Campus-Community Partnerships to Reduce Poverty

(1)

Campus-Community

Partnerships to Reduce Poverty

Karen Schwartz, Carleton University Mary Mackeigan, Opportunities Waterloo

Regena Farnsworth, UNBSJ

Polly Leonard, Carleton University

(2)

CF:ICE Research Question

How can community-campus engagement,

including community service learning (CSL) and

community-based research (CBR), be designed

and implemented in ways that maximize the

value created for non-profit community-based

organizations?

(3)

CF:ICE Research Sub-Themes

Scale and Replication of Models Creation of Value for Partners

Ability to Share Control

Processes of Effective Engagement

Impacts on Campus-Community Partners Ethical Issues

(4)

CFICE

Violence Against Women Hub

Community Environmenta

l

Sustainability Hub

Poverty Reduction

Hub

Food Security Hub

Knowledge Mobilization

Hub

(5)

Poverty Reduction Hub Partners

Hub Co-Leads

Liz Weaver, Vibrant Communities Canada Karen Schwartz, Carleton University

(6)

Poverty Reduction Hub Outcomes

Build a Learning Communit

y

Research and Evaluate

Models

Document Communit

y Impact

Create and Share Knowledge

Influence Policy Change

(7)

Living Wage Research

Perceptions of Poverty

Impact of Mentoring

Models of Collaboratio

n

2012-2013 Poverty Reduction Hub Projects

(8)

Living Wage Partnership

(9)

Living Wage Campaign

Background: Living Wage Hamilton Campaign

• Multi-sector committee developing engagement

strategies to dialogue with: public institutions, private employers, and small – medium businesses.

• Living Wage Hamilton has its roots in a University- Community partnership: School of Labour Studies, Social Planning and Research Council, and HRPR

(10)

Year One Results

• McMaster Community

Poverty Initiative’s Dr. Don Wells (Labour Studies)

presents to Hamilton’s City Council about the research supporting

becoming a Living Wage Employer

(11)

Year One Results: Hamilton

• Hamilton Wentworth District School Board approves Living Wage Policy – first school board in Ontario, and first elected body in Ontario to do so.

• City of Hamilton currently developing strategy to become Living Wage employer

• Next steps: engage small-medium businesses

(12)

Year One Results: Partnerships

• HRPR & MCPI develop new partnership with DeGroote School of Business at McMaster

• Dr. Benson Honig & doctoral student Elly Zang

– Develop best practice guide and handbook for small-medium businesses implementing a LW

– Conduct focus group and key informant interviews with Hamilton employers

(13)

Year One Results: Timeline

• Timeline:

• May 2013: Received approval from McMaster Board of Ethics

• June 30, 2013: Complete Literature Review

• July – August 2013: Talk with employers re: LW

• Sept – October 2013: Develop handbook

(14)

Year One Results: Benefits

Benefits:

New partnership with traditionally uninvolved Faculty (on this issue)

With research conducted by School of Business, credibility with community business increases

Dialogue with businesses as part of research design hopes to increase buy-in

(15)

Shifting Societal Attitudes Partnership

(16)

Shifting Societal Attitudes

2008 - present

Background

• Engaged national partners

• Representatives for 26 organizations from across Canada

• Working group met to develop a plan

• www.shiftingattitudes.pbworks.com

(17)

May, 2009 - finalized a concept paper

Attitudes and beliefs affect behaviour.

Collective behaviour affects public policy decisions.

Goal: Identify current deep-seated societal attitudes towards Canadians living in poverty, and to “shif” those attitudes.

Why: Only after shifting current attitudes, can we collectively begin to engage in new behaviour that will direct our policy makers and politicians to enact

legislation to significantly reduce the poverty level in Canada

Shifting Societal Attitudes

2008 - present

(18)

PHASE 1: Research and examine current Canadian deep- seated attitudes.

PHASE 2: Research and examine “best practices” related to shifting attitudes and behaviours.

PHASE 3: Design and launch a comprehensive, long-term, multi-faceted national initiative.

Shifting Societal Attitudes

2008 - present

(19)

Community – University Partnership

2008 - present

(20)

• Literature review  Mixed methods study: Qualitative and Quantitative

Researching Attitudes

Relationships and Context

20

Terry

WLU

Mary

Opportunities Waterloo

Region

Colleen

WLU

4^th year students

WLU

162

2^nd year student participants

WLU

(21)

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)

– Shown photos (10 in total)

– Given 5 minutes to write a story answering the 4 questions

Study 1 Materials:

Projective Test

21

Relative

Absolute

(22)

• Limited awareness of poverty

• Acceptance of poverty

• Conditional compassion

• Gender

Qualitative Results

Summary

MacKeigan, M., Mitchell, T., Wiese, J., Stovold, A., & Loomis, C. (2013). It's not a Canadian Thing: Researching attitudes toward poverty.

(23)

–Word associations

(Semantic Differential Scale; Osgood, 1969)

–Complete a measure of implicit attitudes toward…

»The self

»An average university student

»A parent with child at a food bank

•Relative poverty

»A street person

•Absolute poverty

–Higher scores = More derogation –Social Dominance questionnaire

Happy__:__:__:__:__:__:_Sad

Trustworthy__:__:__:__:__:__:__Dangerous Clean__:__:__:__:__:__:__Dirty

Intelligent_:__:__:__:__:__:_Unintelligent Responsible_:__:__:__:__:__:_Irresponsible Moral _:__:__:__:__:__:_Immoral

Hard Working_:__:__:__:__:__:_ Lazy Reliable_:__:__:__:__:__:_Unreliable Careless_:__:__:__:__:__:_ Careful

Not frightening_:__:__:__:__:__:_ Frightening Worthy_:__:__:__:__:__:_ Unworthy

Respectful_:__:__:__:__:__:_Disrespectful Lucky_:__:__:__:__:__:_Unlucky

Good_:__:__:__:__:__:_Bad Strong_:__:__:__:__:__:_Weak Polite_:__:__:__:__:__:_ Rude

Honest _:__:__:__:__:__:_ Dishonest Kind____:__:__:__:__:__:_ Cruel Helpful _:__:__:__:__:__:_ Unhelpful Active_:__:__:__:__:__:_Passive

Measures: Characterizing Self & Others and Social Dominance

(24)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

2.41

3.21 3.44

4.39

Target

Derogation/ distancing

Results: Scores Characterizing Self & Others

*

(25)

• People distance themselves from those in poverty

• Distancing is a protective strategy allows people to:

– maintain the belief that the world is fair and just

– absolve themselves of responsibility for their inaction – manage their negative emotions (e.g., guilt, hopelessness)

• Assumptions matter

– Ascribed/external sources of poverty

• Associated with more empathy and understanding

• Hope?

– Education and awareness

Overall Summary

(26)

• All students admitted that previous to the course, they viewed poverty as an individual problem and they also applied common stereotypes to those living in poverty.

• Following the course all students reported that their

understanding of why people are living in poverty had dramatically changed as they are now aware of the numerous variables that

impact one living in poverty and their inability to escape.

Education as Intervention

4^th year students focused on poverty as a societal issue

(27)

PRESENTERS:

Mary MacKeigan, Terry Mitchell, Jessica Wiese, Alexa Stovold and

Colleen Loomis

It’s not a Canadian Thing: Researching attitudes towards poverty

Community Conversations Series - Season 10 May 28, 2013

NEXT STEPS

• publications

• Completing the analysis of the 2^nd year project qualitative data

• Planning the 3^rd project for September, 2013

• New tool

TABLE DISCUSSIONS

(28)

Reflection on C-U Partnership

• Commitment

• Responsive to community needs

Community first!

(29)

Our Research Team Dr. Robert Mackinnon

Tracey Chiasson - Erin Bigney - Kathryn Asher Steven Morrisson - Ashlie Jewell

Dr. Regena Farnsworth

^and

Barry Galloway

(30)

Year One Results:

Impact of Mentoring

The University of New Brunswick Saint John’s (UNB Saint John) Promise Partnership is a community-

based and university-run academic enrichment and poverty reduction initiative focused primarily on the priority neighbourhood of Crescent Valley, Saint

John, New Brunswick.

(31)

Promise Partnership Programs

• Student Mentoring Club

• Backyard Book Club

• Discovery Nights

• Book’n It Tutoring Program

(32)

Mentor Research Questions

1a) What has been the impact for UNB Saint John students who volunteer as mentors?

1b) How do the mentors feel about their mentor

mentee relationship and about the program

in general?

(33)

Parent Research Questions

• 2a) What are the parents perceptions of the Promise Partnership?

• 2b) What are the parents perceptions

on education/university?

(34)

Participants

• Target Populations

– Mentors (56)

– Parents of children involved in our programs (55)

• Control Populations

– University students who do not mentor (56)

– Parents of school-aged children from another priority neighbourhood who have not had access to our

programs (55)

(35)

Results from the Mentor Questionnaire Packet

• Civic Attitudes and Skills Questionnaire

– Mentors scored higher than controls on civic action, leadership skills, and social justice.

• Feagin Poverty Scale/Attitudes Towards Poverty

– Mentors where significantly less likely than controls to adhere to the individualistic causes of poverty and more positive views on people who live in poverty.

(36)

Highlights from the Mentor Survey

• 80.5% reported a close relationship with mentee

• 94.1% reported a successful relationship with mentee

• 70.6% reported mentoring was what they expected

• 86.3% reported their intention to continue with the program when the new semester starts

(37)

Highlights from the Parent Segment

• 85% reported that they felt the Promise Partnership had a positive impact on the Crescent Valley community and that it improved their child's:

– Interest in school (80.5% ) – Reading skills (75.6%)

– Confidence in social settings (70.7%) – Ability to work independently (68.3%)

– Confidence in their ability to do school work (67.5%) – Writing skills (65.9%)

(38)

Highlights from the Parent Segment

• 48.8% indicated that their child's involvement with the Promise Partnership has changed

their perceptions/opinions about university

• The control parents wrote significantly more

negative opinions about university compared

to the HWSF parents

(39)

Highlights from the Parent Segment

• The HWSF parents showed significantly more parental support than controls for children to attend university.

– 56.1% believed their child could obtain a university degree – 4% believed their child would drop out of high school

• Control Parents

– 30.2% believed their child could obtain a university degree – 16.3% believed their child would drop out of high school

(40)

Consequences of Misinformation

(41)

Models of Collaboration

Polly Leonard, Carleton University School of Social Work

Does community engagement with

University/Colleges have an impact on poverty reduction?

• What types of partnerships are occurring?

• What are the challenges and benefits to these engagements?

(42)

Project Description

• Partnership between Vibrant Communities Canada and Carleton University

• Online survey

– Measure impact of engagement on community and campus

– Best practices

(43)

Research Methodology

• Online survey created using Fluid Surveys – Canadian-based survey tool with 18 questions

• Social media recruitment

– Participants from across Canada affiliated with Vibrant Communities and their partner organizations, as well as universities and colleges

• Analysis

– Simple descriptive statistics

– Thematic analysis for the qualitative responses

(44)

Questions

Themes:

1. demographics 2. poverty reduction 3. partnerships Sample questions:

• In the space below please tell us how you define poverty reduction.

• Poverty reduction strategies can take on many different approaches that occur at many different levels within the community. From the list below, please tell us what kind of work you do within the community to reduce poverty.

• For each of the above collaborative work, we would like to know who initiated the partnership between the community and the university/college.

(45)

29.41%

23.53%

11.76%

5.88%

5.88%5.88%

Participants

Staff/Member of a community organization

Staff/Professor/Member of a campus (university or college) Coordinator at a Vibrant

Community

Staff member at a Vibrant Community

Chair at a Vibrant Community Lead, Vibrant Communities Canada

Student PhD Student

(46)

10%0%

20%30%

40%50%

60%70%

80%90%

100% 93%86%79%

64%64%57%50%50%43%

29%21%

Types of Community/Campus

Collaborations

(47)

The Campus The

Community Another

Organization Other

Student practicums 6 (46.2%) 4 (30.8%) 2 (15.4%) 1 (7.7%)

Co-op Placements 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (9.1%) 6 (54.5%)

CSL 6 (46.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (7.7%) 6 (46.2%)

Joint Research 4 (33.3%) 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 1 (8.3%)

Roundtables 1 (9.1%) 5 (45.5%) 2 (18.2%) 3 (27.3%)

Policy/Advocacy 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%)

Financial Support 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%) 3 (27.3%) 4 (36.4%)

In kind support 4 (36.4%) 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%) 3 (27.3%)

Info sharing 3 (25.0%) 4 (33.3%) 1 (8.3%) 4 (33.3%)

Organizational development 0 (0.0%) 5 (41.7%) 1 (8.3%) 6 (50.0%)

Program Delivery 0 (0.0%) 3 (27.3%) 1 (9.1%) 7 (63.6%)

Other 1 (9.1%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (90.9%)

(48)

Colleagues & I reacting to a large community initiative and presentation

An external group approached several university affiliated organizations and

individuals about collaborating.

An external group approached several university affiliated organizations and

individuals about collaborating.

The community thought it would be helpful to collaborate around the development of CBPR projects. We held

extensive community meetings around the design and development of the project, which eventually became a

course.

The community thought it would be helpful to collaborate around the development of CBPR projects. We held

extensive community meetings around the design and development of the project, which eventually became a

course.

In most cases, the project began as a result of the community organization's

initiative and research into what post- secondary partnership opportunities

were available.

In most cases, the project began as a result of the community organization's

initiative and research into what post- secondary partnership opportunities

were available.

Who Initiated?

(49)

Communit

y Campus

Funding challenges Funding challenges Faculty support and

incentives

Faculty support and incentives

Meeting the community’s needs

Faculty and staff time to dedicate Faculty and staff time to dedicate

Work did not fit into community priority Work did not fit into

community priority Slow moving process Slow moving process Funding challenges Funding challenges Perceived Power

imbalance Perceived Power

imbalance

Challenges to Collaborations

(50)

Benefits of Collaborations

Community

• Participation in innovative project

• Can see how the initiative will lead to poverty reduction

• Relationship with campus faculty

• Sustained relationship with specific faculty

• University sharing their knowledge and resources

• Addressing community needs / Strengthening community assets

• Providing a genuine opportunity for both the student and the

organization to grow

Campus

• Providing the opportunity for students to learn skills in the community

• Community organization sharing their knowledge and resources

• Participation in an innovative project

• Access to community mentorship

• Proving a genuine opportunity for both the student and the

organization to grow

• For students to make connections beyond the campus

• Students will gain knowledge in the areas of the nonprofit and voluntary sector

(51)

Next Steps

Review Survey Results

Sense Making Session

Focus Group Interviews

with Key Partners

Develop Campus / Community

Model (s)

(52)

For More Information

• Vibrant Communities Canada:

www.vibrantcommunities.ca

• Communities First Impacts of Community Engagement:

www.thecommunityfirst.org

• Karen Schwartz: karen_schwartz@carleton.ca

• Liz Weaver: liz@tamarackcommunity.ca

Follow us on Twitter! @VC_Canada, @CFICECan,

@pollyaleonard

(53)

Questions?

Thank You!