May
11
2011
America’s
Favorite
Neighbor?
A
study
of
US
Navy
community
relations
Jessica
Monroe
Young
A
Capstone
Project
Presented
to
the
Faculty
of
the
School
of
Communication
in
Partial
Fulfillment
of
the
Requirements
for
the
Degree
of
Masters
of
Arts
in
Public
Communication
Professor
Lauren
Feldman
COPYRIGHT
Jessica
Monroe
Young
2011
Page
2
of
54
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would
like
to
thank
American
University’s
Communication
Librarian
Robin
Chin
Roemer
for
helping
me
navigate
the
content
analysis
portion
of
this
study.
Thanks
are
also
due
to
everyone
who
took
my
survey
and
passed
it
along
to
his
or
her
own
network
to
take.
I
am
also
grateful
to
my
student
colleagues
for
their
encouragement
and
feedback,
and
for
acting
as
a
sounding
board
for
my
ideas.
Lastly,
I
would
like
to
express
a
very
heartfelt
thank‐you
to
Professor
Lauren
Feldman
for
providing
invaluable
advice,
direction,
and
reassurance
throughout
the
duration
of
this
project.
Page
3
of
54
ABSTRACT
Federal
government
agencies
in
the
United
States
currently
lack
a
framework
or
“best
practices”
checklist
for
implementing
effective
community
relations
and
maintaining
successful
relationships
with
the
local
community
they
operate
in.
This
capstone
project
is
an
effort
to
develop
such
a
framework,
based
on
the
cornerstones
used
by
corporations,
universities,
and
several
local
government
and
public
agencies
in
building
and
maintaining
effective
community
relationships.
This
study
uses
three
research
methods
to
examine
how
the
United
States
Navy
engages
community
members
in
the
local
community
of
San
Diego,
California:
a
media
content
analysis,
a
review
of
current
community
relations
activities,
and
a
public
opinion
survey.
The
research
findings
demonstrate
that
the
Navy
reasonably
addresses
many
of
the
cornerstones
of
effective
community
relations,
and
identify
areas
that
require
further
research.
Page
4
of
54
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
LIST
OF
FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6
LIST
OF
TABLES………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………......7
CHAPTER
ONE:
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………………………8
Review
of
Literature…………………………………………………………………………………………………….10
Practical
Application…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
CHAPTER
TWO:
METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………..……………………………………20
Review
of
Community
Relations
Activities……………………….…………………………………………..20
Content
Analysis……………………………………………………………………….………………………………….20
Survey…………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………….….21
CHAPTER
THREE:
FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………………………………..23
Review
of
Community
Relations
Activities…………………….……………………………………………..23
Content
Analysis……………………………………………………………………….………………………………….29
Survey…………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………..31
CHAPTER
FOUR:
DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………..36
CHAPTER
FIVE:
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………..45
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………….….46
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………..……..48
Page
5
of
54
LIST
OF
FIGURES
Figure
1.
Overall
Tone
Regarding
the
Navy
as
an
Entity
Figure
2.
Local
Community
Implications
Figure
3.
“Are
You
Aware
of
Any
Community
Benefits
or
Programs
That
the
Navy
Provides?”
Page
6
of
54
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1.
Crosstabulation
of
Overall
Tone
Regarding
the
Navy
as
an
Entity
and
Tone
Regarding
Local
community
Implications
Table
2.
Specific
Navy
Programs
or
Benefits
Named
by
Survey
Respondents
Table
3.
Crosstabulation
of
Length
of
Residence
and
Awareness
of
Navy’s
Presence
in
the
Community
Table
4.
Crosstabulation
of
Age
and
Awareness
of
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
provides
Table
5.
Percentage
of
People
Who
Regularly
Consume
News
from
the
Listed
Sources
Who
Are
Aware
of
the
Navy’s
Presence
in
the
community,
And
the
Percentage
of
People
That
Regularly
Consume
News
From
the
Listed
Sources
Who
Are
Aware
of
Community
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
Provides
Table
6.
“How
Likely
are
You
to
Participate
in
Activities
that
Support
the
Navy
(i.e.
attend
tours,
homecoming
events,
etc.)?”
Table
7.
The
extent
to
Which
Respondents
Agreed
with
Statements
Regarding
How
the
Navy
Interacts
With
the
Community
Page
7
of
54
CHAPTER
ONE:
INTRODUCTION
Overview
Defending
our
country
and
working
with
other
nations
to
protect
the
United
States’
safety
and
freedom,
and
ensure
military
readiness
is
a
monumental
undertaking.
To
effectively
accomplish
the
goals
of
the
Department
of
Defense,
the
United
States
Navy
(Navy)
must
operate
in
many
communities
across
the
country,
working
alongside
businesses
and
civilians
in
the
private
and
public
sectors.
Establishing
and
maintaining
successful
relationships
with
these
communities
is
vital
to
the
success
of
the
Navy’s
operations.
The
support
that
the
local
community
extends
to
the
Navy
operating
in
its
region
is
telling
of
how
a
federal
agency
should
go
about
integrating
into
a
region
and
engaging
community
members.
This
capstone
project
will
examine
how
the
Navy’s
communication
and
community
relations
efforts
affect
community
members’
perception
of
the
Navy
and
its
local
presence
in
San
Diego.
Additionally,
it
will
explore
how
the
local
media
portrays
the
Navy
and
if
its
treatment
affects
community
members’
attitudes
toward
the
Navy.
This
will
be
accomplished
through
a
review
of
community
relations
activities,
a
newspaper
content
analysis
and
an
online
survey
questionnaire.
As
the
Navy
continues
to
expand
and
change
the
way
it
operates
around
the
world,
it
is
imperative
that
it
does
so
with
the
support
of
its
neighbors.
However,
limited
research
currently
exists
that
systematically
examines
the
nature
and
effects
of
community
relations
practices
of
federal
government
agencies,
specifically
the
military.
Most
of
the
research
on
community
relations
has
focused
on
the
business‐community
relationship
and
the
development
of
corporate
social
responsibility
practices.
But,
unlike
many
business
corporations,
the
Navy
cannot
simply
contribute
financially
to
a
cause
to
satisfy
its
stakeholders.
The
Navy
must
proactively
engage
local
community
members
to
achieve
communication
and
outreach
goals,
thus
ultimately
meeting
the
goal
of
securing
the
nation
and
advancing
the
mission
of
the
Department
of
Defense.
Page
8
of
54
Given
that
most
prior
research
on
community
relations
does
not
speak
to
the
specific
challenges
faced
by
federal
agencies,
agencies
like
the
Navy
lack
a
uniform
guidance
in
establishing
and
maintaining
local
relationships.
This
capstone
project
helps
to
fill
this
void.
First,
it
produces
a
collective
body
of
information
about
the
Navy’s
current
community
relations
activities
at
Commander,
Navy
Region
Southwest,
with
particular
focus
on
San
Diego,
California.
This
region
hosts
the
largest
naval
base
on
the
west
coast
in
terms
of
land,
operations
and
personnel.
Secondly,
it
examines
how
the
Navy
is
portrayed
during
a
one‐year
timeframe
in
San
Diego’s
local
newspaper,
the
San
Diego
Union‐Tribune.
Thirdly,
it
gauges
public
opinion
about
the
Navy’s
presence
in
the
community,
including
negative
or
positive
leanings,
and
whether
or
not
residents
feel
the
Navy
engages
and
contributes
to
the
community.
These
last
two
purposes
are
used
to
help
determine
the
success
of
the
Navy’s
community
relations
efforts.
Based
on
these
analyses,
as
well
as
a
review
of
prior
literature
on
community
relations,
this
capstone
provides
a
suggested
template
for
community
relations
best
practices
that
can
be
tailored
to
the
individual
agency
according
to
its
goals.
By
identifying
a
framework
or
“best
practices”
checklist
for
effective
community
relations,
this
study
will
serve
as
a
guide
for
federal
agencies
that
wish
to
integrate
into
or
improve
its
relationship
with
the
surrounding
community.
This
paper
begins
with
a
review
of
literature
that
sets
forth
existing
definitions,
themes,
models
and
frameworks
for
effective
community
relations
between
an
organization
and
its
publics.
Through
this
review
of
literature,
this
paper
identifies
current
best
practices
in
community
relations
and
civic
engagement
by
highlighting
specific
community
relations
activities
that
have
been
found
to
be
successful
for
organizations
like
universities,
business
corporations,
and
local
government
and
public
agencies.
Following
the
literature
review,
this
paper
discusses
the
methodology
used
to
(1)
examine
current
Navy
community
relations
efforts,
(2)
conduct
a
content
analysis
of
the
San
Diego
Union‐Tribune
and
(3)
gauge
public
attitudes
toward
the
Navy’s
local
presence.
From
there,
this
paper
reveals
the
findings
of
all
three
phases
of
research.
Lastly,
in
the
“discussion”
chapter,
this
paper
compares
public
opinion
and
the
findings
from
the
newspaper
Page
9
of
54
content
analysis
to
the
Navy’s
current
community
relations
and
public
affairs
efforts;
draws
connections
between
media
portrayals
of
the
Navy,
community
members’
media
habits
and
public
sentiment
toward
the
Navy;
and
recommends
solutions
for
any
challenges
found
and
identifies
areas
that
may
require
further
research.
Literature
Review
Defining
Community
Relations
Before
defining
community
relations
and
the
activities
it
encompasses,
it
is
appropriate
to
examine
its
place
within
the
practice
of
public
relations
(PR).
Many
researchers
suggest
that
the
word
“community”
is
the
very
root
of
PR
and
that
it
“is
best
defined
and
practiced
as
the
active
attempt
to
restore
and
maintain
a
sense
of
community”
(Kruckeberg
&
Starck,
1988,
as
cited
by
Ledingham,
2001,
p.
285).
This
emphasis
on
community
has
become
a
goal
of
public
relations
work
and
increasingly
important
within
the
public
relations
body
of
knowledge
(Smith,
2007).
From
the
organization’s
viewpoint,
one
goal
of
community
relations
is
to
win
support
for
various
initiatives
(Bruning
&
Ledingham,
2001;
Spicer,
2007,
as
cited
by
Smith,
2007).
However,
this
one‐sided
perspective
does
not
align
with
one
of
the
main
cornerstones
of
effective
community
relations,
establishing
and
maintaining
mutually‐beneficial
relationships,
which
is
discussed
in
more
detail
below.
Community
relations
programs
have
been
broadly
defined
as
“specialized
public
relations
programs
to
facilitate
communication
between
an
organization
and
publics
in
its
geographic
locality”
(Kim
&
Rhee,
2006).
Another
definition
offered
by
Peak
describes
community
relations
as
“an
institution’s
planned
active,
and
continuing
participation
with
and
within
a
community
to
maintain
and
enhance
its
environment
to
the
benefit
of
both
the
institution
and
the
community”
(1998,
p.
117,
as
cited
by
Smith,
2007).
For
the
purposes
of
this
paper,
community
is
not
only
defined
as
a
geographic
location,
but
also
as
a
shared
sense
of
culture,
values,
interests
and
identity
(Smith,
2007)
of
people
within
an
organization’s
immediate
physical
environment
(Kim
&
Rhee,
2006).
Page
10
of
54
The
study
of
organization‐public
relationships
(OPR)
provides
insight
into
the
practice
of
community
relations.
Bruning
and
Ledingham
first
presented
this
concept
in
1998
and
defined
OPR
as
“the
state
that
exists
between
an
organization
and
its
key
publics
that
provides
economic,
social,
political
and/or
cultural
benefits
to
all
parties
involved,
and
is
characterized
by
mutual
positive
regard”
(p.
62).
All
of
these
characteristics
may
not
apply
to
government
relations
community
relations
programs,
but
most
of
them
certainly
apply
to
corporate
community
relations,
where
there
is
typically
a
vested
interest
in
the
economic
benefits
returned
to
the
corporation.
Most
of
the
published
research
studying
community
relations
is
in
the
context
of
the
business
world
and
how
corporations
can
reap
benefits
from
civic
engagement.
Corporate
community
relations
can
be
defined
as
“all
the
activities
that
promote
the
interests
of
the
company
and
the
communities
where
it
is
located”
(Altman,
1998,
p.
46).
Often,
businesses
will
include
community
relations
under
the
umbrella
of
“corporate
citizenship
activities,”
which
can
also
house
philanthropic
relationships.
Corporate
citizenship
and
community
relations
are
often
used
interchangeably
and
companies
that
consider
themselves
corporate
citizens
engage
in
partnerships
for
community
development
and
try
to
balance
the
expectations
of
giving
back
while
making
a
profit
(Altman,
1998).
Other
related
concepts
with
slight
variations
include
community
building,
community
nurturing
and
community
involvement.
Community
building
is
defined
as
“the
integration
of
people
and
the
organizations
they
create
into
a
functional
collectivity
that
strive
toward
common
or
compatible
goals”
(Hallahan,
2004,
p.
259).
Community
nurturing
involves
“fostering
the
economic,
political,
social,
and
cultural
vitality
of
communities
(Hallahan,
2004,
p.
261).
Lastly,
Hallahan
says
community
involvement
is
when
PR
practitioners
“facilitate
an
organization
or
cause’s
participation
in
an
already
existing
community”
(Hallahan,
2004,
p.
260).
This
last
term
is
more
closely
associated
with
community
relations
as
it
is
discussed
in
this
paper
in
relation
to
the
Navy’s
activities.
The
Navy’s
community
relations
efforts
also
more
closely
align
with
Hon
and
Grunig’s
1999
definition
of
OPR
that
states
“an
organization‐public
relationship
occurs
Page
11
of
54
when
there
are
organizational
behaviors
that
have
consequences
on
publics
or
when
the
publics’
behaviors
have
consequences
on
an
organization”
(as
cited
by
Kim
&
Rhee,
2006).
Cornerstones
of
Effective
Community
Relations
While
unlimited
community
relations
principles
exist,
many
of
them
can
be
folded
into
common
themes
that
make
up
the
cornerstones
described
below.
To
successfully
engage
the
community
or
specific
stakeholder
groups
and
to
achieve
community
relations
goals,
programs
or
initiatives
should
be
built
on
these
pillars
and
incorporate
all
of
the
following
elements.
Establish
and
maintain
mutually‐beneficial
relationships
This
concept
is
alluded
to
in
several
of
the
above
definitions
and
stems
from
OPR
research
and
“communal”
relationships,
where
both
an
organization
and
its
publics
provide
benefits
to
each
other,
but
do
not
necessarily
expect
the
other
to
feel
obligated
to
pay
back
those
benefits
(Mills
&
Clark,
1994,
p.
29).
OPR
research
also
suggests
that
building
relationships
with
important
stakeholders
can
serve
as
a
predictor
of
public
behavior,
such
as
the
extent
they
agree
with
or
have
a
positive
attitude
toward
an
organization
(Ledingham,
2001).
Once
a
mutually‐beneficial
relationship
has
been
established
with
significant
publics,
it
is
expected
that
it
will
be
maintained
and
the
mutual
benefits
will
extend
for
the
life
of
the
relationship.
The
management
of
a
mutually‐beneficial
relationship
can
also
have
an
impact
on
the
loyalty
of
stakeholders
and
be
a
predictor
of
whether
or
not
they
continue
to
affiliate
themselves
with
the
organization.
Ledingham’s
2001
study
on
the
relationship
between
a
city
government
and
its
residents
examined
relationship
strength
as
an
indicator
of
how
likely
residents
were
to
stay
with
a
telephone
service
provider
and
found
that
this
depended
on
public
members’
expectations
that
the
city
government
demonstrate
mutuality
through
its
interactions
and
organizational
behaviors.
One
way
to
maintain
mutuality
is
through
an
ongoing
interview
or
“checking‐in”
process
on
the
part
of
both
parties.
This
interactivity
is
naturally
collaborative
and
helps
both
the
organization
and
stakeholder
stay
abreast
of
each
other’s
issues
(Hung,
2005).
Page
12
of
54
Mutually‐beneficial
relationships
also
play
a
major
role
in
university
community
relations,
and
are
often
called
“town‐gown”
relations
(Kim,
Brunner,
Fitch‐Hauser,
2006).
Holland
and
Gelmon
discuss
the
early
days
of
the
“engaged
campus”
when
some
institutions
sought
partnerships
that
only
served
its
interests
by
using
the
community
and
its
problems
as
study
subjects.
“The
one‐sided
approach
to
linking
the
academy
and
the
community…has,
in
fact,
led
to
much
of
the
estrangement
of
universities
and
colleges
from
their
communities”
(Holland
&
Gelmon,
1998,
p.
105).
The
result
was
resentment
from
the
community
for
being
treated
as
an
experimental
laboratory
and
its
resistance
of
future
campus
efforts.
In
the
university
setting,
mutually‐
beneficial
relationships
are
viewed
as
“knowledge‐based
collaborations
in
which
all
partners
have
things
to
teach
each
other,
things
to
learn
from
each
other,
and
things
they
will
learn
together”
(Holland
&
Gelmon,
1998,
p.
107).
Corporations
also
believe
that
maintaining
mutually‐beneficial
relationships
is
important
and
have
acknowledged
that
involving
members
of
the
community
in
decision‐making
and
sharing
responsibilities
can
help
avoid
the
impression
of
using
“corporate
muscle”
to
force
civic
decisions.
Other
ways
to
achieve
mutuality
in
a
corporate
setting
include
following
up
spoken
words
with
action,
which
engenders
a
sense
of
stakeholder
trust
in
the
company,
and
taking
a
proactive
host
role
in
the
community
to
show
that
the
firm’s
success
and
community
prosperity
are
intertwined
(Altman,
1998).
In
fact,
companies
that
have
merged
these
two
concepts
show
a
passion
for
community
involvement
and
it
is
reflected
in
higher
performance
(Altman,
1998).
Approach
relationships
with
openness
and
honesty
Several
studies
emphasize
the
importance
of
an
organization’s
ability
to
deal
transparently
with
its
stakeholders.
Many
managers
and
PR
practitioners
have
adopted
these
relationship‐building
strategies
that
Hon
and
Grunig
(1999)
identified,
and
often
share
information
openly.
For
example,
in
an
incident
where
toxic
chemicals
were
found
in
groundwater,
one
manager
explained,
“I
am
not
saying
that
the
community
gets
to
steer
the
boat
for
us.
I’m
saying
that
they
get
to
put
their
core
values
on
the
table
and
they
are
heard
and
respected.
There
is
Page
13
of
54
transparency,”
(Kim
&
Rhee,
2006,
p.
14).
This
situation
resulted
in
maintaining
open
communication
and
a
mutually‐respectful
relationship.
Organizations
must
also
convey
sincerity
and
respect
for
stakeholders.
These
characteristics
are
particularly
important
in
the
case
of
corporations,
where
community
members
are
less
likely
to
see
the
potential
for
mutual
benefits.
Often
community
relations
activities
like
corporate
giving
(financial
benefits)
are
seen
as
acting
in
the
corporation’s
own
self‐interest
(Hall,
2006).
Stakeholders
should
feel
that
the
organization
in
question
believes
their
opinions
are
meaningful,
and
responds
similarly
to
Hon
and
Grunig’s
assurance
strategy,
which
“attempts
to
assure
stakeholders
that
they
and
their
concerns
are
legitimate”
(Hon
&
Grunig,
1999,
p
15).
Displaying
respect
can
result
in
positive
outcomes
like
mutual
benefits
through
collaborative
problem‐solving.
These
goals
of
openness,
honesty,
sincerity
and
respect
are
achieved
and
communicated
through
a
deep
understanding
of
the
audience
or
publics.
Understanding
the
audience
is
a
requirement
for
effectively
managing
community
relations.
Understand
the
interests
and
needs/concerns
of
the
audience
To
achieve
mutual
satisfaction
for
both
the
organization
and
its
publics,
the
organization
must
be
attuned
to
community
members’
interests
and
concerns
so
it
knows
what
must
be
done
in
order
to
initiate,
develop
and
maintain
the
relationship
(Ledingham,
2001).
These
relationships
serve
as
an
effective
tool
for
monitoring
groups
who
may
support
or
oppose
the
organization,
so
it
is
important
to
stay
in
sync
with
their
issues
and
needs
(Hall,
2006).
For
example,
the
manager
of
public
and
government
relations
for
a
mining
company
stays
informed
about
new
tax
legislation,
unemployment
compensation
and
pollution
proposals
coming
up
(Braman,
2001).
Organizations
should
seek
to
balance
the
needs
of
all
stakeholders
and
identify
points
of
common
interest
or
shared
goals.
Original
definitions
of
the
concept
of
community
found
in
Page
14
of
54
research
include
these
elements,
like
Hallahan’s
model
that
says
that
community‐oriented
PR
activities
have
as
one
of
their
effects
the
“symbolic
creation
of
identity
and
a
sense
of
shared
values”
(Smith,
2007,
p.
5).
Kruckeberg
and
Starck’s
sense
of
community
also
requires
a
“shared
identity
and
sense
of
common
goals”
among
community
members
(as
cited
in
Smith,
2007,
p.
6).
OPR
research
has
found
that
the
community
relationship
relied
on
the
“organization’s
support
for
events
the
community
members
value
and
its
engagement
in
activities
that
can
be
used
to
improve
social
and
economic
aspects
of
community,”
(Bruning
&
Ledingham,
1999,
p.
165,
as
cited
by
Hall,
2006,
p.
6).
Understanding
often
comes
in
the
form
of
listening
to
stakeholders.
In
the
toxic
chemicals
case
study
discussed
above,
listening
at
community
meetings
was
one
of
the
main
mechanisms
that
provided
useful
feedback.
Providing
a
forum
where
stakeholders
can
voice
their
needs
or
concerns
and
know
they
will
be
heard
is
an
effective
trust‐building
practice
that
can
also
engender
loyalty
toward
the
organization.
Holland
and
Gelmon
encourage
universities
to
use
the
community
as
a
sounding
board
to
determine
the
level
and
type
of
engagement
that
best
reflects
its
mission
(1998).
Active
leadership
Another
cornerstone
of
community
relations
is
identifying,
developing
and
integrating
the
organization’s
leaders
into
the
community.
These
leaders
often
establish
important
and
sustaining
partnerships
in
the
community
(Holland
&
Gelmon,
1998),
and
reassure
the
audience
of
the
organization’s
commitment
to
the
relationship
(Kim
&
Rhee,
2006).
The
role
of
active
leadership
is
a
particularly
crucial
component
in
corporate
community
relations
programs,
where
leaders
should
give
their
time
and
work
“hand‐in‐hand”
at
every
level
(Altman,
1998).
This
development
has
occurred
in
the
past
15
to
20
years,
as
corporate
managers
and
executives
have
started
to
identify
community
involvement
as
a
business
imperative
(Altman,
1998).
Page
15
of
54
In
the
case
of
the
mining
company
discussed
above,
the
public
and
government
relations
manager
lists
several
community
leadership
positions
that
company
representatives
have
taken,
including
president
of
the
chamber
of
commerce,
directors
of
the
United
Way
and
Junior
Achievement,
chairman
of
the
bicentennial
committee,
hospital
board
of
directors
and
several
other
civic
and
service
club
responsibilities
(Braman,
2001).
He
described
how
this
involvement
achieved
the
company’s
objective
to
be
perceived
in
a
sense
of
“we”
with
the
community
instead
of
being
portrayed
as
“they,”
in
an
“us
versus
them”
scenario.
Many
corporations
are
even
undergoing
a
transition
where
dedicated
community
relations
managers
act
as
change
agents
to
proactively
develop
and
implement
programs,
versus
the
traditional
style,
where
corporate
giving
and
similar
practices
were
driven
solely
by
top
executives
who
valued
it
(Altman,
1998).
Visible
leadership
also
brings
a
face
to
the
organization,
which
can
help
individual
community
members
feel
more
connected
and
lead
to
a
trusting,
positive
relationship
(Bruning
et
al
2004,
and
Kim
&
Rhee,
2006).
Increase
audience
awareness
of
community
relations
efforts
Although
it
may
seem
self‐serving,
an
important
cornerstone
for
building
and
maintaining
a
successful
program
is
to
increase
the
awareness
among
community
residents
of
the
organization’s
efforts
to
engage
the
community.
The
Royal
Australian
Navy
describes
its
efforts
in
the
description
of
its
community
engagement
program,
stating
that
it
not
only
engages
with
people
and
organizations
that
influence
broader
sentiment,
but
also
promotes
the
contribution
that
it
makes
to
national
defense
and
to
the
community
(Naval
Forces
Special
Issue,
2010).
The
mining
company
from
the
case
study
above
also
raises
community
awareness
of
its
relationship‐building
efforts
through
press
releases
announcing
news
like
job
creations,
promotions
and
tour
programs
(Braman,
2001).
A
study
in
a
university
setting
found
that
stakeholders
who
were
more
aware
of
the
university’s
local
contributions
were
more
likely
to
perceive
a
favorable
relationship
with
that
university.
In
turn,
those
who
perceived
a
more
favorable
relationship
were
more
willing
to
support
the
university
in
a
variety
of
ways
(Kim
et
al,
2006).
Similarly,
a
study
investigating
the
relationship
Page
16
of
54
between
a
utility
company
and
its
customers
concluded
that
customers
who
were
aware
of
the
company’s
philanthropic
and
community
relations
programs
were
more
likely
to
remain
loyal
to
the
company
(versus
customers
who
were
not
aware
of
these
programs)
(Hall,
2006).
The
practice
of
raising
awareness
of
community
relations
programs
and
initiatives
appears
to
foster
enhanced
views
of
the
organization
and
may
play
a
role
in
helping
achieve
the
organization’s
goals
(Hall,
2006).
Conduct
evaluation
and
solicit
feedback
Organizations
should
implement
measurement
and
evaluation
mechanisms
on
a
routine
basis
for
two
fundamental
reasons.
The
first
reason
is
to
gain
feedback
on
community
relations
programs
and
initiatives.
Gronstedt
noted
that
public
members
are
not
passive,
but
rather
active,
interactive
and
equal
participants
of
an
ongoing
communication
process
(1997,
p.
39).
If
an
organization
is
serious
about
engaging
its
audiences
in
two‐way
communication,
it
should
proactively
solicit
feedback,
and
more
importantly
incorporate
that
feedback
into
activities
that
promote
relationship‐building,
and
improve
stakeholders’
attitudes,
evaluations
and
behaviors
(Bruning
et
al,
2004).
This
should
be
an
ongoing
process
so
it
is
apparent
the
organization
is
working
to
understand
and
fulfill
stakeholders’
interests
and
needs
(Bruning
et
al,
2004).
The
second
reason
organizations
should
evaluate
their
programs
is
because
OPR
are
dynamic.
Not
only
will
stakeholder
interests
and
concerns
continue
to
evolve,
the
way
community
relations
is
practiced
will
do
so
as
well.
Twenty
years
ago,
community
relations
was
simply
seen
as
attaining
“goodwill”
in
the
community;
it
has
now
broadened
to
include
social
responsibility
(Smith,
2007).
To
maintain
a
sustaining
relationship,
the
organization
must
participate
in
a
process
of
ongoing
learning,
interaction
and
exchange
with
its
audiences
(Ledingham,
2001).
According
to
Holland
and
Gelman,
sustainability
is
related
to
ongoing
reciprocity
in
OPR
and
both
parties
should
be
committed
to
“ongoing,
comprehensive
evaluation
from
the
earliest
stages
of
the
relationship”
(1998,
p.
107).
Page
17
of
54
Practical
Application
Depending
on
an
organization’s
goals
and
objectives,
it
can
translate
these
essential
cornerstones
of
community
relations
into
specific
activities.
For
example,
corporate
programs
tend
focus
on
economic
contributions
and
social
responsibility.
Businesses
such
as
large
mining
companies,
hotels
and
casinos
have
implemented
activities
such
as
financial
donations
and
contributions,
employee
volunteerism
(Altman,
1998),
tour
programs
and
issuing
news
releases
(Braman,
2001).
Other
activities
include
forming
relationships
with
civic,
professional
and
nonprofit
organizations,
and
programs
to
preserve
and
protect
the
environment
(Altman,
1998).
Universities
have
applied
scholarly
activities
in
the
community
by
establishing
faculty
partnerships
with
community
representatives,
service‐learning
opportunities,
and
internship
and
practica
programs.
Many
have
also
disseminated
information
regarding
athletic
programs
and
formed
advisory
groups
(Holland
&
Gelmon,
1998).
Few
examples
exist
for
implementing
effective
community
relations
activities
by
US
federal
government
agencies.
However,
some
have
been
found
from
other
countries;
several
specifically
relate
to
crises
situations
and
a
few
that
apply
to
local
government
agencies.
The
US
Army
Reserve
broadly
describes
actions
to
reintroduce
and
reinvent
itself
as
part
of
a
community
relations
effort
using
public
statements
of
support,
memorandums
of
agreements
and
understandings,
and
lauding
Army
Reserve
community
supporters
(Hart,
Army
Reserve
Magazine,
Winter
2005).
The
Royal
Australian
Navy’s
community
engagement
program
indicates
that
it
presents
displays
at
community
events,
and
interacts
with
community
leaders,
influencers
and
potential
recruits
(Naval
Forces
Special
Issue,
2010).
The
Brookhaven
National
Lab,
which
is
operated
by
the
US
Department
of
Energy,
responded
to
the
toxic
chemical
release
crisis
by
forming
a
community
advisory
council.
The
council
was
comprised
of
various
stakeholder
groups
and
became
an
effective
way
to
cultivate
interpersonal
relationships
with
individuals
from
local
activist
groups,
civic
associations
and
employees
(Kim
&
Rhee,
2006).
Local
agencies
like
city
governments
and
public
utilities
companies
have
sponsored
special
events
and
festivals,
held
community
Page
18
of
54
planning
meetings,
provided
additional
benefits
to
standard
services,
and
built
and
maintained
parks
and
trails
(preserving
and
protecting
the
environment).
As
evidenced
by
the
scarce
research
that
exists
on
community
relations
best
practices
for
US
federal
agencies,
a
guideline
that
follows
the
principles
described
above
should
be
developed
for
agencies
to
effectively
implement
and
evaluate
community
relations
programs.
The
research
for
this
capstone
project
will
reveal
the
extent
to
which
the
Navy
currently
employs
these
community
relations
cornerstones,
and
identify
areas
where
it
can
improve
its
efforts
to
achieve
a
framework
that
is
mutually‐beneficial
for
both
the
Navy
and
its
stakeholders.
Page
19
of
54
CHAPTER
TWO:
METHODOLOGY
The
research
for
this
capstone
included
three
methods
–
a
review
of
community
relations
activities,
a
content
analysis
of
the
San
Diego
Union‐Tribune
and
a
survey
of
San
Diego
residents,
all
of
which
are
described
in
detail
below.
Review
of
Community
Relations
Activities
An
environmental
scan
of
the
Navy’s
community
relations
efforts
was
conducted
through
the
review
of
the
news
updates,
public
affairs
and
community
relations
sections
of
the
Commander
Navy
Region
Southwest’s
(CNRSW)
website
and
the
websites
of
two
installations
that
fall
under
CNRSW
jurisdiction,
Naval
Base
San
Diego
and
Naval
Base
Coronado.
Several
stand‐alone
community
relations
initiatives
have
websites
dedicated
to
the
individual
program’s
mission,
goals
and
activities.
These
programs
were
also
reviewed
and
include
the
Navy
Community
Service
Program
and
the
Centennial
of
Naval
Aviation
websites.
The
purpose
of
this
review
was
to
provide
an
overview
of
what
the
Navy
is
currently
doing
to
engage
the
San
Diego
region,
gain
some
insight
into
the
Navy’s
overarching
community
relations
goals,
and
how
it
views
its
obligation
as
a
federal
agency
to
communicate
with
residents.
For
full
website
addresses
and
links
to
the
programs
and
activities
discussed
above,
please
see
Appendix
A.
Content
Analysis
A
content
analysis
was
conducted
of
articles
published
in
the
online
and/or
print
version
of
the
San
Diego
Union‐Tribune
from
March
1,
2010,
through
March
1,
2011.
A
search
was
performed
using
the
Factiva
database,
for
the
search
terms
“U.S.
Navy,”
“US
Navy,”
or
“the
Navy.”
This
search
produced
650
articles.
The
results
were
narrowed
down
by
selecting
the
subject
terms
“Armed
Forces”
and
“Navy.”
The
subsequent
Factiva
search
yielded
104
articles.
First,
articles
were
reviewed
for
relevance.
Relevant
articles
were
those
that
devoted
at
least
one
complete
sentence
to
substantive
Page
20
of
54
discussion
of
Navy
activities,
programs
or
policies.
Articles
that
were
irrelevant
included
event
listings,
obituaries,
and
articles
about
Navy
sporting
events.
Of
the
104,
69
articles
were
deemed
relevant.
Articles
deemed
relevant
were
then
evaluated
for
three
variables:
•
Overall
tone
of
the
article
in
relation
to
how
the
reader
would
perceive
the
U.S.
Navy
as
an
entity
–
that
is,
whether
the
reader
is
likely
to
emerge
with
a
positive,
negative,
or
neutral
view
of
the
Navy
as
an
entity.
•
Whether
or
not
the
local
community
was
discussed.
•
If
the
local
community
was
discussed,
whether
the
reader
is
likely
to
emerge
with
a
positive,
negative,
or
neutral
view
of
the
Navy’s
role
within
or
relationship
with
the
community.
The
first
and
third
variables
were
assigned
values
“positive,”
“negative,”
or
“neutral.”
Perceptions
and
tone
were
a
qualitative
assessment
based
on
the
treatment
of
those
quoted
or
interviewed,
the
terminology
used,
framing
techniques,
or
the
salience
of
elements
in
the
article.
SPSS
software
was
used
to
determine
frequencies
and
crosstabulations
of
variables.
For
more
information
about
how
articles
were
evaluated
and
coded,
please
see
the
Content
Analysis
Coding
Procedure
in
Appendix
B.
Survey
An
online
survey
was
conducted
to
gauge
San
Diego
residents’
awareness
of
the
Navy
in
the
local
community
and
sentiment
toward
the
Navy’s
relationship
with
the
community.
The
survey
was
created
and
executed
using
Qualtrics
software
program.
Survey
respondents
were
found
using
a
convenience
sample.
To
encourage
participation,
I
posted
the
survey
link
to
my
Facebook,
Twitter
and
LinkedIn
accounts.
The
survey
link
was
also
emailed
to
my
own
personal
contacts,
and
those
people
were
asked
to
pass
it
along
to
their
networks.
To
be
eligible
to
participate,
respondents
had
to
be
at
least
18
years
of
age,
current
residents
of
San
Diego
and
have
lived
there
for
at
least
one
year.
The
survey
took
approximately
10
minutes
to
complete.
Page
21
of
54
Sample
Sixty‐three
San
Diego
residents
completed
the
survey.
The
majority
of
the
respondents
were
female
(62
percent),
Caucasian
(74
percent)
and
the
most
common
age
group
was
under
30
years
old
(45
percent).
A
full
46
percent
of
respondents
had
lived
in
San
Diego
for
at
least
10
years,
29
percent
had
lived
there
between
4‐10
years,
and
25
percent
less
than
four
years.
The
median
education
level
among
participants
was
college‐level,
as
most
held
a
bachelor’s
degree
(46
percent).
The
majority
of
respondents
had
no
affiliation
with
the
Navy
(63
percent).
For
more
information
about
the
survey,
please
see
the
Online
Survey
Questionnaire
in
Appendix
C.
Page
22
of
54
CHAPTER
THREE:
FINDINGS
Review
of
Community
Relations
Activities
An
overview
of
the
Navy’s
current
community
relations
activities
as
found
through
the
following
websites:
Commander
Navy
Region
Southwest
(CNRSW)
The
public
affairs
section
of
the
website
lists
contact
phone
numbers
for
all
the
public
affairs
offices
of
Navy
bases
within
CNRSW.
It
also
lists
a
contact
phone
number
for
the
news
desk
director,
where
media
queries
should
be
directed.
The
community
relations
portion
of
the
public
affairs
page
lists
a
short
description
of
the
Navy
Community
Service
Program,
with
a
tagline
of
“Serving
America
Twice.”
The
CNRSW
website
does
not
actually
link
to
the
Community
Service
Program’s
website.
Navy
Community
Service
Program
(NCSP)
An
in‐depth
look
at
the
NCSP
revealed
that
it
strives
to
improve
education
as
well
as
the
quality
of
life
in
communities.
The
goal
of
the
program
is
to
give
back
through
community
service
and
in
turn,
develop
strong
core
values
and
leadership
skills
for
Sailors.
Volunteers
are
encouraged
to
work
with
other
services,
businesses
and
organizations
to
develop
a
collective
vision
of
community
needs
and
a
commitment
to
share
responsibilities
and
resources
required
to
address
them.
NCSP
was
established
in
November
1992
and
its
mission
is
to
“help
build
stronger
communities
and
to
develop
mission‐ready
personnel
through
outreach
activities.”
The
NCSP
promotes
volunteerism
and
community
service
to
assist
in
the
education
and
enrichment
of
the
nation’s
young
and
communities
in
revitalizing
citizenry.
The
NCSP
focuses
on
five
areas
or
“Flagship
Projects”
that
serve
to
strengthen
youth
and
communities:
Page
23
of
54
•
Personal
Excellence
Partnerships
–
this
flagship
forms
partnerships
between
Navy
commands,
local
schools,
civic
and
youth
organizations.
The
partnerships
emphasize
tutoring
and
mentoring,
conducting
science
fairs
and
computer
instruction,
health
and
fitness
activities,
and
community
service,
including
environmental
projects.
The
goal
is
to
strengthen
the
education,
health
promotion,
and
citizenship
of
America's
youth,
preschool
through
twelfth
grade.
•
Project
Good
Neighbor
–
This
collaborative
effort
with
public
and
private
organizations
encourages
Navy
men
and
women
to
share
their
gifts
and
abilities.
It
encourages
Navy
personnel
worldwide
to
participate
in
programs
that
serve
needy
families
in
neighboring
communities.
The
Navy's
Chief
of
Chaplains
coordinates
the
activities,
such
as
food
drives
and
cooking
Thanksgiving
dinner
at
shelters
for
homeless
people.
•
Campaign
Drug
Free
(CDF)
–
This
campaign
involves
Naval
and
Marine
Corps
personnel
to
deliver
a
simple
message:
"If
you
want
to
be
a
success,
don't
use
drugs."
Sailors
and
Marines
serve
as
volunteers
to
lecture
on
prevention
of
drug
abuse
in
elementary,
middle,
and
high
schools
nationwide.
Following
videotape
presentations,
personnel
discuss
with
the
audience
the
challenges
of
taking
charge
of
their
lives
and
establishing
self‐control.
Posters,
brochures
and
public
service
announcements
provided
by
CDF
reinforce
the
anti‐drug
abuse
message.
•
Health,
Safety,
and
Fitness
–
This
flagship
focuses
on
the
health
and
well‐being
of
the
individual.
Building
on
the
belief
that,
"growing
up
healthy
is
just
as
important
as
growing
up
smart,"
The
objective
is
to
"plant
a
seed"
among
America's
youth
to
encourage
them
to
lead
healthy,
active
lives
from
an
early
age.
•
Environmental
Stewardship
‐
projects
focus
on
preservation
and
restoration
of
the
environment
through
education
of
youth,
their
families
and
the
community.
Examples
Page
24
of
54
of
programs
are
the
"Water
for
Life"
Project
at
Submarine
Base
Bangor,
WA,
and
the
Draketail
Maritime
Science
Project
in
Annapolis,
MD.
The
Five
Flagship
Projects
are
cooperative
ventures
between
local
Navy
commands,
businesses,
labor,
foundations,
colleges
and
universities,
religious
organizations,
media,
community
groups,
health
care
and
governmental
agencies,
and
other
military
services.
The
Navy
taps
a
pool
of
more
than
two
million
potential
volunteers
to
take
part
in
the
NCSP,
as
members
of
the
reserve,
retired,
and
veteran
communities
are
encouraged
to
join
active
duty
and
civilian
personnel
to
support
community
service
programs.
The
Navy
emphasizes
that
it
“intends
to
do
its
share
to
strengthen
America’s
communities
working
hand
in
hand
with
other
organizations.
There
is
a
small
staff
at
the
Navy
Personnel
Command
that
provides
program
guidance
and
technical
assistance
in
implementing
these
efforts.
It
is
unclear
how
many
or
which
Navy
bases
in
San
Diego
are
actively
employing
the
NCSP
Flagship
Projects
and
the
website
appears
to
be
outdated.
The
last
message
featured
on
the
website
from
the
President
of
the
United
States
is
from
President
George
W.
Bush,
and
the
last
posted
issue
of
Navy
Volunteer!,
the
magazine
that
keeps
military
service
personnel
and
their
families
informed
about
current
community
service
issues,
policies,
programs
and
activities,
is
dated
October
2010.
Environmental
Support
The
CNRSW
website
lists
environmental
support
among
its
regional
programs
like
air
and
port
operations,
training
and
readiness
and
the
Navy
College.
While
some
of
these
environmental
support
activities
may
not
involve
direct
interaction
with
community
members
or
organizations,
they
do
show
what
the
Navy
is
doing
to
protect
the
region
and
contribute
to
its
future.
The
environmental
support
section
says
that
the
Navy
is
committed
to
operating
its
forces
and
conducting
training
in
a
manner
compatible
with
the
environment.
Part
of
the
Navy’s
mission
is
to
prevent
pollution,
protect
the
environment
and
protect
natural,
historical
and
cultural
Page
25
of
54
resources.
Some
of
the
Navy’s
recent
environmental
programs
and/or
successes,
specifically
as
they
apply
to
San
Diego
Bay,
include:
•
Conservations
•
Protection
Compliance
•
Protection
Programs
•
Resources
•
Storm
Water
Training
•
Furniture
Reuse
•
Training
Naval
Base
San
Diego
The
public
affairs
section
of
Naval
Base
San
Diego’s
website
lists
the
public
affairs
officer’s
duties
as
providing
“public
affairs
advice
to
the
Commanding
Officer,
Executive
Officer
and
base
staff
as
it
relates
to
daily
events,
community
issues
and
media
coverage.”
The
public
affairs
officer
is
the
point
of
contact
for
all
media
queries,
community
relations
and
other
public
affairs
functions
that
are
the
responsibility
of
the
base.
Naval
Base
San
Diego’s
website
has
a
press
releases
section,
but
does
not
actually
include
any
content.
As
of
April
18,
2011,
the
news
articles
section
includes
one
article
from
the
Navy
Compass,
the
official
Navy
news
source
for
the
southwest
region,
about
the
base’s
Regional
Recycling
Facility.
Naval
Base
Coronado
Naval
Base
Coronado
is
a
consortium
of
eight
Navy
installations
in
the
San
Diego
region
and
stretching
up
to
San
Clemente,
California.
A
mission
statement
located
on
Commander
Region
Navy
Southwest’s
website
states
the
mission
of
Naval
Base
Coronado’s
public
affairs
office
is
to
“enhance
the
public
image
of
Naval
Base
Coronado,
manage
the
command’s
community
relations
program,
and
serve
as
the
point
of
contact
for
all
media
and
public
inquiries.”
The
Page
26
of
54
office
provides
information
and
press
releases
to
newspapers,
TV,
radio
stations,
and
civic
organizations;
schedules
and
conducts
interviews
and
news
conferences;
and
manages
the
NBC
youth
program.
The
community
relations
program
section
of
the
public
affairs
office’s
site
is
listed
as
“Coronado’s
Youth
Group
and
Special
Events”
webpage.
It
informs
visitors
that
due
to
heightened
security
posture
and
the
ongoing
support
for
operations
in
the
Global
War
on
Terrorism,
general
public
base
tours
are
postponed
indefinitely.
Special
events
and
youth
group
visits
aboard
Naval
Base
Coronado’s
installations
are
allowed
and
coordinated
through
the
Navy
Recruiting
District
Southwest
Youth
Group.
The
website
lists
the
contact
name
and
information
for
this
person.
The
news
and
current
information
section
of
Naval
Base
Coronado’s
website
lists
one
press
release
from
September
9,
2010,
about
special
control
measures
that
were
activated
in
response
to
unattended
items
on
base.
Nine
news
articles
are
listed
that
cover
various
partnerships
and
events
in
the
community.
The
news
articles
actually
appear
to
be
press
releases,
but
do
not
include
the
date
the
release
was
issued.
Centennial
of
Naval
Aviation
The
website
for
the
Centennial
of
Naval
Aviation
includes
information
about
the
mission
and
goals
of
the
celebration.
It
explains
that
it
is
a
year‐long
celebration
that
covers
the
scope
of
all
Naval
aviation
activities,
including
aircraft,
people,
ships,
innovations
and
significant
event.
The
celebration
kicked
off
in
January
2011,
included
a
week‐long
series
of
events
in
February
2011
and
will
continue
throughout
the
year.
The
intention
of
the
celebration
is
to
raise
public
awareness
of
the
Navy,
Marine
Corps,
Coast
Guard
and
NASA
aviation
operations.
San
Diego
is
one
of
the
key
geographical
areas
of
the
country
the
events
center
on
because
it
holds
special
significance
in
Naval
history
and
activities.
Page
27
of
54
The
website
informs
visitors
that
over
200
events
will
take
place
in
2011
to
celebrate
100
years
in
Naval
Aviation
and
lists
34
commemoration
events
that
the
Navy,
Marine
Corps
and
Coast
Guard
will
focus
its
combined
assets
on.
In
the
public
affairs
section
of
the
site,
visitors
can
find
resources
like
the
“public
affairs
toolbox”
which
offers
a
range
of
materials,
including
a
video,
brief,
history
outline,
historical
narrative,
Centennial
merchandise
and
associations
list.
A
“booth
toolbox”
also
features
a
banner,
podium
poster,
display
graphics,
display
narrations,
and
a
graphic/narration
usage
policy.
The
Centennial
website
also
includes
buttons
to
follow
the
celebration
on
social
media
platforms
like
Facebook
and
Twitter.
Page
28
of
54
Content
Analysis
Figure
1
depicts
the
percentage
of
articles
that
used
a
positive,
negative
and
neutral
tone
toward
the
Navy
as
an
entity.
Figure
1.
Overall
Tone
Regarding
the
Navy
as
an
Enoty
positive
26%
negative
10%
64%
neutral
All
69
articles
made
reference
to
the
local
community.
Figure
2
depicts
the
percentage
of
articles
that
adopted
a
positive,
negative,
or
neutral
tone
regarding
the
Navy’s
relationship
with
the
local
community.
Figure
2.
Local
Community
Implicaoons
39%
42%
positive
negative
19%
neutral
Page
29
of
54
Table
1
shows
that
there
is
a
general
correspondence
in
articles
between
the
tone
toward
the
Navy
as
an
entity
and
the
tone
toward
the
Navy’s
relationship
with
the
community.
Table
1.
Crosstabulation
of
Overall
Tone
Regarding
the
Navy
as
an
Entity
and
Tone
Regarding
Local
community
Implications
Local
Community
Implications
Positive
Negative
Neutral
Total
Overall
Tone
Regarding
Positive
59.3%
0%
6.9%
26.1%
the
Navy
as
an
Entity
Negative
0
46.2
3.4
10.1
Neutral
40.7
53.8
89.7
63.8
Total
percent
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
N
27
13
29
69
x2
(4,
N
=
69)
=
45.00,
p
<
.001
Page
30
of
54
Survey
Awareness
Although
most
participants
are
aware
of
the
Navy’s
presence
in
their
community
(98
percent),
Figure
3
indicates
more
people
than
not
are
unaware
of
specific
community
benefits
or
programs
the
Navy
provides.
Figure
3.
“Are
You
Aware
of
Any
Community
Benefits
or
Programs
That
the
Navy
Provides?”
25%
33%
Yes
No
42%
Unsure
Respondents
who
are
aware
of
benefits
or
programs
the
Navy
provides
listed
the
following
examples:
Table
2.
Specific
Navy
Programs
or
Benefits
Named
by
Survey
Respondents
Personnel
and
their
families
stimulate
the
local
economy
(especially
in
military
housing
areas)*
Fleet
Week*
Volunteer
work
in
the
community*
Jobs/employment
opportunities*
Safety/security
Research
Support
to
families
Morale
Welfare
and
Recreation
(MWR)
events
and
programs
Discounts
for
community
events
(i.e.
sporting
events)
Extensive
partnerships
with
the
community,
including
fundraising
for
local
charities
and
hospitals
School
outreach
and
partnerships
(i.e.
tutoring)
General
community
service
projects
Hosting
community
events
Products
and
services
discounts
Page
31
of
54
Special
loans
NROTC
Recycling
PGA
Golf
Tournament
San
Diego
Zoo
Energy
Conservation
Natural
and
environmental
resources
conservation
Community
input
on
environmental
impacts
projects
Food
program
for
Navy
families
having
financial
difficulties
*Denotes
multiple
mentions
San
Diego
Padres/Chargers
game
help
Tours
of
military
installations
and
vessels
for
general
public
and
service
organizations
Military
personnel
speak
at
local
functions
Membership
and
active
participation
of
military
personnel
in
local
community
and
service
organizations
A
blanket
of
freedom
Use
of
public
facilities
Navy
relief
Navy
housing
Navy
recreation
centers
As
indicated
in
Table
3,
the
length
of
residence
in
San
Diego
showed
no
statistical
association
with
awareness
of
the
benefits
or
programs
that
the
Navy
provides
and
length
of
residence.
If
anything,
those
who
have
lived
in
San
Diego
the
longest
seem
least
likely
to
be
aware
of
the
benefits
or
programs
the
Navy
provides,
although
this
difference
is
small
and
not
statistically
significant.
Table
3.
Crosstabulation
of
Length
of
Residence
and
Awareness
of
Benefits
and
Programs
Provided
by
the
Navy
“How
Many
Years
Have
You
Lived
in
This
Area?”
1‐3
years
4‐10
years
10+
years
People
who
are
Aware
of
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
Provides
People
who
are
Not
Aware
of
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
provides
People
who
are
Unsure
N
35.7%
44.4%
25.0%
42.9
44.4
39.3
21.4
14
11.1
18
35.7
28
x2
(4,
N
=
60)
=
4.11,
p
=
ns
Page
32
of
54
Table
4
shows
that
the
older
respondents
are,
the
more
likely
they
are
to
know
about
benefits
or
programs
the
Navy
provides.
However,
this
association
was
not
statistically
significant,
likely
due
to
the
relatively
small
sample
size.
Table
4.
Crosstabulation
of
Age
and
Awareness
of
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
provides
People
who
are
Aware
of
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
Provides
People
who
are
Unaware
of
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
Provides
People
who
are
Unsure
N
x2
(4,
N
=
60)
=
7.33,
p
=
ns
Media
Habits
18‐29
22.2%
Age
30‐44
31.6%
45+
57.1%
55.6
42.1
14.3
22.2
27
26.3
19
28.6
14
Below,
Table
5
presents
the
percentage
of
people
who
regularly
(i.e.,
at
least
once
per
week)
consume
various
news
sources
who
are
also
aware
of
the
Navy’s
presence
in
their
community
and
who
are
aware
of
the
Navy’s
community
benefits
or
programs,
respectively.
People
who
get
their
news
from
local
news
broadcasts
and
national
news
networks
are
most
likely
to
know
about
community
benefits
or
programs
that
the
Navy
provides;
regular
national
print
newspaper
readers
are
least
likely
to
be
aware
of
the
benefits
and
programs
the
Navy
provides.
Page
33
of
54
Table
5.
Percentage
of
People
Who
Regularly
Consume
News
from
the
Listed
Sources
Who
Are
Aware
of
the
Navy’s
Presence
in
the
community,
and
the
Percentage
of
People
Who
Regularly
Consume
News
from
the
Listed
Sources
Who
Are
Aware
of
Community
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Navy
Provides
%
of
people
who
Are
%
of
People
Who
Are
News
Sources
Aware
of
the
Navy’s
Aware
of
Community
Presence
in
the
Benefits
or
Programs
the
Community
Navy
Provides
Local
News
Broadcasts
82
90
National
News
Networks
73
75
Cable
News
72
70
San
Diego
Union‐Tribune
66
63
National
Print
48
37
Support
for
Navy
Activities
Below,
Table
6
indicates
that
most
people
are
either
“not
very
likely”
or
“somewhat
likely”
to
participate
in
activities
that
support
the
Navy.
Table
6.
“How
Likely
are
You
to
Participate
in
Activities
that
Support
the
Navy
(i.e.
attend
tours,
homecoming
events,
etc.)?
Response
Percentage
(%)
Not
Very
Likely
47.5
Somewhat
Likely
16.9
Somewhat
Unlikely
22.0
Very
Likely
13.6
Total
Percent
100
N
59
Relationship
with
the
Local
Community
As
Table
7
indicates,
respondents
were
most
likely
to
agree
with
the
statements
that
the
Navy
understands
the
needs
and
concerns
of
residents
in
the
community
and
that
the
Navy
believes
the
opinions
of
people
in
the
community
are
legitimate.
They
were
least
likely
to
agree
with
the
statement
that
the
Navy
is
transparent
about
its
plans
for
the
future
and
that
it
demonstrates
an
interest
in
community
members
and
their
families.
Still,
levels
of
agreement
were
above
the
midpoint
of
the
scale
for
all
items.
Page
34
of
54
Table
7.
The
Extent
to
Which
Respondents
Agreed
with
Statements
Regarding
How
the
Navy
Interacts
With
the
Community
The
Navy….
Minimum
(Strongly
Disagree)
2
Maximum
(Strongly
Agree)
7
Mean
N
Supports
events
4.90
59
that
are
of
interest
to
my
community
Understands
the
2
7
5.00
59
needs
and
concerns
of
residents
in
my
community
Believes
the
2
7
4.95
59
opinions
of
people
in
my
community
are
legitimate
Demonstrates
an
1
7
4.29
59
interest
in
me
and/or
my
family
Is
honest
in
its
3
7
4.86
58
dealings
with
residents
in
my
community
Is
transparent
about
1
7
4.28
58
its
plans
for
the
future
Has
a
mutually‐
1
7
4.93
58
beneficial
relationship
with
my
community
Is
willing
to
devote
2
7
4.93
58
resources
(i.e.
personnel,
financial
support)
to
maintain
its
relationship
with
my
community
Note:
Items
were
measured
on
a
7‐point
Likert
scale,
where
1
=
strongly
disagree
and
7
=
strongly
agree.
Page
35
of
54
CHAPTER
FOUR:
DISCUSSION
The
purpose
of
this
capstone
project
was
to
examine
the
extent
to
which
the
Navy
is
employing
the
community
relations
framework
introduced
in
the
literature
review,
and
to
identify
areas
where
it
can
improve
the
way
it
communicates
with
and
engages
the
community.
This
section
interprets
the
research
findings,
discusses
limitations
of
the
study,
and
evaluates
how
well
the
Navy
addresses
the
cornerstones
of
community
relations.
Review
of
Community
Relations
Activities
Through
a
review
of
its
websites,
it
is
evident
that
the
Navy
has
successfully
established
key
partnerships
with
many
business
and
civic
organizations
in
the
San
Diego
region
and
demonstrates
an
interest
in
protecting
the
region’s
environment.
The
public
affairs
section
of
each
website
proves
to
be
accessible
for
media
inquiries,
but
fails
to
provide
relevant
content
for
the
public.
Information
is
limited
or
listed
in
the
wrong
section
on
sites
that
do
provide
content.
If
community
members
were
interested
in
seeking
out
public
affairs
or
community
relations
activities
information
on
these
sites,
they
likely
would
not
end
up
in
the
appropriate
place
or
not
find
the
information
they
were
looking
for.
Links
to
community
relations
programs,
news
articles,
press
releases,
volunteer
information
and
other
relevant
content
should
all
be
streamlined
and
consistent
across
the
public
affairs’
sections
of
each
Southwest
Region
website.
While
the
Navy
appears
to
have
many
successful
community
relations
programs
and
opportunities
in
place
to
facilitate
its
relationship
with
residents,
this
information
is
not
intuitively‐located
for
online
visitors.
The
Navy’s
Community
Service
program
is
a
robust
initiative
that
communicates
its
willingness
to
engage
with
San
Diego
residents
and
encourage
a
mutually‐beneficial
relationship.
However,
the
fact
that
the
Program
is
not
linked
from
the
CNRSW
website,
does
not
have
a
message
from
the
current
President,
and
is
unclear
about
how
it
is
implemented
indicates
that
Naval
bases
in
the
San
Diego
region
do
not
regularly
refer
to
it
for
long‐range
community
relations
planning.
Page
36
of
54
The
Navy’s
environmental
support
programs
are
expansive
and
show
that
the
Navy
is
concerned
with
protecting
the
region
for
the
future
by
minimizing
waste,
minimizing
its
impacts
from
training
operations
establishing
various
recycling
programs.
This
does
not
seem
to
be
an
integrated
part
of
the
Navy’s
overall
community
relations
initiatives
and
is
not
discussed
extensively
on
the
region’s
individual
installation
websites.
Incorporating
environmental
support
efforts
with
general
community
relations
programs
may
be
a
way
for
the
Navy
to
further
ingratiate
itself
with
the
community.
The
Centennial
of
Aviation
website
is
an
excellent
example
of
how
to
increase
awareness
among
the
community
about
a
long‐term
program
or
series
of
events,
especially
one
with
such
a
rich
history
intertwined
with
the
area.
The
public
affairs
and
community
relations
resources
for
the
Centennial
of
Aviation
are
easy
to
access
and
share,
and
equip
visitors
with
the
tools
they
need
to
become
active
participants
in
the
celebration.
The
range
of
available
materials
in
various
mediums,
including
social
media,
indicates
that
the
Navy
is
keenly
aware
of
its
target
audiences
and
knows
where
to
reach
them.
Content
Analysis
The
findings
of
the
content
analysis
bode
well
for
the
Navy’s
presence
in
local
media.
The
fact
that
all
relevant
articles
made
reference
to
the
Navy’s
local
presence
or
relationship
with
the
community
is
beneficial
because
it
shows
the
Navy
knows
how
important
it
is
to
keep
San
Diego
abreast
of
its
activities,
and
acknowledges
those
activities
directly
affect
residents,
businesses
and
organizations.
The
gap
between
positive
and
negative
tone
in
articles
specific
to
the
Navy’s
relationship
with
the
local
community
is
much
more
narrow
than
in
articles
discussing
the
Navy
as
an
entity.
This
is
something
the
Navy
should
be
aware
of
when
conducting
local
media
outreach,
and,
accordingly,
the
Navy
should
make
an
effort
to
ensure
coverage
is
balanced
so
that
benefits
or
contributions
to
the
community
mitigate
any
negative
impact
the
Navy’s
activities
may
have
on
the
community.
This
is
especially
true
because
the
survey
showed
that
more
than
50
percent
of
people
who
regularly
get
their
news
from
local
news
broadcasts
and
Page
37
of
54
the
San
Diego
Union‐Tribune
are
aware
of
the
Navy’s
presence,
and
benefits
or
services
it
provides.
Survey
Awareness
While
almost
all
of
the
survey
respondents
were
aware
of
the
Navy’s
presence,
only
a
third,
overall,
were
aware
of
benefits
or
programs
provided
by
the
Navy.
The
survey
findings
regarding
awareness
of
benefits
or
programs
show
that
the
Navy
could
do
a
better
job
communicating
with
specific
groups
within
the
community.
The
assumption
that
the
longer
someone
lives
in
the
area,
the
more
they
know
about
large
companies
or
organizations
operating
in
that
area
proves
to
be
false
here.
People
who
have
lived
in
San
Diego
for
10
or
more
years
were
no
more
likely
–
and,
if
anything,
appeared
less
likely
–
to
know
about
specific
benefits
or
programs
the
Navy
provides
than
those
who
have
lived
there
for
just
a
few
years.
Thus,
the
Navy
should
focus
its
efforts
on
engaging
this
group
by
evaluating
and
modifying
current
activities
that
target
people
who
have
lived
in
San
Diego
for
10
years
or
longer.
Awareness
of
benefits
or
programs
also
revealed
interesting
findings
among
different
age
groups.
The
oldest
age
group
(45+)
is
more
than
twice
as
likely
than
the
youngest
(18‐29)
to
know
about
specific
benefits
or
programs
that
the
Navy
provides.
This
could
be
a
function
of
San
Diego
being
a
region
that
people
frequently
move
in
and
out
of
with
young
people
attending
universities
in
the
area,
or
it
could
be
that
people
in
the
younger
age
group
do
not
use
the
communication
channels
the
Navy
distributes
community
relations
information
through,
or
that
they
are
simply
less
invested
in
what
is
going
on
in
their
community.
Regardless,
it
would
be
beneficial
for
the
Navy
to
conduct
research
that
helps
them
to
reach
and
engage
people
in
their
twenties
and
thirties,
especially
if
it
anticipates
expanding
its
local
presence
in
the
long‐term,
because
these
people
will
have
invested
more
time
and
money
in
San
Diego
by
then,
assuming
they
end
up
staying
in
the
region.
Page
38
of
54
Support
for
Navy
Activities
Generally,
support
for
the
Navy
through
participation
in
activities
like
tours
and
homecoming
events
was
low.
Although
most
respondents
are
aware
of
the
Navy’s
presence
in
their
community,
a
full
47
percent
of
those
people
indicated
that
they
were
not
very
likely
to
participate
in
these
activities.
Just
33
percent
of
respondents
were
aware
of
benefits
or
programs
the
Navy
provides.
This
could
be
attributed
to
lack
of
understanding
what
specific
benefits
or
programs
entail.
While
disheartening,
this
demonstrates
a
need
for
research
to
determine
if
the
activities
are
unappealing,
conflict
with
people’s
schedules,
or
if
the
information
is
just
not
reaching
the
target
audience.
Relationship
with
the
Community
The
survey
statements
asking
respondents
to
indicate
the
extent
to
which
they
agree
provide
insight
into
how
residents
perceive
the
way
the
Navy
interacts
with
the
community
and
how
the
Navy
approaches
its
relationship
with
the
community.
In
general,
most
of
the
responses
to
the
statements
lean
toward
agreement.
Respondents
most
strongly
agreed
that
the
Navy
understands
the
needs
and
concerns
of
residents
in
the
community
and
that
the
Navy
believes
the
opinions
of
people
in
the
community
are
legitimate.
This
indicates
that
respondents
perceived
that
the
overarching
goals
or
objectives
behind
the
Navy’s
community
relations
programs
are
rooted
in
the
people
of
San
Diego.
It
shows
a
common
perception
that
the
Navy
recognizes
that
it
relies
on
community
members
to
successfully
operate
in
the
area
and
that
it
makes
a
genuine
effort
to
understand
what
residents
are
looking
for
in
terms
of
mutual
benefits
with
a
federal
government
agency.
Respondents
were
least
likely
to
agree
that
the
Navy
is
transparent
about
its
plans
for
the
future.
This
could
be
a
result
of
common
distrust
of
large
federal
government
agencies
or
it
could
be
attributed
to
specific
incidents
in
the
past
that
the
community
has
experienced
with
the
Navy.
This
issue
of
transparency
should
be
explored
in
future
research.
Page
39
of
54
Limitations
It
is
important
to
keep
in
mind
some
of
the
limitations
of
this
study.
The
survey
gathered
information
from
a
sample
size
of
63
San
Diego
residents
and,
therefore,
its
findings
cannot
be
generalized
to
how
all
San
Diego
residents
perceive
the
Navy’s
relationship
with
the
community.
Another
limitation
of
the
study
is
that
it
examines
the
public
and
media
reception
of
just
one
branch
of
the
US
military
in
one
American
city.
Its
findings
may
not
be
applicable
in
other
countries
or
for
how
foreign
militaries
may
be
received
in
their
own
regions
due
to
differences
in
culture,
and
media
and
communication
practices.
Community
Relations
Cornerstones
Despite
the
limitations,
this
study
suggests
that
the
Navy’s
community
relations
efforts
are
rooted
in
the
same
cornerstones
as
those
followed
by
universities,
corporations
and
several
local
government
and
public
agencies.
As
will
be
described
below,
the
Navy
has
been
variously
successful
in
implementing
these
cornerstones,
with
some
areas
that
could
stand
improvement.
Establish
and
maintain
mutually‐beneficial
relationships
The
Navy
understands
the
value
of
this
cornerstone
and
works
hard
to
achieve
mutually‐
beneficial
relationships
with
community
members
and
organizations.
The
partnerships
the
Navy
has
forged
in
the
community
with
schools
and
service
organizations,
as
reviewed
on
their
websites,
show
that
the
Navy
realizes
the
value
in
knowledge‐based
collaborations
that
Holland
and
Gelmon
discussed,
in
which
both
parties
have
things
to
teach
each
other,
learn
from
each
other
and
things
they
will
learn
together
(1998).
The
Navy
also
understands
the
benefit
of
taking
a
proactive
host
role
in
the
community
as
evidenced
by
the
Centennial
of
Aviation
program,
a
series
of
events
that
shows
the
success
of
the
Navy
and
the
community
is
intertwined,
much
like
Altman’s
suggestion
that
the
success
of
a
corporation
and
community
prosperity
are
intertwined
(Altman,
1998).
Page
40
of
54
On
average,
survey
respondents
were
likely
to
agree
with
the
statement
that
“the
Navy
has
a
mutually‐beneficial
relationship
with
my
community,”
indicating
that
the
Navy’s
efforts
to
establish
and
maintain
a
mutually‐beneficial
relationship
have
been
well‐received
by
the
community.
Survey
respondents
also
indicated
that
they
have
seen
some
of
these
mutual
benefits
in
action,
given
their
relatively
high
agreement
with
the
statement
“the
Navy
is
willing
to
devote
resources
(i.e.
personnel,
financial
support)
to
maintain
its
relationship
with
my
community.”
Organization‐public
relationship
(OPR)
research
suggests
that
if
the
Navy
maintains
these
mutually‐beneficial
relationships
with
its
stakeholders,
it
can
potentially
influence
the
extent
they
agree
with
or
have
a
positive
attitude
toward
them
as
an
entity
(Ledingham,
2001).
Approach
relationships
with
openness
and
honesty
The
Navy
puts
forth
an
earnest
effort
to
embrace
openness
and
honesty
in
its
community
relations
programs.
The
organization
makes
itself
readily
available
to
the
media
(as
evidenced
by
the
public
affairs
sections
of
its
websites)
and
on
average,
survey
respondents
were
likely
to
agree
with
the
statement
that
“the
Navy
is
honest
in
its
dealings
with
residents
in
my
community,”
which
reflects
the
Navy’s
decidedly
open
approach
to
this
cornerstone.
The
Navy’s
environmental
support
initiatives
also
show
that
it
values
honesty
by
disclosing
the
effects
of
its
training
activities
in
the
region
and
what
it
is
doing
to
rectify
any
negative
impacts
they
may
have.
The
goals
of
the
Navy
Community
Service
Program
also
demonstrate
that
it
acknowledges
its
responsibility
to
contribute
to
the
local
community,
and
doing
so
can
help
foster
an
open
dialogue
among
the
Navy’s
many
stakeholders.
Although
more
research
is
needed
to
better
capture
how
the
Navy
addresses
this
cornerstone,
the
evidence
in
this
study
suggests
it
does
a
reasonable
job
of
doing
so.
Understand
the
interests
and
needs/concerns
of
the
audience
The
Navy
successfully
meets
this
cornerstone
in
several
ways.
First,
the
survey
indicates
that
stakeholders,
on
average,
agree
that
the
Navy
is
attuned
to
their
needs
and
concerns;
a
requirement
Ledingham
claims
is
necessary
to
initiate,
develop
and
maintain
successful
OPRs
Page
41
of
54
(2001).
In
addition
to
understanding
the
interests
and
needs
or
concerns
of
its
stakeholders,
survey
respondents,
on
average,
agreed
that
the
Navy
believes
the
opinions
of
people
in
the
community
are
legitimate,
which
aligns
with
Hon
and
Grunig’s
assurance
strategy
(Hon
&
Grunig,
1999,
p.
15)
to
build
a
successful
OPR.
The
Navy’s
community
outreach
for
the
Centennial
of
Aviation
is
further
proof
that
the
Navy
seeks
to
balance
the
needs
of
its
stakeholders
and
identify
common
interests
or
shared
goals,
both
key
elements
found
in
Hallahan,
and
Kruckeberg
and
Starck’s
concepts
of
community
(Smith,
2007).
The
year‐long
celebration
also
shows
that
the
Navy
engages
in
activities
that
improve
economic
aspects
of
the
community,
especially
with
the
program’s
culmination
in
February
2011,
which
brought
out
thousands
of
residents
and
tourists
who
spent
money
in
local
businesses.
Bruning
and
Ledingham
suggest
that
doing
so
improves
the
OPR
(1999,
p.
165).
Multiple
survey
respondents
also
cited
economic
contributions
as
a
benefit
the
Navy
provides
to
the
community.
Although
not
widely
advertised,
the
Navy’s
environmental
initiatives
also
show
that
the
Navy
seeks
to
create
a
sense
of
shared
values
by
conveying
that
protecting
the
area
and
minimizing
Navy
impact
is
a
top
priority
for
the
organization.
According
to
Hallahan,
this
is
a
positive
effect
of
such
community‐oriented
PR
activities
(Smith,
2007).
If
the
Navy
continues
to
stay
abreast
of
all
stakeholder
issues
and
needs,
it
will
find
this
is
an
effective
way
to
monitor
groups
that
may
support
or
oppose
the
organization
(Hall
2006).
One
weakness
relative
to
this
cornerstone
is
that
the
majority
of
respondents
said
they
would
be
unlikely
to
participate
in
activities
that
support
the
Navy.
This
could
reflect
a
lack
of
awareness
of
what
these
events
entail,
but
it
could
also
indicate
the
Navy’s
failure
to
fully
understand
the
interests
of
the
community.
While
people
on
average
agreed
with
the
survey
statement
reflecting
understanding
of
community
needs
and
concerns,
this
agreement
was
not
universal,
so
there
is
room
for
improvement.
Page
42
of
54
Active
leadership
The
research
methods
in
this
study
did
not
evaluate
the
extent
to
which
the
Navy
addresses
this
cornerstone.
Increase
audience
awareness
of
community
relations
efforts
The
Navy
could
improve
its
efforts
to
increase
awareness
in
the
community
of
what
it
is
doing
to
be
a
good
neighbor
and
maintain
a
successful
relationship
with
San
Diego.
As
discussed
on
page
30,
only
a
third
of
survey
respondents
were
aware
of
benefits
or
programs
the
Navy
provides.
There
were
also
some
interesting
findings
regarding
awareness
of
benefits
or
programs
within
specific
age
groups
and
among
length
of
residence
that
can
provide
guidance
on
what
groups
should
be
targeted.
The
review
of
several
of
the
Navy’s
regional
base
websites
also
point
out
missed
opportunities
to
offer
the
community
news
and
content
that
is
created
by
the
organization.
If
the
Navy
made
the
public
affairs
sections
of
its
websites
more
inviting
for
visitors
by
posting
all
news
releases
and
stories,
relevant
links
and
provided
clear
actions
for
how
community
members
can
become
involved
in
its
partnerships
and
programs,
it
could
be
perceived
as
a
reliable
and
central
source
for
community
members.
Similar
to
the
university
study
by
Kim
et
al
discussed
in
the
literature
review
(2006),
the
more
stakeholders
are
aware
of
the
Navy’s
local
contributions,
the
more
likely
they
may
be
to
perceive
a
favorable
relationship
with
the
Navy.
In
turn,
they
may
be
more
willing
to
support
the
Navy
in
a
variety
of
ways,
whether
it
is
attending
events,
volunteering
for
community
relations
programs
or
encouraging
recruitment
efforts.
According
to
Hall,
raising
awareness
of
community
relations
initiatives
appears
to
foster
enhanced
views
of
the
organization
(2006)
and
in
this
case
may
ultimately
help
to
achieve
the
Navy’s
goals.
Conduct
evaluation
and
solicit
feedback
This
is
an
area
where
the
Navy
could
improve
its
efforts
to
solicit
the
community’s
opinion
about
its
performance.
While
the
Navy
does
solicit
feedback
for
some
individual
projects,
like
the
environmental
review
process
for
its
training
exercises
or
basing
decisions,
a
global
Page
43
of
54
mechanism
to
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
its
community
relations
activities
in
San
Diego
is
missing.
The
community
relations
and
public
affairs
sections
of
the
Navy’s
websites
list
contact
information
for
media,
but
do
not
openly
welcome
feedback
from
community
members
or
offer
a
tool
for
them
to
provide
input
on
community
relations
programs
or
activities.
The
Navy
should
host
more
forums
similar
to
the
format
of
those
used
in
the
environmental
review
process,
where
stakeholders
can
voice
their
needs
and
concerns
about
other
issues
(e.g.
employment,
crime),
and
use
the
community
as
a
sounding
board
to
determine
the
necessary
level
and
type
of
engagement
(Holland
&
Gelmon,
1998).
It
is
important
for
the
Navy
to
implement
measurement
and
evaluation
mechanisms
regularly
because
the
public’s
attitudes
and
opinions
are
dynamic.
Stakeholder
interests
and
concerns
will
evolve,
and
the
Navy’s
community
relations
efforts
must
change
to
keep
up
with
them.
Developing
and
disseminating
a
survey
in
the
community
several
times
a
year
would
reveal
any
change
in
opinion
and
offer
the
Navy
a
chance
to
learn
more
about
which
communication
efforts
and
activities
are
most
effective.
Both
the
Navy
and
its
stakeholders
should
be
committed
to
ongoing,
comprehensive
evaluation;
the
community
should
be
willing
to
participate
in
this
process
and
encourage
the
effort
(Holland
&
Gelman,
1998).
The
Navy
is
in
a
difficult
position
because
decisions
that
influence
the
local
community
are
often
dictated
from
high‐ranking
officials
in
Washington,
DC.
To
the
extent
that
it
can,
it
should
seek
feedback
from
the
local
community
and
incorporate
that
feedback
into
community
relations
efforts
to
avoid
giving
the
impression
that
it
“uses
corporate
muscle”
(or,
in
this
case
“big
government”
muscle)
to
force
decisions
on
the
local
level
(Altman,
1998).
Implementing
such
a
measurement
tool
would
demonstrate
that
the
Navy
is
continually
working
to
understand
and
fulfill
the
interests
and
needs
of
the
region.
Page
44
of
54
CHAPTER
FIVE:
CONCLUSION
This
study
offered
a
unique
look
at
how
a
local
news
source
treats
issues
surrounding
the
Navy’s
actions
in
the
San
Diego
region,
how
the
Navy
engages
community
members
in
that
region,
and
how
those
efforts
are
received
by
the
public.
It
then
examined
the
extent
to
which
the
Navy
meets
the
cornerstones
of
effective
community
relations
within
a
framework
built
from
existing
research
on
community
relations
practiced
by
corporations,
universities
and
various
local
government
and
public
agencies
in
the
United
States.
The
research
revealed
that
the
Navy
successfully
addresses
four
of
the
six
cornerstones
of
effective
community
relations
introduced
in
the
literature
review.
The
remaining
two
cornerstones
–
active
leadership
and
increasing
audience
awareness
of
community
relations
efforts
–
require
further
research,
as
they
were
not
adequately
examined
in
the
present
study.
It
is
recommended
that
in‐depth
interviews
be
conducted
with
high‐level
Navy
public
affairs
officers
to
learn
more
about
the
role
of
active
leadership
in
community
relations,
and
how
individual
partnerships
leaders
establish
in
the
community
contribute
to
the
success
of
these
programs.
Awareness
of
community
relations
efforts
should
be
studied
by
surveying
a
large
sample
of
the
region’s
residents
and
probing
for
feedback
on
these
efforts.
The
findings
of
this
study
are
significant
to
the
community
relations
field
because
US
federal
government
agencies
currently
lack
a
list
of
best
practices
for
facilitating
effective
communication
between
agencies
and
their
stakeholders.
From
this
study,
federal
agencies
can
learn
more
about
the
importance
of
integrating
into
the
local
community
and
establishing
common
goals.
They
can
take
cues
from
how
the
Navy
addresses
the
cornerstones
of
effective
community
relations
and
how
well
its
efforts
are
received
by
the
public.
Ideally,
federal
government
agencies
that
wish
to
establish
or
improve
their
relationship
with
the
local
community
can
follow
this
framework
and
tailor
it
to
their
individual
goals.
By
showing
the
lengths
that
the
Navy
goes
to
and
its
success
in
implementing
community
relations,
this
study
also
demonstrates
the
value
of
federal
government
agencies
establishing
and
maintaining
a
positive
relationship
with
the
local
community.
Page
45
of
54
REFERENCES
Altman,
B.
W.
(1998).
Corporate
Community
Relations
in
the
1990s:
A
Study
in
Transformation.
Business
&
Society,
37(2),
221
‐227.
doi:
10.1177/000765039803700205
Altman,
B.
W.
(1999).
Transformed
Corporate
Community
Relations:
A
Management
Tool
for
Achieving
Corporate
Citizenship1.
Business
and
Society
Review,
102(1),
43‐51.
doi:
10.1111/0045‐3609.00024
Altman,
B.
W.,
&
Vidaver‐Cohen,
D.
(2000).
A
Framework
for
Understanding
Corporate
Citizenship
Introduction
to
the
Special
Edition
of
Business
and
Society
Review
“Corporate
Citizenship
for
the
New
Millennium.”
Business
and
Society
Review,
105(1),
1‐
7.
doi:10.1111/0045‐3609.00061
Bruning,
S.
D.,
Langenhop,
A.,
&
Green,
K.
A.
(2004).
Examining
city‐resident
relationships:
linking
community
relations,
relationship
building
activities,
and
satisfaction
evaluations.
Public
Relations
Review,
30(3),
335‐345.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.05.005
Goldberg,
S.,
Cullen,
J.,
&
Austin,
M.
J.
(2001).
Developing
a
Public
Information
and
Community
Relations
Strategy
in
a
County
Social
Service
Agency.
Administration
in
Social
Work,
25(2),
61.
doi:10.1300/J147v25n02_04
Hall,
M.
R.
(2006).
Corporate
Philanthropy
and
Corporate
Community
Relations:
Measuring
Relationship‐Building
Results.
Journal
of
Public
Relations
Research,
18(1),
1‐21.
doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr1801_1
Hart,
T.
(2005).
COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
DIVISION
PARTNERS
WITH
COMMUNITIES
TO
ENHANCE
USAR
STRENGTH.
Army
Reserve
Magazine,
51(3),
7‐8.
Holland,
B.
A.,
&
Gelmon,
S.
B.
(1998).
The
State
of
the“
Engaged
Campus”:
What
have
we
learned
about
building
and
sustaining
university‐community
partnerships?
AAHE
BULLETIN,
51,
3–6.
Kim,
H.‐S.,
&
Rhee,
Y.
(2006).
Exploring
Relationship
Cultivation
Strategies
in
Community
Relations.
Conference
Papers
‐‐
International
Communication
Association
(pp.
1‐31).
Presented
at
the
Conference
Papers
‐‐
International
Communication
Association,
International
Communication
Association.
Page
46
of
54
Kim,
S.‐H.,
Brunner,
B.
R.,
&
Fitch‐Hauser,
M.
(2006).
Exploring
community
relations
in
a
university
setting.
Public
Relations
Review,
32(2),
191‐193.
doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2006.02.018
Ledingham,
J.
A.
(2001).
Government‐community
relationships:
extending
the
relational
theory
of
public
relations.
Public
Relations
Review,
27(3),
285‐295.
doi:10.1016/S0363‐
8111(01)00087‐X
Smith,
M.
(2007).
Toward
a
Praxis‐oriented
Model
of
Public
Relations
and
Community.
Conference
Papers
‐‐
National
Communication
Association,
1.
Page
47
of
54
APPENDIX
A:
Websites
Used
for
Review
of
Community
Relations
Activities
Commander,
Navy
Region
Southwest
http://www.cnic.navy.mil/CNRSW/About/RegionalDepartments/PublicAffairsOffice/index.htm
Navy
Community
Service
Program
http://www.mwr.navy.mil/ncsp/index.htm
Naval
Base
Coronado
http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado/About/Departments/PublicAffairsOffice/index.htm
Naval
Base
Coronado
Community
Relations
Program
http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado/About/Departments/PublicAffairsOffice/CommunityRelati
ons/index.htm
Centennial
of
Naval
Aviation
http://www.public.navy.mil/airfor/centennial/Pages/welcome.aspx
Page
48
of
54
APPENDIX
B:
CONTENT
ANALYSIS
CODING
PROCEDURE
Local News Coverage of the US Navy – Coding Procedure
San Diego Union-Tribune
A. Each article was treated as a unit of analysis. Each row of the spreadsheet was used to code a
new article.
B. While coding each article, the following rules were used:
1) The article #, publication (i.e., San Diego Union Tribune), and publication date
(MM/DD/YYYY) were listed as individual entries.
2) Is the article RELEVANT? For an article to be deemed relevant, at least one complete
sentence was devoted to substantive discussion of Navy activities, programs or policies.
Articles that met these qualifications were coded as “yes” in the RELEVANCE column.
Articles that made no mention of Navy activities, programs or policies were coded as
“no.” Only articles coded as “yes” were subjected to further review for OVERALL
TONE, presence of a LOCAL COMMUNITY frame and the IMPLICATIONS of that
local community frame.
3) What is the OVERALL TONE or valence of the article? This was my own qualitative
assessment based on the treatment of those quoted or interviewed, the terminology used,
framing techniques, the salience of elements in the article, etc. The following codes were
used:
1 = Positive: At least 80% of the coverage/content suggests that readers would
perceive the article as favorable toward the Navy as an entity; that it may
positively influence readers’ opinion of the Navy in general. These articles
were coded as 1.
2 = Negative: At least 80% of the content suggests that readers would perceive the
article as unfavorable toward the Navy as an entity; that it may negatively
influence readers’ opinion of the Navy in general. These articles were
coded as 2.
3 = Neutral: Roughly equal coverage was given to positive and negative
perspectives of the Navy; multiple viewpoints were presented with no clear
side taken. Articles that the audience would presumably walk away from
undecided about how they feel about the Navy as an entity were coded as 3.
4) Is the LOCAL COMMUNITY discussed in the article? Articles that include statements
made about the Navy’s activities, role or relationship with the community it operates in
(San Diego). For example, an article that discusses the Navy’s participation in a local
community event, partnership with a community organization or hiring local residents
was coded as 1. An article that generally discusses the Navy’s participation in a foreign
war or crisis abroad with no link or connection to San Diego was coded as 2.
1 = Yes, this issue is present
Page
49
of
54
0 = No, this issue is not present
5) For articles where a local community frame is present, what are the IMPLICATIONS for
how the Navy’s role within the community is perceived? This was my own qualitative
assessment based on the treatment of those quoted or interviewed, the terminology used,
the salience of elements in the article, etc. The following codes were used:
1 = Positive: At least 80% of the coverage/content suggests that the Navy’s
activities, programs or policies positively influence the community or
contribute in a meaningful way. Readers would walk away from the article
believing the Navy provides benefits to the community and its relationship
with the community is favorable.
2 = Negative: At least 80% of the coverage/content suggests that the Navy’s
activities, programs or policies negatively influence the community and do
not contribute in a meaningful way. Readers would walk away from the
article perceiving the Navy’s relationship with the community as
unfavorable.
3 = Neutral: Roughly equal coverage was given to positive and negative
perspectives of the Navy’s actions in and relationship with the local
community; multiple viewpoints were presented with no clear side taken.
Articles coded as 3 were those that the audience would presumably walk away
from undecided about the Navy’s relationship with the community.
Page
50
of
54
APPENDIX
C:
ONLINE
SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
US Navy Community Relations
PURPOSE: This study is being conducted by an American University graduate student in
Washington, DC. The purpose of the study is to learn more about the public's attitudes toward
and beliefs about the United States Navy's (Navy) presence in their local community. This
independent research has not been commissioned by or have any affiliation with the Navy.
However, the results, in aggregate form, may be shared with the Navy to help inform
programming decisions. The results of the survey will be analyzed and submitted as part of the
graduate student’s final capstone project.
PROCEDURE: All participants will be asked to answer a variety of survey questions. If at any
time during the survey you feel uncomfortable or do not wish to answer a question, you can stop
the study or move forward to the next question. The survey should take no longer than 10
minutes to complete.
CONFIDENTIALITY: Every attempt will be made by the researcher to maintain strict
confidentiality of the information collected in this study. To maintain confidentiality, your
responses will in no way be linked to you personally. Each research participant will be assigned
a numeric study code. The study code will not contain identifying information and at no time
will the study database contain personally identifying information. All study databases are
password-protected.
RISKS: There is minimal risk to participating in this study. The primary risk associated with this
study is the potential discomfort in answering survey questions that ask for a personal opinion.
BENEFITS: There is no direct benefit to you. However, your participation could help the
graduate student better understand how the Navy communicates with community members such
as the media, civic groups and the general public, which could benefit you indirectly.
SUBJECT RIGHTS: If you wish to receive further information regarding your rights as a
research participant, you may contact the Institutional Review Board at American University by
telephoning (202) 885-3447.
ALTERNATIVES/WITHDRAWAL: Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You
can withdraw from the study at any time.
CONTACT PERSON: If you have any questions about the survey, feel free to contact Jess
Young at American University (email: jy5285a@american.edu).
CONCLUSION: By selecting the button, “Agree,” you indicate that you have read the
description of the study and agree to participate. Click on the forward >> or back << arrow
buttons to navigate through the survey.
Agree
Disagree
Page
51
of
54
Qualifiers
1.)
How old are you? ______
2.)
Which of the following areas do you live?
a.
San Diego
b.
Norfolk
c.
None of the above
3.)
How many years have you lived in this area? _______
Survey Questions
1.)
How often do you get news from the following news sources?
a.
San Diego Union-Tribune (online or print version)?
b.
Local news (network news affiliates)
c.
National network news (i.e. ABC, CBS, NBC)
d.
Cable news (i.e. CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC
e.
National newspaper, print or online (i.e. New York Times, Wall Street
Journal)
f.
NPR
g.
Online blogs
h.
Industry/trade publications (i.e. Navy Times, Stars & Stripes)
Response options:
a.
Daily
b.
2-3 times a week
c.
Once per week
d.
2-3 times a month
e.
Once a month
f.
Less than once a month
g.
Never
2.)
Are you aware of the Navy’s presence in your community?
a.
Yes
b.
No
3.)
Are you aware of any community benefits or programs that the Navy provides?
a.
Yes, please list: __________
b.
No
c.
Not sure
4.)
[If yes] Please list any community benefits or programs the Navy provides that
you are aware of.
a.
_____________________________
Page
52
of
54
5.)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Navy supports events that are of interest to my community
The Navy understands the needs and concerns of residents in my
community
The Navy believes the opinions of people in my community are legitimate
The Navy demonstrates an interest in me and/or my family
Response options:
a.
Strongly Disagree
b.
Somewhat Disagree
c.
Neither agree or Disagree
d.
Somewhat Agree
e.
Strongly Agree
6.)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following
statements
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Navy is transparent about its plans for the future
The Navy is willing to devote resources (i.e. personnel, financial support)
to maintain its relationship with my community
The Navy’s relationship with my community is mutually-beneficial
The Navy is honest in its dealings with residents in my community
Response options:
f.
Strongly Disagree
g.
Somewhat Disagree
h.
Neither agree or Disagree
i.
Somewhat Agree
j.
Strongly Agree
7.)
What is your affiliation with the Navy? Please select the option that you most
closely identify with.
a.
Active duty → What best describes your current or most recent rank?
b.
Retired → What best describes your current or most recent rank?
c.
Civilian contractor
d.
Spouse/partner is affiliated with the Navy → What best describes the
current or most recent rank of your spouse/partner?
e.
Other immediate family member (mother, son, sister, etc.) is affiliated
with the Navy→ What best describes the current or most recent rank of
your other immediate family member?
f.
Other, please list: ______________
g.
I have no affiliation with the Navy
Page
53
of
54
8.)
How likely are you to participate in activities that support the Navy (i.e. attend
homecoming events, tours, encourage recruiting efforts, etc.)
a.
Not very likely
b.
Somewhat unlikely
c.
Somewhat likely
d.
Very likely
9.)
What is your gender?
a.
Male
b.
Female
c.
No response
d.
Prefer not to answer
10.)
Are you of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino descent?
a.
Yes
b.
No
c.
Prefer not to answer
11.)
Which of the following races do you identify with most closely?
a.
White
b.
Black or African American
c.
American Indian
d.
Alaska Native
e.
Asian American
f.
Other, please specify: ______
g.
Prefer not to answer
12.)
What is the highest level of school you have completed?
a.
Grade 8 or lower
b.
Some high school, no diploma
c.
High school diploma or equivalent
d.
Some college, no degree
e.
Associate degree or two-year college degree
f.
Bachelor’s degree
g.
Master’s Degree
h.
Profession or Doctorate degree
13.)
Do you have any additional comments?
a.
____________________
Page
54
of
54