Han Services; Nonprofit Organizations;
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OP 4. DOCUMENTRESUME ED -214 728s -RC'013.273 AUTHOR ,Gore,,Jane S.; And Others 1 T ITLE The Message Transferred. A Record of Data Feedback Procedures to Interested Agency Clienteles andCounty CitizenglAs Part of the-Human Service Agencies' Collaboration in the Delivery of Services, and Amenities to Rural Citiieni in Clinton County, New . - York. :INSTITUTION State Univ. of New York, r;lattsbUrgh. Coll. at Plattsbnrgh. SPONS AGENCY De9 partment of Agriculture,- Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 7 ,NOTE 256p.; In collaboration with the Council of Community Services in Plattsburgh and Clinton ConntyiNew, York. EDRS'PRJCE MF01/PC11 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Agency Cooperation; *Delivery Systems; *Feedback; *Han Services; Nonprofit Organizations;. , *Organizational. Communication; Outreach tPrograms; t Private Agencies; Public Agencies; Rural Areas; *Rural Population; Transportation; Workshops IDENXJFIERS *New. York (Clinton County) / . 4- ABSTRACT 2 A 1977 study in' Clinton County, New York, investigated'collaimration'among human service.a4encies in the- . delivery of services jaed amenities:tb rural citizens. A major assumption was that itencies Working together would be more effective - in Meeting local needs. -ThiAti,pdblic, private, and non7profit agencies`were chosen-based oratheir. suppOsed interest inn a.rural transportation netwok.The,hfghest ranking administrator plus 1 or 2 other professionals or b6ard members from each agency made up the sample (n=57). 4nterviewe -were held with the sample regarding themselves andtheir agencies anda questionnaire was, mailed to them ..,requestingviews,ofeachof the oiher°29 agencies in terms of agency o interaction'AGuttman Scale construction primicIed characteristics of agencies hiVing.high,ihteraotion scones. Over 70 people attended a day7long workshop which communicated: results and planned for future inter- agency collaboration activities% Since, participating agencies ianted additional feedback,,28 individnal agency sessions Of 1 1/2 to 2 houps were conducted ingthe fall of. 1978. An evaluation at the session showed agency personnel wanted to increase communications / internally with..staff and staff/board members in terms of daily activities and longL=range program planning. Scripts for two,' audio- visual 'programs plus six appendices,of agency.and workshop .materials comprise the bulk of the document. (BRR) _ ? ************* ********************************************************i * , Reproductions supplied by. =RS are the best that can, be made * * ,fromrom the original documeet. 42 ********************.**********************************,***************- . ti., - 2 ; 2 0 3 HE MESSAGE RANSFE RED A Record Of Data Feedback Procedures to Interested Agency Clientele's and - - County Citizens as Part of the Human Service Agencies' Collaboration in the Delivery of Services and Amenit'es to Rural Citizens in Clinton Count', New York 'fine S. Gore Helen Y. Nelson Katheilne Felty U S DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTEOF EDUCATION INFORMATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES CENTER IERICI en reproduced as This document has recelJkl trom the persoor organization WqinalMq,1 ,rtrfpye Department of Home Economics /Mmor change' have ty,er, made to reproduction(1.301' Ward Hall stated 'n this docu . Points of view or oplmons SUNY-Plattsburgh mentdonothecessaNyrepmsemoffirOALE . Plattsburgh, NY 12901 Oosdionmpmmv, 1979 'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY o_ imk,) (-) , in collaboratiOn with: Council of COmmunity Services TO THE DUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)" Plattsburgh and Clinton County' ( e "THE MEi TRANSFERRED" A Record of Data Feedback Procedures .o Interested Agency Clienteles and County Citizens as Part of the Human Service Agencies'Collaboration in the b. Delivery' of Services and Amenities to .0 'Rural Citizens 'in Clinton County, New York' 1! Jane S. GoreA I Helen Y. Nekson Katherine Felty' A in collaboration with: Council of CommunitYServices in Plattsburgh and Clinton County -4 , -s Department of HomeEconomics Waid Hall SUNY Plattsburgfi ,.Plattsburgh, NY 12901 1 1979 , s . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (-4 \ dr The authors are, respectively, assistantprofessor ol*Home Economics at SUNY Plattsburgh, professor ofCommunity Service Education, College of Human Ecology, CornellUniversity, and director, Council of Community Services of Plattsburgh and 'Clinton County.,New yOrk. The C, cooperation of to Human Service agencies inClinton County is gratefully appreciated for participating in thedata feedback sessions. Thanks too, goes to Andrea LeClaire fortyping the drafts oftAis report and to Jean 4 0 eClaire for preparing the final manuscripts. The preparation of this research and supportfor the data otareach were financially aidedthrofth-a Federal Grant fromthesUrDepartment of Agriculture under authoiity grantedby the RurdlDelvelopmentAct f 1972, Public Law 92-419 Title V -Rural Development and Small Farm Research and Education, Sec. 502 (a) and (b), 86STAT.'672. Funds for this research were allocated to the Departmentof Community Service Education, CollegeOf Human Ecology,-by,toe. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Science A Ithaca, a Statutory Collegeof the Stateliniersity at Cornell University, and Ext ensipn Programs New To rk ,in furtherance of Rural Development Research 4 carried out in Clinton County, New York. ofEnvironmental Science et:-SUVY Ir. Peter Gore; Associate Professor Plattsburgh and Adjunct Associate Professorof Rural Sociology at Cornell consulted onthedadaatillYsi.n. ) assisted with the planning of the study and 411.. The Miner Institute in Chazy, Newt York,provided graphicervices; and xeroxing. 4- U 4 f < TABLE OF CONTENTS Part I page' Introduction 1 1 Data Outreach - Workshop 2 Data Outreach - Iidividual Agency Meetings' 44.-F 4 ti Conclusions 9 ' Postscript - Research 6 Action 9 Part II \ Educational Materials Developed for thisRhearch Effo 28 minute video tape -.script included 20 minute slide set with audio tape - script included --Akpebdii A Research Abstract9 Workshop invitation materials 'List. of persons invited to workshop 1 Agenda -- workshop r. .); . Appencfax Photos of workshop a a Handouts from Dr. Capener's presentation . VA Appendix _C List of. agencies in sample Summary.afreAearch study finding's 6 J 4% / p. Appendix D 1 P. *4, ) Resultof evaluatIon of the' workshop Publicity about workshop Appendix E List of persons attending agency conferences Material's prepared for individual confer.encss and fto Feedback 'ses'sions -e. .v Appendix:F Evaluation results about individual agency 'Feedback sessions; t A ° / ir t 0 .6 Ir. t INTRODUCTION . Improvements in the quality of life in isolated rural areas of America appear to be directly relpted td the'delivery of-services and amenities in these regionS; however, increased federal, state and local allocations as well-as private dollars for the wide range of necessary and desirable services and-amenities are not keeping up withde rapidly . spiraling costs forsuch human se-r-Vices.both in terms of particular needs (uSually professional)and the delivery mechanisms -best able to provide 4 them (mobile,untts, satellite centers,-added staff). The question, then, seems to.be one of hoW to improve existing service deliveryMechanisms iR order tp reach more consumers through Testablishe:i agencies, organiza- . tions, and programs. Given the wide array of programs available to the t public, the fragmented nature of their delivery, and the burgeoning costs of services and amenities, attempts to-improve delivery must focus on planning, and on techniques for increased interagency cdOpera- tion.- Dr. Helen Nelson and Dr. Jane Gore began a reseal:ch. study in 1977. 4. in Clinton County; New,York, which ilhvestigated collaboration among human service agencies in the delivery ofservices,and_4enities to rural ' citizens. A major assumption of the research was that agenciesworking . d together would be more effective in meeting Localneeds, Thirty public, private, and.non-profit agencies were chosen for the interagency collab- Oration study based on their supposed interest in ai.vural transportation network. The agencies vari(ed consid ly in purpose, size, budgets, personnel, and dniinistrative structures. Research Procedure . t c , : ). , The highest ranking administrator plus one or two other profession- . als or board members from each agency, madeup the sample (N =5,7). Indiv.- ..- r dual interviews were'conucted, . witheach respondent about agency back- , t groundinformation, goals, internal strugture, And perceived interagency .t ;'cooperation in the county. Simultaneously," a questionnaire was mailed to r -/ "4 1. 7 -2- 'each respondent asking him/her to judge, each of the other- 29agencies in the.sample on a series of 22 agency interaction questions listed in' hierarchical order. From responses to the interaction questions, a Mittman Scale was constructed., To find out how agencies ranking high on the Agency'Ihter- action Guttman Sca,ke differed from the 'other groups, the gamma statistic was usedas a measure of association between ranks, onthe Scale and ranks on other selected variables from the Interview4tledule. The following variables were significanly ;elated to high interaction scores on the Guttman Scale: - goals were'specific andavailable; agency offered a variety of -.-servites and programs s-as opposed to a few. services or.single ones; 4 y . ' V' - 'agency wasrelatively youngestablished within last 10 years; 7agency required by statutes to establishlinkages with other groups;