Campus-Community Partnerships to Reduce Poverty

Karen Schwartz, Carleton University Mary Mackeigan, Opportunities Waterloo

Regena Farnsworth, UNBSJPolly 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?

CF:ICE Research

Sub-Themes

Scale and Replication of Models

Creation of Value for Partners

Ability to Share Control

Processes of Effective Engagement

Impacts on Campus-Community Partners

Ethical Issues

CFICEViolence Against

Women Hub

Community Environmenta

l Sustainability

Hub

Poverty Reduction

Hub Food Security

Hub

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 Collaboratio

n

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 University-

Community 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

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 deep-seated attitudes.

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

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

Shifting Societal Attitudes 2008 - present

Community – University Partnership 2008 - present

• Literature review Mixed methods study: Qualitative and Quantitative

Researching AttitudesRelationships and Context

20

Terry WLU

MaryOpportunities

Waterloo Region

ColleenWLU

4th year students

WLU

1622nd year student

participantsWLU

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)

– Shown photos (10 in total)

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

Study 1 Materials: Projective Test

21

Relative

Absolute

• Limited awareness of poverty

• Acceptance of poverty

• Conditional compassion

• Gender

Qualitative Results Summary

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

– 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__:__:__:__:__:__:_SadTrustworthy__:__:__:__:__:__:__DangerousClean__:__:__:__:__:__:__DirtyIntelligent_:__:__:__:__:__:_UnintelligentResponsible_:__:__:__:__:__:_IrresponsibleMoral _:__:__:__:__:__:_ImmoralHard Working_:__:__:__:__:__:_ LazyReliable_:__:__:__:__:__:_UnreliableCareless_:__:__:__:__:__:_ CarefulNot frightening_:__:__:__:__:__:_ FrighteningWorthy_:__:__:__:__:__:_ UnworthyRespectful_:__:__:__:__:__:_DisrespectfulLucky_:__:__:__:__:__:_UnluckyGood_:__:__:__:__:__:_BadStrong_:__:__:__:__:__:_WeakPolite_:__:__:__:__:__:_ RudeHonest _:__:__:__:__:__:_ DishonestKind____:__:__:__:__:__:_ CruelHelpful _:__:__:__:__:__:_ UnhelpfulActive_:__:__:__:__:__:_Passive

Measures: Characterizing Self & Others and Social Dominance

Self

Averag

e universi

ty stu

dent

Parent a

t food ban

k

Street p

erson

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

5

2.41

3.21 3.44

4.39

Target

Dero

gatio

n/ d

ista

ncin

gResults: Scores Characterizing Self & Others

**

*

• People distance themselves from those in poverty

• Distancing is a protective strategy allows people to:– maintain the belief that the world is fair and just– absolve themselves of responsibility for their inaction– manage their negative emotions (e.g., guilt, hopelessness)

• Assumptions matter– Ascribed/external sources of poverty

• Associated with more empathy and understanding

• Hope?– Education and awareness

Overall Summary

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

• Following the course all students reported that their understanding of why people are living in poverty had dramatically changed as they are now aware of the numerous variables that impact one living in poverty and their inability to escape.

Education as Intervention

4th year students focused on poverty as a societal issue

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

Colleen Loomis

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

Community Conversations Series - Season 10May 28, 2013

NEXT STEPS• publications• Completing the analysis of the 2nd year project qualitative data• Planning the 3rd project for September, 2013• New tool

TABLE DISCUSSIONS

Reflection on C-U Partnership

• Commitment

• Responsive to community needs

Community first!

Our Research TeamDr. 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 perceptionson 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

QuestionsThemes:

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.

29%

24%12%

12%

6%

6%

6%6%

Participants Staff/Member of a community organization

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

Coordinator at a Vibrant Com-munity

Staff member at a Vibrant Community

Chair at a Vibrant Community

Lead, Vibrant Communities Canada

Student

PhD Student

0%20%40%60%80%

100% 93%86%79%64%64%57%50%50%43%

29%21%

Types of Community/Campus Collaborations

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.

The community thought it would be helpful to collaborate around the

development of CBPR projects. We held extensive community meetings around

the design and development of the project, which eventually became a

course.

In most cases, the project began as a result of the community organization's initiative and research into what post-secondary partnership opportunities

were available.

Who Initiated?

Community Campus

Funding challenges

Faculty support and incentives

Meeting the community’s needs

Faculty and staff time to dedicate

Work did not fit into community priority

Slow moving process

Funding challenges

Perceived Power imbalance

Challenges to Collaborations

Benefits of Collaborations

Community• Participation in innovative project• Can see how the initiative will lead to

poverty reduction • Relationship with campus faculty • Sustained relationship with specific

faculty • University sharing their knowledge

and resources• Addressing community needs /

Strengthening community assets• Providing a genuine opportunity for

both the student and the organization to grow

Campus• Providing the opportunity for

students to learn skills in the community

• Community organization sharing their knowledge and resources

• Participation in an innovative project• Access to community mentorship • Proving a genuine opportunity for

both the student and the organization to grow

• For students to make connections beyond the campus

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

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!