  the  and  i s  originated  the  this  settlement  in  spread  Jane  solution  first 1884  in  immigrants.  days.  States.  the  richer  educated  educate  was  After  working-class  and  Department)  settlement  introduced  organizing  age,  century  The  growing  Toynbee  crowded  Planning  century.  were  established in  of  Halsted  by  the  early  nineteenth poor  operation.  understand  The  the  of  Vancouver  nineteenth  universities  died  of  the  penetrate  on  City  together  in  social  settlement the  social  degree houses.  of  76  The settlement movement i n the United States consists of the combined activities of two hundred and five s e t t l e m e n t s and n e i g h b o r h o o d houses, t e n city federations of these agencies and the National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centres. Sixty-one additional neighborhood houses maintain affiliation with t h e National F e d e r a t i o n through individual membership; and across the country are many other c e n t r e s which have f e l t the impetus of the movement. c S o u l e , 1947:463) a  Neighborhood superficial They  changes  continue  joining  with  better  housing,  ' As  the  neighborhood philosophy  neighborhood  houses  Association  of  Vancouver. Cottage  Neighborhood  Pleasant the  areas  of  House.  Pleasant,  End  respectively.  Kiwassa  House,  These  i s  the  At  neighborhoods such  with  South  to western and  by as  the  the  City  House,  serve  Kensington-Cedar Cottage, the densely  Another  non-NSA  neighborhood  Kiwassa  Neighborhood  House.  the  of  Mt., House local  Kitsilano,  populated house The  six  cedar  Neighborhood  neighborhood houses  work  Services  House,  Neighborhood  Vancouver  and  are  Neighborhood  Neighborhood  These  social  there  servicing  Canada,  B.C.  secular  present,  Kitsilano  Victoria-Fraserview  the  spread  by  Hollow  House,  Hasting-Sunrise,  Mt.  philosophy.  improvements  in Alberta  Vancouver  Frog  Neighborhood Gordon  marked  affiliated  are  many  facilities.  movement  i n t h e west.  Greater  They  original  city-wide  established  were  predominant  undergone  Vancouver  were  houses  have  the  recreational  settlement  houses  Canada  f o r the betterment of  i n urging  In  in  retaining  p a r k s and  Houses  neighborhood  while work  others  Neighborhood  and  to  houses  Best  serving  Riley  Park  77  community project local  i s at for  areas  setting s e r v e d by  neighborhoods average  present  The  incomes  unemployment  rate  average  City  houses many  have  responded  immigrants'  proportion Services  of  to  by  Census  of  the  Services  can  categorized  fund-raising Most  workers. from  1971  $7,0 00  to  is  the  city  above  communities  houses  into  The  the  neighborhood by  class four  of  providing  with  Indo-Pakistanies  generally  class  and  R e p o r t ) . The  lower-middle  these  educated  multi-ethnicity  serving  of  working  ranges  poorly  the neighborhood  needs  are  neighborhoods  Italian,  to the  1.  usually  Canada's  programs  houses  populace  a  house.  clerical-labour  Vancouver  tailored  be  neighborhood  their  these  Chinese,  provided  of  by  are  of of  undertaking  neighborhood  residents  (1971  a new  characterized  annual  $9,999.  up  actively  and  a  large  Greeks.  Vancouver  are  neighborhoods. major  Social services such as legal aid, family counselling and welfare aid; programs such as s e n i o r d r o p - i n s , y o u t h g r o u p s and c h i l d c a r e a r e a l l designed for a lower-middle class neighborhood. 2. J o b t r a i n i n g a n d p r o v i s i o n o f e m p l o y m e n t information for the unemployed and t e e n s . Most o f t h e funds for training teens are g r a n t e d by t h e F e d e r a l Y o u n g Canada Works Program, 3. M u l t i - e t h n i c services such as incorporating programs of the 'MultiLingual Orientation Services Association for Immigrant communities*. English classes and cultural programs such as folk festivals, special events for f o s t e r i n g i n t e r - c u l t u r a l i n t e r a c t i o n and to h e l p new i m m i g r a n t s t o s e t t l e i n t h e Canadian society, 4. R e n t a l a i d s a n d r e f e r r a l s a r e s e t up f o r the t r a n s i e n t population and self-help programs are organized as a means t o promote neighborhood awareness.  types:  78  Six  neighborhood  •Neighborhood association functions  provides for  accounting, wide  own  a  and  house  quality  of  help  major  Association  striven  f o r t h r o u g h the  and  and  services  overall  services.  Its  purpose  operating  a r e a s i n which i s "to  life" 1977).  improve  (Neighborhood This  goal  is  p r o v i s i o n o f a b r o a d r a n g e o f community  m e t r o p o l i t a n - w i d e s e r v i c e s and t h e s t i m u l a t i o n  groups.  individual  and  of the l o c a l  Vancouver,  and  community-  Each  f o r developing  neighborhood  of Greater  This  include centralized  goal o f the A s s o c i a t i o n  family  the  Vancouver*.  centralized  members. , T h e s e  t o meet t h e needs  The  a r e members o f  of Greater  of  development  Services  and  number  i s responsible  programs  i s located.  the  Association  individual  planning  its  of Vancouver  professional resource  neighborhood  it  Services  houses  is  to  initiate  self-help  cooperative  to peel  city,  province  f e d e r a l agencies i n a s s i s t i n g neighborhoods.  Each  neighborhood  neighbors,  there  among t h e v a r i o u s organization continuing local  of  people  enhances in  the for  agencies  the needs  knowledge  and  of  desires  houses i n Vancouver.  to  f o r community neighborhood  services; bring  needed  exerts  o f f e r s not a s p e c i f i c  It  resources  problem-solving.  is  into  competence The  s e t o f s e r v i c e s , but  out to the n a t u r a l l e a d e r s h i p ,  a  increases on the of  neiqhborhood  an a p p r o a c h  planning. ,This approach i n c l u d e s d i a g n o s i s  wrong, r e a c h i n g  goals  pressure  t h r o u g h p a r t i c i p a t i o n the  community  its  However, t h e  development house.  the  of  d e f i n i t e and s i m i l a r i m m e d i a t e  residents  responsibility  neighborhood is  no  neighborhood  function  community and  house  reflects  are  of l o c a l  governmental  local  house  and  inter-  governmental e f f o r t and  the resources  a  of  and  to  o f what  mobilizing  79  t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e and f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s to find  solutions  neighborhood  in  terms  which  are  help  meaningful  house uses both d i r e c t s e r v i c e s and  residents  t o them. The social  action  to achieve these goals i n community developmental p l a n n i n g . ,,  80  p r o v i d i n g opport u n i t i e s a s means  NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE  providing a s means  services  PARTICIPATION IN  INFO & REFERRAL  NEIGHBORHOOD -  LEGAL AID  AFFARIS AND  SOCIAL ACTIVITIES  PLANNING  EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM CULTURAL PROGRAM  X  IF  I'  objectives through  s:  ii 'I  achievement  IA It I* I I I  c I I I  opportunities  services J  _  NEIGHBORHOOD AWARENESS  UPGRADE QUALITY OF LIFE  LOCAL RIGHT ATTAINMENT  FOSTER INTERACTION  CHANNEL GOVERNMENTAL  SELF-RELIANCE  ASSISTANCE  SELF-HEEP  ultimate purpose  COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAL  ultimate purpose  PLANNING  IIGfiSI 2 A MODEL SHOWING THE MEANS AND OBJECTIVES  OF A NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSE  81  IfeS K i t s i l a n o  Neighborhood  Kits following  for to new to  has  chapters.  •preventive approach  House  and  The  stresses  purpose  approach the  in  in  The reference  chosen  s e l e c t i o n of approach  positively  of  'direct  prevalent  been  normalized'  participating the  House  the  the  other  house  remedial  of  in  the  House  based  on  i t s  of  Kits  movement  of  services.  personal and  planning.  approach*  houses  was  community  developmental  neighborhood  objectives  to  study  decision-making,  neighborhood  servicing  Kits  empirical  development  i n community community  for  which  2)  3)  4)  5) 6)  House o u t l i n e d  1) 2)  3) 4)  5)  of  the  Kits  House  This  is  a  compared is  s t i l l  i n i t s terms  to provide essential information and advice to persons or groups needing i t to provide stimulating programs as a socialization outlet and for personal development t o h e l p t h e c o m m u n i t y t o d e v e l o p i t s own support system ( p s y c h o l o g i c a l , economic and s o c i a l e t c ) to connect with other groups to know about the community*s needs and to collaborate with them to meet these needs to organize people and resources on b e h a l f o f t h e K i t s community t o commit i t s physical resources and staff toward constant assistance and advocacy f o r i t s people (U.S.A.., A n n u a l R e p o r t , 1976-77)  Programs  similar  Vancouver.  are: 1)  skills  i s  , when  This  include:  family activities: informal gatherings and parents-and-tots c h i l d r e n ' s and y o u t h p r o g r a m s : a l t e r n a t e s c h o o l , o u t - o f - s c h o o l day c a r e and child care workers p r o j e c t adult programs: seniors drop-in and talent nights m u l t i c u l t u r a l programs: E n g l i s h c l a s s e s for New Canadians, other language c l a s s e s and Greek f a m i l y n i g h t services: information service, legal  of  82  advice Annual The Management is  made  structure and  up  businessmen  a  team  of  and counselling 1976-77)  of of  Kits  staff  lawyers.  research  on  staff  responsible addressing seven  Board  House  needs  community  Mkh  £QNCIDSIjON_: To  house  development. participate  Some  Citizen  negotiation  with  neighborhood direct  achieving  house  services  provides  i s fostered  (for as  the  and  the  skills  planning example.  of  thirtyKits of  a  means  of  community  local  i s  experience picked  job t r a i n i n g  to area  through  House)  the  citizens  community  are  and  agencies, they  some  process with the Kits  of  research.  program  for  with  levels  counselling,  programs  group'  goals  and  governmental  the  such  i s  are  ORG A M Z AT 10 N S -  channels  process  intervention  senior  total  development the  and  workers  for empirical  NIP/LAP  for  development  through  the  community  planning  identity  community  community  the  A  for  House.  part-time) s t a f f  VS IDE A i -TIPE  both  NIP/LAP  of K i t s  planning  Board.  agency  clients,  issues,  social  and  and  of  Management  t r e n d s and  decision-making  although  means  in  neighborhood  'core  development  are  the  of  Board  responsible  mainly  full  ORGANIZATIONS  different  planners.  the  conclude,  neighborhood  {both  by  a  former  direction  policies  of  Board  i s  needs,  are  identified  as  The  residents,  future  who out  members a n d  were c h o s e n  voluntary  have  workers  the  (N.S. A.  consists  Board  community  for carrying the  local  This  policy-making regarding  Full-time  House  workers.  representative  and  continuing for  clinic Report,  which  improved. including up  by  the  planners.  The  provides and  day  both care.  83  and o p p o r t u n i t i e s such as t h e K i t s i l a n o Community Forum and Board  of  services  Management and  for  citizens  development  neighborhood.  Most  residents  become  to  they  to  want  neighborhood  plan to  sophisticated  f o r the k i n d s of  have  houses  aim  and  the  in  their  to educate  mobilizing  own local  community  leaders i n p a r t i c i p a t o r y planning. As  this  thesis  moves  from  ideal-typologies  o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s of r e a l alterations  from  theoretical  organizations,  rationalistic  recruitment.  Similarly,  relations Therefore,  and  and  based there  on  technical  are  very  non-merit-based  few  study,  one  completely  non-bureaucratic  organizations,  s o c i e t y and t h e r e f o r e  for  human  organizations.  expect  it  stereotyping  is  to  they  Kits  a l s o not c o r r e c t .  are  real  each may possess  be  totally House  as  A l t h o u g h the  two  different  o r g a n i z a t i o n s of  certain  for  the  characteristics  other. Consider  the  Riley  Park  NIP Committee as an example.  Although t h e r e i s a s t r o n g b u r e a u c r a t i c City  competence purely  R i l e y Park NIP Committee and K i t s House r e p r e s e n t  of the  is  voluntary  cannot  r a t i o n a l i s t i c . On t h e o t h e r hand,  of  that  a l t h o u g h the R i l e y Park NIP Committee was chosen  empirical  types  some  v a r i a b l e s have t o be p o i n t e d c u t .  I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o f i n d any governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n purely  of  Hall,  colleagues supervising  the of  the  local NIP  area  planners  committee  relationship regard  rather  than  with  themselves  as  technocrats  the Committee. I n o t h e r words, the LAP/NIP approach  t o c i t y p l a n n i n g i s an attempt t o break t h r o u g h the p r a c t i c e bureaucratic  the  planning.  of  Hence, even though i t i s a governmental  84  agency, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the  'human r e l a t i o n s ' model can  also  be found i n s i d e LAP/HIP. Kits  House  i s a v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n . There are  personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s and non-merit based staff  workers  and  members of the NSA there  is  members. and  But  the United  if Hay,  recruitment  Kits one  very  between  House i s viewed has  to  admit  as  that  a c e r t a i n degree of b u r e a u c r a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p between  s t a f f of NSA  and  United Say.  The  alteration  from  theoretical  models i s a l s o true i n a voluntary o r g a n i z a t i o n l i k e K i t s House. To  conclude,  in  s t u d i e s , i t was the and  society. their  following  choosing  recognized  these  two  examples  t h a t they are r e a l  for empirical  organizations  T h e i r d i f f e r e n t degrees of b u r e a u c r a t i c  roles chapter.  in  the  community  are  investigated  of  behaviour in  the  1111  EMPIRICAL  TWO RESEARCH  The r o l e s o f v o l u n t a r y and g o v e r n e m n t a l a g e n c i e s are examined i n t h i s p a r t by means o f e m p i r i c a l of research studies. The first piece i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e r o l e o f l o c a l m o b i l i z a t i o n , and tactics used by the second looks into the in community citizens to participate developmental planning.  CHAPTEB V TIE  , | | | | | I |  A  ,HYJOIHMMl  BOLE OF LOCAL MOBILIZATISJ  , Hypotheses regarding t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s o c i a l networks g e n e r a t e d by, and t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e degree of mobilization between v o l u n t a r y and g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s a r e d e r i v e d from Chapter I I I . Concepts i n the hypotheses are also operationalized i n t h i s chapter.  I | J 1 J | I  87  Organizations themselves argument thesis,  and  has  analyzed. local  linked  already  where  the  Park  chosen  to  community  71  are  Committee  in  will  to  and  Kitsilano and  (2)  serve.  chapter  of  organizations  different  serve  this  voluntary  This this were  role  of  types  of  purpose.  The  Neighborhood  House  are  agencies  in  planning. ,  the  research  on  local  investigates: (1)  within  e m p i r i c a l l y the  two to  they  third  of  study  selected  which  the  process  governmental  developmental brief,  and  networks,  community  respect  cases  represent  In  the  social  presented  and  with  Two  NIP  been  V  mobilization  fiiley  to  structure  Chapter  organizations.  generate  how participants in different types of organizations (voluntary and governmental) initiate plans among themselves through the interpersonal network w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and, how local citizens are mobilized and p a r t i c i p a t e i n community a f f a i r s t h r o u g h the social network generated by the participants of different types of organizations  mobilization  88  HYPOTHESES There explore roles to  ten  and e x p l a i n of  about  the  voluntary  should  more  voluntary  of this  the d i f f e r e n t nature organizations  thesis  By  organize  multiplexity  and  people based  with  and  respect  and  definition,  the  a higher  A l l these  hypothesis  hypothesis  voluntary  on nepotism,  i n relationships  This  a  between  theory  t o administration.  organization.  with  implied  differences  r e c r u i t members  approach  i n this section, to  mobilization.  organizations.  communication,  suggest  of  chapter  agency  humanistic  regarding  characteristic  governmental  stated  and governmental  the effectiveness third  hypotheses  theories  voluntary  The  of  are  intensity  and adopt  a  characteristics  among  members o f t h e  i s stated as:  THE M U L T I P L E X I T Y OF F I R S T - O R D E R C O N T A C T S IN A SOCIAL NETWORK GENERATED BY AN ORGANIZATION DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF O R G A N I Z A T I O N WHICH G E N E R A T E S T H E NETWORK  1  OR; MORE MULTIPLEX RELATIONSHIPS ARE E F F E C T E D BY K I T S HOUSE THAN BY T H E R I L E Y PARK N I P C O M M I T T E E  IA  Many  social  effectiveness morphological networks of  a state  planning  (1969:213)  members  of readiness  assumed  i s  interactional  suggest  that  the  dependent  upon  the  characteristics  together.  c i t i z e n s , through  the  which  analysts  mobilization  Mobilization  s o c i a l contacts  f o r active  and s o c i a l a c t i o n .  determines  actors  and  linking  organizing  into  of  network  The  multiplexity  of  that  relationships  aremultiplex  social  i s t h e process  o r other  means,  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n community  intensity those  of  mutual  a r e *stronger'  of  relationships  influence, linking than  those  Kapferer pairs  of  which a r e  89  uniplex.  By * s t r o n g e r ' ,  be  to exert  able  whom  greater  he h a s m u l t i p l e x  would  result  needs  belonging  community  their  own  meant  I t will  High  identify  to  share  individual  oyer  will  the persons to  i n t e n s i t y o f mutual  own  help  resources  members  themselves  As a r e s u l t ,  an  influence  of individuals to identify  their  also  that  and i n f l u e n c e  i n a willingness  and  organization.  pull  links.  and t o c o n t r i b u t e  organization.  the  Kapferer  they  to foster  with  are able  their  values  to  the  support  their  more  the  sense o f  ideals  to influence and have  local  of  the  others  i n  affectf o r  community.  STR&NDS  +  FRE<aU£NCY  i STRENGTH INTENSITY MUTUAL  —I TO  LOCAL  NEEPS  RELATIONSHIP MOTfVAT)OH  SENSE o f  OV  IrtFUlENCg  (PENTlFT*  OF  SENSE  B&i~oN6ti N$  TO  AFFECT R>K  PfltfTICJPOTt  tfetQHBORttObV  4 CoNTfU&UXe  THE  RELATIONSHIP  MULTIPLEXITY  AND  OTHER  BETjJEBN  MO^ILJ&AJ^JI  Of  TO PASS THE  BSLOHifrtHG- TO  LOCAL  RESIDENTS  \MI~L(N$NESS TO is pom OTHERS Of THE ISSUE  90  Therefore,  a hypothesis  occurrence  of multiplexity  There  the  of  i s a  the  joint  mobilization,  difference  organizations.  greater  third  and  to explore  THE HIGHER T H E D E G R E E OF M U L T I P L E X I T Y OF F I R S T - O R D E R CONTACTS I N A S O C I A L NETWORK GENERATED BY AN ORGANIZATION, THE GREATER T H E E F F E C T I V E N E S S O F MOBILIZING THE F I R S T - O R D E R C O N T A C T S TO P A R T I C I P A T E IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAL PLANNING  3£  types  (II) i s formulated  i n  The h i g h e r  the effectiveness  multiplexity t h e degree  of mobilization.  f o r of  different  multiplexity,  These  lead  to  a  hypothesis: THE E F F E C T I V E N E S S OF M O B I L I Z A T I O N OF T H E FIRST-ORDER CONTACTS DEPENDS MAINLY ON THE T Y P E OF T H E ORGANIZATION TO WHICH THEY BELONG OR;  J£A  AFTER CONTROLLING FOR THE E F F E C T S OF SEX, EDUCATION AND OCCUPATION, THE DEGREE OF M O B I L I Z A T I O N AMONG F I R S T - O R D E R CONTACTS WILL BE HIGHER I N K I T S HOUSE THAN I N T H E R I L E Y PARK N I P C O M M I T T E E  Hypotheses  (I) and  and  mobilization  type  of organization  further  hypothesized  hypothesis  association different  the which  stated  first-order generates  that  the  contacts  t h e network,  multiplexity  depend so i t  upon t h e can  be  that:  THE POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MULTIPLEXITY AND MOBILIZATION IS STRONGER I N K I T S HOUSE THAN I N T H E S I L E Y PARK NIP C O M M I T T E E  _  This  of  (III)  i s  of variables  types  of  tested  by  comparing  *m u l t i p l e x ^ y *  organizations.,  and  the  measures  of  'mobilization*  in  91  To the  give  a  hypotheses,  exhibited  two  relationship upon  the  the  types and  of  organizations  mobilization  no  caused  by  the  contacts.  In  other  Nadel  (1957)  evidence  Their  Finally,  with  new  makers  and  (I)  the  above  social  on  have social  dependent  them.  Secondly,  related.  However,  generate  of  assumptions  mobilization among  made b y  are the  Kapferer  network  analysts  to  hypothesis:  the  of  are  relationships  lead  rest  multiplex  mobilization  social  this  and  hypothesis  (V)  and  had  the  (III) , i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e  not  previously to  conclude  of  essentially  the  organization,  no  can  OF THE PREDICTIVE OF MULTIPLEXITY AND FIRST-ORDER CONTACTS WILL BE HIGHER IN K I T S THE RILEY PARK NIP  six  networks  their  mobilization  hypotheses  other  of  positively  the  THE STRENGTH RELATIONSHIPS MOBILIZATION OF (HYPOTHESIS V) HOUSE THAN IN COMMITTEE  All of  result  social  the  hypothesis:  -y£  effects  of  to  hypotheses  conseguences  assumptions  based  hypotheses a  the  on  four  which  are  words, and  of  going  AFTER CONTROLLING FOR THE TYPE OF ORGANIZATION (HYPOTHESIS I I I ) , THERE IS A PREDICTIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN M U L T I P L E X I T Y OF F I R S T - O R D E R CONTACTS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF MOBILIZATION OF THE FIRST-ORDER CONTACTS  *  made  that  multiplexity  examined.  before  the  consequence  is  been  First,  the  there  (1969),  summary  aforementioned  points.  and  multiplexity  brief  hypotheses involving  immediate the  second  local and  the  first-order residents  subsequent  conclusions  can  be  so  expanded  have  be as  to  core  large,  orders  trace  group  contacts.  at  made.  investigated  of  policyfor  which  contacts  However, the  As  the  the are  of  these  effectiveness  the six of  92  mobilizing  t h e whole  similarity are  of  taken  thesis,  of  that  of  o f second,  contacts,  to  third  mobilizing  the  t h e whole  many  i n a given  groups  chapter.  Furthermore,  organized Therefore range  as  an  -VTT  t o have  in  a  the  range  attributes  the social order  consideration make  background.  because  rely  on  the  a higher  would  through  that  firstin  the voluntary  can  raised  deal  with  i n the third i s  reachability To  of  organization  staff  been  the  of c o n t a c t s  organization  community.  of  into  to  this  not  only  i n nature. and a  wider  one  can  conclude,  KITS HOUSE CAN B E A C H A L A B G E B NUMBER O F F I R S T - O R D E R C O N T A C T S THAN T H E R I L E Y PARK NIP COMMITTEE  Wheeldon  tend  The argument  voluntary  organizations,  first  the  day h a s a l r e a d y  of  t h e number o f t h e  effective  people  scope  residents orders  of  that:  When  the  must  community  tracing  • a c t i o n - s e t ' but i s 'multi-purpose'  contacts  hypothesize  the  social  who a r e m o b i l i z e d  local  the larger  more  a  i t i s likely  of  beyond  and subsequent  community.  can reach  actual  hypotheses  the  more  organization  i s  and  t o the whole  the  order-contacts  organization. Therefore  order  Since  these  out  reachability  contacts  contacts  the f i r s t  reaching  formation the  first-order  the extension  on  i f the  consideration.  orders  assumption keep  the  into  subsequent  community  contacts  i n reachinq friends  Based  statistically  on t h i s  contact  (1969)  i s  sugqested  that  of the contacts.  to the local  compared  o u t t o t h e community. with  those  assumption,  representative  who  have  i ti s  first-order  one h a s t o l o o k  Social  community  between  similarity  i s a  significant  People  usually  a similar  important contacts  of  social  to so  as  have to  93  ensure the  a  better f i t of  community  as  a  channel  information  qather  a  social in  better  network  terms  the  of  total  more  social  With  the  m  The  purpose  of  possesses  commonly  acknowledged  the  the  members  in  economic  status,  ranqe  of  can  of  contacts they  can  the  the  networks  contacts  to  similarity,  mobilized  be  with  Therefore  first-order  characteristic  demonstrating  a  higher  on  of  the  a  particular  the  voluntary  formulated:  the  and  i n hypothesis  of  not  contacts,  but  also  mobilization.  Since  first-order to  higher  argue  which i s  a  socio-economic  participation  of  decision-making.  affect  test  the has  i t s  Socio-  associations already  been  (III).  efficiencies  reach  the  i s to  s t a t u s . There  mobilization,  do  to  the  possibly  community  willingness  that  the  intention  o r g a n i z a t i o n s and  multiplexity  hypothesis of  i s no  higher  could  Finally,  this  socio-economic  •myth'  has,  community  There  which  first-order  larqe.  deqree  ideas  (VIII)  community.  community  whole  the  order  community,  the  the  contacts  first  at  representativeness  community  the  of  of  COMMITTEE  to  controlled  the  compare  'multi-purpose*  contacts  between  the  community  hiqher  are  i f  from  similarity  The  socio-economic  a  the  should  hypothesis  NIP  status  of  orders  THE FIRST-ORDER C O N T A C T S OF K I T S HOUSE ARE SOCIALLY HO RE SIMILAR TO THE COMMUNITY WHICH IT SERVES THAN THE F I R S T - O R D E R CONTACTS OF T H E RILEY PARK  -^rr^ L  And  feedback  imaqe  community.  orqanization,  the  and  analysis  the  subsequent  whole.  representative  issue.  the  out  to  hypotheses  reaching  merely on  out  depend  the  others ( I I I ) and  to on  first and  and the  mobilizing range  order on  (VIII)  their have  of  the  contacts degree  1  of  suqqested  94  that  voluntary  their  first  hypotheses  organizations order  contacts  (IX) and  have  a higher  are  more  range  of contacts  mobilized,  two  and  final  (X) c a n b e d e d u c e d :  THE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT K I T S HOUSE I S MORE L I K E L Y TO B E S O C I A L C O N T A C T , AND THE E F F I C I E N C Y OF REACHING OUT TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY OF K I T S HOUSE I S HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE RILEY PARK NIP COMMITTEE  "XT  AND, IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT THE K I T S I L A N O COMMUNITY H I L L GIVE OPINIONS TO KITS HOUSE THAN T H E R I L E Y PARK COMMUNITY W I L L GIVE OPINIONS TO THE RILEY PARK N I P COMMITTEE, AND THE EFFICIENCY IN MOBILIZING THE WHOLE COMMUNITY OF K I T S HOUSE I S HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE RILEY PARK NIP C O M M I T T E E  32  The  definition  people  being  number  of  efficiency different planning.  of  •efficiency*  reached  out to o r m o b i l i z e d  first-order  contacts  ratios  calculated  types  i s the r a t i o  are of  organization  of  i n  i n t h e community  the  and  o f t h e number o f  organization.  compared community  to the These  according  to  developmental  95  0£ Efi AJJO N A L I Z A T I 0 N Two  key  hypotheses  concepts  used  in  the  aforementioned  ten  are:  Mult i £le x i t y . ^ Multiplexity flow  of  denotes  communication  the  through  •interaction  the  network.  content*  It  is  of  measured  the  by  two  indicators: (a)  (b)  strand (STRAND): ' S t r a n d * i s d e f i n e d a s t h e number of * normative content' or •focus of interaction* of the flow of communication (such as kinship, friendship, neighboring, common b e l i e f and i n t e r e s t ) . The number of strands t h a t b i n d the f i r s t - o r d e r c o n t a c t t o the Ego i s obtained by a g u e s t i o n n a i r e i n which the relationships with his c o n t a c t s are asked of the Ego. freguency (FREQ) : • F r e g u e n c y * i s d e f i n e d as t h e f r e g u e n c y w i t h w h i c h t h e Ego and his contacts meet. This indicator i s o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h t h e q u e s t i o n "How often do y o u m e e t ? " i n t h e g u e s t i o n n a i r e . ,  Mobilization; Mobilization state  of  readiness  i s a process  for  active  of  organizing  participation  citizens  in  into  planning  a  and  action. The can  be  effects  observed  belonging  of  of  through  with  these  interrelated, terms  m o b i l i z i n g the  individual  identification Although  of  in  the  a  sets  of  fact  they  can  members  of  to  the  ideology  mobilization.  organizational  set  members  two  to  and  bring  values  about  to  an  organization a  sense  o r g a n i z a t i o n , and  sense out  of  indicators  of  indicators  The  reach  members  the  seem  other  to  be  very  outcomes  belonging local  self-  organization.  different of  a  of  in  urges  residents  to  96  join  and  participate  i n their  the  process  of reaching  of  issues  and i n f o r m a t i o n ,  to  those  from  who  keep  mobilizing  belonging involve  to local themselves  out to c i t i z e n s  with  members  to  citizens, i n  they  feel  that  they  support  the  organization  who  community the  development  neighbourhood  patience  and  perfect.  his  neighborhood  These  to  On  organization In  even  leave  who  i t s own  measured  by  to  This  affect  A  of a  allows  when t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d i s has negative  affect for when  of a  definition  i t  depressing.  the effectiveness  c f an  community.  of "effectiveness  following  eight  (1)  the degree of affect for the n e i g h b o r h o o d when p h y s i c a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n increases (DETEBJ) the degree of affect for the neighborhood when vandalism increases (VANDAL) the degree of affect for the n e i g h b o r h o o d when z o n i n g b y - l a w changes (ZONING) the number of community improvement suggestions i n i t i a t e d to organizational decision-makers (INITIATE)  (4)  begin  and f e e l i n g f o r  interview:  (3)  Once  financially.  an  (2)  they  t h e neighborhood  members  to  contribute  programs.  o r became s o c i a l l y  the  sense of  and purposes  h a s an a f f e c t  i n d i c a t o r s t o measure  sum, t h e o p e r a t i o n a l i s  the values  anyone  probably  to mobilize  mobilization" through  concern  physically deteriorate  are valuable  and  he i s r e s i d i n g .  the contrary, would  affairs,  of the organization,  organization  i n which  this  apart  are mobilized  f o r implementing  with  values  members.  o u t and pass  emotionally  himself  diffusion  and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  i n d i v i d u a l members  are a part  neighborly  not  began  reach  of t h e time,  the  the organization  and t o v o l u n t e e r  identifies  Most  promotes  organizational  opinions,  member  attitudes  i n touch  their  to  organization.  of  indicators  97  (5) (6)  (7)  (8)  the number of people reached in diffusing information (INDIOUTR) the w i l l i n g n e s s of the respondents to give opinions regarding the community development agency (OPINION) the w i l l i n g n e s s of the respondents to volunteer to a s s i s t i n the c a r r y i n g out o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l programs (ASSIST) the w i l l i n g n e s s of the respondents to financially support the organization (SUPPORT)  Details these  hypotheses  of  research  will  be  methods  given  in  the  for next  the  verification  chapter.  of  98  CHAPTER VI. METHODOLOGY: THE ROLE OF LOCAL MOBILIZATION  r  I J I |  1  T h i s c h a p t e r d i s c u s s e s t h e r e s e a r c h methods u s e d ) to test t h e t e n hypotheses of theprevious f c h a p t e r . F i n d i n g s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n are also | included. j  99  Two Riley are  Park  chosen  case  studies,  Neighborhood  Improvement  to  the  represent  respectively. preventative  The  approach  to  of community  of  other  neighborhood  the  Riley  Park  NIP  in  the  local  for  Program  work  development houses  Committee  to  Kits  the  i s  chosen  Park  have  of  put  participate  agencies is  i t s  i s closer  to  the  On  simply  stage  the  House  remedial  i n Vancouver.  and  Committee,  governmental  which  than  implementation  citizens  and  House  Citizens'  selecting  community  area planners i n Riley  encouraging  Neighborhood  voluntary  reason  philosophy  presently  Kitsilano  the  approaches other  because  i t  i t s program great  hand,  and  effort  throughout  the  i s the into  planning  process.  SAMPLING  J E T HODS The  core  group  policy-makers o f each  identified.  The  Board  of  are  regarded as i t s p o l i c y - m a k e r s . T h i s  thirteen  board  members,  which  makers  Kits  of  forty-three  members a n d  House.  local  frames  was  from  taken each  of  the of  core  population  Riley  residents.  each  sampled  The  the s t a f f  twenty-four f u l l  make a t o t a l  sampling  then  Management a n d  Park These  research.  NIP  of  was  asked  group and  core  A fifty  of  Kits  House up  time  thirty-seven  policy-  sampling some  up  formed  p e r c e n t random  of the  sample  frames, of  of  staff  i s made  groups  to introduce  were  i s made  part  Committee  these organizational  person  organization  and  his/her  100  first-order collecting original Trow  samples  through  samples  follows  community. contacts list  i s  out  A  (n=32)  members  sampling were  chains  Committee  (n=26)  data  group  on  of K i t s  their  and  contacts their  policy-makers  way,  Park  contacts  House the  of K i t s  House  the by  sampling i n the  first  order-  Committee and  was  given the  names,  only  of  by  a  the  'snowball  first-order  out  of  method*  relations  through  contacts  twenty-six  of  the  NIP  (n=54)  contacts  first-order  members  first-order  collect core  (n=20)  friends  thirty-two  not a l l o f  to introduce  the thirty-two  of  method  sampling  this  by t h e B i l e y  staffs  Because  This  of sociometric  list  given  and  method*.  willing  NIP  contacts twenty  the Biley  out Park  of the f i f t y - f o u r  were  interviewed  to  m u l t i p l e x i t y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with  the  and on t h e d e g r e e  of  mobilization  i n  community. There  this  i s  *snowball  n a m e s may  a  limitation  sampling  not result  perhaps  this  'self-selection* the  assume Biley hinder  also  overall that  Park the  comparisons  this NIP  method*.  solely  but  of  the 'snowball  (1964:444). I n  sampling was  interview.  the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f  called  the  new  further  of fifty-four first-order  Board  the  for  (1957) a n d C o l e m a n  plan  of  contacts  from  organizations.,  Belunctance a desire  a failure  of  samples  to give for  to contact  may  lead  embedded i n  to  informants*  confidentiality,  others. an  Therefore,  overestimation  e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f m o b i l i z a t i o n . However, effect  of overestimation  Committee  verification of  from  of 'self-selection*  and K i t s i l a n o of  mobilization  exists  House,  hypotheses effectiveness  and  which  in  one c a n  both  the  hence does n o t a r e mainly  between  these  the two  101  r  "T  i i 1  i, t i  SAMPLING N  of  core  J  METHODS group  policy-makers  | | |  KITS  HOUSE  I  RILEY  T  |  19  !  22  questionnaire  responses  |  8  i  11  questionnaire  return  \  i  11/22=50%  54  !  32  I  26  !  20  interviewed  |  22  base  |  N of 1st-order c o n t a c t s viewed ( s e l f - s e l e c t e d ) N  of  local  community random  residents population  samplinq  inter-  SAMPLE  DATA  SIZE  AND  _  T  1 1 1  12000 J  0.2% _ J  J.  3  SAMPLE  FRACTION-  COLLECTION The  contacts  method  from  questionnaire. members  to  _  j  24  | 1  0.065%  -X  TABLE  i  t  1  i T  34000  |  fraction  i .  50%  8/19=42%  |  N of 1st-order contacts by Snowball-samplinq  I  37 (13 b o a r d |43 NIP Commim e m b e r s + 24 j t t e e m e m b e r s staff)  50% random sample f o r S n o w b a l l sampling (questionnaire)  rate  •j  PARK  and  the  of  the The  collectinq  core return  Kits  the  relatives,  the  proqrams.  included  House in  appendix  from  board  neiqhbors,  members  A.,  to  the  Riley  mainly  sample  of  first  Park  NIP  staff  was  asks  workmates, had  of  i s throuqh  members a n d  whom t h e y A  samples  policy-makers  questionnaire  organizational Kit  rate  House  r e s p e c t i v e l y . The list  group  snowball  the  friends  introduced the  order  a  mailed  Committee 42%  and  respondents and the  other NIP  questionnaire  or i s  102  Interviewing *multiplexity* order  and  the  were  schedule  designed  the  core  degree  of  neighborhood zoning  of  changes;  financial implementing detailed  give  programs  order  mobilized fractions  to  local of  0.2%  area  from  the  telephone  conducted  four NIP  and area  to  and to  and  ask  Kits  and  their of  to  own  their  reach  out  improvement  i s i n Appendix data in  on  the  the  they or  people  ever  the  Riley  for  others;  to  the and  their their  assist  A  sample  in  of  the  informed areas, i n  Riley  randomly  interviews  heard  NIP  and  sample  the  were t a k e n  presented Park  also  increases  suggestions;  interviewed i n  respectively.  affect  residents  had  social  and  to  Telephone  have  were  the  agency,  samples  respectively  they  interview  relationship  number o f  two  first-  B. ,  Kitsilano  whether  on  of  telephone  The  vandalism  organization.  directory.  Kitsilano  of  degree  the  contacts, their  local  House  twenty-two  data  0.065% o f  them  whether  collect  willingness  the  collect  and  NIP  opinions  of  citizens  Park  NIP  their  interview schedule In  the  neighborhood  of  1978.  terms  willingness  the  i n t e r v i e w s and  deteriorate,  and  on  January,  first-order  houses  support  home  in  in  data  •mobilization'  policy-makers  their  to  of  to  mobilization as  willingness  the  group  to collect  personal  conducted  was  characteristics with  used  degree  c o n t a c t s . , Both  interviews  the  was  of  Kits  were  House  suggestions  Committee. the  or or  Twenty-  Riley  Park  103  ilTHODS  OP S T A T I S T I C A L To  find  variables,  which to  two v a r i a b l e s one  are  were  association  The  and  of  appropriate  the  association  are 'related*  of  between  of  depends the  calculated  two n o m i n a l  contingency t o measure  t o one another on a n o t h e r .  variables  constructed  and  i n  or ordinal tables  and  the extent t o  or  the  extent  Contingency  tables  the  aforementioned  appropriate  by t h e * S t a t i s t i c a l  measures  Package  of  f o r the  (SPSS).  choice  types  Kruskal  measure  were  Sciences*  different  up  use  of  variable  made  hypotheses  Social  make  measures  which  which  the relationship  one c a n  appropriate  ANALYSIS  o f an a p p r o p r i a t e  of hypotheses  (1954)  suggested  association  was that  which  measure  of association f o r  carefully considered. the researcher i s  f o r h i so r her p a r t i c u l a r  contextuallv  should  Goodman choose  a  meaningfuland  research:  If t h e use t o which a measure of association were to be put c o u l d be p r e c i s e l y s t a t e d , t h e r e would be little difficulty i n defining an appropriate m e a s u r e . . . T h e b a s i c theme o f t h i s p a p e r i s t h a t , even though a single precise goal f o r an investigation cannot be specified, i t i s s t i l l possible and desirable to choose a measure of association which has contextual meaning, i n s t e a d o f u s i n g a s a matter o f c o u r s e one o f t h e t r a d i t i o n a l measure... (Goodman a n d K r u s k a l , 1954:734-5)  104  This  suggestion  depends  of  the  characteristics There  on  association (Coefficient The in  terms  of  how  •Standard  of  except  second the  school  measure  type  and  distinctive  When  B  to and  i s measured  type T  be the  independent.  from  this  i s  ( TC*) . T h e  thouqht  were  differs  V, T s c h u p r o w ' s  of  the of  and  by the  expected  measures o f Pearson's  of  error  C  sample  i s therefore  in  predicting  the  i f  one  the  (means,  population  there  will  basis  and chance  means t h e or  1962:79).  parameters  of  table  the dispersion  f o r two s a m p l e s b e no way  the  medians  (HcNemar,  t o describe  independently,  knows  statistically  fluctuation  have  a chance  means  the  and has a t hand  'Error'  used  the  calculates  variables  statistics  to sampling  association  I t  (PRE)  variables  are associated.  around  conceptualizes  prediction.  on t h e d e p e n d e n t  subject  error*  school  occurrence  i f A and  of  association  chi-square  joint  table  of  The f i r s t  A and B i s  o f thought  accuracy  reduction  they  the  we  on  a  Contingency).  statistics  1963:215).  the  o f measures  o f two a t t r i b u t e s  a r e the Cramer's  between  proportion)  drawn  true  on t h e i n d e p e n d e n t  difference  sample  hold  t a b l e . , Examples  of cases  category showing  would  of  their  the observed  proportionate category  and  of thought.  of attributes  association  t o which  (independent)  schools  between  that  i s , the  extent  two t y p e s  null-hypothesis  difference  That  of  the specific  hypothesis  are basically  the  probability  suitability  o f the data.  measure o f a s s o c i a t i o n the  the  to assess  research  on two d i f f e r e n t  based  that  c h i e f l y on i t s a b i l i t y  nature  based  implies  which  (Lewis, have  associating  association  will  of  been them  produce  a  105  zero  correlation  reduction  of  accuracy  error  or  (McNemar,  can  1962:83). be  84).  can  be  of  Based  the  on  conceptualized  in  Examples  of  PBE  Kruskal's  and  for  nominal  ordinal which  variables.  error  the, two  may  be  variables There  measures school  of of  made  the  shape  of  Kruskal  a  appropriate Anderson  does measure  as  and  the  the  measure  of  accuracy  of  association and  are  Gamma  the  for  degree  association  regarding  a  reflect  use  for  to  between  degree  of  traditional  measures  of  problem  research  intends  to  fact  chi-square that  associatign^  chi-square to  (i.e. a  criterion  mean  association  the  departure  the  use  depend  investiqate.  the  Goodman  and  Finally,  has  to  make  chi-square  is  basis on  the  test  of  is  an  according  the  the  be  variable  the  of  a  form••  cannot  would  for  which  from  statistical  one  which  of  first  designated  estimating  Another  (1968),  choice  interpretation  This  of  a l l  of  PBE  the  criticized  closeness  rule  at  hypothesis  the  of  the  measures  explicit.  Zelditch zero  of  (1965)  another.  i s that  of  measurement  the  variables  virtue  reflect  of  not  of  non-relationship  specifying  out  the  increasing  measures r e p r e s e n t  relationship—thus  pointed  terms  arguments  )  than  relationship  by  individual  measures  Costner  ( lC~  knowledge  the  considered.  of  rather  of  by  several  form  independence  to  being  thought  without  from  these  reduced  are  independence) shape  All  association.  designated  or  Lambda  statistically,  t h i s assumption,  prediction. Tau  But  accomplished  dependability  1962:  association  (McNemar,  test  of  of  a l l  kind  of  106  "The t e s t i n g o f a theory (which implies the d i r e c t i o n of association) through the use of statistical procedure i n v o l v e s a somewhat different approach than does t h e problem o f a c c o u n t i n g f o r the variation i n a given dependent variable. The null hypothesis that i s ordinarily tested, namely, that two variables are independent, i s very useful i n the latter kind of research but not i n t h e f o r m e r k i n d . I t i s more sensible to test other types of hypotheses when e n g a g i n g i n t h e t e s t i n g of a theory". (Anderson and Ze-lditch, 1968:303)  Although his  Blalock  introduction  which  he  that  variations  (  type  and a  the joint  (T  that  explains  variables,  the  The s e l e c t i o n  of  Tschuprow's  to  for  association  explain  some  association  (<P  of  the  ),  measures on  to verify.  Pearson's  C  T a r e more a p p r o p r i a t e  i n  as lambda  whereas  {^  the use  ) , Gamma  { f  the ' d i r e c t i o n a l ' occurrence  by a n i n d e p e n d e n t  of  the  depends  intends  o f two v a r i a b l e s , such  he  1972:301).  are p a r t i c u l a r l y useful  causes  hypothesis  one  (Blalock,  phi-coefficient  caused  of  phenomena  explores o f measures  i n  interpretation",  the researcher  t o prove  of association  association  measures  of association  variable  explicit,  the t r a d i t i o n a l chi-square  occurrence  ) attempts  dependent  variables  which  and  measures  enable  variable  between  V  arguement  "probablistic  measures  the use o f  measures  measures  as  a n d t h e PRE  Cramer's  Tau  use o f o t h e r  independent  choice  conclusion,  PRE  to  of hypothesis  verifying of  of  association  £ ) ,  the  i n t h e dependent  The  In  h a d n o t made t h i s  these  accountability  the  to  referred  implied  of  (1972)  the  variable. to test  whereas  the  relationships  of association  of  The a  )  PRE  theory zeroamong  according  to  107  the  purposes  of hypotheses  a r e shown  i n the following  r-1 — — — l H Y P O T H E S E S |MEASURES OF A S S O C I A T I O N USED • • , 1 1 I,III,IV |PRE m e a s u r e s o f a s s o c i a t i o n 1 j (Gamma f o r o r d i n a l o r d i c h o t o m i z e d 1  iT 1 1  i  V,  VI  J d i r e c t i o n a l measures | ( K e n d e l l ' s T a u B)  1  1  1 1 1  II,  1  IX,  •••  1  of  table: I i  1 variables) ••  association  i  VIII  (chi-square measures of a s s o c i a t i o n |(the c o e f f i c i e n t o f contingency i s used 1 nominal and o r d i n a l variables)  1  1  .... ... .... —  r ...  ( •' | Chi-square  X  f o r both  •,  test  and  Exact t e s t  Fisher's  In...  TABLE  S1SEARCH  FINDINGS  AND  •Multiplexity  to  numbers  the core  they  in  MEASURES  INTERPRETATION  for C)  House  i s  (#* -  0.586),  measured that  policy-makers information  show  jpredictinq  i s  1  of strands  qroup  meet  (Appendix  OF  XJJL  Hypothesis  absolute  j[41 S E L E C T I O N  that  positively and  bind  and  number  the  frequency purposes.  of strands in  this  proportional  reduction  of contact  is  i s  =0.672).  I t i s very  that  will  0.05  siqnificance  hypothesis and  that  level) •there  "orqanization"  drawn*.  In  ( Y  other  i s no  one  words,  i f the type  fail  association  i n the universe more  knowinq  instance  the frequency 67.2%  from  The  of  to reject  which  multiplex  46  which  findinqs of that i s  error Kits 58.6%  of error  i n  orqanization  unlikely  between  the  contacts  with  reduction  predicting given  variables;  the f i r s t - o r d e r  proportionate  associated  (2)  two  the  exchanqe  (1) t h e  the absolute  by  (less  than  the  null  "multiplexity" samples  relationships  were are  108  effected  by. K i t s There  multiplex  House  are  than  by. t h e B i l e y  three  relationship  factors i n Kits  recruited  mostly  relatives,  already the  Kits  House  makers  and  relationships  their  offers  various  program  the  Kits  kinds  belong House  House  been  has  decades.  Time  multiplex members.  i s  Therefore  have  more  Biley  Park  NIP  The  an  than  informal  well.  the  core  one  strand  who  who  more  that  House  belong  to  staff  of  with  the Kits  than  produces  between contacts  compared  of  finally.  for  first-order  in  policy-  Kits  the  And  and  have  phenomenon  relationships  Kitsilano  when  nepotism.  occurrence  o f those  element  of the  are  the  Therefore,  members  Members  House.  programs.,  in  i s a  group  Secondly,  multi-stranded  among  factor  accounting and  "type  association  that bind  i s more  as  House  participate  higher  Kits  higher  to only  two more  staff  and  of  Kits  25%  i n the  Committee.  =0.919) ( A p p e n d i x  strands  of  to  in a  contacts.  important  53.9%  "frequency"  positive  results  established  a  neighbors  are invited  various  relationships  House  between  in  for  the basis of  o f p r o g r a m s . Many  establish  contacts  it  and  nature  t o another  first-order  ( X  friends  between  first-order  due t o t h e m u l t i - p u r p o s e  one  on  programs. T h i s  ;  development.  agencies  established relationships  multi-stranded  is  workmates,  Committee.-  House.,Firstly. Kits  o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r community  Many  NIP  accounting  voluntary  i n voluntary  Park  likely  contacts.  D).  for the predictive  of  organization"  between Once  "strand"  there  the f i r s t - o r d e r that  they  will  is  contacts  have  i s and  a  higher  with  relationship simply  "frequency" number  the core  more f r e g u e n t  the  of  group,  formal  and  109  Hypothesis  l l l l i  The  null  "multiplexity" in  hypothesis  and " m o b i l i z a t i o n " ,  the universe  from  which  a chi-square test reject  the  chosen,  null  the  The  FREQ)  Appendix  between  indicators VANDAL" that  and  universe  statistical multi]Blexity qenerated mobilizing  weighted  i s  &  of  by an  average  significance a l l  to  level i s  indicators  "FREQ  of  & VANDAL", i s  chosen,  conclude first-order  that  £lanaing  A  positive  'C  (STRAND  VANDAL,  ASSIST) between  indicators I f  a  except  contacts the greater  of 0.1  drawn. higher i n the  "FREQ  I t i s very  are interrelated  the  ZONING,  h y p o t h e s i s between a l l  i s rejected.  were  &  a r e shown i n  0.455.  and " m u l t i p l e x i t y " ,  samples  organization,  AND  the hull  and " m o b i l i z a t i o n " 46  the  (DETERI,  i s  t h e f ir-st-or.der - c o n t a c t s  develQPgental  other  used  "multiplexity"  OPINION  SUPPORT",  which  tests  of each  first  showing  of  "mobilization"  "FREQ  from  i s  except  coefficients  of "mobilization"  "multiplexity"  0.1  between  SUPPORT,  level  and  a  of "mobilization"  E. The t o t a l  significance  I f  indicators  INDIOUTR,  "multiplexity"  variables,  E) .  and i n d i c a t o r s  INITIATE,  two  a r e drawn.  "mobilization",  contingency  relationship  the  significance  hypothesis  and  (Appendix  of  that  are independent  samples  hypothesis.  null  "multiplexity" rejected  states  a  The the  likely in  the  above  two  degree  of  social  network  effectiveness  to participate  S  of  i n community  110  Mifiothesis  JIIILi  In between (that  order  "type  between  the  original  of  If  relationship when  Babbie  the  third  to  examine  of  variable is  on  or  is  the  while  introduced,  from  and  of  a the  holding  variables) the  original  "mobilization"  this  that  by  use  demographic differ  spurious  relationship  "mobilization"  by  i s  original  mainly  affected  relationship  affected  suggested  organization"  is  the  "mobilization"  associations  "type  not  the  and  are  partial  relationship  and  (1975:409)  (which  between  or  depends  organization"  variables  constant.  whether  relationship  technigue*  "type  third  learn  organization"  variable).  •elaboration  the  of  i s , their  third  to  implies  third  that  the  (controlling)  variable. Five variables  demographic  to  test  organization" (ETHNIC), (OCC0P),  and  sex and  the  original  length  education first  "ethnicity"  of  association  the  "ethnic"  pointed  out  that  origin OfiG",  tend while  association significance  "DETEBI" have  other  a  of  F).  The  an  €  OBG".  partial  of  origin  occupation  contacts. for  overall 0.05) i t  effect People  association tend  "type  controlled  However,  have  controlling  ethnic  (LENBES) ,  "INITIATE".  groups  two  are:  (approximately  and  the  between  variable  does  "DETEBI these  as  first-order  (ETHNIC).  higher  ethnic  between level  the  (Appendix  ethnicity  as  to  of  minimally  for  They  residence  respondent  varies  such  of  (EDUC)  used  relationship  demographic  controls  variables,  are  "mobilization".  (SEX),  The  variables  is  partial when  one  should  be  on  specific  of  british  between " I N I T I A T E  to  have At  any  relationships  a  higher  rate, is  6  the rather  111  small  (0.1  and  probability  of  relationship not  be  remaining  between  do six  The  £3Jl§Sl  as  not  of  i s the  the  respondents. value null  of  for The  Y  rejected,  i t is  respondents. association  original  third  H).  average  of  and  that  is  i t  i s  the  "length  partial  S ORG"  resides  in  his  is  between  has  an  of  for.  in  The than  this is  would  which  and  where  the  out  ORG to  the  i s  female  "SEX". to  test  the  (LENRES),  The  the  the  high  *"  the  positive  "type  of  same a s  the  variables  more  Since  OF  between  extraordinarily  &  male  of  used  that  "ORG  the  by.  less  (SEX).  that  reach  is  test  weighted  residence"  for  the  overall  that  t h e s e two  neighborhood  on  to  of  * TYPE  atfeeteg  out  the  analysis.  used  ORG",  of  more o r  point  of  respondents"  associations  "mobilization" (0.5)  the  possible  variable  two  controlled  male r e s p o n d e n t s .  MOBILIZATION" i s  i s the  These  relationships  House  should  no. e f f e c t  which  i s independent Kits  ORG"  organization  "INITIATE £  among  i t i s interesting to  "DETERI  respondent  'SEX»  demographic  association  Although  between  £  association  organization" original  "  of  0.329 h i g h e r  higher  likely  110RG  is  exception  Therefore, of  The  weighted  that  "sex  G  great  partial  variations  true  variable  i s controlled  i s 0.45  hypothesis  of  a  the  "ETHNIC" i s  holds  partial  females  only  minimal  g r i g i n has  s t i l l  i s  important.  tjjges  demographic  there  "INITIATE  when  ethnic  mobilization  shows  Y  and  overall  between  M O B I L I Z A T I O N " when " S E X " average  the  that  second  G  ORG"  significantly  original association  Appendix  S  that  Therefore,  relationships  relationship  The  errors.  affect  conclusion  of  implies  "DETERI  partial  effectiveness  the  which  sampling  considered  indicators  for.  0.2)  (Appendix association  value  than  5  i f  the  years.  112  this  fact  does  average.  The  between  "DETERI  the  not  reason &  respondents'  hence take  the some  for  a  ORG"  own  positive  on  Siaafiization^  action.  the  The  fourth  "occupation  status"  controlled  jobs  construction). as  s t i l l  a  to and  have  strong a  high  when  and  tendency  association  "mobilization".  approximately  for  0.2  The  weighted  occupation'  status  do e s  relationshifi  between  2* o f  of  a  have  an  or  Kits  overall  House  partial  r e s i d e n c e * - has 1  the  I'type  shows and  low  been  between  i s  NIP  no Q£  for  the  "mobilization"  jobs and  (including low  prestige  "type  low  effect  on  organization"  there  is jobs  organization"  " y  controlled  level  prestige  of  average  and  significant  excluded, with  i s  partial  transportation  respondents  when "OCCUP"  and  medical)  with  have  Y  deteriorated,  controlled  I  service,  OPINION)  that  prestige  and  indicators  is  5  "mobilization".  organization"  teaching  years  of  variable  high  clerical,  Even  INITIATE  of  1.0  similar  Appendix  for  professional,  (including  Csuch  "type  of  between  of  weighted  value  see  J!!e£3th  demographic (OCC0P).  to  the  effectiveness  if  managerial,  eager  the  overall  above  have  relationship  between  i s  already  However,  the  association  "LENRES"  more  that  relationships "OCC0P" i s  e f f e c t on  partial  may  are  causal  and  high  houses  indicate the  much  i f the  respondents  associations effect  have  "  varies  by  for.  Therefore,  the  predictive  and  "effectiveness  mobilization". The  asociation Respondents' categories,  last  demographic  i s  "years  years with  13  of  of  variable  full-time  education  years  of  used  are  education  to  test  the  schooling" broken as  down the  original (EDDC), into  boundary  two of  113  division.  This  respondents result,  with  those  implies  the  have who  have  the  more  In  relationship/  Appendix  one  :  relationship spurious,  "type  i t is  ye du c a t ion;.;,, a s effectiveness The specific  is  further  level  relationship  for  "EDUC".  respondent  level for  of  a be  be  zero,  i s  a  and  positive ilEe  or  of  not  the  "mobilization"  is  orqanization" accounts  further  )  Among  education S  the 6  is  ORG".  react  a  also  be  great  and  f o_r  the  down  by  and  eliminated  the  negatively  (that  £  the  shows t h a t  has,  small  i s , when  indicators,  "ZONING But  a  variation  three  higher.  This  with  indicators  above  ORG"  respondent to  can  show  broken  Indicators  remaining  "DETERI  "VANDAL  education would  The  ZONING  for  can  "mobilization".  approaching  and  association  of  of  analysis.  VANDAL  reversed  original  and  Remonstrated,  (19621,  exhibit  organization"  !lty.£e o f  the  and  effect  whether  and  higher  the  there-  prove  a  of ygofcili.zation^.  level,  i f the  that  0.1  or  some  mobilization  both  school  has  a  which  graduates  than  of  As  organization"  education  "type  cannot  that  Hausk n e c h t  indicators  controlling  school  organization"  likely  partial  significance  higher  of  of  less  shows  education,  technical  "type  0.1  education,  of  education.  approximately  Therefore,  I  school  a  high  of  between  organization.. „ Although  in  between the  d i f f e r e n t i a t e between  years  association  I).  between  13  to  high  educated  association  (Appendix  "mobilization".  partial  than  addition,  relationship  DETERI,  more t h a n  partial  partial  association  from  i s chosen  original association  overall  on  or  were  a  "mobilization". an  boundary  less  who  those  university, than  group  are  relationship  the  more  ORG"  the  higher likely  i f vandalism  were  the the to  114  increase.  On  the  mobilized  to  take  increase higher  or  and It  type a  the  respondent  change.  not  "mobilization  for  certain  and  i s appropriate of  that  both  organization  level  of  examine  and  of  of  technological  Kits  the  House in  cur  pointed a  be  were out  higher  organization".  education.  fair  A  to  that  partial reverse  mobilization  age,  social  EDUCATION"  of  of  society due and  hence  of  such  as  effects  the  the  may  of  more  the  highly  more  one  agree  for  well  known  Kits  House  i t is  involved Secondly,  can  infer  that  the  knowledge  education  in  first-order  aggressive  voluntary  educated  educated, and  very  students.  the be  cumulative  demand  most  of  mobilization.  usually  between  university  education of  Since  i t s programs,  respondents,  is  only  Kitsilano is  to  Sociologists  to  Therefore  and  the  relationship  Vancouver.  number  effectiveness  not  in  residents  level  society  are  The  but more  a  in from  the  age  younger than  the  in  the  socially  contacts they  are  in also  mobilized  in  action,. , above  analyses  intervene  "organization three  be  create  the  reinforcing  education  society.  younger taking  the  generation  mobile  a  respondents..  generation older  local  the  and  for  the  should  i n d i c a t o r s of  to  organization  i t draws  Therefore  accounting  likely  "OPINION".  representative  likely  It  would  i f deterioration  necessarily  university-student-community  draws  the  to  does  between  appears  "VANDAL"  as  were  education  trend  hand,  some p o s i t i v e a c t i o n s  zoning  association  the  other  variables  and may  the  show  positive  mobilization". also  be  that  One  "SEX,  OCCUPATION  association may  interrelated. It  speculate can  be  S  between that  assumed  these that  115  "SEX"  i s  related  respondents Therefore, a  rather  and are  are both  low  to more  of partial  mobilization".  university  of  beyond  female  "Occupation" between  "type  partial  association words,  shows  similar  that  t o those  indicated  by  indicates  that  dimensions has  male  prestige  jobs.  job" respondents  show  high  between  related  of  reported  sense  "organization  t o "SEX".  Kits  House  a rather  high  of these  There  who degree  relationships  are of i s  thesis.  i s  values  certain  regarded  association  an  as "occupation" must  hand,  intervening  status  increases.  negatively  controlling  relate  for  and " o c c u p a t i o n " ,  of "mobilization", with  have  "mobilization".  to  effects  status"  this  only  and  In  "education"  I f "socio-economic  i s positively related  variable  I t lowers the  indicators of "education"  "education"  "education"  as  and " m o b i l i z a t i o n " .  of "occupation".  (or i n d i c a t o r s )  a negative  i s also  i n depth  the other  both  that  possess  prestige  "occupation" On  the  association  who  of organization"  "mobilization". also  and  od t h i s  i n  respondents  Investigation  t h e scope  other  to  "EDUCATION"  students  mobilization.  likely  "male" and "high  degree  a number  "OCCUPATION"  i s  analysis  to certain  "occupation"  116  Hypothesis (IV): In between  order  broken  down  House  (Appendix between than  Kits  not  indicate  Park  of the  and  NIP  of  "C"  "C"  i n  Since i s  between  Kits  positive  i s stronger  and  Park  House  relationship in Kits  NIP  Another  House  positive  method  Kits  L),,The than  i s higher  but i t does  positive  between  House  the  Committee,  of t h i s  (Appendix  in Kits  that  "mobilization"  difference.  "mobilization"  higher  between  "mobilization"  higher the  The  organizations  average  shows  difference  Committee  i s 30X  that  variables  Committee.  i n the Riley  percentage  "multiplexity"  House  the  to  association  average  i n  i s  and  the  percentage Riley  Park  Committee. If  two  than  two  a r e compared.  and  i s 0.106  voluntary  association  i t s weighted  mobilization  NIP  in  different  "strand"  "multiplexity"  the size  the  difference  and  relationship  organization.  Committee)  concluded  comparison  between  House  compute  NIP  be  Park  above  in  and  "mobilization"  i n the Riley  Riley  House  multiplexity  relationship  between  of the  i n  NIP  t h e above  types  showing  Park  "C"  K), i t can  The  of  Riley  i n Kits  and  to t h e i r  positive i s higher  between  "mobilization"  average  higher  "frequency"  and  the  "mobilization"  contingency  and  weighted  0.214  according  of  "multiplexity"  the  and  whether  the relationships  coefficients  (Kits  verify  "multiplexity"  organizations, are  to  a  test  proportions  ratics  are  significant concluded  of s i g n i f i c a n c e  i s conducted  larger  than  difference that  the  even null  of the difference  (Appendix  the at  M),  Z-ratio the  hypothosis  between  the  a l lthe r e s u l t a n t  Z-  (1.65)  0.05 that  reguired  level.  It  for a  i s  "the proportion  thus of  117  positive in  Kits  effects House i s  mobilization NIP  Committee"  previous  may  in  be  asymmetric  the  degree  with  of  mobilization is  other  in  of  test  proved  effects  the  words,  types  Eiley  there  organizations  respect  to  to the  there  in  in  those  is  first-order  a  is  the  first-order  multiplexity measures  to 0,41  reverse  predictive contacts  effectiveness  If  predict pair  of  order  relationship  and  is  of  dependent).  used  "mobilization",  the  positive  relationship In  with  that  (directional)  "multiplexity"  there  of  relationship  be  of Park  is  (which a  a the  stronger  positive  effects  "multiplexity",,  hypothesis  upon  number  two  difference  and  multistranded  proportion  rejected.  House)  a  jV).:  The  B  the  the  Kits  "mobilization"  to  in  multistranded  percentage  Hypothesis  Tau  a  between  "relationship  depends  mobilization  equal  in  difference  of  of  \  proved  mobilization by  association the the  the  using  the  (Kendall's  independent  variable  dependent  variable  proper  (Appendix between  the - e f f e c t i y e n e s s  contacts.  cf  of  order N).  exceeding Therefore,  multiplexity mobilization  of of  118  Hypothesis  JVIli  With the  "mobilization"  asymmetric  "multiplexity"  Kendell*s  between  the  0) , t h e w e i g h t e d  average  is  in  20%  higher  between  "freguency"  House.  This  of  in  Kits  Hypothesis  named  they  asked  "mobilizati|.pn"  of thirty-two. staff  fifty-four  difference the  significance difference  core  1:7)  NIP  and  two  who  types  level  of  level  do of  (Appendix  i n those  group,  Park  who  Tau  i n  Kits  relationships contacts  i s  Committee,  Park  NIP  have  and  was  asked  of  Kits  House  and  contacts they  members o f  ratio  Committee  Kits  and  (approximately  The  those  who  do  P ) . The fewer  organizations"  1:3)  i s  four  also  House  that  at  "there  i s  0.10 i s  between  rejected  at  likely  can reach  8:54  contacts  contacts  i s  staff  and  i s rejected  P). Therefore, i t of Kits  direct  "there  not have  hypothesis than  of House  hypothesis that  organizations"  decision-makers  Riley  c o n t a c t s . The  11:32  and  the  question  board  NIP  made  (Appendix  of  same  respectively.  i n those  types  significance the  average  of f i r s t - o r d e r  of direct  first-order  the Riley  (approximately  two  (appendix  higher  tfef c a u s a l  members  The  members, a r e , t h e n ,  the  19%  i n t h e R i l e y , Par.k  and  no  i s  and  "mobilization"  the weighted  t h e s t r e n g t h Qf  for  between  whereas  comparing  "mobilization"  " s t r a n d " and  "mobilization"  contacts  no  of organizations  t h e number  self-elected  board  types  between  of  in  B  House  than  variable  Tau  self-selected  were  named  dependent  iVIILi  a total  eight  and  House  Eleven Committee  and  two  Tau  Kits  shows t h a t  ;;iultiElgxity.;;  fciSLb-fr  as a  a  0.15 that  larger  119  number  of  first-order  contacts  than  the  Riley.  Par*  JI£  Committee..  itZ£2fh€sis  JVIIIll  To the  test  first-order  (1971  Census  compared social  Data),  force  and  by  are:  "there  are  no  chi-sguare  hypothesis.  The s m a l l e r the  significance  level  rejected  i n  significant expected  following  force  socio-economic the  Biley  hypothesis  among  by o c c u p a t i o n " appear  Park  NIP  by  the samples  and t h e  test  the  this  null  the l e s s  likely  hypothesis That  cannot  i s , there  i s no the  SES a t t r i b u t e s . , B u t t h e  null  Park  t o b e some  sample  be  and  NIP C o m m i t t e e  force  and "years  f o rt h e  participation",  of full-time  significant  between  Committee  (6) d w e l l i n g  states  observed  "labour  characteristics  of  b e r e j e c t e d . I f t h e 0.05  Q).  i n the Riley  attributes:  (2)  years  variables". First,  null  the  a l l seven  (4)  chi-sguare,  (Appendix  These  hypothesis  to  will  the  between  rejected  there  used  t h e computed  House  difference  three  Therefore,  of  Kits  i s  i s  i s chosen,  population  hypothesis  "labour  null  null  socio-economic  test  residents  participation,  by t e n u r e ,  between  of  attributes are  origin,  The  differences  as to d i f f e r e n t  that  dwelling  local  taken  o f significance.„  force  ethnic  of residence.  of  of social  test  labour  (3)  (5)  traditional  i s  (1)  occupation,  (7) l e n g t h  of t h e samples  to the population  several dimensions  schooling,  population  it  similarity  by m e a n s o f t h e c h i - s g u a r e  full-time  that  social  contacts  attributes  labour  type  the  schooling".  differences i n  the first-order  and t h e p o p u l a t i o n  contacts of  Biley  120  Park. Since NIP  Committee  before House the  they  the sample  lower  be  * contacts -  compared.  so t h a t  they  Committee,  hypothesis  there with  i s  a  and  of  of Kits  and  of  The  made  of the  Kits  House.  House  a r e more to test  characteristics  In  probability  of not r e j e c t i n g  in  Kits  than  the  first-order  of  tjhe  Park  of  i n the R i l e y o f Kits  which i t serves NIP  t h e sample  other  i s  in  Kits  and  the  participation",  significance  i n the  level  P a r k NIP words,  the difference  The  t h e community;  level  of  Biley  for  not  Committee i s  the-f i r s t - o r d e r  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f i t s ccmmunity,  t h e "one  to  between  i s t o compare  sample d i f f e r e n c e  size  t o be r e j e c t e d  schooling"  of  contacts  likely  full-time  sample  House  0.0 2 s i g n i f i c a n c e  i n the Riley  Kits  to t h e sample  force  and  Riley  t o be  "labour  overall  hypothesis  A n o t h e r method  a  i s not  to  "years  the n u l l  correspond  difference  respect  Committee.  than  have  the chi-sguares  But  rejecting  Park  When  House.  NIP  the Biley  can  the n u l l  Park  and  adjustments  chosen,  "occupation"  House  some  P a r k NIP  community  of K i t s  a r e n o t t h e same,  are adjusted  Biley  sizes  Committee.  the n u l l  House than  NIP  test"  level  {Appendix R ) .  hypothesis  i s  Committee.  are s o c i a l l y t he  population  the significance  proportion  Park  between  Therefore,  more  first-order  higher  s iajlar contacts  121  Hypothesis  (IX):  Samples local  of  residents  Kitsilano whether  local they  Park  33.3%  of  social  contacts.  heard  of  community social  chosen  area  respectively  heard  37.5% : o f those  NIP of  In  of  to  Park the  NIP  kitsilano  respondents  had  heard  about  other  27.3%  of  through was in  social  approximately Kitsilano  contacts. 54  With  persons,  community  who  the the  through  Therefore, community Riley  of  Park  explained  by  the  S ) . ..In  heard the  about  NIP  and  information through of  members,  the  respondents  1500  people  of  total  NIP  o f 32 the  through  showed  in  a  through  first-order  efficiency the  House  1  House  that and  of  firstrorder  respondents  Since  the  there of  total were  House  Committee.  i s 3.7 Such  m o r p h o l o g i c a l and  those  social  Kits  of  House  reaching  Kits  to  of reaching out  a  Kits  higher  high  Kitsilano people social  members the  at  whole  172:1.  to  the  than  that  efficiency  interactional  In  House  9 300  House  i s approximately  times  informed  through  out  the  contacts.  approximately  of  efficiency  of  population of  efficiency  persons  of  heard  contacts of  54  36.4%  75%  through  first-order  the  Kits NIP  Kits  informed  these  the  House ( A p p e n d i x  Roughly  a  and  asked  informed  are  Kits  34,000,  were  area  47:1.  the  contacts.  NIP  (0.065%)  were  12.5%  community  about  heard  got  were  survey  respondents words,  had  Committee  whole  Park  or K i t s  contacts.  there  twenty-two  respondents  only  residents  i s approximately The  NIP  words,  Since  Riley  and  respondents  social  and  the Riley  respondents  other  12,000  outreaching contacts  the  through  from  about  informed  contacts.  contacts  (0.2%)  were  had  Riley  twenty-four  whole of  the  can  be  characteristics  1 2 2  of  the  social  outreach  network  (INDIOUTR) To  hypothesis independent the  null  level  the  (Appendix  }  be  It  t h e same.  determines  the  lazarsfeld, source to  Fisher's  rate,  their the  1955). T h e r e f o r e ,  tested  at  0.1  Exact  Therefore,  is  dependent  upon  of  knowledge  of  (Appendix  significance  Test  of  i s independent  i s used,  the  U)•  the type  Kits  House  null  null  using  of  of  of  might  i s m o r e 1 i k e ly, t o be  not  which  (Katz  and  that  "the  organization" hypothesis  of  at  knowledge  i s * t h e social  i s  I f the  i s rejected  thesource that  the  community  chi-sguare.  hypothesis  i s  However,  knowledge  hypothesis  of organization,  the  knowledge  the type  that  of  significance  mobilization  level  i t i s concluded  of  This  null  0.1  o f knowledge  null of  "type  tested.  that  source  the  was  o f the type  sources  House.  organization  the  i t appears  effectiveness  be  the  at  i s independent  of K i t s  organization",  of  rejected  actually  o f knowledge  rejected  0.071.  i s  of  of i n d i v i d u a l  between  of o r g a n i z a t i o n "  i s not  any  contacts  relationship  T).,Therefore,  At  the willingness  knowledge type  organization  organization.  needs  "the  of  as  "knowledge  hypothesis  community  the  and  that  well  of the first-order  compare  organization"  as  source contact.  123  Hypothesis  (X):  4.2% residents) area  of  have  planning  establishment mobilizing  86:1.  The  Kits  13.6% given  The independent  The  opinion"  opinions the  was  also  The  equal  to  programs  community  5^ 4 t i j e s factor  in  efficiency  i n  16:1.  accounting  that  by  Appendix above  the  i s  programs  House.,  the  whole  the Rjley  Parjc  for  Kits  such  a  high  caused  by  House.  giving  t o which V  The  approximately  mobilization  "the  of organization  at a significance level  (approximately  Kits  than  local the  mobilizing  higher  effectiveness of  tested.  of  Ave.  500  and  concerning  efficiency,  hypothesis  of the type  of 23rd  house).  to  and/or  of the respondents  r e l a t i o n s h i p generated null  (equivalent  t h e NIP  i s , then,  t h e whole  House's  i s the high  multiplex  rejected  i n  i s approximately  Committee's,  concerning  as the c l o s u r e  community  have  respondents  neighborhood  i n mobilizing  efficiency  give  a new  participated  community,  the  (such  Kitsilano,  efficiency  NIP  of  Park  opinions  issues  residents)  and/or  Riley  given  t h e whole  In 4600  the  shows  0.202.  of opinion local that  i s  residents i t  was  124  CONCIUSION  O f THE  In  this  hypotheses, its  taken  more  research,  that  Kits  Therefore, into  effective  other  aspects  credibility and  OF L O C A L  the  aspects planning.  role  of  been  verified,  effective  r e s i d e n t s than  i f only  than  of  the aspect  locally  used next  citizen  for citizen two  chapters  participation  i n  local  NIP  plays  a  However,  planning,  the  the organization,  participation, will  Park  mobilization  organization.  through  i n  mobilizing  organization  developmental  initiated  through ten  i s the B i l e y  of  the governmental  community  of plans  The  has  consideration, the voluntary  tactics  considered.  i t  MOjBJLJ£Af ION?! 1 J S E J 1 £ I  H o u s e i s f a r more  p a r t i c i p a n t s and l o c a l  Committee. is  ^BOLE  inves  community  must tigate  also  be  these  developmental  CHAPTER V I I . HYPOTHESES: THE ROLE OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION  | | 1 | |  Theories and hypotheses regarding the J ideologies, goals and tactics adopted by | v o l u n t a r y and governmental agencies i n community | developmental planning are s t a t e d in this | chapter., i  126  The role  of  last  two  mobilization  Another  aspect  chapters between  of  the  citizen  participation,  In  research,  this  these This  research  further  (3) (4)  programs  community  special  and  is  touches  life. concern  participation community  planninq  types  of  will  are  in be  the  Chapters taken  proposed  to  in  the  organizations.  organization,  studied  step  participation one  development..  that  political  of  differences  tactics  VII  by the  and  VIII.  asking City  of  how  Council.  investigates:  Citizen  subject  two  the  each o r g a n i z a t i o n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e on the purposes of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n the m e t h o d s and t a c t i c s used i n c i t i z e n participation the C i t y C o u n c i l ' s r a t i o n a l e i n a d o p t i n g or r e j e c t i n g a c i t i z e n proposal the city's attitude towards citizen participation  (2)  of  be  l o c a l l y - i n i t i a t e d plans  (1)  urban  a  the  role  will  examined  and  in life  many  The  of  aspects  a  operation  of  the  element  significant  participation of  of  effective  whole  important  most  Citizen  community as  an  the  effects  because  is  a  citizen  development  may  throuqh  active  local  the  a  of  improve  the  in  complex  social  participation  structuring  recent  issues  is  community's  in  and  are  citizen quality  involvement  decision-makinq  of  mechanism.  in  127  IMM9MIM MP  TYPOLOGIES  The extremely  proponents diverse  Kaplan,  and  classifying more  or  citizen  less  the goals  schools  i n  are  strategies These  aims  to  concerning  a  citizen of  a  i n order  therefore  frustration.  This  s o more  end  as  imply  views  based  on  i s a necessary  t o prevent citizens  cooptation  than  four  strategies  one o f t h e s e at  In another  the  same  words,  each  result of citizen  different prescriptions manner.  the  i s to involve anticipated  strategy  according  basis,  The  assumption  condition  as  method,  Consultation,  program  the  of  of citizen  this  Power.  individual  Its objective  methods  i s to c l a s s i f y On  been  Harmon,  common  Cooptation,  exclusive,  i s a strategy  program.  One  p a r t i c i p a t e and i n what  participation  given  1968),  goals  Arnstein,  classification  are goal-oriented.  various  who s h a l l  organization it  b y an  have  different  and Community  different  These  Cooptation  provide  participation.  mutually  approaches  participation.  methods.  Burke's  (Eurke,  Therapy,  achieve  participation  c a n be i d e n t i f i e d :  c a n be used  time.  to  citizen  not  and  others  strategies  Education/Social  citizen  goals  similar  of  PARTICIPATION  participation theories.  of thought  implied  of  several  participation to  OF C I T I Z E N  that  f o rthe success citizens  i n  obstructionism,  potential  has been  elements  defined  Selznick as: The process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policyd e t e r m i n i n g s t r u c t u r e o f an o r g a n i z a t i o n a s a means o f a v e r t i n g threats to i t s stability and existence. (Selznick, 1948:34)  by  an and of  Philip  128  Selzick  went  informal  and  response leaders  who h a v e  or p o t e n t i a l  sufficient  government  planning  to  cooptation constituency  groups  citizenry  at  the  impact  into  large.  of  cooptation  This  of  i s  strategy  local  killed  because  through b u i l d i n g  professional positive the  staff  The  meeting  Formal  the  agency-  for  little  and  absorbing from  interest i n or  i n  administrative  aims  (US  1971).  to  keep  the  within  the  Department  of  Under  this  are not likely  t o t h e programs,  the  1948:35).  of opposition  citizens  level.  residents  a constituency  that  the  legitimacy  strategy  Welfare,  into  but w i l l  only  theory to  make  lengthen  process. consultation  based  on  styles  o f many  the  reason  contributions  The  for  and  instance,  arei n  device  government  from  might  which  of  the  projects  being  a  upon  this  Education  (for  "of  involves  Rather,  Housing,  i s  organization's  and process.  area  a n d who  brought  (Selznick,  It  the  community  i n the decision-making  decisions  target  are  acknowledgement  involvement  decentralization  o f influence  demands"  public  o f power i n  Certain  i n d i v i d u a l s o r i n t e r e s t groups  relationship.  effective  cooptation  a sharing  pressures.  department)  enforce  seeks  of  of the organization  characteristic of informal  position  forms  implies  resources  and a r e i n c l u d e d  of specific  two  The former  affect the operation  pressure a  distinguish  formal.  organization key  to  to specific  vitally the  on  them local  the  to  premise planners  strategy that  Many  citizen  the educational  and d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  comprehend  people.  of  and i d e n t i f y local  area  participation background  make  i t  and  i s life  impossible  t h e problems and needs of planners  believe  in  the  129  consultation residents Hence,  as  experts  as  needs.  citizen By  about  itself,  the a  relies  on  and  power  and  strategy three  incorporating  guarantee  of  this  benefits  strategy  representative  to  may  to  citizens  a  have t o  to  merely  local  areas.  residents  relevant  are plan,  local  infoming them,  into  a  area  collecting final  plan.  redistribution  rely  their  people  local  comprehending  no  result  who  of  opinions  local  only  area  processes:  express  the  the  open  regard  their  for  involves  citizens  politicians  not  from  alternatives  and  of  achievement  consultation  governmental planners  for  the  opinion,  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  opinions  becomes  Consultation  residents  citizen  and  necessary  consultation  of  i n i d e n t i f y i n g needs  contributions  regarded and  strategy  on  professionals,  needs. at  in  Hence  i t  does  a l l times.  The  use  selection  of  the  confirm  of  previously  proposed  plans. The  education/social  participation active  ability  are  to  is the  which  improve  this  strengthened  and  can  the  treatment.  form  of  self-confidence,  and  i s  the  residents  focus a  of  form  to  of  solve  community  social  thereby  citizen  only  through  target  area  in  a c t u a l l y gain  the  Accomplishing  a  this  specific  citizen  local  i s created.  therapy  overcoming  as  a  the  who  strategy  i s  training, in  community  participation, of  that  to  p a r t i c i p a n t s become c l i e n t s  One  together  approach  of  condition.  rather  sense  assumption  the  work  a  approach  residents  them their  the  P a r t i c i p a t i o n becomes  citizens  this  of  on  the  secondary; objects  Through  of  affecting  education.  of  based  involvement  programs  task  i s  therapy  problems.  government Another  means f o r alienation  i s  focus  developing of  many  130  low-income  individuals.  necessary  involve  contribution people,  and  not  problems. an  end  is  the  and  and  are  of  that  services,  this  strategy  means t o  has  often  and  does  i t s  attitudes  answer been  to  preliminary  of many  defined  self-reliance  community  not  power,  changing the  are  attain  of  is  attitudes  participation  the  strategy  redistribution  Cooperative  medium  this  realization  goods  itself.  the  solving  formal  Conseguently,  in  through  Although  to  goals  as  learnt  problemJCoughlin,  1961). The  community  emphasizes allow  the  local  political  people  that  approaches  their can  local  government  This  approach  areas.  aims The  to  approach can  resources.  The  corporations  and  citizen Educating community  Within  a  The  more  citizens  ideologies  participation citizens  to  development  of  the  as  approach  boards.  become  a  its  more  experience  basic to  make  democratic. The  power  controlling  voice  in  independent  second  in  local  the  whole  allocating neighborhood  goal.  education  house and  sophisticated is  processes  aims  planning  by  in  means  two  and  neighborhood  both  by  political  first  of is  minorities,  political  to  participation  strategy,  have  control  citizen  the  order  influential  this  only  establishment  in  responsive in  that  community  citizen  in  independent  assumes  of  participation  power  be  social  efforts,  institutions  establish  and  purpose  identified.  citizen  governmental  neglected  includes  institution  The  of  The  lives.  be  of  of  participate  organization  affect  approach  to  inclusion  community  theory  redistribution  decision-making.  becomes t h e of  power  the  movement community and  on-going  to  view power.  acquire  purpose  of  131  neighborhood  houses.  attempt  to  redistribute  strategy  would  an  apparent  prevent power the  Arnstein  theory  (1969)  participation ranging  from of  from  later  consciously  Community  whenever  power  there i s  constraints  which  a d o p t i n g t h e community  in  the  verification  action. voice  rung  of  that  their  power' a n d ' c i t i z e n power'  allow  negotiation  between  citizens  cases,  citizens  dominate  power*.  The h i g h e s t  rung  of  to  and i n  ladder  control'.  power  Both  be  of  rungs  a category of  be i n v o l v e d b u t  mean t o hear  change  and  and t o have  to advise.  The  'partnership',  'partnership'  decision-making  non-  The  redistributed  a  of  of  or  may  power-holders,  govern  rungs  i s t o educate  include  participation,  participants  to the lowest  form  will  citizen control,  The  a l l o w t h e 'have-nots*  of the participation  that  citizens  two a l l o w t h e ' h a v e - n o t s '  the latter  of  are contrivances  involvement  'delegated  guarantees  control'  and * p l a c a t i o n *  citizen  participation,  participant  1968:288-9).  the  the  types  *p a r t i c i p a t i o n '  (Burke,  where  of  manipulation'.  t h e aim o f such  whereas  'delegated  of 'citizen  'consultation'  of  eight  of  and 'therapy' t h e r e f o r e  The former  rungs  goals  between  'citizen  participation' ensure  classification  distinguished  participants  •information*, 'token  the  according to the  outright  the  highest  houses  to  the highest  participation;  a  taken  external  according t o the degrees  'manipulation*  cannot  action  Some  be d i s c u s s e d  addition  participation  cure  and s o c i a l  to tackle.  will  houses  hypotheses. In  rung  neighborhood  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g power.  neighborhood  strategy  two  be used  issue  the  However,  and,  and  through i n  most  under  'delegated  'citizen  control*,  plan  or a program. At  132  these  three  either  highest  coegual  levels  or  of  participation,  dominant  in  the  the  planning  citizens  decisions  are  (Burke,  1968:292). To  compare  regarded  the  power  of  as  *parficipation'  strategy  which  citizen  participation*.  according  citizen-control  to  The variables types  of  of  their  developmental  i s  the is  Arnstein's,  therapeutic  of  will  the  planning.  of  the  consultative  redistribution  of  decision-  of  by  Arnstein  participation by  as  f  real  provides  ranking  a  strategies  participation.  participation with  variable of  of  community  investigated  tactic  nature  the  citizen  Another  Arnstein  •tokenism*..Only  typology  citizen be  and  regarded  ladder  Burke's  organizations.  participation  The  levels  typology which  or  as  promises  to  analysis  with  » n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n *,  making  good  typology  cooptational  •participation* purpose  Burke's  is  respect  one to  related  participation  to in  of  the  different citizen community  133  TACTICS  AND  METJOJDS O J  Kurtz, citizen  PM21£IJPATION  Kahn e t . a l . (1977)  participation  research,  these  categories  distributed  control*  CITIZEN  technology.  sixteen  continuum.  The  have  methods  along  a  proposed For  are  the  sixteen  types  purpose  regrouped  of  into  'lew  citizen  control-high  definitions  f o r the  nine  Survey Research Techniques: Through this technique, citizens can have a minimal chance to express their opinions to the decision-making body, and y e t , i t i s a v e r y p a s s i v e method of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . C i t i z e n s have t h e least control over the plans and p o l i c i e s . There are t h r e e b a s i c forms o f survey c o m m o n l y •• u s e d in planning: personal interviews, telephone interviews and self-administered guestionnaires.  2.  P u b l i c Hearing: Public hearing, or c i t i z e n forum, i s a formal procedure for citizen input, feedback and a p p r o v a l . T o be e f f e c t i v e i t s h o u l d be used a t t h e e a r l y s t a g e of planning where planners can gather public opinions and feedback for the proposals and r e - e v a l u a t e t h e proposals by i n c l u d i n g p u b l i c opinions. However, 'participation* remains only the exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n between planners and c i t i z e n s , and c i t i z e n s a r e s t i l l not a b l e t o p l a y an a c t i v e r o l e i n changing the planner's proposals,  3.  Advocacy P l a n n i n g : Advocacy i n p l a n n i n g r e f e r s t o organized efforts to advance the i n t e r e s t s of a p a r t i c u l a r group r a t h e r than a general ' p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ' . C i t i z e n s have to r e l y on the advocate p l a n n e r s t o p r o p o s e and defend their interests to a central decision-making body,  4.  Citizen Participation Coordinator: This role involves responsibility for consulting with citizens and facilitating the p a r t i c i p a t i o n process. Since the coordinator may operate outside o f g o v e r n m e n t as an i n d e p e n d e n t agent of social change, citizens may  this nine  citizen  categories  1.  of  are:  have a higher control planning, 5.  than i n advocacy  Boards and Committees: Planning boards and a d v i s o r y committees are commonly used t o i n v o l v e c i t i z e n s . Both technigues involve selected community representatives working with agencies i n technical or policy aspects of planning throughout the planning process.  6.,Deconcentration: Roger K a s p e r s o n { K a s p e r s o n e t a l , 1974) made a distinction between "deconcentration* S * decentralization*. The f o r m e r i n v o l v e s o n l y a d i s p e r s i o n o f central f a c i l i t i e s to subunits i n order to improve service delivery., I t i s distinguished from the l a t t e r by n o t involving the transfer of actual power from central government t o s p e c i a l i z e d u n i t s . Among t h e m o s t widespread forms are complaint mechanisms, branch facilities and local outposts of government. 7.  Decentralization: Decentralization refers to the transfer o f power from t h e c e n t r a l government to a s p e c i a l i z e d t e r r i t o r i a l or f u n c t i o n a l units. I t involves a substantial shift of decision-making and discretionary power.  8. N e i g h b o r h o o d Government: This i s one form of developmental p l a n n i n g i n which o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n s p l a n and advocate for themselves. Neighborhood government refers to planning and c o n t r o l over development d e c i s i o n s and s e r v i c e s a t a neighborhood level. I t includes the function of both deconcentration and d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n a t a neighborhood l e v e l , 9. P r o t e s t M o d e l a n d S o c i a l Action: T h i s i s t h e most aggressive form of citizen participation. I t refers to acts of o b j e c t i o n t o p o l i c i e s and c o n d i t i o n s and t o o r g a n i z e d e f f o r t s t o g a i n power for political and social change. I t s particular forms range from acts of resistance t o community o r g a n i z a t i o n t o mobilization itself.  135  HYP02USJS In local  contrast  mobilization,  collection are  to the s t a t i s t i c a l completely  different  and h y p o t h e s i s v e r i f i c a t i o n  no d e t a i l e d  participation. detailed  a  hypotheses  Two  analysis  working will  about  will  specific  hypotheses be  research  found  are in  on t h e  role  method  of  be u s e d  here.  dimensions stated  the  below.  discussion  hypotheses.  1  Jl  of  T H E R E ARE D I F F E R E N C E S I N T H E I D E O L O G I E S , PURPOSES AND TACTICS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES AND L A P / N I P C I T I Z E N C O M M I T T E E S .  THE ADOPTION OF PROPOSALS (OR PLANS) MADE BY DECENTRALIZED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IS MORE LIKELY THAN THE ADOPTION OF P R O P O S A L S J3ADE BY VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS.  of data  There citizen More of the  136  CHAPTER THE  ROLE OF  VII1  A  HJTJODOLOGYi  CITIZEN  PARTICIPATION  \ R e s e a r c h methods f o r t e s t i n g t h e two hypotheses | J introduced i n the previous chapter are stated. J j Data, o r e m p i r i c a l , f i n d i n g s and interpretation | | are also included i n t h i s chapter. | «  -  J  137  Data and o p i n i o n r e l a t e d to the hypotheses s t a t e d a t t h e end  of the l a s t  chapter were c o l l e c t e d through i n t e n s i v e , semi-  s t r u c t u r e d , personal i n t e r v i e w s . Although an i n t e r v i e w was  compliled  flexibly  beforehand  (shown  in  Appendix  schedule  w), i t was  used  and modified throughout each i n t e r v i e w . Five  represented  informants the  were  chosen  for  interviews,,  Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Department  They  (Local Area  P l a n n e r ) , Vancouver S o c i a l P l a n n i n g Department  (Social Planner),  west Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department  of  Little  Mountain  Member)  and  Interviews  Community  Kits were  House conducted  Resources  Board in  i n t e r v i e w s were about one hour collected  from  (Director  of  Advisory  Board  Management  February, 1978, long.  Development),  Opinions  (Director). Most  and  of these data  the p e r s p e c t i v e s of t h e C i t y , a l o c a l  agency, and two informants who  are concerned with  voluntary groups i n implementing governmental  (Board  the  programs.  were  voluntary role  of  138  RESEARCH FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION Hypothesis Purposes  jlj: And  There  Tactics  Are  Differences  Of  Citizen  The  Ideologies,  Participation  Neighborhood Houses And LAP/NIP C i t i z e n Those  In  Committees.  i n t e r v i e w e d h o l d v e r y d i f f e r e n t i d e o l o g i e s on the  g o a l s of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The D i r e c t o r of the was  f i r s t asked about the neighborhood houses*  c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . He e x p l a i n e d t h a t can  ensure  that  developing  is  resources. a  means  In  rights  participation  for  identifying social  words, local  i n decision-making  and  power.  Putting  and  in  these  are  related  and  their  into  own  Burke's  neighborhood  and 'community power*.  F i t t i n g t h e s e g o a l s i n t o A r n s t e i n * s l a d d e r of p a r t i c i p a t i o n , neighborhood participation,  houses that  strive is,  to  for have  the 'citizen  highest  confined  First,  thirteen  members,  former  clients,  the to is  apparent.  There a r e t h r e e channels House.  the of  s e r v i c i n g , as sometimes t h e s t r a t e g y of s o c i a l a c t i o n  t a k e n when an i s s u e i s  Kits  rung  c o n t r o l * over  community. The r o l e of a neighborhood house i s not direct  In  t o be more  realizing  ideologies  to both * e d u c a t i o n '  citizen  policy-making.  t e r m i n o l o g y , the g o a l s o f c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n houses  and  needs  i s an end i n e d u c a t i n g l o c a l r e s i d e n t s  sophisticated  House  i d e o l o g y towards  citizen  other  demands, and f o r p r o v i d i n g i n p u t s i n it  Kits  the agency i s p r o v i d i n g re l e v a n t s e r v i c e s  human  participation  addition,  Between  f o r c i t i z e n s to p a r t i c i p a t e  the Board of Management, which c o n s i s t s  i s responsible professionals  for and  policy-making. businessmen,  They and  in of are  local  139  residents. the  They  staff  of  residents*  and  feedback making  local  Kits  of  demands  and  to  making  i t s  to  solutions  to  the  and  advocacy  to  the  voluntary  administration by  capacity, p u b l i c and N  and  s t a t i n g the  provide,  first  also  their  financial private  community  make-up,  This  forum  City  The  s i t u a t i o n s and agencies.  to  on  must  local  Finally,  various by  Kits and  with  through  the  h o u s e s and  munucipal  area,  the  their  House  to  f u l f i l l  negotiation  coordination  Kits  of  and  advocate  criteria, their  issues  catalyst  Department  rely  not  services  realize is  the ,  of  a  Neighborhood  the  eligibility  as  the  of  (C.R. A.B.)  social  acts  programming, needs of  i s through  directed  tactic  to  decision-  social  are  Planning  have  in  leaders  Council  second  which  Board  of  citizen  extension  solves  and  delivery  the  an  of  of p a r t i c i p a t i o n  tactic  and  Association.  agencies  decisionusually  tactics  advisory  but  Social  Services  This  i s  level  forum,  together  issues.  agencies  the  bureaucracy  The  This  gathered  social  into  the  This  Representatives  are  of  feedback.  research  three  level.  services  responsibilities.  programs they  uses  Resources  social  Neighborhood  for  Forum,  coordinate  public  other  K i t s House  Community  built  local  programs.  neighborhood.  Community  and  survey  idea  governmental  organizations  and  an  the  community.  their  give  influence  provides  help  Third,  City  for  House  is  Second,  for collecting  suggestions  the  abolished  the  House.  desired  policy-making.  i s responsible  at  Kitsilano  only  their  mechanism  to  addition,  for  ideas,  Kits  annually  participation aims  House  complaint  process  In  input  clients*  and  conducted  collect  a l l funds  their  own  services case  load  with  other  engages  in  140  social  action  (institutional There Kits  House  and are  or  organizations* them  from  making that  either  that  they  better  can the  can  of  or  and over  hand,  voluntary  advocacy  prevents  the  public  City  Council their  and  to  difficult The  Only  decisionsuggest  grant  i f  them  own  programs  have  a  criteria  other for  civic  someone  e v a l u a t i o n may the  effective  will  by  The  applies evaluation  loose.\  workable  used  some i n f o r m a n t s  objectively.  too  propose  area  area  planners  participation  planners  participation,  he  essentially  mechanism  and  a  to  be  voluntary  programs i s  necessary to  involvement legitimate  to  was  Council  dissatisfied  with  has  to the  In  express  citizen  to  bring  i t  funds  so  about  a  the  staff. no  implementation  NIP. the  goals  listen  of  of  to  ideas. when  but  programs.  the of  citizen i s  citizens* In  the  plans  were  only  form  o f t e n , the  people  views,  one  participation  occurred Too  When  possibility  past,  their  to  perception of  planners*  usually  the  and  about  planners  o p p o s i t i o n with  occurring. channel  that  listen  by  different  i n LAP  asked  for  involvement  City  involvement  was  explained  for citizens  citizen  presented of  control  Department  employees  citizen  local  past,  tactics  community.  purposes  ideas  the  t h a t i t i s always  implement  Local  the  of  funds  other  changes  society.  organizations.  public  the  structural  v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s than  tight  organizations likely  on  argue  h i s own  too  on  Planning  They  views  voluntary  effective  to  achieve  i n the  different  But  objectively  evaluate  that  two  reliance  Social  to  legislative)  exercising  departments. to  necessary  other  bodies.  the  more  i f  of  simply were  positive had  no  usually  Therefore,  the  141  city  planners  mechanism order  to  embodies  and  the  for citizens  the  of  idea  local  According 1AP  •cooptation'. themselves as  and  appropriate the  local  also  at  the  plans  to  meet  If  the  may  ideal  against  Arnstein's  because  the  City  Planning  of  Council  into  there  a  variety  Some  committees  or  planners  LAP  •degree  in  a  •informing. •delegated  But power'  in  of  of  fail  tokenism'  some  There  consult i t  know  i s that  obstructionism. in  LAP  i s the  i s  measured  closest  rung  decentralization of  the  and  them  having  such  i s a  as  meanwhile power,  But  practices in  inactive  enabling  circumstances,  effectively.  make  hand,  participation  i n the  a  problems  to  experience,  providing  citizen  and  to  have  neighborhoods  neighborhoods, who  order  other  power*  the  by  perceive  statistics  in  the by  and  technical information  participation  participation  LAP.  On  •delegated  Department  planners  planners  anticipated  citizen  Vancouver  needs,  authorized  'consultation'  residents reflect  planners,  citizen  of  Hence,  ideas.  prevent  ladder,  great  different  participation  codes,  local  encouraged is  into  LAP  citizen  because  housing  local  because  citizens  in  participatory  provide  level.  residents for their  involving  way,  a  for  purpose  who  whereas  local  'cooptative'  City  to  standards,  a  up  conflict,  planning  typology,  technocrats  perspective,  demands  positive  minimize  mechanisms  'consultative'  engineering  city-wide  up  Burke's  is be  to  more  1970's s e t  areas.  closer  It  to  setting  to  i s  and  early  in a  decentralizing city  planning  i n the  i n the  participate  cooperation  and  such  to  Council  maximize  neighborhoods  through  City  role,  citizen may  leave  'consultation' LAP  can  growing  practise desire  or the  among  142  local  area  actualize climb  planners  their  up  part the  of  the  local  delegated  the  participation'  area  tactic  (or  participation  area  committee  after  Downtown  committees  citizens  to  effectively.  However,  to  'degrees  city  as  well  Eastside  by  this  For  set  up  LAP.,The a  LAP area  the of  Ht.  This to  of  citizen  Pleasant, Woodland  NIP)  citizen  perceive  larger  a  practice  Grandview  for  i s  form  voluntary  (or  LAP  through  usual  planners  surveys  by  specified  hearings.  research  used  example,  point  public  by  a  Kiwassa,  Local  on  sophistication  advice  establish  focal  as  supplemented  community  have  the  such  of  Kitsilano,  method.  as  to  citizen  rights.,  i s  model  hearings.  Marpole,  the  Citizen  board)  is  as  true skills  participation  planning.  Vancouver  public  participation, sometimes  of  of  organization  citizen  planners  committee  the  population  focal  capture  point a  i s  larger  response.  To LAE/NIP,  conclude there  delegating  initiated  by  the  are  power.  participation  d i s c u s s i o n of  both The  advantages  advantage  i s legitimate in a the  City  decision-making.  Council  But  committees  have  power  specific  delegate  the  planners  of  the  Cottage,  on  to  advisory  in  local  citizen  more  local  residents i n asserting their  committee  and  stimulate  r e g u i r e s community  •decentralization'  Cedar  to  power  ladder  local  The  of  today  to  power o r  on  depend  not  on  issues. on  i s that  hence  the the  and  sense  and  other City  The  different  citizen  participation  disadvantages the  that  local  hand,  kinds  Council of  residents'  by  LAP/NIP  Council to  City  in  participation  accompanied  issues.  i s  power  for  citizen  delegate can  in  them  decide  to  Voluntary  143  organizations relationship delegation for  with  own  out  'Social  voluntary  any  rate,  Council.  i n taking  moral  legitimacy' over  between  neighborhood  Although and  purposes  the present  credible  wish  to  limited  criteria the  over  structural  agencies  choose  problems.  t o depend  to  their  voluntary  may  help  and  legitimate  agencies  properly  i n  .  some  reliable  have  who only  Decentralized to the City  f o r delegated  power have  on the  out objective agencies  have  authority  for  o f the l i m i t a t i o n s and agencies  developmental .  committees.  closely  governmental  .  i n the-  organizations  governmental  and  community  t  t o fund  programs by l a y i n g  funds  advantage  organizations  t o p a r t i c i p a t e . An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  citizen  tied  whereas  by  community  a s one  changes.  voluntary  persuasion  of adequate  be  and  and c r e d i b i l i t y  on t h e C o u n c i l  However,  advocating  and moral  participation or  have  i s defined  citizenparticipation  voluntary  control  of  advantages  -  tend  reliability  advantage  citizens  agencies,  the  legitimacy*  differences  LAP/NIP  their  issues.  advantage  members  on  agencies.  of  maintain  and have  specific  Council  'social  be s e e n  are  tactics  official  depend  persuasion  there  and  do n o t  and  or actions  public  houses  voluntary  governmental Council  and  direct  Their  can thus  Hence, i t i s c l e a r t h a t ideologies^  They  services  through  organizations  no  actions.  any s o c i a l  community  support.  at  the City  o f power  carrying  their  of  have,  i n citizen  planners  to  blend  .  dealing  with  specific  local  14 4  My_£0thesis  H i l l  Decentralized Adoption  those  proposals  made  The  roles  "report  of l o c a l  communicating  the  technical  sense,  to  very  been  less  credible of  a n d by L A P / N I P  citizen  bureaucracy  how  might  shed  citizen  committee  are  by l o c a l  area  NIP d e s i g n a t e d Council  the  for  would  a  complain  citizen  of financial  are available, The t h i r d  NIP  and hence  a higher  of other  local  the other  areas  from  resources.  the  the  i sthe  areas  priority City  areas. i s  Council  criteria  designated  t h e needs  'needs'  probably  of  c o n s i d e r i n g a LAP/NIP  that  considers  adopt  residents and  i n a  turned  n o t mean  over  and  be  a proposal. Although  question  research  f o r  findings.  necessarily  organized  does  areas  Council  citizens"  not  the staff's  and f i n a n c e s  this  City  i s u s u a l l y beyond  If  planners.  responsibility  support  proposal  i n the past  proposals,  to  i s the availability  to adopt  not consider  City  The  Investigation  include  members do  criteria  of 'equity'.  neglected  their  would  The  research  to reject  i s right  likely  consideration  of  were  format  to  recommends.  proposal  the timing  is  to  studies  the C o u n c i l  second  committee's  t h e LAP/NIP  proposals  staff's  area  The  agencies  planners  the Council, the staff's  down.  If  area  staff  particular  agencies  agencies?  to council"  research  the  Than  By  Organizations  i n the central  from  citizen  Although  what  Likely  Made  question.  a  conducting  l o rPlans?  More  by v o l u n t a r y  by v o l u n t a r y  Becommendations into  Is  Voluntary  made  are considered  on t h i s  put  By  by g o v e r n m e n t a l  initiated  O f  agencies  Made  proposals  committees light  adoption  Governmental  Of P r o p o s a l s  are than  £he  The  only  a city-wide  have  i s given Council priority minimal.  perspective  1U5  and  tries  areas.  to  The  itself.  as  Are  the Hill  of  the  the  Council  to  Does  review  before  will  rely  on  can  both  or  meet  i t s  to  past assess  the  need  such  as  jurisdiction interests There City  the  Council  are over  i s  the  likely  changes  of  the  values  and  aspirations  examined  carefully  voluntary  by  the  Council. Planning  Social  the  which  i s  proposed  the  does  the  City  planners  will  or  defined  voluntary  the  Department  sometimes  the  rather service problem  organization. have?',  *Uhat  i s i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s ? * and  * Is i t  asked.  program*s  terms  agency  and  neighborhood  program  address  Hard  of  social  for  Department  Planning  of  the  aqencies  Department  understanding  1  by  resources  usually the  i s  needs  effectively  p r o d u c t i v i t y ? * , 'What  over-staffed?*  of  and  identified  *What  sources  realistic  Social  The  experience,  and  carry  Planning  Additionally,  whether  other  plan  plan  by  the  planners  priorities.  the  the  are  Social  goals  of  local  out  s e r v i c e s made by  by  a l l  adopted.  proposals.  social  to  How  the  reviewed  used  stated  efficiently  Questions is  the  their  subjective,  are  i s  from  able  questions  the  are  select  the  governments  to  they  and  evaluate  against  for social  criteria  screen  reflect  proposal  submitted  analytical to  a  be  reflect  plan  to  sophistication  available?  A l l these  before  possible  finance  Committee  plan  the  as  i s the of  are  the  citizens?  be  NIP  funds  Proposals have  *just*  criteria  the  Does  neighborhood?  and  estimates  that City  timing?  'fair*  fourth  realistic? given  be  Finally, of  the  reference  and  city's spheres  considered.  is  only  a  annually,  limited so  amount  voluntary  of  funds  agencies  provided have  to  by  the  compete  146  very  hard  Council are  t o get the Social  t o adopt  every  which  year  the City  voluntary one  and fund  their  rejects.  and  made b y v o l u n t a r y  city  houses  from  and  In other  Misunderstandings  o f the neighborhood agencies  Department  proposals.  many p r o p o s a l s  organizations  voluntary  Planning  often  the  words,  City there  organizations exist  between  p o l i t i c i a n s . The d i r e c t o r  summed  a "one-sided"  up  the  disadvantage  of of  perception;  Governmental b u r e a u c r a t s a r e p e o p l e who operate by r u l e s . . The drawback of voluntary o r g a n i z a t i o n s i s t h a t most o f t h e v o l u n t a r y a g e n c i e s know n e i t h e r the people nor the rules.  another  view  bureaucrats  from  do n o t  explains  why  negotiate  with  voluntary  attitude However, as  as  considered the  plans  agencies proposals voluntary public  the  measures  by t h e C i t y and  citizens'  ideas  voluntary  agency.  do n o t h a v e  through  by  This to  as  a public  a  similar  set of guidelines. internally  proposals  are  one c a n c o n c l u d e  that  by  the  Although  credible  strategic  agency o r  decentralized-governmental-  adopted  agencies.  with  their  Therefore,  be  are  the  unable  t o compete  before  made  i t i s more  funds.  are  i t  an equivalent  Council.  organizations  agencies,  assesses  agencies  by v o l u n t a r y  the  that  i s made b y a g o v e r n m e n t a l  agencies  to  of  i s  system.  i t with  a r e more l i k e l y  Council  organizations  Council  proposals  City  recipients  voluntary  voluntary  made  the  the proposal  governmental  hard  the  the bureaucratic  agency,  and  know  some  Whether a  within  t h e plans  as those  and e f f e c t i v e  agency  Council  than  than  made b y  made b y t h e to  directly  propose  through  a  147  CONCLUSION  OF  THE  ^TACTICS  Discussion that  voluntary  ideologies  of  (II)  agencies  proposing  in  However,  the  of  citizen  supported  the  plans  ideals  and  citizen  are  shared  planning  governmental  organizations.  not  be  participation overlooked.  in  Council,  governmental  agencies.  But  educating  local  power, by  and  use  words, t h e when  through  agencies  range  social  conclusions in  citizen  roles  and  effecting  of  as  like  certain and  unpopular  to  type  which  participation.  different The  organizations  should  developmental  planner  to  role  of  These  are  practised  cannot  be  become  made  utilize  does  organization  done  i s  types  of i s  of  that  available under  other  are  needed  lead  effective  the  different  through  different for  different  to  more  organizations  change  by  significant  not  i t demonstrates  different  of  community  will  research  conclusion be  a  i n s t i t u t i o n a l changes  degrees  participation.  voluntary  c i t i z e n committees.„In  Instead,  effectiveness of  but  City  and  action.  houses  of  should  the  to  on  by  ideals  influencing  take  not  planning  superior  organizations  This  the  for citizen control social  community  voluntary,  developmental  are  changes,  in  of  of  governmental  structural  by  terms of  LAP/NIP  action.,  use  participation  aim of  different  of  residents, tactics  have  showed  strategic  agencies  neighborhood  role  long  in  research  Exploration  importance  community  RESEARCH  participation.  organizations  the  this  organizations  voluntary  voluntary  governmental  of  only  The  Therefore,  PARTICIPATION?  effecting  of  developmental  citizen  (I)  governmental  tactics  hypothesis  CITIZEN  hypothesis  and  and  OF  the  in  citizen  types  of  community  circumstances.  148  C O N C L U S I O N ! THE COMMUNITY  DIFFERENT  DEVELOPMENTAL  There type  of  i s  in  governmental  intention  exhibited. analyzed,  Two the  role  of  the the  latter  structure  of  the  city.  networks  and  participate voluntary local  in  more  tactics  for  role  of  is  Community while  particular  greater  tied  action.  plans. the  flexibility  in  Some  tactics, of  the  City  local  local  from tactics  local  in up  as  the the  the  role  citizens  of  a  development. develop  are  not have  variety  survey  not  people  are  agencies  great  research  various  educational  agencies  voluntary  to  educating  and  This  to  social  mobilization,  community  among  of how  i t s  summed  expected  Council,  ranging  of  multiplex  voluntary  choosing  radical  be  in  backbones  impact  decision-making.  Since  in mobilizing  opportunity  are  been  reveals  i s  mobilize  in  have  planning.  accomplish  planners  to  participation  in  were  participation  more  the  planning  actual  Besides  them  and  former  can  generate  importance  developmental  completely  two  one  voluntary  essential  The  of  the  networks  developmental  can  participating  developing  IN  Instead  development  the  decision-making.  giving  between  the  effectively  organizations  thesis.  organization  These  agencies  r e s i d e n t s by  AGJJJCIES  superiority  citizen  are  assesses  of community  thus  this  social of  two  community  and  Voluntary  BOTIJ  developmental  planning.  residents,  goals*  QP  the  community  role  These  developmental  representative  •process  of  in  values  community  the  argue  other  establishing  and  change.  community  in  to  and  aspects  residents,  initiating  the  roles  agencies  JfALUES  PLANNING  o r g a n i z a t i o n over  differences  local  no  B O L E S AND  to  a of  social  available  to  149  governmental  agencies  However, direct who  access  face  the  Planning  due  to  the  City  possibility  plans  their  governmental  Department,  propose  to  and  control  agencies  Council. of  a l l effect  being  by have  U n l i k e the screened  governmental change  the  City  the  Council.  advantage  voluntary  out  by  within  agencies  the  agencies  can  their  of  Social directly  delegated  jurisdiction. Understanding between the  voluntary  kinds  better  of  of  and  coordination  community.  the  differences  governmental between  in roles  agencies  agencies  that  and  may  advantages  shed  may  light  on  achieve  a  CONCLUSION  » I Part three i s the conclusion of the thesis. I t | J p r o v i d e s a summary o f t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r s and | | recommendations for implementing community | | developmental planning. \  CHAPTER IX. TWO MODELS OF THE BLENDING OF IOLUNTARY AND GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONSFOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTAL PLANNING  g  | I | J j | j j J | | •i  ,  As Part Two concluded that voluntary I organizations have the advantage of m o b i l i z i n g 1 local residents more effectively whereas J proposals made by governmental agencies a r e l e s s 1 l i k e l y t o be r e j e c t e d , the suggested blending o f 1 these two types o f organizations becomes | evident. This chapter recommends two models, 1 static and dynamic, for blending these | organizations. These models may be used a t J different stages i n community development. /| Stages i n community development, J , ,  i  152  What i s c o m m u n i t y community  planning?  different  are voluntary  their  roles  i n  organizational incorporated  argued.  bodies people to  improve  governmental the o v e r a l l  on  third  the kinds  planning just  of  local  a task  deal.  agencies.  who  but  catalyst,  to  the personal  citizens,  governmental  agencies.  comprehensive embedded  to mobilize  and  local  Hence,  generalized  How  can t h e  each  be  well  the  need  for  planning  was  community between  purpose  and  voluntary these  of doing  local  this  i s  community.  some  theoretical community  be  an  planner  three  analysis  and  not  policies for or  network  to interact  attempted of  i s  enabler,  communication  resources  background  developmental  t o recommend  also  chapter  What a r e  of socialization  efforts  attempts must  of  developmental  betterment,  local  planning?  community  which  community  enhance  How  into  The  provided  community  accomplisher  be d e v e l o p m e n t a l ?  thesis,  condition of the  The  to  i s a process  of organizations with  must  related  planning?  into  people  i t  organizations?  this  coordinated  chapter  i s  strengths  developmental  development  facilitates  The  and  development  I t organizes  planning  developmental  beginning  community  How  governmental  characteristics  the  and and  and  community  Community  education.  community  i n community  At integrating  Can  development?  among with  to give  social  a  a  networks  in organizations. The  remaining  chapters  s u b s t a n t i a t e d the  ideas  of  the  153  earlier case  ones.  Chapter  studies  for  participation* committee and  and  Kits  to  physical program attempts  to  The  i n the  Canada  attempt  neighborhoods, participate  in  of  of  the  roles  neighborhood-based  to improve  a r e a s . NIP  House  both  i s a  of the  in  the  direct  development  British  social  houses  by  and  the  Settlement houses  in  services  to  resources  and  It  identified  social  human  federal  1960's,  Movement i n C a n a d a  from  the  neighborhoods  improvements  choose  studies the  played  can  a  effectiveness  by  the  and  to  actions.  Both  are  community  can  greater  hand,  these  two  was  multiplex  a cross  variety  of  of  thesis.  and  to  the  identify and  voluntary  that  voluntary  social  networks,  i n community  section  of  studies  can  development  local  participation  research  The  mobilization  concluded  to participate  educate  in this  governmental  results  g e n e r a t e more  citizens  are reported  participation  Research  local  other  NIP  neighborhood  citizen  effectively, can  and  empirical  organizations  and  with  local  citizen  governmental  a  local  community  organizations.  more  NIP  agencies.  strategies  mobilize  represent  redevelop stable  provide  researching  different  Park  is  evolved  develop  committees  Two purpose  to  as  'citizen  nineteenth century. Neighborhood  to to  and  Biley  'Renewal P r o g r a m s  Neighborhood  late  kinds of agencies  LAP  of  for  actually  Movement  used  and  funding  States  development  Urban  revitalize  neighborhoods.  NIP/LAP  was  conditions  i n the  concentrating  United  It  The  chosen  organizations.  social  rooted  were  two  mobilization*  studies.  House  planning.  and  introduced  'local  research  voluntary  approach  four  residents  tactics. showed  On that  154  governmental a g e n c i e s have the advantage of more to t h e C i t y C o u n c i l . have  an  p o s i t i o n i n the community, and hence can  e f f e c t changes a f f e c t i n g studies  every a s p e c t o f community  basically  pointed  governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s  have  community  planning.  developmental  people  overall  combined  improvement  out  that  different  developmental p l a n n i n g r e g u i r e s the local  access  Community development programs l i k e LAP/NIP  overwhelming  research  direct  life. voluntary  roles  That  is  voluntary  These  to why  play  and in  community  efforts  of  the  w i t h t h o s e o f the government towards an in  conditions  of  community  living  (Bharadwaj,1962) .  THE  PUiPOSES  OP  BLENDING  GOVERNMENTAL  AND  VOLUNTARY  ORGANISATIONS I n Rothman's "Three Practice"  Models  of  Community  ( 1 9 7 4 ) , he i d e n t i f i e d ' l o c a l i t y d e v e l o p m e n t ' ,  p l a n n i n g ' and ' s o c i a l a c t i o n ' as t h r e e approaches development.  Rothman  governmental  agencies  concluded  Organization  that  according  voluntary  agencies  community  went on to a n a l y z e e x i s t i n g v o l u n t a r y and to  twelve  attributes.  a g e n c i e s such as neighborhood  p r a c t i s e both l o c a l i t y development and governmental  to  'social  social  action,  He houses  whereas  such as NIP/LAP boards engage i n what he  d e f i n e d as ' s o c i a l p l a n n i n g * . H i s c o n c l u s i o n s a r e a l s o s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e s u l t s of the r e s e a r c h  on c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e p o r t e d  in  Each  Chapters  VII  characteristics. by  involving  determination  and  VIII.  Locality a  wide and  approach  has  its  own  development pursues community change  spectrum action.  of  Social  local  residents  planning  in  emphasizes  goal the  155  technical  process  delivery. central  place  in  to  this  be  a  for  redistribution  of  community  changes  When  or  Rothman's  arnstein's other  approach.  two  to  power,  i n basic  typologies,  i t  •education*  and  planning'  'consultation';  suggested  the  need  planning  and  strategic  use  a c t i o n ' . At  f o r blending  tactics  of  action. of  the  the  strategies  end three  each  the  will  and of  of  for  paper,  approach  and the  Rothman  (that i s ,  in  blending  be  'social  power' a r e  his  the  citizen  likely  approaches  for  seeks  'partnership'  of  the  in  boundaries  •community  argument of  on  Burke's  participation)  uniqueness  population  organization.  to  the  power',  these  citizen His  formal  a  'social  approach  strategies  and  have  demands  development'  control*  'social  of  example,  'citizen  change  the  This  compared  therapy*;  housing  decision-making  across  'delegated  of  different  i s  be  purposes  of  effective  or  as  approach,  segment  policies  'locality  'social  will  last  resources.  cuts  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . ,For for  The  resources,  categorization  participation  controlled  make  increased  such  and  disadvantaged  organized  community  problems  deliberation  presupposes  needs  larger  solving social  Rational  action*, that  of  community i s to  in  make  different  circumstances. There planning human  are  (Morris  and  and  Second,  policies  of  formal  reforms  in  major  goals  Binstock,  behavioural  development.  Therefore,  - three  1966),  pattern i t  alters  community  and  community First,  through  organizations. legal  of  social  developmental  i t aims a t  education conditions i t aims  at  f u n c t i o n a l systems  of  developmental  Finally,  planners  must  be  altering  and by  self-  changing effecting  a  society.  more  aware  156  of  the  kinds  phasing  cf  o f s i t u a t i o n s with  community  manipulating.  is  to  development  Different  combinations  o f the above  enhance  organizations  local  such  unpopular  institutional  i s  reguired.  groups  and s t r e n g t h e n i n g  voluntary  purposes.  of s o c i a l  empirically  through  other  hand,  showed  that  the  research  voluntary  t o governmental  to  specific  NIP/LAP the  model  Role  to  i s more of  governmental  short  the City Council.  and  more  the  needs  o f a community  The different types  There  proper goals  range  of organizations  of  and making  networks.  as  a  which  local  On  the  tactic  i n the  the  needs  problems,  a  research  proposals  becomes  with  of  i s sometimes  community  made  more  on by  directly direct  t o advocate  the politicans.  organizations  full  these  Mobilization),  opportunity  them  avoiding  local  residents  c r e d i b l e a n d c a n b e made  and d i s c u s s  involves  of  t o serve  substantive  As shown  i s a better  selection  local  and  action  i n mobilizing  action  P a r t i c i p a t o r y planning  efficient.  range  i n  of Citizen Participation  Participation,  a r e more  part  social  of Local  B u t when a  appropriate.  agencies  a  between  social  social  or middle  Citizen  long  can choose  agencies.  take  the mobilization  on t h e B o l e  radical  forbidden solve  When  (The B o l e  organizations  participation  which  appropriate  established  different  voluntary  a r e more e f f e c t i v e  their  are  and competence,  bonds  a r e more  they  objective  used.  that  and the  the  houses  When  are the goals,  implies  organizations  resources  citizen  This  which  reguire  approaches.  be  changes  organizations  A s shown  voluntary  three  should  model  a r e working  circumstances  as neighborhood  development  they  processes  responsibility  locality  and  which  to  weaknesses  use o f t h e  achieve  of certain  strengths  of  157  others. is  Hhen  the achievement  expected,  one  might  organizations., relationship• taken  into  planning then  may  move i n t o  be  another  hand,  the A  at a later  when t h e t w o  when planning  one  stage.  of  •phasing  projects of  community type  goals  types  the  blending  given  with  of s e v e r a l  of different  developmental  begin  i s  different  developmental  of o r g a n i z a t i o n  This  point  models of b l e n d i n g  and  will  be  organizations  recommended. conclude  a static  sense  this  section,  the blending  means  to build  a project  particular  organizational  another.  To  perspective different community  view  implies types  Two  first a  model  which social  (A)  from  a  t o the  unorganized  as  to  at  weakness  from  more  a  of  dynamic  combinations  different  to  state  t o be  phases  of  of of a  voluntary  the t h e s i s . the  a  The  transition term  community,  i n  f o r a l l kinds  of  I t i s the objective  of  to develop The  and  maturity. , The  mobilized  planning.  maturity.,  of  illustrating phase  organized  planning  of governmental  a conclusion  youth  and neighborhood  phase  the  of a  MODELS  are ready  developmental  on t h e s t r e n g t h  avoid  or  organizations  project.  dynamic model  residents  action  community  BLENDING  i s a  refers  local  two  planning  of  mechanism  organizations  a r e recommended  community  "maturity"  of  models of t h e b l e n d i n g  organizations  to  blending  t h e use  of  ON  mode a n d  the  developmental  RECOMMENDATIONS  of  other  indicated.  may  clarified  To in  a synthesis  consideration,  project  further  the  o f community  organizations  are  On  apply  of a combination  a community  second  model  (B)  from gives  an a  158  static a  perspective  mature  and  to  its  planned  first  maturity,  fhe  model  by  however,  organizations  i s  community  i n  stage  to  different  phases  grassroots  that  contacts  have  citizens  to  almost  There  and  Heights  lack  I t  of  adopt  by r e a c h i n g  the social  self-help  hence roles  i s  citizens to  which  to gain  The  first  i s  to  through organize  out t o individuals play  through  a dominant  i n the community. committee,  initiative  the  community  run  and  NIP  this  nurture  to  advisory  a  of mistrust o f  order  bonds  NB  community  in  Planners  and  i n  Program.  feeling  are five  i s  r e s i d e n t s , and  NIP  individual  and p u b l i c hearings.  up  with  organizations  a a  whole  r e s i d e n t s . The o b j e c t i v e o f  t o s e t up a c i t i z e n take  i s and a  successfully.  i n strengthening  planners  there  experience,  participation  the  community.,  for  towards  community  local  young  designated  must  young  Hillingdon  and s o c i a l i z e  planners  A  simulate  model,  voluntary  rather  to i t smaturity.  developmental  reached,  and u n o r g a n i z e d  the l o c a l  educate  he must  the community  i s  extant.  the neighborhood  development  community  personal  of a  found  g o v e r n m e n t among  model  But i f he h a s  to assist  experience.  plans  h i s purpose.  i s made t o f i t a c o m m u n i t y  inactive  currently  planner  he c a n e a s i l y  on t o t h e s e c o n d  organizations  i s an example  planners,  role  mode c a n move  development  neighborhood  the  (A) a n d a t t e m p t  of s o c i a l - s e r v i c e - o r i e n t e d  community Burnaby  (fl) t o a c h i e v e  organizations i n  community,  changes i n a young community,  first  community  lack  p r o j e c t i n a mature  Hhen i t s m a t u r i t y  characterized the  developmental  model  model  organizational  no  I f a community  a  the second  guide  the  of voluntary  community.  implements  adopt  of the blending  Second,  preparing  roles  i nthe  159  community.  Third, planners  to  i t s own  take  to  up  acguire  error  Fourth, the  later  kinds NIP  of  have  phase  to  other  of  NIP,  organized  formal  form  an  issues  to help  either  of  multiservice alternative.  the  a  a  experiences other  consultant  citizen and  or  can  be  set for  planners  up  advisory  to  teams and board  at  established  out  the  final  act  teams  pool  as into  interested committee  i n charge  system..  at  various  should  NIP  role  implementing  various neighborhood  services-delivery  centre  trial-and-  coordinator  teams  and  institutions.  projects. Lastly,  neighborhood  committee  planning  through  formal  v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s or  incorporated  citizen  committee  self-help  consolidate  the  i n neighborhood  developmental  various  on-going and  play  teams  community  to  educate  and  locally-initiated  advisors  individuals  development  politicians  neighborhood  or  stage  with  they  to  leadership role  community  contacts  have  of  to  local  If  possible  of  the  a  latter  160  COMMUNITY PHASE  youth (unorganized)  NIP PHASE  early stage of initiation  planning stage  implementation stage  maturity (organized) completion stage  COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION  public hearing  personal contact  ROLE OF C D . PLANNER  organize individuals i n a committee  educator  identify issues formulate p l a n s ^ e v a l u a t e and select alterna- ' tives •  organxze self-help teams t o implement NIP  pool interested individuals from N I P commit t e e and self-help teams t o form an incorporated board of a multiservice centre  FIGURE 4  ACHIEVED  dominant decision maker  NIP / LAP citizen advisory board  consolidate selfhelp teams into formal voluntary organizations  GOAL  1  organizer, consultant or co-ordinator  I  implement alternatives  I  j!  E'  pl  advisor (minor role)  I  6  c  form ongoing c i t i z e n committee or resource board f o r e v a l u a - —• t i o n and future planning  l  161  TOTAL  local *  C  IT  o  mobilization  needs  T  2.  + f ^ VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION (INFORMAL SUBSYSTEM)  5  resources  NIP / LAP CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD  4  CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT (FORMAL SUBSYSTEM) SYSTEM  FIGDBE 5 CONCEPTUAL  FRAMEWORK OF STATIC BLENDING MODEL  (B) -  CITY PLANNING LAP AND CITY COUNCIL  J.  NIP / LAP COMMITTEE (ORG. REPRESENTATIVES) INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS  PTA  SB  NH  CRAI  CC  CHURCHES  n — i — r ( l o c a l  aQfrjligfljtipn)  ORGANIZATIONAL  MEMBERS  (organizational outreach)  ±  NEIGHBORS,  FRIENDS  AND TOTAL  IIGURE  COMMUNITY  6  OPERATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF STATIC BLENDING  MODEL JBJL  162  The  second  has  already  reached  in  more  detail  voluntary Eastside which  status  up  a  LAP/NIP  Citizen of  committee.  people  These  organization's  well  as  mobilizing  needs,  concerns  developmental  voluntary and  into  own  third,  to  organizations  with  to  make  the  into  i n  f o r  The  strategic  politicians.  use  i s toset bringing into  this their  and r e s o u r c e s members  roles  of  to  existing  as take  about  community  pool  and concerns  of  make  resources  by  committee;  integrated  to  information  to  already  proposals  i s  representing  needs  first,  the  development  organizations  providing  citizen  Vancouver  model  organization's  an  shows  and l e g i t i m a t e  Committee  resources.  blend  model  of this  viewpoints,  NIP/LAP  I t  i n  organizational  voluntary  are,  which  a n d Downtown  community  characteristics  framework  m o b i l i z a t i o n through  fourth,  negotiate  and  planners  representatives  of  existing  roles  stage.  communities  are responsible  their  participation  networks;  deal  Advisory  collective  citizen  encourage  mature  existing  community  Kitsilano  The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s  The c o n c e p t u a l  representatives  own  together.  great  NIP o r L A P t o p o o l  community.  to a  s t r u c t u r e o f governmental and  use of the overwhelming  of  a  blended  of rather  acquired  only  t o i t s maturity  operational  i n the past.  strategic  a  an  a r e examples  have  (fi) a p p l i e s  or i s close  organizations  experience  of  model  existing second,  to  voluntary of  neighborhood  various plan;  t h e NIP c o m m i t t e e t o  163  CONCLUSION This  thesis  has  demonstrated  voluntary  and  governmental  planning.  Two  models  agencies is  are  planned  emphasizes and  different  of  scope.  local  type  rather  However,  have  direct  and i n d i r e c t  Any  planner  developmental  planning  community  which  potential  of  planning of to  work  necessary  with  types  Finally,  local  to achieve  between  (through  be  to  thesis  limitations  i s  which i s  beyond  the  organizations i s organizations  t h e NIP/LAP  to able  Second, of  planning  groups  community  as  this  a model  voluntary  committee)  practise to identify  he h a s  to  organizations  he h a s t o s e l e c t  developmental both  some  wants  must  different  so  models  be c a l l e d f o r .  he i s p l a n n i n g .  phases.  community  may  who  Since  integration  i n which  Council  of these  recognizing  i f competition  model  t o the City  by  of  governmental  organizations areas.  than  a third  access  purpose  roles  developmental  and  of organization,  considered, both  i n community  of  approach  each  different  voluntary  types i n  a coordination  on c o m p e t i t i o n  present  blending  changes  strengths  based  agencies  recommended. , The u l t i m a t e  t c coordinate  effect  the  community the kind o f realize at  different  the appropriate  recommended  and p o l i t i c i a n s . developmental  i n this These  planning.  the  model chapter  steps are  164  AREAS  OF FURTHER This  committee two  case  needs  direct  be  are limited  area roles  participation*.  various  programs  governmental  can  i n this of  governmental  agencies.  a  NIP  of  these  agencies  of the conclusions  with  of  LAP/NIP  respect to  verify  about  and  some  community  the  purposes  the applicability  o f the  thesis. ,  than  A comparison i n Canada  programs  and a s s e s s e d  cases,  The e x p l o r a t i o n of  research  other  existing  of various  explicit  Many  classification  'citizen  impacts  and  agencies.  two  The a p p l i c a b i l i t y  to the coordination  embedded  organizational  made  studied.  development  Another  house.  voluntary  services  and t h e i r  generalizations  investigated  a neighborhood  further  community  Latent  has  studies to other  social  agencies of  research  and  to  blending  RESEARCH  i s  exploration  of  'local  mobilization*  and  and would  on l o c a l  i n order  impact serve  analysis this  community  to identify  purpose.  should  other  of  roles  be of  165  LITERATURE  CIT.ED  166  Addams,  J.;  1910.  . Macmillan.  Twenty  1930.  Years  Second  At  Hull  Twenty  House^, N.  Y . s a r s  At  Hu,Ll  Anderson, T.R. and Zelditch, M . , J r . ; 1968. A Statistics; With S o c i c l o a o c a l Applications. B i n e h a r t And W i n s t o n , I n c . , Arnstein, Journal 224.  S.R.; 1969. "A Ladder O f A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e Of  Babbie, E.; Hadsworth.  1975.  The  I.:  Macmillan. House.  N.Y.:  Basic Course In N. Y . : Holt,  Of C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " P l a n n e r s , 35:4 ( J u l y ) :216-  P r a c t i c e Of  S o c i a l Research.  Belmont;  Barcham, D.W.P.; 1965. Community Developments An Intejral Technique In The Process Of Community P l a n n i n g . U.B.C.: U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r Of A r t s T h e s i s . B a r n a r d , C. I . ; 1938. The F u n c t i o n s Qf Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .  ^he  Ejtecu^iygj. Cambridge,  Barnard, P. Associates; 1973. Introduction To The Behabilitation Process: A Report Prepared for Central M o r t g a g e And H o u s i n g Corporation. Toronto: Peter Barnard Associates. B a r n e s , J.A.; 1954. " C l a s s And C o m m i t t e e s I s l a n d " . Human R e l a t i o n s . 7 : 3 9 - 5 8 . B a u e r , E . J . ; 1960. "Public S o c i o l o g i c a l Review 25 f  In  A  O p i n i o n And P r i m a r y (April):208-219.  Norwegian  Group."  Berelson, B.; L a z a r s f e l d , P . and McPhee, W.; 1954. S t u d y Of O p i n i o n . F o r m u l a t i o n In A Presidential C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y Of C h i c a g o P r e s s . . Bharadwa j,L.K.; 1962., Towards A D £ y e l o £ m e n t L P r o b l e m s And, P r q j Q c £ s Unpublished Manscript. B l a l o c k , H.M.,Jr.; 2nd E d i t i o n .  1972.  f c  Dgfijiitian Of U n i v e r s i t y Of  Social Statistics.  B l a u , P.M.; House.  1956.  Bureaucracy  Blau, P.M. Chandler  and S c o t t , W.R.; Publishing. ,  In  Modern  1962.  N.  Y . :  American  Voting; A Caapaigru  Community Wisconsin:  McGraw  Hill,  Y . :  Random  Organizations.  S.F.:  Society^  Formal  Parish  N.  B o o t h , A. a n d N i c h o l a s , B.; 1969. "Personal Influence Networks And V o l u n t a r y A s s o c i a t i o n A f f i l i a t i o n . S o c i o l o g i c a l I n q u i r y . 39:179-188, (Spring).,  167  B o r m a n , E . G ; H o w e l l , S . S ; N i c h o l s , R.G. A n d S h a p i r o , G..L..J 1 9 6 9 . Interpersonal Communication I n The Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n , •-. N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l . , B r c k e n s h a , D. A n d H o d g e , P . ; 1 9 6 9 . C o m m u n i t y Development; I n t r o d u c t i o n . S. F . : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . Brooks, M.; 1 9 7 0 . S o c i a l . Plaaaisa A n d C i t y American S o c i e t y Of P l a n n i n g Officers.  Jk£  Planning?, C h i c a g o :  B u r k e , E.M. ; 1 9 6 8 . " C i t i z e n P a r t i c i p a t i o n S t r a t e g i e s " , Journal Of A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e O f P l a n n e r s . 34:5 ( S e p t ) : 2 8 7 - 2 9 4 . , Central  Mortgage and Housing O t t a w a : CMHC,  1211*.  Corporation;  Chan, S,; 1975, "Social Aspects B e h a b i l i a t i o n ^ O t t a w a : CMHC: H a b i t a t City of Toronto Planning Board; F e d e r a l , P r o v i n c i a l And M u n i c i p a l . 19747  1974. A n n u a l  fieport.  Of Rehabilitation." Publication.  1974. H o u s i n g Programs:Research B u l l e t i n No.11,  Coleman, J . S . ; 1964. " R e l a t i o n a l A n a l y s i s : The S t u d y Of S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s With Survey Methods". Complex Organization. Etzioni, A. (ed) . ,N. Y. : H o l t , R i n e h a r t And W i n s t o n . P . 4 4 1 453. Coleman, J ; Katz,E. I n n o v a t i o n Among Coll, A.; 1974. O t t a w a : CMHC.  and Menzel,H,; 1957. "The D i f f u s i o n O f An P h y s i c i a n s " . S o c i o met ry_. 20 (Dec) ; 2 5 3 - 2 6 9 , Neighborhood  Improvement  And. C o n s e r v a t i o n .  C o s t n e r , H.L.; 1 9 6 5 . " C r i t e r i a F o r M e a s u r e s Of Association. " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Reyiew 30: 3 (June) : 3 4 1 - 3 5 3 . t ;  Coughlin, B.; 1 9 6 1 . " C o m m u n i t y P l a n n i n g : W o r k . " S o c i a l Work. ( O c t . 1 9 6 1 ) : 3 7 - 4 2 .  A C h a l l e n g e To  Social  Craig, J.G. and Gross, E . ; 1 9 7 0 . "The Forum Theory Of Organizational Democracy: Structural Guarantees As Time Related Variables". American Sociological Review. 35:1 ( F e b ) : 19-3 3. Cross, K. a n d C o l l i e r , R.; 1 9 6 7 . T h e U r j a a n R e n e w a l P r o c e s s I n C a n a d a . V a n c o u v e r : U.B.C. S c h o o l O f C o m m u n i t y And Regional P l a n n i n g , R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t No.3. DeFleur, N.Y.: De  M.L. a n d L a r s e n , O.N.; H a r p e r And B r o s .  1958, T h e Flow  Of  N e u f v i l l e , R. a n d S t a f f o r d , J . H . ; 1 9 7 1 . S y s t e m s E n g i n e e r s And Managers. T o r o n t o : M c G r a w - H i l l .  Dennis,  M. a n d F i s h ,  S.; 1 9 7 2 . P r o g r a m s  Information.  Analysis  In Search O f A  FQZ  Policy:-  168  low De  Income  Housing; I n  Tocgueville, Bocks.  A.;  Canada,  19 54.  Toronto:  Democracy  In  Hakkert.  America.  Dixon, W.J. and Massay, F.J.Jr. ; 1957. S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s . N. Y.: McGraw H i l l .  N.  Y.:  Vintage  IJLtreduction  To  Dyckman, J.B.; 1970. "Social Planning In The American Democracy". Urban P l a n n i n g In T r a n s i t i o n , E r n e s t E r b e r (ed). W a s h i n g t o n D.C»: American I n s t i t u t e of Planners. Edwards, Urban  J.N. and Society.  Booth, Mass.:  Eisenstadt, S.N.; N.Y.: John Wiley Frankenburg,  Sown  Ifid  A.; 1973.. Schenkman.,  1965. Essays And Sons.  On  Social  P a r t l c i - g a t i o n - In  ComparativeInstitutions.-  B.J.; 1966. Communities In B r i t a i n : S o c i a l L i f e Country^. Harmond w o r t h : P e n g u i n B o o k s .  XP  F r i e d m a n n , J . a n d D o u g l a s s , M . ; 1976. Growth P o l e S t r a t e g i e s And R e g i o n a l Development g l a n n i n g In A s j a ^ Nagoya, Japan: United Nations Centre For R e g i o n a l Development. Gans,H.J.;  196 8.  People  A nd  Plans.  N.  Y.:  Basic  Books.  Gans, J.H. ; 1936. "A Theory Of Organization In Public Administration". TJie Frontiers Of Public Administration,, C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y Of C h i c a g o Press. Gauthier, J.; 1976. Presentation At "Canadian Association Of Renewal A l b e r t a ; May 4, 1976,  The Meeting Of The Officers". Edmonton,  G o o d m a n , L.A. a n d K r u s k a l , D.H.; 1954. "Measures Of Association For Cross-Classifications. " Journal Of The American S t a t i s t i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 49 ( D e c ) : 7 3 2 - 7 6 4 . G l u c k m a n , M.; 1955. T h e J u d i c a l P r o c e s s Among She Barotse Of NQJEffeSES. R h o d e s i a . M a n c h e s t e r : M a n c h e s t e r U n i v e r s i t y Press. —.  1962., " L e s R i t e s de Ritual Of Social Relations.? University Press.  Hall, R.H.; Prentice  < ;  1977. Qrganizationsi H a l l , 2nd E d i t i o n .  Passage". Essays- In The Manchester: Manchester  S t r u c t u r e &nd  H a n d a s y d e , E . ; 1949. Cjty_ Or C o m m u n i t y . -,• L o n d o n : Conference of S o c i a l Service.  Process , t  The  N. J , :  National  Harary, F . ; N o r m a n , R.2.; and C a r t w r i g h t , D.; 1965. Structural M o d e l s ; An I n t r o d u c t i o n T o T h e T h e o r y Qg Directed Graphs. N.Y.: J o h n W i l e y And Sons.  169  Harris-Jones, P.; 1969. "'Home-Boy* Ties And Political O r g a n i z a t i o n In A Copper b e l t Township". S o c i a l Networks ija firban S i t u a t i o n s . • M i t c h e l l . J . C . ( e d ) , p.297-347. Hausknecht,  M.;  1962.  The  Joiners,  Hellyer, P.; 1969. R e p o r t O f The M i l Urban DeyelogmgRt. Ottawa: K a h n , A. J . ; 1 9 6 9 a . S t j i ^ i g s I n R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n . ,  N.Y.:  N.  Y.:  Bedminster. ,  F e d e r a l Task C.M.H.C.  Social, P o l i c y  . 1 9 6 9 b . T h e o r y And P r a c t i c e R u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n .  Of  F o r c e On  And  Housing  P l a n n i n g . N. Y.:  Social  Planning.  Kapferer, B.; 1969. "Norms And The Manipulation Of R e l a t i o n s h i p s I n A Work C o n t e x t " . S o c i a l Net w o r k s In Orban S i t u a t i o n s , M i t c h e l l , J . C . (ed) , p . 1 8 1 - 2 4 4 . Kasperson, R., et a l , ; 1964. Participation.Decentralization And A d v o c a c y P l a n n i n g . Washington D. C.: Association Of A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h e r s , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No.25. Katz,D. and Kahn, O r g a n i z a t i o n s . N.  R.L.; 1966. Y.: J o h n W i l e y  K a t z , E . a n d L a z a r s f e l d , P . ; 1955. EiaiSS By People In The I l l i n o i s : The F r e e P r e s s .  The And  Social Psychology Sons, I n c .  Of  Personal Influence: The Pa r t Flow Of Mass Communication.  K a u f m a n n , J . L . ; 1974. " C o n t e m p o r a r y Planning Practice: State The A r t . " P l a n n i n g . J& A m e r i c a : j e a r n i n g From T u r b u l e n c e . fi. G o d s c h a l k ( e d ) . W a s h i n g t o n , D. C : American I n s t i t u t e Planners. K o r n h a u s e r , W.; 1962. ScientJUsts. Ija IS£ia§.tEY,l C o n f l i c t A c c o m o d a t i o n . B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y Of C a l i f o r n i a .  Of D. Of  Ajjd  Kramer, R.M. and S p r e c h t , H. (ed) ; 1 9 6 9 . R e a d i n g s I n C o m m u n i t y 0rsaBl2a£lSIl P r a c t i c e , E n g l e w o o d C l i f f : P r e n t i c e H a l l . K u r t z , K. a n d K a h n , B., et a l . ; 1977. Technology. Illinois: Council Of Exchange B i b l i o g r a p h y No.1329.  Citizen Planning  particiation Librarians,  L a r s e n , 0 . and H i l l , R . ; 1954. "Mass Media And Interpersonal Communication In The D i f f u s i o n O f A News E v e n t " . American S o p i o l o q i c a l R e v i e w . 19 (Aug):426-443. L a z a r s f e l d , P.; B e r e l s o n , B . a n d G a u d e t , H . ; 1 9 4 8 , C h o i c e . N, Y.: C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,  The  People's  Lecheler, A,; 1 9 6 2 , What M a k e s An I d e a l C o m m u n i t y ? - U n i v e r s i t y Of W i s c o n s i n : D e p a r t m e n t O f R u r a l S o c i o l o g y , , Lewis,  E.E,;  1963,  Methods  Of  Statistical  Analysis,,  Boston:  170  Houghton  Mifflin  Co.  L i t h w i c k , N.H.; 1971, "Urban P o v e r t y . " Research Monograph U r b a n C a n a d a ^ . L i t h w i c k , N. ( e d ) . O t t a w a : C . M . H . C .  Ho,1.  L i t w a k , E . and Meyer, H.J.; 1966. "A Balance Theory Of Coordination Between Burearcratic Organizations And Community P r i m a r y G r o u p s " . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S c i e n c e Quarterly. 11:1 (June): 31-58. Loomis, C.P.; 1960. Social Systems: C h a n g e . N. J . : D. V a n Nostrand.  Their  M a n n h e i m , K.; 1951. Freedom. Power And L o n d o n : R o u t l e d g e And Kegan P a u l .  Persistence  Democratic  And  Plannin-g.  Mayer, A.C.; 1966. "The S i g n i f i c a n c e Of Quasi-groups I n The S t u d y Of Complex Societies". The Social Anthropology Of Complex Societies, A. , S. A. M o n o g r a p h s 4. B a n t o n . M. f e d ) . London: T a v i s t o c k . M c L o u g h l i n , J.B.; 1969. Urban Approach. London: Faber. McNemar, Q. ; 1962. And S o n s , I n c . .  And  Psychological  Regional  Planning;  Statistics,,,  N.  ?.:  A  Systems  John  Wiley  M e n z e l , H. a n d K a t z , E . ; 1 9 5 5 . , " S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s And Innovation In The M e d i c a l P r o f e s s i o n : The E p i d e m i o l o g y O f A New Drug". Public Opinion Quarterly. 19(Winter):337-352., Merton,R.; Research. 210. N.Y.:  1949. "Patterns Of 1 9 4 8 - 4 9 . L a z a r f e l d , P. H a r p e r And Bros.  Influence". And S t a n t o n ,  Communication F. ( e d j . p . 180-  Mezirow, J.p.; 1960. "Community Development As An Education Process". International Review Of Community Development.. -  No. 5, 1960:137-8. ~ M i a l , C.H,; 1958. Social Process." Milson, F.; Routledge  "Community Development Adult Leadership. 6:10.  1947. An I n t r o d u c t i o n And K e g a n P a u l .  Mitchell,J.C«; A n a l y s e s Of Manchester:  To  A Democratic p.277-282.  Community  Work.  London:  1969. Social Networks In U£ban Situations. P e r s o n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s I n C e n t r a l A f r i c a n Towns. Manchester U n i v e r s i t y Press.  Morris, R. a n d Binstock, R.H. ; 1966. Feasible Planning S o c i a l C h a n g e . N. ¥ . : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . N a d e l , S.F.; C o h e n And National  1957. The West.  Association  Theory  of  of  Social  Social - Structure.  Workers;  1962.  For  London:  Defining  17.1  Community Of S o c i a l National 1973.  Organization Workers.  F e d e r a t i o n of Standards For  N a t i o n a l Housing Act; Part I I I 1.Section  P r a c t i c e . N.  Settlements Neighborhood  Y.:  National  Association  and Neighborhood Centres; C e n t r e s . N. , Y. : N. F. S. N.C.  1973. "Neighborhood 27.1.  Improvement  Program.V  N a t i o n a l H o u s i n g R e t ; 1973. " R e h a b i l i t a t i o n And C o n s e r v a t i o n E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g s . " P a r t IV 1 . S e c t i o n 34.1. , Neal, A.G. and Seeman, Powerlessness: A T e s t Of S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w . 29  M.; 1964. The M e d i a t i o n (April).  "Organizations And Hypothesis". American  Neighborhood S e r v i c e s A s s o c i a t i o n of Greater Vancouver; Report Of 1976-1977; Eightv-Fourth M£JSal M e e t i n g A s s o c i a t i o n . . V a n c o u v e r : NSA. , Newstetter, W.I. ; 1947. The. U n i v e r s i t y Of P i t t s b u r g . Nisbet, R.; University Parsons, N.Y.;  T.; The  1953. The Press. 1960. Free  Social  Quest  Structure Press.  And  For  Of  Intergroup  Work  Community.  Process  In  N.  Modern  £1  1977. The  Process.  Y.:  Oxford  Society.  Pearson, L.B.; 1966. . " I n t r o d u c t o r y L e t t e r From P e a r s o n , L.B., Prime M i n i s t e r Of Canada For "Community Development In Canada"." International S o c i e t y F o r Community. D e v e l o p m e n t , , J o u r n a l , . 1:2 (July) . P e r l m a n , H.H.; 1965. " S o c i a l Work M e t h o d : D e c a d e " . S o c i a l Works. 10:4 (Oct). P e r r o w , C. ; 1 9 7 0 . Organizational Calif.: Wadworth.  A  Review  Of  The  Past  A n a l y s i s ; A. S Q c i p . l g g . i c a J . y j e w ^  Popenoe, D.; 1967. "Community Development And Community P l a n n i n g . " J o u r n a l Qg Jffler.ica.n I n s t j t u t g O f P l a n n e r s . 32:4, (July) :259-2657~ Poston, R.W.; 1958. Report Of The Chairman, piyis-ipii Of Community Development,, A n n u a l M e e t i n g Of N a t i o n a l Extension A s s o c i a t i o n . Utah: S a l t Lake C i t y . Pray, K.L.M. ; 1947. When I s C o m m u n i t y O r g a n i z a t i o n S o c i a l Work P r a c t i c e ? U n i v e r s i t y O f P e n n s y l v a n i a , S o c i a l O f S o c i a l Work. Q a d e e r , M.A.; Planning."  1977. "The Scope Of Social P l a n Canada. (June) :86-95.  Ross, A.; 1954. Theory And Method Minneapolis; U n i v e r s i t y Of M i n n e s o t a  Planning  In The S o c i a l Press.  In  Urban  Sciences.  172  B o s s , M. G. ; 1 9 5 3 . C.ase Histories N.Y.: H a r p e r And B r o s . .— . Principles. 9  N.  In  Community  Organization,  1955. Community Organization. Y. : H a r p e r And B r o s .  Theory  And  Rothman, J . ; 1974. "Three Models Of Community Organization Practice". S t r a t e g i e s Of Community O r q a n i z a t i o n , C o x . F.H.; Erlich; Rothman and Tropman; (ed). Itasca, Illinois: P e a c o c k . P . 2 2 - 3 9 . ,Sehnert, F.H«; 1961. A Functional Framework F o r The A c t i o n Process In Community Development Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, Department Of Community D e v e l o p m e n t . Mimeographed., f  Selznick, P.; Organization".  1948. "Foundations American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Sieder, V.M.; 1956.,What I s Community S o c i a l W o r k ? N. Y.: New Y o r k S c h o o l  Of The R e v i e w . 13  Organization Practice Of S o c i a l Work.  1962. "Community O r g a n i z a t i o n In s e r v i c e A g e n c y " . S o c i a l W e l f a r e F o r u m . 1962a. N. University Press. Solomon, D.; 1957. "Professional Organizations". Symposium On Psychiatry. Washington: Walter Research. S o u l e , F . J . ; 1947. Work Y § a r B o o k A  "Settlements 1 9 4 7 . N. Y.;  Taylor, C.C.; 1956. Methods.'I C o m m u n i t y Thomason, G.F.; Work. L o n d o n :  The DirectY. : C o l u m b i a  And N e i g h b o r h o o d H o u s e s . B u s s e l l Sage F o u n d a t i o n .  "Community Development  In  Persons In B u r e a u c r a t i c And Social Preventive Of Beed Army I n s t i t u t e  Development Reyiew -No.3  1969. The P r o f e s s i o n a 1 S a n d s And C o .  Trow, M.A.; 1957. Intolerance: A England Town." University.  Theory Of (Feb):25-35.  A  Social  Programs And (Dec) :34-42.  Approach  To  Commnnjty  "Right Wing Radicalism And Study Of Support For McCarthy U n p u b l i s h e d - Ph.D. Dissertation,  Political I n A New Columbia  United K i n g d o m C o l o n i a l O f f i c e ; 1958. C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t : A Handbook Prepared By A Study £ p n f er§_n£e On Community Development held a t Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, Sept.1957. London: Her M a j e s t y * s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e . United Nations; Development Territories.  1954., M e t h o d s And Techniques Of In The United Kingdom Dependent N. Y.: U n i t e d N a t i o n s . ,  Community And, Trust  United Nations; 1955. Social Progress Through Community D e v e l o p m e n t . N. Y.; U n i t e d N a t i o n s B u r e a u O f S o c i a l A f f a i r s .  173  United Nations; 1956a. JOth Report Of Ibe Admi n i s t r a t i v e Committee On Co-ordination To The Economic And Social Counciljt. A n n e x I J l a . N. I . : U.N. E c o n o m i c A n d S o c i a l C o u n c i l Document. United Nations; 1 9 5 6 b . S p e c i a l S t u d y On Social Non-Self-Gqverning T e r r i t o r i e s . N. Y.: U n i t e d United Nations; 1971. Popular Emerging Trends I n Community Nations.  Participation Development.  Conditions Nations.  In  In Development; N. , Y.: United  U.S. Department of Housing a n d Urban Development; 1971. The Administrative Aspects Of Model Cities Citizens* Organizations. W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . : U.S. H.U.D., M o d e l C i t i e s Management S e r i e s , B u l l e t i n No.6. , United S t a t e s , The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Cooperation Administration; 1956. "The Community Development Guidelines Of The International Cooperation Administration." Community D e v e l o p m e n t R e y i e w . No.3, ( D e c ) : 3 Vancouver C i t y Planning Department; Vancouver; C i t y Planning Dept.  1973. L o c a l  AreaPlanning.  V a n c o u v e r C i t y P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t ; 1977. A Review Of Area Planning: Report For Discussion. Vancouver: Planning Dept. Vancouver C i t y P l a n n i n g Department; I n Vancouver.'? Q u a r t e r l y Review.  1978. " L o c a l A r e a 5: 1 { J a n ) : 9 - ^ 1 1 .  Local City  Planning  Weber, M.; 1 9 2 2 . , " w i r t s c h a f t Un d G e s e U s e h a f t " . B u r e a u c r a c y InModern S o c k e t y B l a u . P. M. ( t r a n s l a t e d ) ; 1956. N.Y.: Random House. t i  Webber, M.M.; 1968. J o u r n a l O f T h e Town  "The New Urban Planning I n America". Planning I n s t i t u t e . 54:1, (Jan).  W h e e l d o n , P.p.; 1 9 6 9 . " T h e O p e r a t i o n O f V o l u n t a r y Associations And Personal Networks In The Political P r o c e s s e s O f An Inner-Ethnic Community". Social Networks In Urban Situations. M i t c h e l l , J . C . (edT.., p . 1 2 8 - 1 8 0 . Wiledon, A.F.; 1970. Community Development: The Planned ghange. Toronto; The B e d m i n s t e r P r e s s .  Dynamics  Of  Y o u n g , R . C . a n d L a r s e n , 0.; 1 9 6 5 . " T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n O f V o l u n t a r y O r g a n i z a t i o n s To Community S t r u c t u r e " . A m e r i c a n Journal Of S o c i o l o g y . 71 ( S e p t ) . .  174  175  APPENDIX  A  SNOWBALL SAMPLING QUESTIONNAIRE  B e l o w i s a l i s t o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s w h i c h y o u m i g h t engage i n . P l e a s e g i v e t h e name, a d d r e s s a n d t e l e p h o n e number o f e a c h o f y o u r i n f o r m a n t s t o whom y o u h a d i n t r o d u c e d t h e K i t s House / o r h a d i n f o r m e d o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e NIP committee ( s u c h a s t h e c l o s u r e o f t h e 2 3 r d A v e . o r t h e n e e d f o r a n e i g h b o r h o o d h o u s e ) . Thank y o u .  RELATIONSHIPS  NAME  Friends of the 1. same c o m m u n i t y 2. organization (such a s church, 3 . community cenh. tre , etc. ) 5.  6. Neighbours  1.  2. 3. k. 5.  6. Relatives  1.  2. 3. k. 5.  6. Friends or workmates  1.  2. 3. k.  5. 6.  ADDRESS  PHONE NO.  FREQUENCY OF CONTACT  176  APPEITOIX  B  INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR RESEARCH ( I )  Are you p r e s e n t l y working? I f 'yes', what do you do?  Yes  Do you belong to any community o r g a n i z a t i o n No Yes: ,  No  (besides K i t s  House)?  Church or other r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s Community c e n t r e , neighborhood house, YMCA/YWCA F r a t e r n a l or c h a r i t a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n s P r o f e s s i o n a l groups, labour union or trade union Ratepayers or tenants a s s o c i a t i o n  What would you probably do i f some houses s t a r t to d e t e r i o r a t e i n your neighborhood (e.g. t i l t e d porch, broken s t a i r w a y . . . ) ? do n o t h i n g l e a v e the neighborhood d i r e c t l y encourage and h e l p neighbors with d e t e r i o r a t e houses to f i x the house (or to apply f o r RRAP i f a v a i l a b l e ) propose i d e a s to NH/NIP hoping some a c t i o n can be done i n a corporative effort encourage neighbors to form s e l f - h e l p teams f o r maintenance d i s c u s s the i s s u e with neighbors others: What would you probably do i f vandalism s t a r t s to i n c r e a s e i n your neighborhood (e.g. k i d s are b r e a k i n g s t r e e t lamps)? do n o t h i n g l e a v e the neighborhood propose i d e a s to NH/NIP hoping some a c t i o n can be taken i n a corporative effort encourage neighborhood watch complain t o the p o l i c e others: What would you probably do i f the c i t y h a l l proposed a zoning by-law t h a t a f f e c t s the nature of your neighborhood (e.g. l e g alizing suites)? do n o t h i n g l e a v e t h e neighborhood propose i d e a s to NH/NIP hoping some a c t i o n can be taken i n a corporative effort encourage neighbors to p r o t e s t a g a i n s t c i t y h a l l t a l k to your alderman or other p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s w r i t e t o e d i t o r or c a l l the h o t l i n e others:  6. Have you ever suggested a way of improving the community t o : your neighbors your f r i e n d s i n K i t s House /NIP committee your alderman or p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s the s t a f f of K i t s House / l o c a l area p l a n n e r s e d i t o r s of the p r e s s / h o t l i n e others: 7. How d i d you know about K i t s House /NIP and P.RAP i n R i l e y From: s t a f f of K i t s House / l o c a l area p l a n n e r s members of K i t s House /NIP committee members neighbors f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s other community o r g a n i z a t i o n s , such a s : mass media, pamphlets or p o s t e r s drop i n a c c i d e n t a l l y l i v e c l o s e by other sources:  Park?  8. Have you i n t r o d u c e d K i t s House /NIP & RRAP t o : your f a m i l y members or r e l a t i v e s your neighbors your f r i e n d s l i v i n g i n the same neighborhood your workmates l i v i n g i n the same neighborhood others: *9» What other programs do you j o i n i n Piits House b e s i d e s *10. B e s i d e s j o i n i n g the program, have you ever f i n a n c i a l l y K i t s House? Yes No  supported  11. Have you ever given any o p i n i o n s to K i t s House /NIP committee r e g a r d i n g the establishment of a neighborhood house or the c l o s u r e o f 2 3 r d Ave.? Yes No 12.  Have you ever v o l u n t e e r e d to a s s i s t i n c a r r y i n g out some o f the programs or p r o j e c t s ? Yes No  13*  How l o n g have you been l i v i n g i n t h i s area?  l^f. Do you own or rent the house ( a p t . ) ?  yrs.  own  rent  apt  house  15. How many years o f f u l l - t i m e s c h o o l i n g have you completed? 16.  mon  yrs  What i s your e t h n i c o r i g i n ?  * Q u e s t i o n s o n l y a p p l i c a b l e to K i t s House p a r t i c i p a n t s or informant  178  (HYPOTHESIS  II  Ho : There i s no association between *o r g a n i z a t i o n ' i n . t h e u n i v e r s e from which pty: a s s i g n e d a t 0.05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l  %S  *multiplexity' and 46 s a m p l e s a r e d r a w n .  V QRG N  FREQ  KH  RP  1  2  3  5  15  2  2  8  10  0  4  3  8  7  15  20  46  4  14  2  16  26  20  46  STRAN?N^  KH  RP  <  12  15  27  2  10  5  3  4 26  1  r  =  P**> .*.  H  o  r = 0.672 p<*) = 0 . 0 0 2  0.586  =0.04 is  rejected  4  RELATIONSHIP  LMhlilMMML  AND  BETWEEN 'ORGANIZATION'  rejected  179  APPENDIX D II  ^HYPOTHESIS  No : T h e r e i s no a s s o c i a t i o n between ' f r e q u e n c y * the u n i v e r s e f r o m which 46 s a m p l e s a r e drawn, a s s i g n e d a t 0.05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l  and ' s t r a n d ' i n  p(<*):  STRAND"""  1  2  3  4  1  5  10  9  3  27  2  0  0  6  9  15  3  .0  0  0  4  5  10  15  RELATIONSHIP  16  r  -  0.919  p(<*) =  4  .'. H  46  o  BETWEEN ^FREQUENCY! AND  0.0 i s rejected  ISTRASfil  FOR POOLED KITS HOUSE AND RILEY PARK NIP COMMITTEE SAMPLES  —.-FREQ STRAND"""  -^FREQ STRAND"  1  2  3  4  1  2  2  7  1  12  2  0  0  1  9  10  3  0  0  0  2  2  8  4 14  4  1  2  3  4  1  3  8  2  2  15  2  0  0  5  0  5  3  8  7  2  20  26 r  pk) = 0.0001 •*• H' i s r e j e c t e d o d  = 0.692  p(*) = 0 . 0 5 H  o  i s rejected  1IM2I0NSHIP BETWEEN  REpAT-IONS-HIP - BETWEEN-  STRAND &  STRAND S FREQ  FREQ  FOR KITS HOUSE  FOR RILEY- PARK  NIP COM.  180  APPENDIX E IHIPOTHESIS I I I H : The two v a r i a b l e s , » m u l t i p l e x i t y ' a n d ' m o b i l i z a t i o n , a r e i n d e p e n d e n t o f e a c h o t h e r i n t h e u n i v e r s e f r o m which 46 samples a r e drawn. pC*): a s s i g n e d a t 0.1 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l S t a t i s t i c a l Manipulation: (1). Chi-sguare t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e 1  0  STRAND DETERI  %*  = 5.299  negative  11  2  0  13  <tf  =2.  positive  16 13  4  .33  pW  =0.06  27 The c h i - s g u a r e  test  15 yields  46  H  i s rejected  the f o l l o w i n g  INDICATORS OF 'MULTI' & 'MOBIL'  results:  TC*  STRAND & DETERI  5.299  2  0.06  & DETERI  8.596  3 2  0.04  3 2  0.10  3 2  0.01 0.02  FREQ  STRAND & VANDAL  8.68?  FREQ  5.^60  & VANDAL  STRAND & ZONING FREQ  & ZONING  9.75*+ 11.363  0.01 0.01 0.00  STRAND & INITIATE  30.280  & INITIATE  14.800  STRAND & INDIOUTR  13.880  3 2  & INDIOUTR  19.740  3  0.02  STRAND & OPINION  21.843  2 -  0.00  FREQ  19.648  3  0.0002  18.652  2  0.0001  2.907  0.40 0.05  FREQ  FREQ  & OPINION  STRAND & SUPPORT STRAND & ASSIST  9.185  3 2  FREQ  7.670  3  FREQ  & SUPPORT & ASSIST  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN J.MULTILEXITil AND IMOBILIZATIONl  FOR POOLED SAMPLES  0.03  0.01  181  Statistical Manipulation: of A s s o c i a t i o n  (2). Coefficient  STRAND  ___J4ULTIPLEX IT Y MOBILIZATION  of C o n t i n g e n c y T e s t  FREQ  c  P f t )  t  DETERI  46  o.o6  0.3  46  0.04  0.4  VANDAL  46  0.01  0.4  46  0.10  0.3  ZONING  46  0.01  0.4  46  0.01  0.4  INITIATE  46  0.00  0.6  46  0.02  0.5  INDIOUTR  46  0.03  0.5  46  0.02  0.6  SUPPORT  26  0.0001  0.6  26  0.40  0.3  ASSIST  45  0.01  0.4  45  0.05  0.4  OPINION  44  0.00  0.6  44  0.0002  0.7  WEIGHTEDAVERAGE  0.47  •C» BY SAMPLE SIZE  COEFFICIENT OF CONTINGENCY FOfi I I U L T I P L E X I T Y ! AND \ MOBILIZATION'-  0.44  182  APPENDIX  I  IHYPOTHESIS I I I 1  Z E R O -• O R D E R  ETHNIC  PARTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN:  rv  VANDAL  & ORG  27  0.6  0.4  19  0.9  DETERI  & ORG  27  0.4  0.5  19  ZONING  & ORG  27  0.9  0.1  OTHERS  BRITISH  r  pC<*)  rv  r  0.2  h. 46  0.5  0.3  0.2  0.8  46  0.1  o.;6  19  0.9  0.3  46  0.8  0.2  INITIATE  & ORG  27  0.1  0.6  19  0.7  0.2  46  0.1  0.5  INDIOUTR  & ORG  27  0.1  0.6  19  0.3  0.4  46  0.003  0.6  25  0.1  0.8  19  0.2  0.7  44  0.01  0.8  26  0.1  1.0  19-  0.1  1.0  .45  0.001  1.0  15  0.1  1.0  11  — —  26  0.2  1.0  OPINION ASSIST  &-OEG & ORG  SUPPORT  & ORG  WEIGHTED AVERAGE  »TT '  -  a  """""  0.594  0.610  0.569  LEGEND: a — no R i l e y P a r k r e s p o n d e n t b e l o n g i n g t o t h e e t h n i c g r o u p s u p p o r t s t h e NIP C o m m i t t e e and the NIP financially  PARTIAL AND  ASSOCIATION  ^ORGANIZATION^  WJEN  BETWEEN  1 M 0 B I L I Z . A T I 0 N 1  CONTROLLING  FOR  ^ETHNIC!  "OTHERS" projects  183  APPENDIX G 1HYPOTHESIS I I I 1  ZERO-ORDER  SEX  PARTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN:  FEMALE  -MALE  pM;  r  r  n  V  DETERI & ORG  23  0.9  0.2  23  0.01  0.9  46  0.1  0.6  VANDAL & ORG  23  0.8  0.3  23  0.1  0.8  46  0.5  0.3  ZONING & ORG  2  ^  0.7  0.05  23  0.4  0.5  46  0.8  0.2  INITIATE & ORG  23  0.1  0.7  23  0.3  0.4  46  o.l  0.5  INDIOUTR & ORG  23  0.6  0.2  23  0.001  0.9  46  0.003  0.6  OPINION & ORG  22  0.2  0.7  22  0.03  0.9  44  0.01  0.8  ASSIST & ORG  22  0.01  1.0  23  0.1  1.0  45  0.2  1.0  WEIGHTED AVERAGE • y * •  0.449  0.568  0.778  PARTIAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN 1MOBILIGATION.! AND  'ORGANIZATION*  WHEN CONTROLLING  FOR  'SEX*  184  APPENDIX 1HYP0THESIS  H IIIl  ZERO-ORDER  PARTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN: DETERI & ORG VANDAL & ORG ZONING & ORG INITIATE & ORG INDIOUTR & ORG OPINION & ORG SUPPORT & ORG ASSIST & ORG WEIGHTED AVERAGE •  V*'  0.502  LEGEND: a — no Riley Park, r e s p o n d e n t who l i v e i n t h e i r c o m m u n i t y f o r less than 5 years supports t h e NIP C o m m i t t e e and projects financially b — no s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l g i v e n b e c a u s e t h e number o f c a s e s i s l e s s t h a n 10  PARTIAL AND  ASSOCIATION  BETWEEN  'ORGANIZATION' 'LENGTH  1MOBILIZATION1  WHEN C O N T R O L L I N G  OF R E S I D E N C E '  FOR  185  MOIPix i iSXEOTHESIS  PARTIAL RELATIONSHIP  OCCUPATION HIGH PRESTIGE  BETWEEN:  rv  DETERI & ORG  13 13 13  VANDAL & ORG ZONING & ORG INITIATE & ORG OPINION & ORG  13 13 12  ASSIST & ORG  13  INDIOUTR & ORG  WEIGHTED AVERAGE  ZERO-ORDER  LOW PRESTIGE  rv 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.386  0.1 0.1 0.2  17 17 17  0.3 0.6  17 17 17 17  o.4  1.0  0.5 0.8  OA  1.0 0.3 0.03 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.01 1.0 0.06 1.0  pCoi)  30 30 30  0.4 1.0 0.8 0.08  30 30 29 30  0.771  PARTIAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN OB  0.6  rv  0.06 0.1  0.5 0.1 0.3 0.6  0.5 0.7 0.003 1.0 0.528  1M0BILIZATIONJ.  10RGANIZ ATIONI WHEN CONTROLLING FOR ^OCCUPATION.:  186  APPENDIX J (HYPOTHESIS I I I 1  PARTIAL  13  & ORG  VANDAL  & ORG  ZONING  & ORG  27 27  INITIATE  & ORG  INDIOUTR  & ORG  ASSIST  & ORG & ORG  27 27 27 25 26  WEIGHTED AVERAGE  13  YR.  r  CETERI  OPINION  ZERO-ORDER  EDUCATION  RELA-  TIONSHIP BETWEEN:  1  0.4  0.5 0.4  19 19  0.7  0.0 0.2  0.3 0.0 0.01  0.3 0.9 1.0  19 19 19 19 19  0.5 0.8  PARTIAL AND  ASSOCIATION  « ORGANIZATION 1YEARS  OF  pU) 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1  r  >v  1.0 0.0  46  o.5  0.8 1.0 0.5 1.0  BETWEEN 1  SGH00LING1  r  0.6  46 46  0.1 0.5 0.8  0.3 0.2  46 46 44  0.1  45  0.5 0.003 0.6 0.01 0.8 0.001 1.0 0.569  iMOBIilZATI-ON*.-  WHEN C O N T R O L L I N G  F^LJ.-TIME  pU)  i  0.686  0.464  J »  YR.  FOR-  187  i M P Q T J E S I S I£l  STRAND MOBILIZATION DETERI VANDAL ZONING INITIATE INDIOUTR  rv  26 26 26 26 26  OPINION  25 24  ASSIST  25  SUPPORT  WEIGHTED AVERAGE '6 •  0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4  IV  rv  DETERI VANDAL  26 26  ZONING  26  INITIATE  26 26  OPINION  25 24  ASSIST  25  WEIGHTED AVERAGE • 6 »  c 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4  r 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.08 0.2  20 20 20 20 20 1 20 20  a  0.08  0.5  0.4 0.4 0.6  20 20 20  0.12  0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6  20 20 1 20  0.3  20  46 46 46  0.01 0.0  0.3 0.4. 0.4 0.6  0.03 0.0001 0.0 0.01  0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4  26 44  0.47 POOLED SAMPLE  46 46 46  o.o4  O 0.4  0.1 0.01  0.3 0.4  46 46 26 44  0.02 0.02 0.4  0.5 0.6  0.0002  45  0.05  0.7 0.4  »v  r 0.2 0.4  0.4 0.4  0.5 0.02  0.3 0.6 0.4  0.9 c  0.2  0.5 d  0.3 • •  0.44  0.369  0.475  O  0.06 0.01  RP  0.3 0.2 0.1  0.007 0.6  1  46 46  0.298  rv  0.003 0.4  tv  45  b  KH  MOBILIZATION  SUPPORT  0.003 0.001 0.2 0.0001 0.004 0.2  c 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7  0.512  FREQ  INDIOUTR  p(W 0.4 0.02  POOLED SAMPLE  RP  KH  LEGEND: a, c — 20 m i s s i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s b, d — 1 m i s s i n g observation and none of the first-order c o n t a c t s o f R i l e y P a r k NIP Committee i s w i l l i n g to assist i n c a r r y i n g o u t some NIP p r o j e c t s THE  COEFFICIENT OF COJTINGENCY  LMklLRkMlllL IN  AND  1  BETWEEN  MOBILIZATION'  DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS  188  APPENDIX k 1SYP0TBESIS  IH  j-j : T h e r e i s no percentage difference of the positive association of 'multiplexity' and ' m o b i l i z a t i o n between two types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s . S t a t i s t i c a l Manipulation: to find the percentage difference between R H and R*p where R i s t h e p o s i t i v e a s s o c i a t i o n between two v a r i a b l e s 0  1  K  PvP  KH positive nega/tive positive negative  2+  9 3  (34.6%) (11.5)  13 (50.0) l (3.8) f  20  11  4  (20)  1  ( 5)  17 2 46  20  £KH  = (50.0 + 11.5) -  "RRP  =  ( 3 4 . 6 + 3.8) = 2 3 . 1 %  ( 4 0 . 0 + 20.0) - (35.0 = 5.0) =.20.0%  Percentage  The f o l l o w i n g  (35%)  16  8 (40)  7  difference  table  shows  = ICKH "" RRP  = +13.1%  >  0  the percentage d i f f e r e n c e  between  & fci?p : \  INDICATORS  .  OF  »MULTI»  &  'MOBIL'  PERCENTAGE  DIFFERENCE  STRAND  &  DETERI  +13.1%  FREQ  &  DETERI  +33.8%  STRAND  & VANDAL  +23.9%  & VANDAL  +11.1%  STRAND  &  ZONING  +61.5%  FREQ  &  ZONING  +4l.5%  STRAND  &  INITIATE  +41.5%  FREQ  &  INITIATE  + 8.5%  STRUND  &  INDIOUTR  +16.2%  FREQ  &  INDIOUTR  +82.3%  STRAND &  OPINION  +15.0%  FREQ  OPINION  + 8.3%  FREQ  &  PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN  OF MULTIPLEXITY  KITS HOUSE AND RILEY PARK  AND  MOBILIZATION  NIP COMMITTEE  189  AJPEJwpix M  1HYPQTHESIS I V I H : The p r o p o r t i o n of p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s o f m o b i l i z a t i o n i n a multi-stranded r e l a t i o n s h i p of Kits House i s e q u a l t o the proportion of p o s i t i v e effects of m o b i l i z a t i o n i n a multistranded r e l a t i o n s h i p of B i l e y Park NIP Committee. fi+)z assigned at 0.05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l S t a t i s t i c a l M a n i p u l a t i o n : t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the d i f f e r e n c e between two p r o p o r t i o n s 0  *7 —  where:  _  Ps*  Ps< f^tiL Jr^T  I NiN* 4 Ni+Hx  fa>  psi = p r o p o r t i o n ' i n s a m p l e 1 = p r o p o r t i o n i n sample 2 p£ = w e i g h e d a v e r a g e o f p r o p o r t i o n s = ' - P* t^ ' P Nz = s a m p l e s i z e 2 -f standard score  INDICATORS OF 'MULTI' & 'MOBIL' STRAND & DETERI  & STRAND & FREQ & STRAND & FREQ & FREQ  STRAND  DETERI VANDAL VANDAL ZONING ZONING  s a m  l e  s  i  z  e  1  2  2.08 3.38 1.98 2.00 2.34 2.02  0.019 0.00037 0.024  0.023 0.0096 0.022 0.012 "  INDIOUTR OPINION  2.55  0.0033 0.0000034 0.0054  3.04  0.0012  INITIATE  & STRAND & FREQ & STRAND &  INITIATE  FREQ  =  2.26 2.02 2.72 4.66  &  FREQ  1  INDIOUTR  & OPINION  0.022  TEST THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROPORTIONS OF POSITIVE MOBILTZATIO^ IN A MULTISTRANDEp-RELATIOJNSHIP OF TWO TYPES OF OR G A NI Z AT ION-S-  190  - - APPENDIX . N . (HYPOTHESIS V i  FREQ  STRAND  ^iTOLTIPLEXITY MOBILIZATION——  rv  pLd.)  T  DETERI  46  0.03  0.3  46  0.02  0.3  VANDAL  46  0.01  0.4  46  0.02  0.3  ZONING  46  0.004  0.4.  46  0.005  0.4  INITIATE  46  0.0  0.6  46  0.002  0.4  INDIOUTR  46  0.001  0.4  46  0.002  0.4  SUPPORT  26  0.01  0.6  26  0.1  0.3  OPINION  44  0.0  0.6  44 .  0.0  0.6  ASSIST  45  0.006  0.4  0.01  0.4  .45  WEIGHTED 0.43  AVERAGE' "V '  THE llfiEPEJDIII  ASYMMETRIC  0.39  MEASURE -1 -jC I - BET-HEE*-  VMULTIPLEXITY'  AND DEPENDENT  IMOflL-IZAflSiN-i--  191  APPENDIX 0 1HYP0THESIS VII  RP  KH  STRAND  POOLED  SAMPLES  MOBILIZATION"  IV  ft*)  DETERI  26  0.3  0.5  20  0.5  0.3  46  o.03  0.3  VANDAL  26  0.02  0.4  20  0.6  0.2  46  0.01  0.4  ZONING  26  0.004  0.6  20  0.8  0.2  46  0.004  0.4  INITIATE  26  0.008  0.6  20  0.2  0.4  46  0.0  0.6  INDIOUTR  26  0.01  0.5  20  0.2  0.3  46  0.001  0.4  OPINION  24  0.005  0.6  20  0.03  0.6  44  0.0  0.6  SUPPORT  25  0.1  0.6  1  a-—  26  0.01  0.6  ASSIST  25  o.l  0.4  20  b-—  45  0.006  0.4  WEIGHTEDAVERAGE • V '  iv  KH  ~ ^ R E Q ^ ^  0.43  0.33  0.53  POOLED  RP  MOBILIZATION  SAMPLES  rv  pfoQ  ~V  DETERI  26  0.3  0.3  20  0.2  0.3  46  0.02  0.3  VANDAL  26  0.1  0.4  20  0.2  0.3  46  0.02  0.3  ZONING  26  0.004  0.6  20  0.3  46  0.005  0.4  INITIATE  26  0.04  0.4  20  0.2 0.05  0.4  46  0.002  0.4  INDIOUTR  26  0.01  0.5  20  0.9  0.04  46  0.002  0.4  OPINION  24  0.002  0.7  20  0.05  0.4  44  0.0  0.6  SUPPORT  25  0.18  0.3  1  26  0.2  0.3  ASSIST  25  0.4  0.4  20  45  0.01  0.4  WEIGHTED AVERAGE ' * £ '  0.48  0.29  0.39  LEGEND: a, c -- 20 missing o b e r v a t i o n s b, d — 1 missing o b s e r v a t i o n and none o f the first-order contacts of NIP Committee i s w i l l i n g t o a s s i s t i n c a r r y i n g some NIP p r o j e c t s COMPARING PREDICTIVE i l i & 2 I 0 N S H I f 01  LMhlllhMMll  ^MOBILIZATION! BETWEEN TWO-TYPES -0¥ ORGANIZATIONS  192  AJPPEJJDJX  P  1HYP0THESIS  VIII  H» : T h e r e i s no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e ' t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n ' and the 'number of first-order contacts reached by the organization*. : a s s i g n e d a t 0.15 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l S t a t i s t i c a l Manipulation: Chi-sguare test o f s i g n i f i c a n c e  "^v^QRG  "^^ORG CONTACTS^ .  KH  RP  yes  0 8  3 8  3 16  8  11  19  no  p(oo '. H  q  #  CONTACTS^  1 - 3 4+  gEIATIONSHIP I NOM BE R OF  KH  RP  3 5  8 3  11 8  8  11  19  TC*" = 2.27  2.73 1 0.1  <*f pfot)  ,'»  i s rejected  AND  OF  BETWEEN  =  i  .  0.14  H i s rejected o  JJ.TYPE OF  FJRST-QRDER  -  ORGANIZATION'  CONTACTS  £EACHED*_  193  APPENDJX £  1HIP0THESIS  Villi  Ho : T h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e o b s e r v e d (sample) freguency and t h e e x p e c t e d ( p o p u l a t i o n ) f r e g u e n c y o f t h e s o c i o economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f each t y p e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . p O * ) : a s s i g n e d a t 0.05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l Statistical M a n i p u l a t i o n ; C h i - s q u a r e t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e (onesample) KH £ i *  0i  employed  15.4  13  unemployed  10.6  13 = 0.917  *i p  (  (n = 26)  = i #  =  0.4  •using 1971 Census Data  The  computed c h i - s g u a r e and p(si) f o r o t h e r SES a t t r i b u t e s a r e : RP  KH tv  SES ATTRIBUTES  p ( « 0  r t  P' 4f  p  k  )  LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION  26  0.92  1  0.40  20  12.G i  LABOUR FORCE BY PCCUPATION  12  5.63  2  0.08  9.30  2  0.0.05  ETHNIC ORIGIN  26  0.04  1  0.85  17 20  1.47  1  0.250  DWELLING BY TENURE  26  1.47 . 1  0.25  14  3.67  1  0.080  DWELLING BY TYPE  26  O.87  1  0.40  14  1  0 . 0 . 8 0  LENGTH OF RESIDENCE  26  4.29  4  0.40  YEARS OF FULL-TIME SCHOOLING  26  5.97  4  0.25  19 20  3.83 6.81 71.6  4  lIlSflM  THE SOCIAL SI MIL ASIT Y OF-  SAMPLES TO COMMUNITY POPULATION-  0.001  4* 0.150  0.005  194  B l a l o c k (1972:292-3) i l l u s t r a t e d t h a t i f p r o p o r t i o n i n t h e cell remain u n c h a n g e d , c h i - s q u a r e v a r i e s d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e number o f c a s e s . I f we d o u b l e t h e n u m b e r o f c a s e s , we double chi-square. Suppose t h e o r i g i n a l number o f c a s e s i s m u l t i p l i e d by k"., t h e new c h i - s q u a r e c a n t h u s b e e x p r e s s e d a s : a > ^ ( k f - kf T „ k * ( f - f ) _ (f " O ,  a  0  , C%-;-£-  \  {  '  Z  k  °  - k  e  €  e e T h e r e f o r e , t h e a d j u s t e d new c h i - s q u a r e f o r K i t s compare with R i l e y P a r k ' s sample s i z e ) a r e :  ATTRIBUTES  26  LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATION  13 26 26 26  ETHNIC  ORIGIN  DWELLING BI TENURE DWELLING BY TYPE LENGTH OF  26 26  RESIDENCE  YEARS OF FULL-TIME SCHOOLING  COMPARING REJECTING  House  MP.  RILEY  •P"  fU  0.71 7.36  0.70 0.02  20  12.6  0.001  9.30  0.03 0.79 0.47  0.95 0.30  17 20  0.005 0.250 0.080 0.080  3.13 4.59  BETWEEN  PARK  (so a s  RP  0.50 0.50 0.30  THE S I G N I F I C A N C E Ha.  -  pfoO  /V  LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION  ^ e  KH SES  -  KITS  14 14  19 20  LEV E L O-FHOUSE  N I P COMMITTEE-  1.47 3.67 3.83 6.81 71.6  0.150 0.005  to  195  A P P E N D I X fi (HYPOTHESIS  Villi  Ho : The sample i s t a k e n r a n d o m l y from i s no significant difference between proportions. Statistical Manipulation: One-sample test where:  2  =.  Ps ~  ps  the p o p u l a t i o n and there population and sample difference  = proportion  of  sample  =  of  population  ^U. = H  of proportion  proportion  { -  pu.  = standard  scores RP  KH SES ATTRIBUTES  H  LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION  0.036  LABOUR FORCE BY OCCUPATION  0.054  ETHNIC ORIGIN  0.008  DWELLING BY TENURE  0.053  0.012 0.020 0.002 0.021  DWELLING BY TYPE  0.035  0.014  LENGTH OF RESIDENCE  0.042  YEARS OF FULL-TIME SCHOOLING  0.072  0.016 0.028  TESTING SAMPLE  T H E S O C I AL  PROPORTIONS  SIMILARITY  AND P O P U L A T I O N  pu. 98.8 98.0 99.8  % >±  2 0.180 0.126 0.058  pa. 0.071  92.9  0.049  95.1 97.7  0.023  94.4  98.4  0.139 0.069  0.055 0.056 0.028  97.2  0.193  0.076  92.4  97.9 98.6  0.137  BET HE-EN PROPORTIONS  94.5  97.2  196  APPENDIX  INTJSIIEI 1.  2.  Have  you b e a r d No I f 'yes*, through through through through through  SCHEDULE  about  Kits  FOR  SHYPOTHESES I X  House  /NIP  6  in Riley  X Park?  how d o y o u l e a r n a b o u t i f ? mass m e d i a p o s t e r / pamphlets social contact o t h e r community o r g a n i z a t i o n s others:  Have you e v e r g i v e n any s u g g e s t i o n s or o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g the programs of Kits House /issues of NIP {such as e s t a b l i s h i n g a neighborhood house o r c l o s i n g 23rd Ave.}? No I f " y e s " * , how d o y o u e x p r e s s y o u r o p i n i o n ? through l e t t e r to e d i t o r / h o t l i n e t h r o u g h t h o s e who i n f o r m y o u o f t h e i s s u e through other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l leaders or alderman through research surveys through others:  197  (HYPOTHESIS H« : type pC*): Stati  IXl  The 'knowledge o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n * i s independent of ^the of organization . a s s i g n e d a t 0.1 s i g n i f i c a n c e level s t i c a l Manipulation: Chi-sguare test o f significance 1  RP  KH  KNOWLEDGE OF O R G ^ ^  13  9 15  18 28  22  2k  k6  know o f  9  don't know  X* = 0.059 df p(oi^  »*.  RELATIONSHIP  H  =  o.8o  i s u n l i k e l y t o be r e j e c t e d  BETWEEN  AND  = i  * KNOWLEDGE  ' T Y P E OF  OF  ORGANIZATION-*-  ORGANIZATION*-  198  APPENDIX 0 (HYPOTHESIS IXI Ho : The 'source o f knowledge' i s independent of t h e 'type o f organization'. p(*) : assigned a t 0.1 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l S t a t i s t i c a l M a n i p u l a t i o n : ( 1 ) . chi-sguare t e s t o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ORG SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE  KH  RP  s o c i a l contact  7  3  10  other  2  6  8  9  9  18  means  *  3.6 1. 0.08  H  o  i s rejected  S t a t i s t i c a l M a n i p u l a t i o n : (2). F i s h e r ' s 1972;288) o r i g i n a l 2x2 t a b l e : 7  If we assume that the marginals a l t e r n a t i v e outcomes w i l l be;  9  1-8  remain  fixed,  the three  3  10  9  18  9  9  18  10  8  9  9  18  9  Q  9  7  1  .'• H  8  10  9  P.  6  2  7  ft  2  8  1  1=0  10  6  8  h  3  (Blalock,  2  8  o = 2 . 0 6 x 10  Test  8  0  p  Exact  = 7.4  x 10"  5 P  2  = 0.07  = 0.071 1  i s rejected exactly at 0 . 0 7 1 significance l e v e l  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ^SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE AND ITYPES OF ORGMIZATIOH  199  (HYPOTHESIS X) Ho: The * g i v i n g of o p i n i o n * i s independent of the * type o f o r g a n i z a t i o n * t o which l o c a l r e s i d e n t s g i v e o p i n i o n s . p(y): a s s i g n e d a t 0.25 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l S t a t i s t i c a l M a n i p u l a t i o n : (1). Chi-sguare t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e •  ORG KH  GIVING OF OPINION yes  no  yC  df =  RP  3 19  1  4  23  42  22  24  46  = 1.32  i p(«*;= 0.25  ,". H  Q  i s  rejected  S t a t i s t i c a l M a n i p u l a t i o n : (2). F i s h e r ' s Exact Test o r i g i n a l 2x2 t a b l e : 1  the two a l t e r n a t i v e s 0  4  23  3 19  42  24  22  46  4  are:  4  1  3  4  24  18  42  23  19  42  24  22  46  24  22  46  P  O  =  0.04  P  k .'. H  o  P.  =  i s  rejected  1  X  =  0.202  0.242  °  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ' GIVING OF O P I N I O ^ M i l H Y P E OF ORG AN IZ AT ION 1  200  APPENDIX W INIEBVIEW  SCHEDULE FOR THE * HOLE OF CITIZEN RESEARCH  PARTICIPATION*  1. From a s t a f f * s / l o c a l a r e a p l a n n e r * s p o i n t o f v i e w , what i s the n e i g h b o r h o o d h o u s e ' s /NIP*s i d e o l o g y t o w a r d t h e p u r p o s e c f c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n community d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ? 2. How a r e c i t i z e n s 3.  In c o n s i d e r i n g t h e forms of t a c t i c s a r e used by t h e K i t s  4. I s t h e Council? 5.  participated  i n decision-making? participation, what kinds House/ NIP Committee?  present form participation initiated What i s i t s s o u r c e o f l e g i t i m a c y ?  What are the City Council*s r e j e c t i n g a proposal?  reasons  6. What i s your o p i n i o n towards using f o r community d e v e l o p m e n t ?  for  voluntary  of  by t h e C i t y  adopting  or  organizations  v  7. I s t h e r e any need (how and v o l u n t a r y and g o v e r n m e n t a l 8. What do you t h i n k  i n what agencies?  way)  i s the f u t u r e o f voluntary  for  coodinating  organizations?  \  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items