Building and Bridging Diverse Neighborhoods in East Baltimore

 

The President’s Office of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, with involvement from the University’s Schools of Social Work, Medicine, Law, and Nursing, proposes to undertake a Community Building Initiative in East Baltimore.  This Initiative will be a collaborative effort between the University, the catchment area’s community based organizations, neighborhood associations and residents, and the City of Baltimore. 

The Initiative’s theme is “diversity as strength,” meaning that the area’s multiculturalism is an asset, even if not a fully realized one.  The overall focus is to assist the community in acquiring and implementing key knowledge and skills, which in turn will help with cooperative community capacity building.  The Initiative has an Education Outreach Component, a Community Engagement Component, and a complimentary set of Research activities.  It includes all, or significant parts of, these neighborhoods in East Baltimore: Patterson Park, Jonestown, East Harbor Village, Upper Fells Point, McElderry Park, Baltimore-Linwood, Butcher’s Hill, Washington Hill and Dunbar-Broadway (see Appendix for map).  Community members participate in, and are represented by, a range of diverse organizations and associations within these neighborhoods.

Rating Factor 1: Capacity of the Applicant and Relevant Organizational Experience

A)    Knowledge and Experience

The Project Co-Directors will be Dr. Cheryl Hyde, Dr. Michael Lindsey, and Mr. Dick Cook. Dr. Hyde (MSW, PhD, Sociology and Social Work) has over 20 years of experience in community capacity building, diversity-related work and community based research.  She is an Associate Professor at the School of Social Work, where she co-chairs the Management and Community Organization Concentration, and chairs the Master’s Program Committee.  She is also the Assistant Director for Community-based Research of the Social Work Community Outreach Service.  Her teaching, scholarship and community service focus on the areas of building social capital, neighborhood associations, collaboration and networking, multicultural organizational development, and community-based research techniques.  For the past 3 years, she has been teaching a community based research course, where the community defines the research problem, and then she and the students assist the community learn what it wants through data gathering and analysis.  Three years ago, a community in North Baltimore asked her to help them evaluate the Charles Village Community Benefits District.  The evaluation that resulted assisted the District in its re-authorization efforts, and it has become the most quoted document by supporters and opponents alike. Two years ago, Dr. Hyde, with Dr. Karen Hopkins, ran a research course on “Best Practices of Community Based Agencies” with the East Baltimore Partnership (part of the proposed catchment area).  Their students assisted community organizations in developing outcome based measurements for organizational planning and development.  Last year, she led a student team in examining a resident mobilization effort in Jonestown (also in East Baltimore).  Dr. Hyde serves on a number of social work journal editorial boards and is currently the President of the Association of Community Organization and Social Administration.  Dr.  Hyde will direct the Initiative’s research activities and assist with efforts at strengthening the diversity of the community. 

Dr. Michael Lindsey (MSW, PhD, Social Work) will join the School of Social Work’s faculty in Fall 2004.  He is currently completing a Post-doctoral Fellowship at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, W.K. Kellogg Community Health Scholars Program.  In that capacity, he works in East Baltimore on effective intervention programs for high-risk African American males.  His scholarly areas of interest include violence prevention among urban youth and community health assessments.  He is a past recipient of an NIMH Dissertation Award for his work on social network influences on African American Adolescents.  Dr. Lindsey will work primarily on the Leadership Development objective of this Initiative and assist with the research activities.

Dick Cook (MSW) is the current Director of the School of Social Work’s Community Outreach Service (SWCOS).  He is a former Peace Corps Volunteer in Latin America, and has more than 30 years of experience working with diverse community based organizations, including the past 25 years in the target area with Native Americans, Latinos, African Americans and Ethnic Europeans.  For the past 5 years, he has assisted community organizations in the area successfully tackle issues such as stopping real estate flipping, strengthening their organizational structures through Board and Staff training, and raising funds to continue their efforts.  For past several years, he has assisted the Baltimore American Indian Center to move from a position of being $200,000 in debt and closing its doors, to one of eliminating its debt and raising more than $200,000, to renovating its building and raising $45,000 to hire new staff.  Mr. Cook directed the COPC program in West Baltimore and will direct the community outreach activities for this project.

The Project Manager, Randa Deacon (MSW, MS economics), will dedicate at least 60% time to this Initiative.  She has three years experience working on the West Baltimore COPC project and four years working in East Baltimore with the groups involved in this New Directions effort.  She helped homeowners in the area, faced with relocation resulting from a major new development, move from a position of being offered $3000 for their property to being offered more than $70,000.  She supported public housing tenants in the area in getting the City’s attention regarding their maintenance issues.  And she has assisted several organizations in the area to develop more effective organizational structures.  She will be based in the community and work with the community partners in developing their strategies and activities, and she will oversee reports and record-keeping for the project.  She will also supervise a graduate Student Intern assigned to the project.

Andrea Judson (MSW, LCSW-C), part time Community Organizer on this Initiative, has worked for the past five years in the target area. She has helped groups in the area collaborate with each other in order to provide more effective services.  She also has assisted tenants of one public housing project design and secure $100,000 to build a new playground to replace the one that was broken down and used by drug dealers; the new one is now the territory of parents and children in the community.  Ms. Judson will oversee the community engagement activities and supervise several graduate student interns who be assigned to the Initative.

Faculty and Administrative consultants to the Initiative include:

·      Terry Hickey (JD), School of Law, is founder of Community Law in Action (CLIA), a program affiliated with the Law School, which has provided training in street law for the past five years to some of the poorest communities in Baltimore including the West Baltimore Empowerment Zone, COPC project. Dr. Hickey and CLIA recently won a grant and approval from the Baltimore City School Board to develop an innovative high school focused on teaching young people skills and knowledge of community leadership.  The Baltimore Freedom Academy has completed its first year with 100 students, and is relocating to the East Baltimore target area.  Dr. Hickey and CLIA will conduct the Community Advocacy for Youth Trainings.

·      Karen Hopkins (MSW, PhD Social Work), School of Social Work, Co-Chairs the Management and Community Organization Concentration.  Her specialty is the field of management and organizational development, with particular emphasis on supervision, learning organizations, personnel development, and evaluation research.  She has focused her classes on addressing real organizational problems and co-taught the community research course with Dr. Hyde that worked in our target area two years ago.  She will assist with the organizational development and research aspects of the project.

·      James Kunz (MSW, PhD Economics & Social Work), School of Social Work, has worked with Baltimore’s poorest communities from the time he was an MSW student and interned with the Maryland Food Committee, which helped poor communities organize around increasing the availability of food.  Two years ago, Dr. Kunz led a community-wide project with Baltimore County’s Community Action Agency, involving hundreds of community representatives in developing policy papers on the county’s most pressing issues for the incoming County Executive.  He will assist the project by working with community groups to help them understand the economic impact of various strategies and activities.  He will be particularly helpful as the project develops strategies for affordable housing and in providing expertise in cost effectiveness measures.

·      Mary Leach (PhD Mathematics), Office of the President, has chaired the Community Advisory Board of the West Baltimore COPC and served as a Board Member of one of the Village Centers. Along with a community representative, she will serve as Co-chair of this Initiative’s Community Advisory Committee.  Dr. Leach also created and leads the Covering Kids Project, an effort to secure health insurance for uninsured children in Maryland.  She will serve as the Liaison to the President’s Office on this project as well as advising participating community organizations on resource access issues.

·      Megan Meyers (MSW, PhD Social Welfare), School of Social Work, has worked in the target area for the past three  years, assisting groups in developing planning strategies and using available data resources to solve their problems.  She teaches community organizing, social action and community economic development courses at the school.  Her specialty is in the area of conflict resolution.  Two years ago, she worked with Randa Deacon on an effort that produced a successful new community organization in East Baltimore, which then secured a substantial increase in the amount of money being offered for their homes.  This past year, she led a successful workshop which trained 50 community residents in techniques of alternative dispute resolution.  She will assist community partners in developing strategies for community building and will facilitate trainings on conflict resolution between various groups and organizations.

·      Mitsuko Nakashima (MSW, PhD Social Work), School of Social Work, specializes in aging and cultural diversity.  She currently is a Hartford Geriatric Social Work Faculty Scholar Fellowship.  For this project, she will assist primarily with strategies to end isolation among the catchment area’s senior citizens.

·      Larry Ortiz (MSW, PhD Sociology), School of Social Work, specializes in outreach to and political mobilization of the Latino population.  He also has an interest in housing development and on the impact of policy on the local level. He will be assisting primarily with resident engagement activities.

·      Barbara Sattler (RN, DrPH) School of Nursing, Director of the Environmental Health Education Center at the school.  She is the Principle Investigator on a “Healthy Homes Initiative” working to eliminate lead hazards in Park Heights.  She is also the Principle Investigator for Community Outreach on an EPA hazardous waste site grant.  She has worked for the past 10 years with Baltimore’s communities most affected by environmental degradation.  Over the past five years she has organized an environmental task force in South Baltimore which has worked to reduce environmental hazards.   She has worked for the past three years in the targeted communities.  She will assist the community partners in understanding the environmental health issues and what communities can do to protect themselves.

·      Dan Schulze (PhD), School of Medicine, teaches Molecular Immunology.  Dr. Schulze is the Faculty Advisor to a group of medical students who have organized themselves as the Baltimore Community for Medical Outreach, which provides voluntary health education to Baltimore communities.  The committee will be available for health care workshops and community educational activities on topics the community requests.  This will dovetail well with the work on environmental hazards.

·      Steve Soifer (MSW, PhD Social Policy), School of Social Work, teaches economic development, community organizing and social action.  One of his areas of focus is affordable housing, specifically the establishment of land trusts.  He will assist the project in strategizing long-term affordable housing options.

B)    Past Performance

Achievement of specific measurable outcomes: 

Upon notice of the initial COPC grant, the Project Director was given 24 hours to get to a national COPC Conference in St. Louis.  During his absence, the local newspaper contacted the President’s Office about the award.  The resulting article made no mention of community partners, who became so infuriated with this oversight that the Project Director (upon his return) asked HUD about the process for returning the grant.  In an effort to salvage the project, a respected city official was engaged to mediate.  This process was successful, but it set the project timeline back by about six months.  Despite this slow start, the project was able to meet and in many cases exceed it goals. 

The “West Baltimore Empowerment Zone Initiative” was composed of University partners and four Village Centers in the Empowerment Zone – Washington Village/Pigtown, Poppleton, Harlem Park, and Sandtown.  The following is a summary of the Goals, Outcome Goals, and Outcomes Achieved for the COPC Grant from 1999 to 2003 (includes 2 extension years):

·     Goal 1:  Increase the involvement, organization and mobilization of community residents and their resources to deal with problems or issues.

·     Outcome Goal: recruit 200 residents to become involved in Village Center activities (e.g. community clean-ups, community fairs, safety patrols, neighborhood watches) by June 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: recruited 350 residents by June 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved:  recruited more than 4000 residents by December 2003.

·     Goal 2: Increase community capacity to identify and respond to community issues.

·   Outcome Goal: identify and involve 25 leadership prospects from the community by December 1998.

·        Outcome Achieved: identified and involved 15 leadership prospects by December 1998.

·        Outcome Achieved: identified and involved more than 100 leadership prospects by December 2001.

·     Goal 3: Increase in employment and community development.

·        Outcome Goal: create job seekers identification and placement programs by December 1998.

·        Outcome Achieved: created the first job seekers identification and placement program in Washington Village/Pigtown by December 1998. 

·        Outcome Achieved: created programs in each of the 4 Village Centers by June 1999.

·        Outcome Goal: place 200 applicants in jobs each year by December 1999

·        Outcome Achieved: placed 140 applicants by June 2000.

§     Startup was slower than anticipated, but the program began to make more placements in the latter part of 2000 and in 2001. Placed 1546 total placements or 309 per year average since the COPC started by December 2003.

·        Outcome Achieved: started Reverse Commute Program, which took 90 job seekers from their neighborhood in Baltimore City to jobs in Howard County that paid $4 an hour more than the prevailing wage in the city.  This added over $1,800,000/year in income to the project area economy by December 2000.  By December 2001 the program was carrying 120 individuals to jobs bringing an estimated $2,500,000/year in annual income into the local economy.

·        Outcome Goal: Economic development and job opportunities by January 1999

·        Outcome Achieved: set up Community Vendor Fair in University bringing 40 community vendors and 60 university purchasers together, May 1999.

·        Outcome Achieved: incorporated Poppleton CDC, which in turn built a business incubator building and a small shopping area in neighborhood, December 2001.

·        Outcome Achieved: assisted Washington Village/Pigtown Village Center in convincing the State to locate the Department of Natural Resources Office in a newly developed “green building” in the community, December 2002. 

·        Outcome Achieved: Washington Village/Pigtown Village Center acquired another building for expansion, December 2002. 

·        Outcome Achieved: Poppleton Village Center invited the university to develop a problematic vacant lot. The university agreed and developed plans in close consultation with the community.  The resulting development will generate more than 400 community jobs and training to enable residents to access those jobs.  December 2003.

·     Goal 4: Increase community safety and perception of safety.

·        Outcome Goal: shut down three drug houses using nuisance abatement laws by June 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: Assisted Village Centers in shutting down targeted drug houses by June 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: Additional 9 drug houses shut down and secured by the partnership by December 2003.

·        Outcome Goal: increase public perception of safety by January 2001[1].

·        Outcome Achieved: assisted all Village Centers in organizing Public Safety meetings and facilitated/staffed monthly Public Safety Committee meetings with residents and police in Washington Village/Pigtown Village Center, by January 1999.

·        Outcome Achieved: provided organizer for public safety block organizing and developed a block organizing training program, by January 1999 through 2001.

·        Outcome Achieved: assisted with community cleanups (e.g. streets, alleys, removal of graffiti) followed by community building outdoor celebratory events with all Village Centers, throughout the project period.

·        Outcome Achieved: assisted in data gathering and planning for anti-crime camera installation in business areas, schools, senior centers, and public places in the Washington Village/Pigtown and Poppleton areas, 2000-2002.

·        Outcome Achieved: assisted Washington Village/Pigtown Village Center in getting a Local Weed and Seed grant; the program is seen as national model, June 2001.  

·        Outcome Achieved: assisted in recruiting youth for UMAR Boxing program in the Sandtown Village Center, 1999-2000.  (UMAR is an alternative activity for young people who would otherwise hang out on the streets.)

·        Outcome Achieved: helped create Alternatives to Suspension Program for young people who committed non-violent offences in Harlem Park, by 2000.

·     Goal 5: Increase affordable housing and homeownership.

·        Outcome Goal: create strategy to decrease vacant housing and create affordable housing options by January 2001.

·        Outcome Achieved:  mobilized community to leverage the city’s Housing Department to clear hazardous, drug-infested public housing and assisted in planning with community a new mixed use housing development that is now fully occupied. 

·        Outcome Achieved: Village centers boarded up privately owned vacant houses in community, January 2002.

·     Goal 6: Increase educational performance

·        Outcome Goal: identify needs and develop initiatives by July 2001.

·        Outcome Achieved: school boundaries changed so that children could avoid walking through open drug markets to get to school, June 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: developed program that increased student attendance and increased parent involvement in Poppleton, Washington Village, and schools serving children in Harlem Park, June 2001.

·        Outcome Achieved: through various fundraisers, generated new monies for area schools by September 2001.  Funds used to create and staff two new libraries, with 3000 new books donated; begin a girls’ basketball program; and build new school playground.

·     Goal 7:  Increase community health

·        Outcome Goal:  conduct community meetings about health education, June 1999. 

·        Outcome Achieved: preventative health services and educational programs conducted in the Washington Village/Pigtown area, June 1999.

·        Outcome Achieved: workshops on topics requested by the community, including hypertension, diabetes, smoking cessation, substance abuse, and HIV/AIDs, at all Village Centers, several faith based organizational and local community health fairs, beginning in 2000.

·     Goal 8: Create community capacity to design, implement and evaluate programs.

·        Outcome Goal: one Village Center conducts its own evaluation March 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: each Village Center conducted its own evaluation by June 2002.

·     Goal 9: Increase the university’s capacity to respond to community issues.

·        Outcome Goal: establish contact between the university and the community by April 2000. 

·        Outcome Achieved: assisted in developing or expanding Community Outreach Programs in each of the 6 professional schools on campus, April 2000

·        Outcome Achieved: monthly meetings of community leaders and university faculty and administration, April 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: University president has representatives on each of the Village Center boards, April 2000. 

·        Outcome Goal: six new community internships would be created by April 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: Six new internships created, April 2000.

·        Outcome Achieved: Eight new internships created, June 2002.

Comparison of proposed required match funds and resources: 

The COPC grant proposed to leverage $332,000 from private philanthropy.  In actuality, a total of $750,000 private philanthropic dollars was received: $450,000 from Lucent Technologies; $150,000 from the Fannie Mae Foundation through the Maryland Community Partnership; and $150,000 from the AT&T Foundation.  The COPC Grant proposed to leverage $2,943,810 from Community Development Block Grants. In actuality, the project leveraged $3,360,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for operating support to nonprofit organizations in the West Baltimore Empowerment Zone.  In addition, one Village Center budgeted $5,000 towards a student stipend.  Overall, the proposed leveraged amount was significantly more than proposed.

Rating Factor 2: Need/Extent of the Problem

Five inter-related problems have been identified through research[2], conversations with community leaders and discussions in planning meetings as particularly pressing for the catchment area.  These are:

·        The lack of viable and varied housing options (e.g. SROs, rental units, owner occupied), with specific attention to the troubles caused by the dearth of safe, affordable housing and the presence of environmental hazards in the community;

·        Community tensions/conflicts based on race, ethnicity and/or immigration status, the result of changing community demographics;

·        Concentrated pockets of poverty that isolate those who live within them;

·        Weak, decentralized and uncoordinated community infra-structure that results in economic and political vulnerability of the community;

·        General concern with community health and welfare, specifically a sense of fragmentation or weak linkages across neighborhoods.

While these concerns have existed in some form for a number of years, they have taken on greater significance in light of the current redevelopment plans that will directly affect this area.  Specifically, gentrification from the south and Biotech park development from the north threaten the ability of residents to remain in their community.  These development efforts are occurring at a time of increased community diversity, with attendant demands for more multicultural services and programs, and decreased city and state assistance.

Baltimore City’s heyday was in the 1950’s.  Fueled by post-war economic opportunities, the population peaked at 950,000.  Since then, due to economic hardships and racial upheaval, there has been a steady population decline.  Like many northeastern and mid-Atlantic cities, Baltimore’s population fled to the suburbs, taking its wealth with it.  The 2000 census was 651,154:  64.3% African American, 31.6% White, and the remaining 4.1% Hispanic, Asian or Other (Native American, two or more races).  During the 1990’s, more than 8,800 immigrants moved into the City, helping to sustain its population (Baltimore City, Department of Planning, Census News 2000).

East Baltimore is one of the more diverse sections of the city.  Historically a blue collar, working class area, it has been the point of entry for most immigrant groups in Baltimore since the late 1800s. The neighborhood statistical areas (NSAs) that comprise the Initiative’s catchment area reflect a much greater diversity than that of the city as a whole[3].  Currently, there are approximately 28,000 people in this area; 32.5% White, 60% African American, 7% Hispanic and the remaining ½ of 1% American Indian and Asian (Baltimore Neighborhood Alliance Indicators, 2002). 

Despite this overall diversity, there are racially concentrated areas.  There are several public housing projects in the Initiative’s catchment area, and these are primarily occupied by African Americans (65.3% to 96.9%).  McElderry Park is also mostly African-American (85%).  In the past decade, the Latino population has greatly increased in Baltimore and is located in large part in this part of the city.  Baltimore-Linwood, Ellwood Park/Monument, Perkins Homes, Upper Fells Point, and Washington Hill have Latino populations that have grown by as much as four times that of the city’s rate. The percentage of families reporting that they speak a language other than English in the home ranges from lows of 1.5% in Perkins Homes and 1.6% in Pleasant View Gardens to highs of 18.9% in Baltimore-Linwood and 23.3% in Upper Fells Point.  In these families, those reporting “speaking English less than well” range from 10% to 87% (Baltimore City, Department of Planning).

Baltimore could be considered a poor city.  Twenty-four percent of its population lives below the poverty line; compared to 13% nationally.  Well over 50% of all jobs in Baltimore are low wage and low skill, paying at or near minimum wage.  The median family income is $35,438.  In East Baltimore, the poverty rate ranges from 10.1% in Upper Fells Point to 58.6% in Perkins Homes.  The median family income ranges from $11,618 in Perkins Homes to $47, 143 in Washington Hill.

Income status affects an individual’s or family’s ability to successfully enter into the housing market as an owner or renter.  In East Baltimore, median home values range from $34,600 in Ellwood Park to $112,100 in Butcher’s Hill.  Settlement costs and property taxes in Baltimore are among the highest in the country (Consolidated Plan, 2001 – 2005).  The average median monthly mortgage payment in the Initiative’s catchment area is $760, ranging from $588 in Pleasant View Gardens to $1,011 in Washington Hill.  More than ¼ of homeowners pay over 35% of their income for housing.  The average rent is $471 with a range of $142 in Perkins Home to $614 in Baltimore-Linwood; over 1/3 of renters pay more than 35% of their income for housing. 

There are also well-documented predatory lending practices, now being prosecuted, that have often targeted the Latino population in East Baltimore.  Those who lack English language skills can be easily exploited by landlords and renters.  And new immigrant groups tend to have little access to public housing (Consolidated Plan. 2001 – 2005).

Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage of vacant housing units grew in most of the Initiative’s NSAs – from 43.3% in Butcher’s Hill to over 700% in Jonestown.  This reflected a city-wide trend, as the number of census tracts with 100 or more abandoned houses doubles from 23 to 45 tracts in this 10 year period (Consolidated Plan, 2001-2005).  Currently, catchment area owner occupancy rates range from 31% to 56%, depending on the neighborhood. The city has attempted to remove marginal or abandoned housing and replace it with affordable units for low income families; yet the demand far exceeds the availability.  The loss of relatively inexpensive rental units has left many to choose between substandard units or paying an extremely high rent. For low and moderate incomes individuals and families in the Initiative’s catchment area, this increasing lack of affordable housing is likely to be exacerbated by redevelopment efforts.  It is anticipated that 1000 households will be displaced by the Johns Hopkins University Biotech Park project.  A subsidized rental complex in the central part of the target area was recently sold, and 140 families now will need to find low income housing.  In the area south of the Initiative’s NSAs, houses are selling for over $400,000 and rents are averaging over $1000 a month; this real estate development is moving northward. 

Health and environmental hazards often accompany vacant lots and abandoned houses.  Such sites become locations for drug trafficking and trash dumping.  In addition, community leaders have indicated that the east and southeast boundary neighborhoods contain brownfields.  Because of the age of the housing stock (half to three-fourths of the area’s buildings were constructed before 1939) poisoning from lead based paint is considered a particularly serious health concern.  Maryland ranks as one of the most toxic states in the country because of lead exposure to children.  The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development reported that Maryland has “more than four times the national average of lead exposure children and more than 15 times the rate of lead poisonings” (Consolidated Plan, 2001 – 2005).  Eighty-five percent of Maryland’s lead poisoning cases are from Baltimore.  It is estimated that more than 7000 Baltimore children are exposed to lead paint dust and chips, and another 1200 are poisoned, each year (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).  Many experts believe that because of the cognitive damage, lead exposure is a primary contributing factor to the city’s high juvenile crime rate, failing schools and disintegrating neighborhoods.

This catchment area is particularly vulnerable to these demographic and economic trends because of a largely uncoordinated service/advocacy network that is comprised of many weak or near failing agencies and associations. Agency and association representatives report that their organizations face heightened demands from community members in the areas of housing assistance, resettlement, protection of property values, jobs, basic health and welfare, safety and transportation.  These representatives also indicate that there exists fragmentation within the catchment area, such that a broad and coherent collective response to these various concerns has not been possible.  Instead, they note that distrust within and between the catchment area neighborhoods has developed[4].  Moreover, grassroots agencies, in trying to meet the needs of their clients and constituencies, are suffering from inadequate financial resources and, in some cases, leadership with insufficient experience and knowledge to deal with these growing problems.  In general, leadership and organizational development is needed for many (if not most) of the agencies and associations in the area, as is coordination among them so that a more comprehensive response to the area’s problems can be made. 

Despite the many challenges, this area’s diversity (race, ethnicity, citizenship, language, age and economic status), has been recognized by the community organizations in this area as a strength on which they would like to build.  Based on prior work with these organizations, Initiative staff also are aware that these cultural differences contribute to non-participation, misunderstandings and mistrust.   In its 2002 report, “Attracting New Americans to Baltimore’s Neighborhoods,” the Abell Foundation echoed these concerns.  The report found that compared to other cities, Baltimore had done a relatively weak job in responding to the needs of immigrant and refugee populations.   It noted that immigrant recruitment and retention efforts, which are necessary for the city’s revitalization, must be done in ways that are seen as ‘adding to,’ and not displacing or putting at a disadvantage, the current or long-term residents.   In many respects, the Abell Foundation’s recommendations for recruitment and retention of immigrants could be applied to East Baltimore as a whole: outreach, communication, responsive service services and improved housing opportunities.  This proposed Initiative seeks to address many of these concerns.

Rating Factor 3: Soundness of Approach

A)    Work Plan

The proposed community capacity building initiative emphasizes using the diversity found within the East Baltimore city neighborhoods as a strength for current and future community growth and development.  The diversity in this community crosses ethnic, racial, language, citizenship, age and socio-economic lines.  It embraces long standing residents and relative newcomers.  It is important to not only build the assets within each of the East Baltimore neighborhoods, but also to bridge these neighborhoods so that strong networks can be formed.  Such alliances provide a greater chance of securing needed resources and support from the broader public and private sectors.

Outreach Activities

This initiative has two components to its outreach activities.  The first is an educational component, comprised of 5 inter-related areas: Housing Readiness, Cross-cultural Communication, Leadership Development, Organizational Mentoring, and Community Health.  The second is a community engagement component, consisting of a Grassroots Mobilization Model that facilitates community participation and mobilization, and Community Coordination Plans for each of the 5 educational outreach areas.  Together, both components will enhance the overall community capacity of East Baltimore, specifically the empowerment of its leaders and residents.  Figure 1 illustrates this plan.

Figure 1: Outreach Activities Model

Residents of East Baltimore contend with:

 

Initiative assists through Outreach Activities:

 

Resulting in:

·     Poverty pockets that result in isolation of residents

·     Fragmented agency infrastructure

·     Racial/ethnic tensions

·     Lack of affordable, decent housing

·     Concerns about community well-being

Educational Activities

(Housing Readiness, Cross-cultural Communication, Leadership Development, Organizational Mentoring, Community Health

 

COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING

(Leadership and Resident Empowerment)

Community

Engagement Activities

(Grassroots Engagement Model,

Community Coordination Plans)

 

An important overarching goal is to breakdown the barriers between various neighborhoods.  Workshops and other educational activities will be rotated throughout the catchment area (by repeating offerings) to maximize issue exposure and community engagement, preferably with a group from one neighborhood facilitating a session in another neighborhood.  Horizontal linkages will be purposively created through mentoring relationships between neighborhood groups and associations. The community engagement plans will help ensure that community members are not just recipients of educational programs and other forms of assistance, but also are viable participants in the Initiative and more importantly, their neighborhoods. 

This section first describes the proposed activities/tasks for each outreach area and a general model for the community engagement plans.  A “Milestones Summary” Table is then provided that lists activities/tasks, target completion date (in six month intervals), and person(s) responsible.  Because many of these activities involve the work of the community partners, that will also be indicated (see Letters of Commitment for verification).  Some of the activities are on-going, and the focus is more on coordination and publicity of their availability than on determining a specific date for community participation.  It should be noted that this plan necessitates flexibility, as activities may be altered or added as we gain more community input and participation.

Educational Activities

1)      Improve housing readiness/stability of area residents to become or remain viable homeowners and renters.  This cluster of educational activities focuses on helping long term residents remain in the community, while also assisting newcomers, particularly immigrants, in settling into the area.  Emphasis is placed on working with community residents to understand and develop their fiscal health (e.g. good credit), in order to become owners or renters.  Because many area newcomers are Spanish-speaking, a number of the offerings (as well as written materials) will be offered in Spanish.  Another population that will receive particular consideration is the elderly, who (in addition to financial concerns) have specific health and mobility needs that require attention in so that they can remain in their homes.  Residents of public housing projects will be targeted through focused public efforts (see Community Engagement section).  Education activities to improve housing readiness and stability include:

·   Home Buyer Education workshops.  There will be 8 of these workshops during the grant period; 4 will be offered in Spanish.

·   Financial Literacy workshops that include financial health and credit information.  There will be 4 workshops, 2 in Spanish. 

·   Individual credit and home ownership counseling to community members.  These are on-going services provided by several community partners that will now be coordinated and publicized throughout the catchment area.

·    “Aging in Place” technical assistance services that help senior citizens remain in their homes by addressing in-house safety concerns.  These are on-going services that will be publicized to the community in a more coordinated fashion.  The Southeast Senior Housing Initiative (SESHI) and Baltimore Community Medical Outreach have agreed to provide these services.

·   Coordination of an Individual Development Account program, which helps community residents accrue personal financial assets, with other Initiative partner housing organizations.   The IDA program is offered by the East Harbor CDC, and they have agreed to reserve space in their existing educational programs for clients of Initiative organizations.  This will be an ongoing activity overseen by Randa Deacon and the East Harbor CDC staff.

2)      Enhance cross-cultural communication so that community members can understand and appreciate the various cultures within and between their neighborhoods.  This set of educational activities has a dual emphasis – to assist the Initiative’s catchment area to appreciate and build upon its diversity, and to help area organizations and associations better serve an increasingly diverse clientele or membership. 

·   Diversity trainings for community organizations and associations that focus on meeting the needs of culturally changing constituencies, members and client base.  There will be a minimum of 2 workshops each year.  Cheryl Hyde and the PASO Training and Consulting group will coordinate these workshops.

·   Cross-cultural community dialogues that promote greater awareness and understanding across different racial and ethnic groups in the area.  At least 1 a year will be held, with the intent that dialogue groups will become self-sustaining.  Randa Deacon, Cheryl Hyde and the PASO Training and Consulting group will oversee these efforts.

·   Community cultural fairs in which different racial and ethnic groups share their traditions with others.  There will be one fair or community event each year.  The Community Advisory Committee and several community partners will take the lead in this event.

·   “Spanish for the Professional” courses for service providers who work with the Spanish-speaking community.  Four courses will be offered during the 2 year grant period.  Centro de la Communidad is offering this course.

·   Interpreter/translation services as needed for the Initiative’s various meetings, workshops and written materials.  These services will be offered by staff at St. Michael’s Outreach Center and Centro de la Communidad.

3)      Engage in leadership development with a specific focus on youth leadership so that a new generation of community leaders can be identified and trained.  A frequently expressed opinion by current leaders of community groups is that there is a dearth of new leadership in the area.  As the existing leadership begins to “age out,” there is concern that there will not be well-prepared individuals to replace them.  Consequently, leadership development, particularly of area youth, became a primary objective of this Initiative.  Education activities in the area of leadership development will include:

·   Community Advocacy for Youth Training: Six hour training (over 3-4 sessions) that uses a problem-solving model to assist youth in identifying, analyzing and advocating issues that are critical to their community.  Youth learn critical thinking, communication, public speaking, writing and problem solving skills.  A follow-up workshop will be held with each training group to qualify these youth to become part of the Baltimore Youth Congress, which is a citywide youth-led initiative facilitated by Terry Hickey and CLIA.  Parents and/or adult volunteers also will be trained to work with the youth groups to continue their efforts after the grant ends.

·   Community Leadership School: Open to community residents, this is a 6-8 session education program on the knowledge and skills needed for effective organizational and community leadership.  Topics include: characteristics of a “good” leader, styles of leadership, conflict resolution, facilitating meetings, member recruitment and retention strategies, using the media, supervising staff and volunteers, resource development, and strategic planning.  Participants who attend all sessions will receive a certificate that indicates their completion in the Leadership School.  Planning will be coordinated by Dick Cook, Randa Deacon, Michael Lindsey and the Community Advisory Committee.  Faculty consultants, Initiative staff and community partners will serve as the school’s instructors. 

4)      Assist in organizational mentoring and development so that groups and associations in need of some technical assistance can be matched with those organizations in the community that can provide guidance.  Organizations and associations provide the critical infrastructure to a community.  This set of education activities focuses on organizational capacity building with area organization’s assisting one another in that process.  Activities include:

·   Comprehensive organizational assessments that help determine the strengths and challenges of that organization, an action plan designed to address some of these challenges, and then organizational matching, so that organizations with particular strengths can mentor those organizations as they implement their action plans.  Two organizations at the start of each year will be selected by the Community Advisory Committee to receive the assessment, action plan and mentor arrangement.  Staff of the Resource Mentoring Project, a program of SWCOS, will conduct the assessments, design the action plan, and oversee the match.

·   Organization Leader Roundtable in which area organization/association leaders and university experts come together to dialogue and debate particular topics or issues of concern, as determined by the Community Advisory Committee.  There will be at least 2 roundtables each year.

·   Skill development workshops for organizational leaders on topics such as fundraising, supervision, strategic planning and others to be determined by the leaders.  (Note: some of these topics may overlap with those offered in the Leadership School.  If that is the case, then the organizational leaders will attend those sessions of the Leadership School.)

5)      Promote community health in ways that enhance resident participation in their neighborhoods.  While the other proposed sets of education activities do, in various ways, encourage the engagement of community residents, this cluster of activities is aimed specifically at community-level improvements in the overall wellbeing of the community.  The intent of these activities is that residents will want to stay and more fully partake in neighborhood life.

·        Community-based health education programs offered at local grassroots and faith-based organizations that focus on providing knowledge to empower residents so that they can make more informed health care decisions.  These workshops use a multicultural framework to discuss health care needs and concerns.  At least 4 workshops a year will be provided by Dan Schulze and Baltimore Community Medical Outreach.

·        Vacant lot beautification workshops in which area residents are taught how to create community gardens and other shared green spaces.  There will be at least 4 workshops during the Initiative led by Civic Works.

·        Public safety forums/workshops organized to address concerns and learn “safety tips.”  At least 1 such event each year will be held.  The Community Advisory Committee will coordinate the event.

·        Environmental hazards workshops and technical assistance, so that area residents can learn how to document and take action against community health challenges such as lead poisoning, unsafe drinking water, poor air quality, pesticide exposure and unsafe housing conditions.  There will be at least 2 workshops per year, with follow-up assistance, led by Barbara Sattler of the Nursing School.

Community Engagement Activities

The community engagement activities will be guided by a Grassroots Engagement Model in which the group or groups determine the issue (s) to be undertaken.  In this inductive approach, the university partners will serve as resources for community residents, but will not shape or decide what concern or problem is addressed.  The Project Organizer and graduate student interns will staff this mobilization effort.  Initially, the Initiative will work with at-risk populations in the catchment area: public housing residents, elderly, and Spanish speaking immigrants; the Community Advisory Committee will select or recommend the specific neighborhoods or areas.  A version of this model has been used successfully in a prior organizing effort by Randa Deacon and Dr. Megan Meyer, both of whom are involved in this Initiative.  The goal is that by the end of the Initiative, three collective actions resulting from grassroots mobilization efforts will have occurred (one for each at-risk population).  Table 1 presents a general overview of this mobilization model.

Table 1: Grassroots Engagement Model

Entry:

Securing Grassroots Legitimacy

·  Secure support from Neighborhood Association, other legitimating group or organization, AND/OR leader who is known or respected in the community

·  Let people know that a canvas will take place and has local legitimate support

 

 

Listen:

Neighborhood Canvassing

·  Ask about the things they like about the neighborhood (assets)

·  Ask about the things that concern them (problems, issues)

·  Ask for their thoughts about what should be done

·  Ask which of their concerns they would be willing to spend some time and energy working on

·  Document what people are saying and develop a report, without attribute, for feedback to the community

Table 1 continued:

 

 

 

Convene:

Providing Feedback to the Community

·  Hold a neighborhood meeting, preferably under the auspices of your sponsoring group or leader

·  Report results of canvassing

·  Facilitate discussion/Q&A

·  Prioritize issues

·  Have people sign up to work on issue of top concern

·  Convene small groups to set date for first meeting of their issue committee

·  Set date for next neighborhood meeting (with enough time for issue committees to do their work)

 

 

Committee Work:

Investigating the Issue

·  Gather information about the issue or problem – the cause, extent, who’s involved, who’s affected

·  Find out what others have done to address the problem or issue.  Indicate what you would recommend.

·  Develop a plan of action to address the problem or issue.  Include securing resources in the plan.

·  Prepare a report to share with the rest of the neighborhood at the next meeting.

 

 

Re-Convene:

Selecting an Issue

·  Hold a neighborhood meeting at which the issue committees present their reports

·  Have Q&A and discussion on the reports

·  As a group, select an issue to take action on first (you can always decide to take action on the others later)

o       Be sure to indicate why you’ve selected the issue and what you hope to accomplish

·               Form an Action committee to oversee the effort

 

 

Taking Action:

Carry out Your Plan to Improve the Community

·                   Mobilize as many residents as possible

·                   Bring in allies

·  Celebrate completion of the effort by thanking everyone who helped

 

 

Evaluating

·  Solicit feedback from everyone involved: what worked and what did not, what would you do differently next time

·  Write up the evaluation and share it with the large group

 

 

Moving On

·                   Select another, possibly more ambitious, problem or issue

 

As a complement to these mobilization efforts, Community Coordination Plans will be designed for each of the 5 education outreach areas.  These plans will be formulated by graduate student interns under the direction of Randa Deacon, Program Manager, and Andrea Judson, Community Organizer, in consultation with the Community Advisory Committee.  The purpose of these plans is to publicize the various offerings of the Initiative in a coordinated way, enhance communication between community partners, further identify community residents that may wish to become more involved in Initiative activities, and determine additional issues that community residents would like addressed.  Of particular concern is to reach at-risk populations in the catchment area, specifically residents of public housing, the elderly, and Spanish speaking immigrants.  These plans may include strategies such as canvassing select neighborhoods, designing brochures, and working with neighborhood associations.  The plans will be designed at the start of each grant year, and will be evaluated at the end of the first 6 months (with adjustments made as needed).

Identifiable tasks and person(s) responsible: Dick Cook, Project Co-Director, will oversee the outreach activities.  Day-to-day coordination and publicity will be done by Randa Deacon, Program Manager.  Andrea Judson, Community Organizer, will be responsible for the community engagement activities and supervision of field placement students involved in these activities.  University faculty will also be available to provide trainings and technical assistance.  See the “Milestone Summary for Outreach Activities” for more detail, specifically as it concerns the involvement of different university and community partners.


Table 2: Milestone Summary for Outreach Activities

 

Time Frame

Activities

Persons/Units Responsible

Months 1-6

(9/04 – 2/05)[5]

Preparation of Year 1 Master Calendar

·      Indicate scheduled Outreach Activities

·      Indicate ongoing programs and services available to area residents

 

Cook, Hyde, Lindsey, Deacon, Judson, Community Advisory Committee, university partners

 

 

Community meetings to introduce Initiative to the community residents

·      Publicity/calendar of Initiative offerings

·      At least 4 meetings each at different sites in the catchment area

 

Cook, Hyde, Lindsey, Deacon, Judson, and the Community Advisory Committee

 

Community Coordination Plans are designed and implementation begins for each outreach activity area (Year 1)

 

Deacon, Judson, student interns, Community Advisory Committee

 

Two community organizations selected for organizational assessment, action plan and mentoring.  Work continues through first year.

Community Advisory Committee selects organizations;

Cook, SWCOS staff: assessments, action plan and oversee mentoring arrangements

 

 

Grassroots Engagement effort begins in three targeted neighborhoods (public housing project, immigrant neighborhood, and highly concentrated senior citizen neighborhood)[6]

 

Cook, Deacon, Judson, Community Advisory Committee, graduate student interns


Table 2 cont:

 

Community Advocacy for Youth Training (at least 5)

·      6 hour training and follow-up for youth

·      Training for adult volunteers

 

Terry Hickey, CLIA

 

Financial Literacy Workshops

·      Minimum of 2, at least 1 of which will be in Spanish

 

Deacon, Judson, Southeast CDC, Centro de la Communidad

 

Home Buyer Education Workshops

·      Minimum of 2, at least 1 of which will be in Spanish

 

Deacon, Judson, Neighborhood Housing Services, Centro de la Communidad, East Harbor CDC

 

Community-based Health Education Workshop

Dan Schulze, Baltimore Community Medical Outreach

 

 

Vacant Lot Beautification Workshop

Deacon, Judson, Civic Works

 

 

Organization Leaders Roundtable

Cook, Hyde, Community Advisory Committee, faculty consultants

 

 

Leadership School

 

Cook, Deacon, Lindsey, Judson, faculty consultants

 

Diversity  in Organizations Workshop

Hyde, Deacon, PASO Training & Consulting

 

 

Cross-cultural Dialogue Group

Hyde, Deacon, PASO Training & Consulting

 

 

“Spanish for the Professional” class

 

Deacon, Centro de la Communidad


Table 2 cont:

Months 7-12

(3/05 - 8/06)

Mid-year assessment of Community Coordination Plans

Deacon, Judson, student interns, Community Advisory Committee

 

 

Community Advocacy for Youth Training (at least 5)

·      6 hour training and follow-up for youth

·      Training for adult volunteers

 

Terry Hickey, CLIA

 

Home Buyer Education Workshops

·      Minimum of 2, at least 1 of which will be in Spanish

 

Deacon, Judson, Neighborhood Housing Services, Centro de la Communidad, East Harbor CDC

 

Public Safety Workshop/Forum

Cook, Deacon, Community Advisory Committee

 

 

Community-based Health Education Workshop

Dan Schulze, Baltimore Community Medical Outreach

 

 

Vacant Lot Beautification Workshop

Deacon, Judson, Civic Works

 

 

Environmental Hazards Workshop with technical assistance follow-up

 

Barbara Sattler, School of Nursing

 

Organization Leaders Roundtable

Cook, Hyde, Community Advisory Committee, faculty consultants

 

 

Leadership School

 

Cook, Deacon, Lindsey, Judson, faculty consultants

 

Diversity in Organizations Workshop

Hyde, Deacon, PASO Training & Consulting

 

 

“Spanish for the Professional” class

 

Deacon, Centro de la Communidad

 

Community Cultural Fair

Deacon, Judson, Community Advisory Committee, St. Michaels Outreach Center, Southeast CDC

 

Table 2 cont:

 

 

Months 13-18

(9/05 – 2/06)

Preparation of Year 2 Master Calendar

·      Indicate scheduled Outreach Activities

·      Indicate ongoing programs and services available to area residents

 

Cook, Hyde, Lindsey, Deacon, Judson, Community Advisory Committee, university partners

 

 

Community meetings to introduce/update Initiative to the community residents

·      Publicity/calendar of Initiative offerings

·      At least 4 meetings each at different sites in the catchment area

 

Cook, Hyde, Lindsey, Deacon, Judson, and the Community Advisory Committee

 

Community Coordination Plans are designed and implementation begins for each outreach activity area (Year 2)

 

Deacon, Judson, student interns, Community Advisory Committee

 

Two community organizations selected for organizational assessment, action plan and mentoring.  Work continues through second year.

Community Advisory Committee selects organizations;

Cook, SWCOS staff: assessments, action plan and oversee mentoring arrangements

 

 

Community Advocacy for Youth Training (at least 5)

·      6 hour training and follow-up for youth

·      training for adult volunteers

 

Terry Hickey, CLIA

 

Financial Literacy Workshops

·      Minimum of 2, at least 1 of which will be in Spanish

 

Deacon, Judson, Southeast CDC, Centro de la Communidad

 

Home Buyer Education Workshops

·      Minimum of 2, at least 1 of which will be in Spanish

 

Deacon, Judson, Neighborhood Housing Services, Centro de la Communidad, East Harbor CDC


Table 2 cont:

 

Community-based Health Education Workshop

Dan Schulze, Baltimore Community Medical Outreach

 

 

Vacant Lot Beautification Workshop

Deacon, Judson, Civic Works

 

 

Organization Leaders Roundtable

Cook, Hyde, Community Advisory Committee, faculty consultants

 

 

Leadership School

 

Cook, Deacon, Lindsey, Judson, faculty consultants

 

Diversity in Organizations Workshop

Hyde, Deacon, PASO Training & Consulting

 

 

Cross-cultural Dialogue Group

Hyde, Deacon, PASO Training & Consulting

 

 

“Spanish for the Professional” class

 

Deacon, Centro de la Communidad

Months 19-24

(3/06 – 8/06)

Mid-year assessment of Community Coordination Plans

Deacon, Judson, student interns, Community Advisory Committee

 

 

Community Advocacy for Youth Training (at least 5)

·      6 hour training and follow-up for youth

·      Training for adult volunteers

 

Terry Hickey, CLIA

 

SWCOS Community Tour and Forum (See “Best Practices” Section) that features work of the Initiative

 

Cook, Deacon, Judson

 

 

Home Buyer Education Workshops

·      Minimum of 2, at least 1 of which will be in Spanish

 

Deacon, Judson, Neighborhood Housing Services, Centro de la Communidad, East Harbor CDC

 

Public Safety Workshop/Forum

Cook, Deacon, Community Advisory Committee

 


Table 2 cont:

 

Community-based Health Education Workshop

Dan Schulze, Baltimore Community Medical Outreach

 

 

Vacant Lot Beautification Workshop

Deacon, Judson, Civic Works

 

 

Environmental Hazards Workshop with technical assistance follow-up

 

Barbara Sattler and School of Nursing

 

Organization Leaders Roundtable

Cook, Hyde, Community Advisory Committee, faculty consultants

 

 

Leadership School

 

Cook, Deacon, Lindsey, Judson, faculty consultants

 

Diversity in Organizations Workshop

Hyde, Deacon, PASO Training & Consulting

 

 

“Spanish for the Professional” class

 

Deacon, Centro de la Communidad

 

Community Cultural Fair

Deacon, Judson, Community Advisory Committee, St. Michaels Outreach Center, Southeast CDC

 


Involves institution as a whole:

The University partners who are contributing to or participating in the Outreach Activities are:

·        Office of the President, which will oversee the Initiative, coordinate and host meetings between University and Community partners, and  provide resource consultation with community groups;

·        School of Social Work, which will manage day-to-day project activities, conduct the research, take the lead role on the community engagement plans, and assist with intra-community coordination;

·        School of Law, which will take a lead role in workshops on youth leadership development;

·        School of Nursing, which will assume a lead role in providing workshops on environmental hazards; and

·        School of Medicine, which will provide workshops on health care education.

Provides for on-site presence:

The Outreach Office will be located at St. Michael’s Outreach Center, and will be staffed by the Program Manager.  The Project’s Community Organizer also will spend 100% of her time in the community.  Graduate student interns are in the community 2 or 3 days per week.  Dr. Hyde will spend at least one day a week at the Weinberg Community Health Center, which is located in the Initiative catchment area and is serving as a base for her community research.

Non-duplication: 

Many of the outreach activities build upon, but do not duplicate, current activities.  While some agencies already offer housing assistance service, they do so in a limited fashion, and the clients of other agencies often do not know about the availability.  This Initiative, in part, seeks to expand and coordinate any relevant existing programs so that there is a more comprehensive approach to the catchment area’s concerns.  Such activities will tap into the existing strengths of some of the agencies and will help build a strong organizational infrastructure.

Research Activities

The research activities of this Initiative will focus on providing on-going feedback so that adjustments can be made in planning and implementation, describing and evaluating the efforts and outcomes, and identifying and documenting best practices.  These activities will also provide opportunities for MSW students to be trained in community-based research.

In order to obtain feedback from community members and leaders, all attendees at workshops, training sessions and other educational events will be asked to complete evaluation forms.  Evaluations, specifically designed for each event, will have items on levels of satisfaction (with Likert-like scale) with content, delivery of material, facilitator/trainer, and level of engagement.  Attendees will be asked if their desire to participate in their community (or if appropriate, sponsoring organization) has increased, decreased, or remained the same due to their attendance.  Suggestions for outreach and mobilization will also be solicited.  Results from these evaluations, particularly during Year 1 of the project, will help inform future planning.

All graduate student interns will be trained in ethnographic research, specifically participant observation, so that they can systematically record and analyze the events and meetings they attend.  The interns will be responsible for keeping written accounts of any event that they attend, which they later code and analyze.  These fieldnotes will be used to create a qualitative data base that captures some of the dynamics and processes of community engagement.

At the end of each 6 month interval of the grant, a focus group interview will be conducted with the Community Advisory Committee and key community stakeholders.  The purpose of these interviews is to obtain feedback as to the progress of the project, with particular emphasis on community participation and engagement.  As with the evaluations, this information will allow for any adjustments in programming.  These focus groups will also provide an opportunity for committee members and stakeholders to continue to exchange information, identify what is working well and what may be emerging as a “best” practice.

Focus group interviews will also be conducted at the conclusion of a Leadership School and Community Advocacy for Youth Training.  Each “graduating” cohort will be asked about their experiences in the program, the strengths and weaknesses, and what they hope to accomplish with the skills they have learned. The adult volunteers who are part of the youth training will also be interviewed.  Focus groups will also be conducted with participants at the conclusion of a community engagement effort.

During Year 2 of the project, a graduate course in the School of Social Work will be conducted on community-based research.  The focus of this course will be to evaluate the Initiative, specifically how well the community was engaged in the outreach areas (described above) and what innovative or best practices can be identified. Students will be trained in various evaluation techniques and, in consultation with the Community Advisory Committee, be responsible for designing and implementing the evaluation.  Data will likely include interviews with community leaders, university partners, and community members; event observations; and a small survey; though what is specifically collected and from whom will depend on suggestions from Community Advisory Committee members.  The evaluation results from the educational sessions will also be available.  Students will present their findings to the Initiative’s Community Advisory Committee at the end of the research course.

In the months after the course, but before the end of the grant, any needed final interviews will be conducted with the university partners, community advisory committee members and community stakeholders.  A synthesis of the all data collected during the two years of the project will occur, with major themes and findings identified.  A report will be prepared on what outcomes were achieved, what engagement strategies worked well with the community and why, and what best practices emerged.  The research team also hopes to compose case studies, based on data from the Initiative that can be used in university courses.

Identifiable Tasks and Person(s) Responsible:

Dr. Cheryl Hyde, Initiative Co-Director, will oversee and coordinate all research activities.  Dr. Hyde will conduct most of the focus group interviews, with graduate students assisting in the note taking, transcription and coding.  She will train graduate student interns in participant observation techniques.  She will also coordinate the evaluation of trainings and workshops.  She will be responsible for the design and teaching of the graduate evaluation research course, and the gathering and analysis of that evaluation data.  Students in that course will engage in individual interviews, event observations, secondary data analysis, and other data gathering as suggested by the Community Advisory Committee. Dr. Michael Lindsey, Project Co-Director, will also conduct some of the individual and group interviews, particularly with community youth.   Dr. Karen Hopkins, a faculty consultant with expertise in program evaluation, will assist with the research activities as needed.

A “Milestone Summary” Table presents these research plans in 6 month intervals.


Table 3: Milestone Summary for Research Activities

 

TIME FRAME

ACTIVITY

PERSON(S) RESPONSIBLE

Months 1-6

(9/04 – 2/05)

Train student interns in participant observation techniques

 

Hyde

Begin:

·      Event observations by student interns

·      Evaluation of education events

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advocacy for Youth and Leadership School Participants

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advisory Committee members and key stakeholders

Hyde will coordinate with Deacon, Judson, and project staff leading the outreach activities being evaluating

 

Months 7-12

(3/05 - 8/06)

Continuation of:

·      Event observations by student interns

·      Evaluation of education events

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advocacy for Youth and Leadership School Participants

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advisory Committee members and key stakeholders

Hyde will coordinate with Lindsey, Deacon, Judson, and project staff leading the outreach activities being evaluating

 

 

 

 

Presentation at professional conference (See “Best Practices” section)

Hyde, Lindsey, interested project staff and community advisory committee members

 

 

 

Months 13-18

(9/05 – 2/06)

Train student interns in participant observation techniques

 

Hyde

 

 

 

Continuation of:

·      Event observations by student interns

·      Evaluation of education events

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advocacy for Youth and Leadership School Participants

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advisory Committee members and key stakeholders

Hyde will coordinate with Lindsey, Deacon, Judson, and project staff leading the outreach activities being evaluating

 

 

Graduate course begins (1/06)

·      Individual interviews

·      Event observations

·      Survey (if requested)

Hyde (in consultation with Community Advisory Committee)

 

 

 

 

Presentation at professional conference (See “Best Practices” section)

Hyde, Lindsey, interested project staff and community advisory committee members

 

 

 

Months 19-24

(3/06 – 8/06)

Graduate course continues to 5/06

·      Individual interviews

·      Event observations

·      Survey (if requested)

·      Presentation to Community Advisory Committee

 

Hyde (in consultation with Community Advisory Committee)

Continuation of:

·      Event observations by student interns

·      Evaluation of education events

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advocacy for Youth and Leadership School Participants

·      Focus group interviews with Community Advisory Committee members and key stakeholders

 

Hyde will coordinate with Lindsey, Deacon, Judson, and project staff leading the outreach activities being evaluating

Wrap-up interviews with University Partners, Community Advisory Committee members, and community stakeholders

 

Hyde, Lindsey

 

Synthesis and analysis of data

Hyde, Lindsey

 

 

Preparation of report

Hyde

 

 

Community Summit (see “Best Practices”)

Hyde, Deacon, Community Advisory Committee

 

 

 

Post Initiative

Additional Conference Presentations (see “Best Practices”)

Hyde, Lindsey, interested project staff and community advisory committee members

 

 

Development of case studies for classroom use

Hyde, Lindsey, interested project staff and community advisory committee members

 

 

Publications (see “Best Practices”)

Hyde, Lindsey, interested project staff and community advisory committee members

 

 


Tied to outreach agenda:

The Initiative research activities are closely tied to the outreach agenda. First, the research is being done concurrently with the outreach plan and will provide a feedback loop to that component of the Initiative.  The training of graduate students in community-based research will dovetail with their practice training in community engagement.  The dissemination strategies revolve around documenting the merits of innovative outreach activities and products.

Non-duplication:

To the best of our knowledge, having been involved in the East Baltimore community for the past 5 years, these research activities do not duplicate previous or current research.  This research agenda does compliment two prior research projects.  One was the identification and documentation of “Best Practices in Community-based Agencies”.  The other was a community research and mobilization project entitled, “Community Building in Baltimore”, designed and developed by Dr. Megan Meyer and Randa Deacon, both of whom are involved in this Initiative.

B)    Community Involvement

A Community Advisory Committee has been formed, and its members include John Ciekot, Civic Works; Glenn Ross, McElderry Park Community Association; Lisa Knickmeyer, St. Michael Outreach Center; Stan Markowitz, Southeast Community Organization; Wardell Porter, Neighborhood Rental Services; and Carmen Nieves, Centro de la Comunidad.  In addition, several community associations have committed to being “active stakeholders” in this Initiative: Southeast Senior Housing Initiative, International Rescue Committee, HEBCAC, Neighborhood Housing Services, and Southeast CDC.  The Letters of Commitment (Appendix) indicate these levels of involvement.

In addition to the aforementioned community members, the Community Advisory Committee will also include Beery Adams, Mayor’s Office for Community Investment; a representative from each of the University’s participating professional schools; and Mary Leach from the President’s Office.  Dr. Leach, together with an elected member from the community partners, will co-chair the Community Advisory Board.

Planning meetings involving university, city and community members took place over 15 months prior to the submission of this grant proposal (See appendix for selected meeting minutes).  These meetings identified community issues and concerns; brainstormed ideas for the project that eventually lead to its focus and objectives; secured commitments from partners; determined additional partners and resources; and established working relationships.  In addition, East Baltimore community organization representatives were invited to attend ongoing West Baltimore COPC Project meetings.

C)    Innovative Strategies/Best Practices

One goal of this Initiative is to identify or strengthen promising ways for diverse neighborhoods to work together towards ameliorating larger community problems and creating an expanded public good.  Particularly in Baltimore, which is very prone to small and insular organizations and associations, but perhaps in other urban areas as well, the creation of horizontal linkages is critical to developing a healthy urban infrastructure.  Among the anticipated innovative strategies/best practices from this Initiative are those that illustrate how this can occur when “diversity” is used as a focal point. 

The dissemination of Initiative findings will occur through a variety of venues and the intent is to target the catchment area, COPC, and professional audiences. 

·      A university web page will be created that will provide information on the Initiative’s outreach activities and research findings throughout the grant.  Case studies and other resources (practice, teaching, and research) would also be made available.  Links to other resources in the university, community and nationwide (e.g. COPC) will be identified.  This web page will be accessible to people within and outside the university.

·      Initiative staff will work with the University’s Public Relations Office to publicize outreach and research activities throughout the grant in various media outlets in and outside the university (e.g. campus newsletters, city newspapers, radio talk shows).  Particular attention will be given to including community partners in media events.

·      As a culminating event of the Initiative, a Community Summit will be held so research findings can be shared and commented upon, and can serve as a foundation for future planning and action.   The target audience of this event is community stakeholders and residents, university partners, and appropriate city and state officials. 

·      The University’s Social Work Community Outreach Service (SWCOS) has an Occasional Paper Series on Community-Based Innovations.  This series is specifically oriented to help non-academic professionals (e.g. practitioners, students) share their projects with a wider audience. 

·      SWCOS holds an annual Tour for Funders and Community Forum, in which representatives from area foundations and the community are invited to learn about SWCOS projects.  The focus of the 2006 session would be on the results of the Initiative. 

·      Attendance and presentation at COPC National and Regional events during and after this Initiative.  Initiative staff also plan on writing at least one article for the COPC newsletter and would like to consider the possibility of a COPC publication on the findings from the project.  Of particular interest is a casebook on community outreach and engagement that could be used in teaching.

·      Several professional/academic conferences have been identified as places for paper presentations, including the National Association of Social Workers, the Association of Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Associations (ARNOVA), and the American Sociological Association. 

·      Several academic journals have been targeted as potential places for publication including Urban Affairs Review, Nonprofit Leadership & Management, Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, and the Journal of Community Practice.

D)    Affirmatively Further Fair Housing

The City of Baltimore, Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plan for FY 2004-2005 identifies the following impediments to fair housing: lack of available affordable housing, concentration of poverty, race-based discrimination in sales and rental practices, and illegal mortgage practices (flipping).  This Initiative addresses these impediments in several ways.  First, it supports and extends the work of several organizations directly involved in anti-discrimination and anti-flipping campaigns including Southeast Community Organization, Southeast CDC and Neighborhood Housing Services.  Second, through its coordination and outreach plans, the Initiative will make home ownership information, including legal and financial rights, more available to those populations (e.g. racial minorities) that are most vulnerable to market discrimination.  Third, given the concern over affordable housing, it is quite likely that one of the community engagement efforts will focus on that issue. 

The city’s Action Plan also calls for “community education, outreach, homeownership counseling, affordable housing education, eviction prevention, landlord and tenant rights, and other fair housing activities” (p. 29).  The Initiative’s Homebuyer and Financial Literacy workshops, as well as the individual credit and housing counseling, complement the City’s activities.  Given that the Initiative is offering half of these workshops in Spanish, it makes these programs available to the growing Latino population in East Baltimore.

E)     HUD Policy Priorities

Priority 1: Providing Increased Homeownership and Rental Opportunities to Low and Moderate Income Persons, Persons with Disabilities, the Elderly, Minorities, and Families with Limited English Proficiency:

The Initiative will conduct homeownership workshops, financial workshops, housing counseling, and credit counseling in English and Spanish, targeting the low and moderate income residents of the project area.  The Initiative will also work with qualified individuals to establish Individual Development Accounts, so that they can accrue their own private capital for the purpose of a home or business down payment.

The Initiative will work with elderly homeowners to assist them in identifying affordable home repair, maintenance and upkeep services so that they may continue living in their homes.  The project will work with elderly homeowners, renters and their landlords to identify resources which will assist them in securing devices and improvements such as stair railings, ramps, and bathtub/shower railings, which will allow them to remain in their homes.

Priority 2: Improving the Quality of Life in our Nation’s Communities:

The Initiative will improve the environmental health and safety of families through the Environmental Health, Vacant Lot Beautification, and Public Safety workshops conducted during both years of the Initiative.  Each of these workshops will provide information and technical assistance that will assist residents in addressing particular health and safety concerns.  In addition, a number of the cross-cultural communication activities planned for both years of the Initiative will also enhance the quality of life in the East Baltimore communities by helping residents bridge various cultural differences. 

Priority 4: Providing Full and Equal Access to Grassroots Faith-Based Organizations in HUD Program Implementation:

All of the community partners are either grassroots faith-based organizations, such as St Michael’s Outreach Center, or grassroots community organizations, such as Centro de la Communidad.  They have headquarters in the community, a social services budget of less than $300,000 and staff of six or less.   Through its organizational mentoring activities, the Initiative aims to strengthen their abilities to improve elderly housing opportunities, develop first time homeownership programs in Spanish, expand affordable homeowner and renter opportunities in neighborhoods of choice and support residents of public housing.  

Furthermore, the Initiative calls for engaging in in-depth capacity building with four of these organizations.  Each organization will receive assistance in assessing its strengths and areas that need improvement and developing an action plan to strengthen the areas needing improvement.  The organization is then matched with a mentor organization, which will assist it in carrying out its action plan.  Through this effort, the capabilities and access of at least four grassroots organizations will be greatly enhanced.

Finally, the Community Coordination plans will help improve communication among the organizations and between the organizations and community residents, so that residents can more fully understand the scope of programs available.  Up until this point, service delivery has been fragmented and piecemeal.  These plans will provide a more comprehensive, and accessible, “map” to area grassroots organizations and their offerings.

Rating Factor 4: Matching Resources and Institutionalization of Program

A)    Matching Resources

Match 25% over required match:

The research activities match is 70.3%; the outreach activities match is 85%.  The Match Overage is 2.22 (Match Verification Form, #4)

Matching funds from sources other than applicant institution:

The Annie E. Casey Foundation has committed $45,000 for the first year of the grant.  Baltimore City has dedicated $736,300 of CDBG monies to the first year of the grant.  The following community organizations have committed matching funds: East Harbor CDC ($10,000); Southeast CDC ($31,760); Centro De La Comunidad ($10,000); Neighborhood Housing Services ($5,000); Civic Works ($5,000); St. Michaels Outreach Center ($4,600); International Rescue Committee ($850); HEBCAC ($5,000); and PASO Training & Consulting ($1,500).  The total match in outside sources for the grant is $851,010.

B)    Institutionalization

Increases the number of faculty undertaking this kind of work:

As a result of the University’s shift in the direction of community and community outreach, each school on campus has developed or strengthened its community outreach programs.  These programs are attracting new faculty with community orientations, as well as engaging many long-time faculty.  This New Direction’s project becomes a critical avenue for faculty research, teaching and service plans.

The School of Social Work has attracted eleven new faculty members with a particular interest in community outreach since 1999.  Seven of them will be involved in the New Directions project; an eighth is a long-time member of the community practice faculty. Currently, the School has one of the largest community social work programs in the country with nationally and internationally recognized faculty in the fields of housing, land trusts, social capital, community organizing, and community capacity building.  The School has been highly supportive of this faculty; all are tenured or have received positive pre-tenure reviews.  At present, 4 of the 5 members of the Appointment, Tenure and Promotion Committee are community-oriented scholars.  In Fall 2003, the Dean created the position of SWCOS Assistant Director for Community-based Research, in order to further help those faculty interested in this scholarship.  Finally, the current Assistant Dean for Research has led a nationally recognized evaluation of a community-based intervention program on child abuse and neglect.

The School of Law has attracted two new faculty with a commitment to working with low income communities, one of whom is a part of the project team. The School of Nursing has developed a number of new community Initiatives and community based facilities.  Two of its faculty are a part of our project team. In the School of Medicine, a long term faculty member has responded to growing student interest in community issues by assisting them in organizing the Baltimore Community Medical Outreach.  He is a part of our project team, as is the student organization.

Increases in the number of courses:

This project will provide current experiences and case examples that will enable faculty to link their teaching directly to their outreach experiences. Dan Schulze of the Medical School has expressed interest in creating course material on “Community Medicine.” Barbara Sattler is engaged in a nursing faculty development project on environmental health that covers nursing education in 16 southern states.  The School of Law has a Law Clinic that offers students practical experiences in poverty law.  About half of the law students sign up for the clinic. 

The School of Social Work has 6 advanced courses directly linked to the subject matter of this project – Community Economic Development, Community Organization, Social Planning, Resource Development, Multicultural Practice for Organizations and Communities, and Community Based Research.  These courses enroll over 100 students.  The faculty teaching these courses are involved with the proposed Initiative, which allows them to bring community experiences directly into the classroom, as well as help the students apply their learning to immediate community concerns.  The School also offers a foundation course, “Introduction to Organizational and Community Practice,” that is required for all 400 first year students.  This course focuses on how to work with disenfranchised or marginalized groups, organizations or communities. In addition, the School of Social Work’s Community Outreach Service involves 50 students a year in community partnership settings as a way of fulfilling the student’s internship requirements.  All will be introduced to this new Initiative in East Baltimore. Up to eight students will be assigned projects related to the “Building and Bridging Diverse Communities Initiative.”

Formal changes in institutional policies related to support of outreach:

During the last several years, the University of Maryland, Baltimore has initiated and solidified numerous community-based efforts that reflect changes in institutional policy and practice.  In doing so, it recognizes and rewards the community work being done by faculty and students.  These are some examples:

·        The School of Social Work’s Strategic Plan includes the vision statement: “We provide, develop, and promote service that has a positive impact on vulnerable, poor, and socially marginalized communities.”  One of its strategic initiatives is “Expand relationships between the School and the larger community with emphasis on vulnerable, poor and socially marginalized communities and those who serve them.”  This Initiative is being accomplished through the following strategic planning goals: increase the number of school-community partnerships with major community organizations/agencies; increase the interaction between the school community and the community at large; educate the community about who we are and what we do; create regular community issue forums/seminars; increase inter-professional work; create incentives for faculty to do community work.

·        All six professional schools now have Community Outreach Programs.

·        The School of Medicine recently submitted an NIH grant to establish an education program designed to produce culturally competent health care professionals for local ethnic/racial communities.

·        Community Law in Action (CLIA) was founded by Terry Hickey, when he was a law student, as part of the original COPC project.  CLIA is now a non-profit affiliated with the University’s School of Law, and Terry Hickey is on faculty at the school.

·        The Law School Clinic, which addresses legal problems of low-income people, is a recognized model for other law schools and frequently is a feature at national conferences. The Law Clinic has developed a series of sub-specialty programs in areas of particular interest to communities including Environmental Law, Homelessness, and Community Economic Development. 

·        The University’s Adolescent and Young Adult Center recently held its 3rd Annual Youth Street Fair.  The fair and open house was held to share health education resources with community partners and young people. Booths and tents were set up to provide visitors with important prevention messages focusing on teen pregnancy, AIDS, and sexually transmitted diseases.

·        The School of Nursing offers a number of programs and services including Open Gates, which offers primary and preventative health care in inner city communities and trains urban residents to be health outreach workers, the Well Mobile, and EnviRN, which offers assessments for environmental hazards on-line.

·        During the original COPC grant, a group of medical students and a faculty advisor approached the steering committee to offer assistance with health education.  That group, Baltimore Community Medical Outreach, became a part of the COPC project and will be a partner in the New Direction’s Initiative. As a recognized entity within the School of Medicine, it offers a variety of health education programs to a variety of community groups.

·        The Pharmacy School operates a Health Care Outreach Program in low income communities.

·        The School of Dentistry operates a low cost Dental Clinic and is creating special programs for low income individuals.

·        The Presidents Office has taken a particular interest in outreach activities and continues to host monthly meetings of community leaders with campus representatives of each of the schools to encourage dialogue and joint work on solving community problems.  In addition, the Presidents Office has taken a strong role in creating the Covering Kids program, an effort to make sure that all children in the state have health insurance.  The President created the position of Community Liaison, which entails working closely with community groups and determining how the University might be of help in their efforts to make their communities better.

Rating Factor 5: Achieving Results and Program Evaluation

Logic Model – attached


 

Logic Model

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight

 

Program Name: Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC)       Component Name: New Directions

 

Strategic

Goals

Policy

Priorities

1

 

Policy

 

·        1

·        2

·        3

·        4

·        5

·        6

·        1

·        2

·        4

 

 


 


Problem, Need, Situation

Service or

Activity

2

3

 

Planning

 

·        The lack of viable and varied housing options (e.g. SROs, rental units, owner occupied), with specific attention to troubles caused by the dearth of safe, affordable housing and the presence of environmental hazards in the community.

·        Community tensions/conflicts based on race, ethnicity and/or immigration status; the result of changing community demographics.

·        Concentrated pockets of poverty that isolate those who live within them.

·        Weak, decentralized and uncoordinated community infra-structure that results in economic and political vulnerability of the community

·        General concern with community health and welfare, specifically a sense of fragmentation or weak association across neighborhoods

Outreach: Education Activities

·        Housing Readiness

o       Home Buyer Education Workshops

o       Financial Literacy Workshops

o       Individual Credit and Home Ownership Counseling

o       “Aging in Place” Technical Assistance

o       Coordination of Individual Development Accounts Program

·        Cross-cultural Communication

o       Diversity in Organizations workshops

o       Cross-cultural community dialogues

o       Community cultural fairs

o       “Spanish for the Profession” courses

o       Interpreter/translation services as needed

·        Leadership Development

o       Community Advocacy for Youth Training

o       Community Leadership School

·        Organizational Mentoring

o       Organizational Assessments, Action Plans and Matching

o       Organization Leader Roundtable

o       Skill Development workshops for organizational leaders

·        Community Health

o       Community-based health education programs

o       Public safety forums/workshops

o       Environment hazards workshops and technical assistance

 

Outreach: Community Engagement Activities

·      Grassroots engagement with three at-risk target communities: Latino immigrants, senior citizens, public housing residents

·      Community coordination plans for the five Education outreach areas

 

Research Activities:

·        Evaluation of Initiative Activities (see Accountability section of the model)

·        Graduate student (e.g. social work, nursing, medicine) training in community collaboration and research

o       Graduate research course/projects (e.g. community canvassing, evaluation)

o       Field placement training

·        Dissemination of outreach and research results through:

o       University web-site

o       Media outlets (in and outside the university)

o       Community summit

o       SWCOS Occasional Paper Series on Innovative Community-based Practice

o       SWCOS Funders Tour/Community Forum

o       Attendance/presentation at COPC National and Regional Events

o       COPC publications: newsletter, casebook on community engagement

o       Presentations at professional conferences

o       Publications in relevant academic journals

 


 


Benchmarks

Output Goal

Output Result

(updated as applicable with actual output)

4

5

Intervention

Short Term (Months 1-6):

·        Minimum of four community meetings to introduce the Initiative to the community

·        Two community organizations selected for organizational assessment, action plan and mentoring

·        Three target communities selected for grassroots engagement effort

·        Community Coordination plans designed for 5 education outreach areas

·        At least 5 Community Advocacy for Youth Trainings

·        At least 2 Financial Literacy Workshops (at least 1 in Spanish)

·        At least 2 Home Buyer Education Workshops (at least 1 in Spanish)

·        One Community-based health education workshop

·        One vacant lot beautification workshop

·        One Leadership School conducted

·        One Diversity in Organizations Workshop

·        One Cross-cultural community dialogue group

·        One “Spanish for the Professional” class

·        Minimum of three graduate students involved in Initiative activities through field education internships

·        Focus interviews with Community Advocacy for Youth and Leadership School participants (at conclusion of events)

·        At least one focus group interview with members of the Community Advisory Committee and key stakeholders

 

Intermediate Term (Months 7-18):

·        Community Coordination plans assessed and adjusted

·        Minimum of 4 communities meetings to provide updates on Initiative activities

·        At least 10 Community Advocacy for Youth Trainings

·        Two organizations selected for assessment, action plan and mentoring

·        At least 4 Home Buyer Education workshops (at least 2 in Spanish)

·        Two Financial Literacy workshops (at least 1 in Spanish)

·        One Public Safety Workshop/Forum

·        Two Community-based Health Education workshops

·        Two Vacant lot beautification workshops

·        One environmental hazards workshop

·        Two Organization Leader Roundtables

·        Two Leadership Schools

·        Two Diversity in Organizations workshops

·        One Cross-cultural Community Dialogue group

·        Two “Spanish for Professional” classes

·        Community Cultural Fair

·        Minimum of three graduate students involved in Initiative activities through field education internships

·        Focus interviews with Community Advocacy for Youth and Leadership School participants (at conclusion of events)

·        At least two focus group interviews with members of the Community Advisory Committee and key stakeholders

·        One graduate social work research course, training a minimum of 15 students, begins:

o       Start individual interviews with at least 15 community stakeholders

o       Start event observations

o       Start review and analysis of all data collected from measure tools (e.g. monthly reports, attendance sheets)

o       Start survey (if requested)

·        Presentation at two professional conferences (e.g. COPC, ARNOVA, NASW)

 

Long Term (Months 13-18/Post Initiative)

·        At least 5 Community Advocacy for Youth Trainings

·        SWCOS Community Tour/Forum that features the Initiative

·        At least 2 Home Buyer Workshops (at least 1 in Spanish)

·        At least one Public Safety Workshop/Forum

·        One Community-based health education workshop

·        One vacant lot beautification workshop

·        One environmental hazards workshop

·        One Organization Leaders Roundtable

·        Leadership School

·        One Diversity in Organizations workshop

·        One “Spanish for the Professional” class

·        One Community Cultural fair

·        Minimum of three graduate students involved in Initiative activities through field education internships

·        One graduate social work research course, training a minimum of 15 students, continues:

o       Complete interviews with at least 15 community stakeholders

o       Complete event observations

o       Review and analysis of all data collected from measure tools (e.g. monthly reports, attendance sheets)

o       Complete survey (if requested)

o       Preliminary evaluation report presented to Community Advisory Committee

·        Completion of resident engagement projects

·        Focus group interviews with participants in resident engagement projects

·        Focus group interviews with Community Advocacy for Youth and Leadership School participants (at conclusion of events)

·        At least one focus group interview with members of the Community Advisory Committee and key stakeholders

·        Final evaluation report issued

·        Community summit on results of Initiative

·        Minimum of two written products based on Initiative findings submitted to COPC and/or professional venues (e.g. journals)

·        Minimum of two conference presentations (accepted or accomplished) on the Initiative

·        Development of at least two case studies based on Initiative findings for classroom use

 


 

Outcomes

Achievement

Outcome Goals

End Results

(updated as applicable w/actual results)

6

7

Impact

·        Community residents have a better understanding of, and ownership in, the opportunities and resources their community

·        Viable agency/association collaboratives and coalitions established and maintained

·        Strengthened organizational capacities

·        Greater citizen participation in agencies and associations

·        Race/ethnic collaborative projects

·        Community residents are able to remain in the community by securing affordable housing

·        Stronger, more constructive relationship between University and Community partners

·        Community residents, associations, and agencies are empowered to advocate for their collective needs with “outside” parties (e.g. private developers, city hall, state officials)

·        Graduate students are trained in community-based collaboration and comprehensive research that is guided by community interests and needs

·        Project results disseminated through appropriate channels including professional conferences (at least 2) and publications (at least 2)

·        Will be demonstrated through participation in various educational events and resident engagement projects

 

·        Will be demonstrated through the creation of new, and maintenance of existing, partnerships

·        Will see more improved capacity in 4 organizations

·        Will see increase in participation over course of project

·        Will see cross-cultural projects

·        Evaluation data will show that residents who wish to stay in the community are able to do so

·        Evaluation data will show that partners have established and expanded mutually respectful relationships

·        As the needs and opportunities arise, community members and organizations will advocate for their needs

 

 

·        Course and placement evaluations will indicate successful training

 

·        Conference presentations and publications will occur at the end of, and after, the Initiative’s time period.

 


 

Measurement Reporting Tool

Evaluation Process

8

9

 

Accountability

 

a.       Tools:

  • focus group interview protocol
  • attendance sheets from all workshops/educational sessions and community meetings
  • evaluations on all workshops/educational sessions and community meetings
  • student evaluations of placement and research course
  • periodic reports from collaboration members

b.      Place:

  • all data will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the co-director’s (Hyde) university office
  • only co-directors and program manager will have access to the raw data
  • aggregate data shared with collaboration members

c.       Location:

·        all data collected in the community by university faculty and graduate students 

d. Frequency of collection: all data submitted to co-director

  • canvassing, in-depth interviews, focus groups conducted at start, midpoint and end of Initiative collected by graduate assistants/students and community members
  • reports from collaborative members are periodic, hopefully monthly
  • attendance sheets/evaluations of workshops/trainings as each occurs; collected by facilitator(s)

·      In-depth interviews, over time, with key community stakeholders to determine their opinions of and suggestions for the Initiative

·      Focus group interviews, at regular intervals with collaborative representatives to determine their sense of progress and need for adjustment

·      Focus group interviews with attendees of Leadership Schools, Community Advocacy for Youth Trainings and Resident Engagement projects

·      Analyze attendance sheets and evaluations from all workshops, educational sessions and meetings to determine trends in participation, program quality, and satisfaction

·      Analyze results of student evaluations of placements and research course to determine learning areas and satisfaction

·      Analyze reports from collaborative members to determine common themes, activities and concerns; and suggest ways of coordinating efforts

·      At three month intervals, reports based on available research will be presented to the Community Advisory Board for review

 


 

e. Data retrieval

·        Data base (SPSS)  will be constructed for all quantitative data (e.g. surveys, attendance counts, evaluations); aggregate data will be retrieved from this data base for analysis

·        Qualitative data (e.g. interviews) will be coded and, if possible, quantified using Atlas.ti Program; aggregate data will be retrieved from this data base for analysis

·        Agency/association reports will be submitted to co-director for review and aggregate summary

 

 

 


Budget

a)      HUD-424-CB: “Grant Application Detailed Budget” – Attached

b)      Budget Narrative for HUD Share:

·   Personnel ($107,336):

·        Randa Deacon: Project Manager.  Amount requested supports 3 days a week dedicated to this project.  For the first year, a match from the Annie E. Casey Foundation will allow for one more day in the field. We anticipate that the Casey Foundation will provide similar support during the second year of the project.  Ms. Deacon will coordinate the activities between community partners and assist in the supervision of student interns.

·        Andrea Judson: Community Organizer.  Amount requested supports 2 days a week dedicated to this project.  For the first year, several match sources will allow for one more day in the field.  We expect similar match support in the second year of the grant.  Ms. Judson will supervise student interns and assist community partners in community organizing/capacity building aspects of the project.

·   Fringe Benefits ($22,374)

·        Fringe calculated at 16% for Deacon and 29% for Judson, their current University rates.

·   Travel ($14,000)

·        $10,000 will be dedicated to attending the COPC conference(s), with emphasis on supporting community partners

·        $4,000 each year will be dedicated to faculty presenting project findings at professional conferences

·   Supplies ($14,000)

·        To cover the costs of  a Digital Camera (community documentation), tape recording equipment (community documentation), copying (training sessions) and other supplies necessary to support training and outreach activities.

·   Contractual ($30,000)

·        2 FTE MSW Student Intern stipends ($7,500) per year.  These interns will work with community partners on implementing project tasks.

·   Other ($12,000)

·        One course buyout each year for either Dr. Hyde or Dr. Lindsey (one 1st year, the other in the 2nd year) to dedicate time to research activities.

c)      Indirect Costs:  The University of Maryland, Baltimore’s indirect cost rate is 26%.  This has been waived for both years of the grant, and is being applied to the match.  The amount waived is $51,924 over two years.

Match and Research Compliance

a)      HUD-300001: “Community Outreach Partnership Centers Matching Requirements” – Attached

b)      HUD-300002: “Community Outreach Partnership Centers Breakdown of Outreach and Research Activities” – Attached

c)      HUD-30011/12: “Verification of the Match” – Attached

Appendix

·   Letters of commitment

·   Memoranda of Understanding

·   Map of area

·   Planning Meeting Minutes