Campus-Community
Partnerships to Reduce Poverty
Karen Schwartz, Carleton University
Mary Mackeigan, Opportunities Waterloo
Regena Farnsworth, UNBSJ
Polly Leonard, Carleton University
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?
Scale and Replication of Models
Creation of Value for Partners
CF:ICE
Research
Sub-Themes
Ability to Share Control
Processes of Effective Engagement
Impacts on Campus-Community Partners
Ethical Issues
Community
Environmental
Sustainability
Hub
Violence
Against
Women Hub
Poverty
Reduction
Hub
Food Security
Hub
CFICE
Knowledge
Mobilization
Hub
Poverty Reduction Hub Partners
Hub Co-Leads
Liz Weaver, Vibrant Communities Canada
Karen Schwartz, Carleton University
Poverty Reduction Hub Outcomes
Build a
Learning
Community
Research
and
Evaluate
Models
Document
Community
Impact
Create and
Share
Knowledge
Influence
Policy
Change
Living Wage
Research
Perceptions
of Poverty
Impact of
Mentoring
Models of
Collaboration
2012-2013 Poverty Reduction Hub Projects
Living Wage Partnership
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 UniversityCommunity partnership: School of Labour Studies,
Social Planning and Research Council, and HRPR
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
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
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
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
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
Shifting Societal Attitudes Partnership
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
Shifting Societal Attitudes
2008 - present
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 “shift” 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
PHASE 1: Research and examine current Canadian deepseated 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.
Community – University
Partnership
2008 - present
Researching Attitudes
Relationships and Context
Terry
4th year
students
WLU
WLU
Mary
Opportunities
Waterloo
Region
162
Colleen
WLU
2nd year
student
participants
WLU
•
Literature review
 Mixed methods study: Qualitative and Quantitative
20
Study 1 Materials:
Projective Test
Relative
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
– Shown photos (10 in total)
– Given 5 minutes to write a story
answering the 4 questions
Absolute
21
Qualitative Results
Summary
• Limited awareness of poverty
• Acceptance of poverty
• Conditional compassion
• Gender
MacKeigan, M., Mitchell, T., Wiese, J., Stovold, A., & Loomis, C. (2013). It's not a Canadian Thing: Researching attitudes toward poverty.
Measures: Characterizing Self & Others
and Social Dominance
– 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
5
Results: Scores Characterizing Self & Others
4.39
Derogation/ distancing
4.5
4
3.5
3.44
3.21
3
2.5
*
2.41
*
*
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Self
Average university
student
Target
Parent at food
bank
Street person
Overall Summary
• 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
Education as Intervention
4th year students focused on poverty as a societal issue
• 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.
Community Conversations Series - Season 10
May 28, 2013
It’s not a Canadian Thing: Researching attitudes towards poverty
PRESENTERS:
Mary MacKeigan, Terry Mitchell,
Jessica Wiese, Alexa Stovold and
Colleen Loomis
TABLE DISCUSSIONS
NEXT STEPS
•
•
•
•
publications
Completing the analysis of the 2nd year project qualitative data
Planning the 3rd project for September, 2013
New tool
Reflection on
C-U Partnership
• Commitment
• Responsive to community needs
Community first!
Our Research Team
Dr. Robert Mackinnon
Tracey Chiasson - Erin Bigney - Kathryn Asher
Steven Morrisson - Ashlie Jewell
Dr. Regena Farnsworth and
Barry Galloway
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.
Promise Partnership Programs
• Student Mentoring Club
• Backyard Book Club
• Discovery Nights
• Book’n It Tutoring
Program
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?
Parent Research Questions
• 2a) What are the parents perceptions of the
Promise Partnership?
• 2b) What are the parents perceptions
on education/university?
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)
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.
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
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%)
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
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
Consequences of Misinformation
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?
Project Description
• Partnership between Vibrant Communities
Canada and Carleton University
• Online survey
– Measure impact of engagement on community
and campus
– Best practices
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
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.
Participants
6%
6%
6%
29%
6%
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
12%
12%
23%
Lead, Vibrant Communities
Canada
Student
PhD Student
Types of Community/Campus
Collaborations
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
93%
86%
79%
64%
64%
57%
50%
50%
43%
29%
21%
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%)
Colleagues & I reacting to a large
community initiative and presentation
An external group approached several
university affiliated organizations and
individuals about collaborating.
Who
Initiated?
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 postsecondary partnership opportunities
were available.
Challenges to Collaborations
Community
Campus
Perceived Power
imbalance
Faculty and staff time
to dedicate
Funding challenges
Meeting the
community’s needs
Slow moving process
Faculty support and
incentives
Work did not fit into
community priority
Funding challenges
Benefits of Collaborations
Community
Campus
• 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
• 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
Next Steps
Review Survey
Results
Sense Making
Session
Focus Group
Interviews with
Key Partners
Develop
Campus /
Community
Model (s)
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
Questions?
Thank You!