A survey of Los Angeles area administrators' perceptions regarding the nature and extent of citizen, community and other inputs utilized in the development of agency policy and decision making: C...

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A SURVEY OF LOS ANGELES AREA ADMINISTRATORS'
PERCEPTIONS REGARDING THE NATURE AND EXTENT
OF CITIZEN, COMMUNITY AND OTHER INPUTS
UTILIZED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGENCY
POLICY AND DECISION MAKING: COMMUNITY
MENTAL HEALTH
A Research Project
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Social Work
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Social Work
by
Anne Marie Barnes
Norma Chaney Dabbs
Herman Leon DeBose
William Peter Lombardo
Beverly Jean Miyamoto
Gladys Lee Nee
Mamie Mamiko Ozaki
Ann Mac Nab
June 19 7 5
UMI Number: EP70681
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
in the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
Dissertation R jblishing
UMI EP70681
Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
uesf
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES . iii
INTRODUCTION ....... 1
Chapter
I. METHODOLOGY . \ .......... 4
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE..................... 17
III. FINDINGS............. 36
IV. CONCLUSION................................ 82
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................. 93
APPENDIX A--LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS .......... 108
APPENDIX B--QUESTIONNAIRE ..................... Ill
APPENDIX C--DESCRIPTION OF INDEXES ............ 130
APPENDIX D--CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES A C T.................. . 135
11
LIST OF TABLES
I. Ethnicity of Clientele.......... 46
II. Economic Status of Clientele ........... 48
III. Ethnicity of Community.............. 51
IV. Economic Status of Community ........... 53
V. Type and Number of External Input
Devices.......................... 59
VI. Use of Research and Consultation .... 61
VII. Use of Volunteers and New Careerists . . 62
111
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, particularly in the wake of Office of
Economic Opportunity legislation in the mid 19oO's, community
agencies in all fields have been urged to make deliberate efforts
to achieve increased participation from community and client
groups. In some cases legislation or funding bodies have mandated
such activity. Various respected professional journals have
reported the experiences of selected agencies around the nation
and authors have outlined the presumed advantages of citizen
participation.
Despite this level of interest and the reports of use of citi
zen participation by some agencies, there is cohsiderable confu
sion in the minds of many planners and agency administrators as
to what is currently happening in the field. To what extent are
agencies actually incorporating citizen inputs into the administra
tive and service delivery process? What problems are agencies
encountering? How do executives evaluate the liabilities and oppor
tunities afforded by various approaches for deriving citizen and
consumer input?
Citizen participation is manifested most obviously through
participation on administrative, advisory, consumer and other
boards utilized by agencies. Accordingly, considerable informa
tion is gathered in this study concerning the kinds of boards util
ized by agencies, the formal powers and operating procedures
of the boards, and the characteristics of participants on those
boards. Agency executives also were asked to assess the impor
tance of the boards to agency services and administration.
But there has also been considerable discussion during the
past decade of a number of innovative administrative techniques or
procedures that may help agencies become more responsive to
client and community needs. Agencies often have been implored
to utilize research tools to assess client satisfaction and commun
ity needs, and to evaluate social programs. They have been
urged to use consultation to secure information regarding new
methods of providing services. There has been extensive interest
in use of paraprofessionals and volunteers to supplement services
of professionals. Agencies have been urged to participate in
interagency planning efforts, so that service programs of individ
ual agencies are coordinated with those of other agencies. And
there has been considerable emphasis upon implementation of out
reach programs to engage in services citizens who are not
inclined to utilize traditional programs.
This study, then, gathers data concerning both extent of
use by agencies of citizen participation and extent of use by agen
cies of a variety of innovative administrative devices. Data was
gathered from agency administrators representing 204 social
agencies in Los Angeles County that provide mental health, family
counselling, residential, family health, and child welfare services
The study was planned and implemented during the academic
year 1974 - 1975 at the School of Social Work of the University of
Southern California. Five research teams were developed to
collect data through interviews from agencies providing services
in the five areas noted above. The teams in liaison with two fac
ulty instructors developed a joint interview schedule and design
that were used by all teams.
It is hoped that the five research reports emanating from
this project, as well as subsequent analysis of data gathered from
agency administrators, may be useful to agency executives, plan
ners , elected officials, and funding agencies.
CHAPTER I
METHODOLOGY
A total of twenty-seven students took part in the research,
and they were divided into three main areas of interest: mental
health, children's services and family services. Two of the
interest areas were broken down into subgroupings, resulting in
formation of five research teams as follows;
1. Mental Health:
Seven students elected to study this area, and defined
mental health agencies as outpatient psychiatric ser
vices, inpatient psychiatric hospitals, and community
mental health services. In some cases there was a
confusion as to whether or not an agency was primar
ily a mental health agency or family counseling. Such
agencies were determined to belong to the mental
health subs ample when headed by a psychiatrist, while
agencies headed by non-psychiatrists and serving fam
ilies were defined as family counseling agencies.
Excluded in the area of mental health were services to
special patient populations such as drug or alcohol
treatment programs.
2. Family Services:
A. Family Counseling Subgroup. Initially, five
students elected to survey the agencies offering
services and/or counseling to families and which
were headed by social workers or other non-
M. D. 's. One member of this team was designa
ted as facilitator/coordinator for the entire pro
ject, thus reducing team membership to four
students.
B. Family Health Subgroup. This team, composed
of five students, studied agenices providing
family health services. Health agencies eligible
for inclusion in the study were non-profit HMO's,
free-clinics, and. county and. city health depart
ments. Excluded were physician's offices or
private practice groups and. clinics,
3, Children's Services:
A. Child Welfare Subgroup. This team consisted, of
six students interested in studying citizen
participation in agencies traditionally designed
to serve children. It was difficult to define the
parameters of this subgroup as many mental
health and family counseling agencies also serve
children. Child welfare agencies were defined,
therefore, as those offering adoption services,
foster care services, services to unwed mothers,
and protective services. Unfortunately there
were not enough agencies offering these services
to provide an adequate sample; therefore the
special services to children category was added
to include Regional Centers for the Mentally
Retarded and handicapped. Agencies providing
recreational services such as Boys Clubs and
YMCA's were excluded because it was felt the
primary focus of these agencies was socializa
tion and recreation rather than treatment or
rehabilitation.
B. Residential Care Subgroup. This team included
four students who selected to survey agencies
offering out-of-home services to children. Resi
dential Care agencies included registered and
licensed non-profit group homes, live-in treat
ment centers, and probation camps. Excluded
as overlapping with agencies from other teams
were medical facilities for children. Un-regis
tered group homes, or placement facilities that
did not offer professional rehabilitation programs
were also excluded.
Coordination
Coordination of the efforts of a large group of twenty-seven
students posed serious management challenges in terms of sample
selection, replacement, reviewing completed interview schedules
for bias and error. Therefore it was decided that one student
would assume a primary facilitating and coordinating role. It is
felt that this served a vital role in limiting errors, eliminating
duplication of agencies among the teams, and assured that each
team member was able to conduct an appropriate number of inter
views.
Population of Agencies: Criteria for Inclusion
The survey population consisted of social service agencies
within Los Angeles County. An agency was defined as appropriate
for inclusion in the study population if it provided direct, ongoing
services to the community; had accredited human service
8
professionals on its staff; had at least two full-time employees;
and was voluntary non-profit or a government agency. Excluded
from the sample were voluntary interest groups such as Alcoho
lics Anonymous, referral and information, planning and adminis
trative and profit-oriented agencies. While it is possible that
some private-profit agencies may have formed consumer or com
munity advisory boards, it was anticipated that most would not.
The initial listing of the survey population was primarily
derived from the Los Angeles Region United Way Information and
Referral Services source book (INFO), and its recent updates.
Additional agencies were obtained from scanning separate listings
of California Regional Centers for the mentally retarded; miscel
laneous referral sources and the departmental directories of the
Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services; Los
Angeles County telephone books; selected community agency refer
ral booklets; and, finally, publications of special organizations
with referral services, such as the Los Angeles Suicide Preven
tion Center.
While an attempt was made to create a complete listing of
all non-profit community agencies in Los Angeles County, certain
problems were encountered in this effort. First, and most inter
estingly, it soon became apparent that many agencies advertise
and list themselves under more than one name or area of service,
even though they operate under a single corporate and/or admin
istrative unit. This necessitated considerable cross -checking to
avoid duplication. All listings for inclusion in the study were
limited to agencies which were in existence at the time and were
named on a referral list; therefore it is possible that some newer
agencies were inadvertantly excluded since the researchers also
found that some "listed" agencies were no longer in existence.
Finally, there is the possibility that despite all of the lists
reviewed by the teams some agencies may not advertise or be
included on such lists, yet still may have been appropriate for
inclusion in the research project's sample.
Sample Selection
An initial sampling frame of over 400 agencies was developed
based on the efforts of each of the five teams. This initial list was
revised to exclude duplications, agencies located outside of Los
Angeles County, agencies which did not provide direct services,
and profit-oriented corporations. District office agencies were
included when the district office had a full-time administrator.
This situation was encountered quite often and at times ^
included, two or more "named, agencies" at the same ad
dress, or at different addresses. It seemed that mental
health agencies were most frequently involved in this practice-
10
at least three professionals, a defined community to serve, and
was listed by a referral directory. Telephone calls were then
made to the remaining agencies to determine both the correct
name and address of each agency, as well as to find out the name
of the current agency directors. The final sampling frame included
289 agencies.
Once accurate and updated agency lists were developed, a
table of random numbers was used to select those agencies to be
surveyed by each of the five research teams. Every team member
was to interview approximately ten directors, with the exception
of the project facilitator who interviewed only one director in
order to have the experience of using the interview schedule.
The initial sample provided for the teams was composed of 261
agencies, and included 7 0 mental health agencies, 60 child welfare
agencies, 40 residential agencies, 41 family counseling agencies,
and 50 family health agencies. In selecting the sample of 261
agencies, replacement served to exhaust the lists of agencies
gathered by the health, mental health, residential and child wel
fare teams.
After each team assigned interviews to members according
to the proximity of an agency to the student's home, the students
mailed a letter of introduction on School of Social Work stationary
11
to the agencies to inform agency administrators of their selection
(see Appendix A for a copy of letter). These letters were fol
lowed up by phone calls within the week from student interviewers
seeking to arrange a convenient time for an interview. Not all
administrators were willing to participate, and new agencies were
assigned to the teams from those agencies not initially selected
from the table of random numbers selection procedure. An
attempt was made to assign substitute agencies so that each team
could retain its focus upon a particular kind of agency, but it was
necessary in some cases to assign agencies to teams that were
not in the team's original purview (e. g. , in the case of mental
health, substitutions were made from the family counseling area).
In all, a total of 207 agency directors were interviewed
between February 3, 1975, and March 25, 1975. The following
interviews were completed;
1. Mental Health. 48 interviews completed.
2. Family Counseling. 34 interviews completed,
3. Family Health. 38 interviews completed.
4. Residential Care. 35 interviews completed.
5. Child Welfare. 53 interviews completed.
Sixty-six agencies from the sampling frame were not
included in the final sample for a variety of reasons.
12
1. Ten (10) agencies despite listings in directories
were deemed inappropriate for study; i.e., were
either non-existent; private profit oriented agencies;
branch agencies with no resident director, or the
agencies were located outside of Los Angeles County.
2. Six (6) agencies were temporarily closed or were
currently operating without an administrator.
3. Twelve (12) agencies were duplicates in that they
advertised under two different names.
4. A total of 38 agencies were not interviewed due to
agency caused reasons: 28 directors refused to
participate claiming they were "too busy", were not
interested in the project, or refused to give any
reason at all. Three of these 28 agency directors
made appointments, then refused to see the inter
viewer when the student arrived at the agency. Five
agencies never responded to repeated telephone calls,
either because the director was allegedly "out" or "in
a meeting", or because no one answered the agency
telephone at all. Finally, 5 agencies were unable to
to participate because the director was on vacation
or ill, and no appropriate substitute interviewee was
13
available.
No noteworthy trends were evident in a review of the non
comp Leted interviews. Factors such as geographic Location of
agency, and focus of service were considered. Interestingly,
agencies directed by physicians had the highest rate of non-parti
cipation. It did appear, however, that there were basically three
principal reasons for non-completion of assigned interviews:
1) those not completed due to technical factors or requirements
for criteria to be met for inclusion in the study; 2 ) those not
interviewed due to an inability to reach the administrator to
arrange an interview time; and, 3) those agencies not interviewed
due to the administrators refusal to participate. Of the three
reasons for non-completion of interviews the researchers remain
curious about these administrators who seemed to avoid parti
cipation when they had confirmed the nature and focus of the study.
Some seemed quite apprehensive about an inquiry relating to
citizen participation.
The Data Collection Instrument
Due to time limitations and the nature of the information
being sought, it was decided to construct an interview schedule
which would be administered in person to agency directors. It
was felt that by using an interview schedule instead of a mailed
14
questionnaire, the accuracy and candor of the directors' responses
might be improved and a higher response rate achieved. The
researchers recognize that some administrators may have pro
vided inaccurate information, such as overstating the extent to
which their agency utilizes inputs from the environment in devel
oping policy and programs. Such distortions hopefully were
reduced by the use of in-person interviews, since interviewers;
could and did probe further and request clarification when they
detected inconsistencies. Also, the interviews made it possible
to include a number of open ended questions regarding attitudes
toward citizen participation.
The interview schedule was constructed in stages. First,
each team, on the basis of reviews of relevant literature, devel
oped its own schedule of questions. Teams shared their efforts
and discussed strategies and topics of inquiry in large group
sessions. A composite draft of the instrument was developed by
the two instructors. Student comment and critical reactions to
this first draft facilitated development of a second draft, which,
with some minor modifications, became the final instrument
(see Appendix B for instrument). An interviewer training session
was held for all team members during which a student interviewer
administered the instrument to a former director of a family
15
service agency, who was currently a faculty member.
Data Processing and Analysis
A codebook was designed and. prepared by the student
coordinator and the instructors to avoid duplicate efforts by the
teams, and to assure uniformity. After a group training session
in coding, each team member coded his or her own data. An
initial computer run of the data revealed a number of coding
errors, necessitating some recoding by each team. Each team
developed a separate team report based upon analysis of its own
data and comparisons of that data to data pertaining to the total
sample.
The Reports: Health, Mental Health, Family Counselling, Child
Welfare and Children's Residential Facilities
Due to unanticipated data processing delays, which were due to
sheer volume and complexity of the data collected in this study,
this report will not expose all of the d ata, or c ross - tabulations
at this time.
Each team has assumed responsibility for highlighting the
findings most relevant to their areas of inquiry in relation to the
aggregate findings. This facilitates the reader's ability to focus
on a field of special interest, but each reader is cautioned to
note that this study consists of five volumes, each with its own
16
separate review of Literature, report of findings and conclusions.
It is fully expected that subsequent analyses of data and reporting
of findings will be conducted by the instructors and by teams of
students in the following year(s) in order to utilize the data to its
fullest.
In order to facilitate this initial presentation of findings, a
series of indexes were developed from questions in the interview
schedule (see Appendix C). The indexes, as will be discussed at
greater length in the course of analysis of data in the five team
reports, enabled the researchers to analyze the total number of
ways agencies utilize inputs from the environment, the relative
pluralism of boards in terms of their membership, the extent
executives perceive boards and other devices to be important to
agency policy and services, the nature of agency goals and priori
ties, the extent agencies devote staff and resources to facilitate
citizen and other inputs, the extent executives report that they
experience extensive pressure from funding and community
sources to implement participation and to conduct program eval
uation, the formal authority of boards with respect to agency
administration, and the extent executives are favorably inclined
toward citizen participation.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
A very extensive search and review of the literature
pertaining to the issue of citizen, consumer and community
participation in the field of mental health was conducted.
Over two hundred articles from a wide variety of sources
were reviewed.
The information derived from the review of the
literature will be presented in two major sections in this
chapter. The first section will deal with the historical
perspective of the concept of citizen, consumer and
community participation in the social services generally
and specifically in mental health. Ideological and
philosophical foundations of participation as well as
legislative considerations will be considered. The second
section of this chapter will deal with the major themes
and issues posed in the literature.
Historical Perspective of Citizen, Consumer
and Community Participation
General Background
The issue of citizen participation is as old as
17
18
democracy. Alexis de Tocqueville in his visit to the
United States in the 1830's, noted that new community
undertakings were usually organized by associations, rather
than individuals or governments. This kind of citizen
activity continued without much change for the next
century, with the elite of many communities serving in
voluntary associations and on agency boards (Thomson 1973).
One notable effort at citizen participation in
community service decis ion-making was conducted in 1917 in
Cincinnati, Ohio. The task was to incorporate a complex
plan of community participation in the actual governance of
a health center and other community services (Anderson and
Kerr 1971). However, it was not until the 1960's that
the role of the recipients of such services in the planning
process was first mentioned (Thomson 1973).
In the early 1960's, the concern for a broader base
of participation emerged. This concern was stimulated by
the "war on poverty” movement which questioned the effect
iveness of some health and welfare services (Frumkin 1972,
Hall 1971, Miller and Rein 1969). As a result, the
presidential task force on poverty recommended that serv^ ■
ices would be designed so as to be more relevant to the
needs of the poor and services would be more effectively
used if the poor were involved in the planning process
(Thomson 1973). This reasoning was carried over in the
19
enactment of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which
provided for the development and funding of community
action programs. Maximum feasible participation by
recipients and the poor was mandated. The law was enacted
even though the people who drew it up disagreed on what
was intended by the words "maximum feasible participation"
(Rubin 19 6 9).
Consequently, maximum feasible participation as a
principle or guiding concept emerged unclear, unexamined
and certainly not clearly understood (Rubin 1969). When
the idea first developed, different groups supported the
concept for different reasons. One major source of
support came from those who saw participation as a way of
getting the poor more involved with social services as a
means for containing delinquency and social disturbance.
A second group envisioned participation by the poor as a
way of providing jobs (Miller and Rein 1969). A third
perspective derived from those who felt it could legitimate
the federal government’s poverty program. This last group
viewed participation in political terms rather than in
terms of its effects on the delivery of needed services
(Hall 1971, Miller and Rein 1969). Building on this
political view, a more radical group of people saw partici
pation as a means of transferring some measure of control
and power to the poor in low-income areas (Miller and
20
Rein 1969).
These varying perspectives concerning the meaning and
utility of the concept of participation combined with the
ambiguity of the term "maximum feasible participation"
(when the law was first enacted) created a great deal of
local and state conflict shortly after the implementation
of the Act (Miller and Rein 1969) . It was in such a period
of change, reform and confusion that the community mental
health movement reached its peak (Hersch 1972).
Background: Mental Health
Since the founding of the first public mental hospii\
tal in the United States in 1773, influential citizens have
responded to a sense of their obligation to fulfill civic
and humanitarian responsibilities to less fortunate
persons. One such example is the school teacher, Dorothea
Dix who, in the 1860's, was impelled largely by religious
considerations into a thirty year campaign against the
incarceration of the mentally ill in jails and poorhouses.
Despite this concern and responsibility, the primary
thrust of legislation relating to mental illness was the
protection and security of society. In colonial America,
the mentally ill were treated as criminals and were put in
jails in order to protect society from harm. The early
19th century and the Age of Reform introduced a new thera
peutic philosophy which began to stress humanity and
21
efforts at rehabilitation of the ill (Lee 1973, McGarry
and Kaplan 1973). As a result, asylums or special institu
tions for the mentally ill were developed. However,
grounds for commitment of individuals to asylums were in
adequately defined and such institutions soon became over
crowded. These conditions contributed to the development
of custodial facilities rather than the therapeutic pro
grams (McGarry and Kaplan 19 73). It was not until World
War II, when the discovery of the extensive prevalence of
mental disorders was made, that the apathy of the public
and the government toward mental illness ended (Lee 1973,
McGarry and Kaplan 1973) .
As a response to this new knowledge, a campaign was
launched by a concerned citizen, Mrs. Albert D. Lasker, to
convince the federal government to invest an appreciable
amount of money in medical research aimed at all major
diseases, including mental illness. As a result, public
hearings were held in which a hundred or more physicians
and lay leaders appealed for much higher sums of financial
support for medical research. These hearings were a pre
lude to subsequent concerted efforts by citizens to in
fluence health legislation (Gorman 1967).
Another response came from citizen groups who, in
the 1950’s, advocated the maintenance of patients in the
community rather than in hospitals (Margolis and Bonstedt
22
1970). Concern was expressed about the tendency of large
public hospitals to foster depersonalization and institu
tional dependency. As a result, the Joint Commission on
Mental Illness and Health was formed in 1955 to conduct a
study on the above issues. The Commission's report, which
was presented in 1960 influenced President Kennedy to
initiate reform legislation in the fields of mental retard
ation and mental health. Subsequently, the Mental Retard
ation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers
Construction Act was passed by Congress in 1963--Public
Law 88-164 (Ewalt and Patricea 1969). The purposes of
PL 88-164 were to encourage the development of preventive,
rehabilitative and treatment services, the improving and
expanding of existing community services, and the integra
tion of community, regional and state mental health
services. Most significantly, the act provided for local
operation of programs through nine-member community mental
health boards, locally appointed and representatives of
interested groups in the community (Gaylin 1954). Public
Law 89-749, the Comprehensive Health Planning and Public^
Health Service Amendments of 1966, went one step further
by stipulating that a majority of the members of the state
advisory councils be representatives of the consumers of
services (Thomson 1973). Unfortunately, this requirement
called for the establishment of state advisory councils
23
but eliminated the requirement for programs to consult
local communities in advance about plans for their area
(Lindenberg 1968, McGee and Wexler 1972).
-On the state level, California also began to
implement, in the late 1950's, many of the notions of
community mental health that had been rapidly developing
since World War II. The Short-Doyle Act for Community
Mental Health Services was passed by the California Legis
lature in 1957. This act provides reimbursement for ten
services on a ninety percent state and ten percent local
basis. It called for a fif teen-member citizens advisory
council to advise the implementation of the law. It
mandates a local advisory board composed of three physic
ians and surgeons in private practice, the chairman of the
local governing body or his designee, a psychologist,
social worker, nurse, psychiatric technician, hospital
administrator and five citizens representative of the pub
lic interest in mental health, mental retardation and
alcoholism. (For information relative to the responsibil
ities of this advisory board, as well as for additional
information regarding the provisions of the law, the
reader is referred to Appendix D, "The California Mental
Health Services Act.")
The law requires that each county include in its
annual Short-Doyle plan a description of the procedures
24
used to insure citizen and professional involvement in the
county's mental health planning process at all stages of
development. In developing the Short-Doyle plan, counties
were required to make optimum use of existing appropriate
local public and private organizations, community profes
sional personnel, and state agencies.
The enactment of this legislation and the emphasis
placed on citizen, consumer and community participation
in the past decade, are seen as evidence of the prominence
of the issue of citizen participation in the design and
delivery of mental health services.
Major Themes and Issues
General : Proponents
From a review of the literature on the issue of
citizen, consumer and community participation, it seems
that the local communities' control of the mental health
system is seen as but one part of an overall, and overdue,
revolution in social values. This revolution is concerned
with developing social responsibility on the part of the
citizenry. A number of authors view the mental health
movement as an opportunity to change society and promote
social justice (Bloom 1967, Downs 1967, Osterweil 1966,
Stretch 1967).
Proponents of citizen participation argue that
citizens should be able to influence decisions affecting
25
their destinies. This could be termed, "participatory
democracy" (Bolman 1972, Cadmus 1967, Clayton 1974, Hall
1971, Miller and Rein 1969, Ozarin 1971, Smith 1966,
Warren 1974).
Consistent with this perspective a number o£ authors
have expressed the belief that citizen involvement and in
put to programs were necessary since local residents were
in a unique position to know what their needs, wants and
desires were; to ignore this important informational re
source was impractical. This reasoning is closely assoc
iated with the idea that citizens are likely to utilize
the services that they view as either meaningful or
closely related to their needs (Bolman 1967, Campbell
1971, Hochbaum 1969, Maloof 1972, Ruiz 1973, Smith 1966,
Steinhart 1973, Warren 1974).
Another point of view, also concerned with what could
be termed practical considerations, focused on the fact
that the mental health facility itself benefited from
citizen involvement. This benefit accrued in several ways
--not the least of which was the likelihood of on-going
financial and political support from a community that felt
closely linked with a responsive agency,(Bertelsen and
Harris 1973, Campbell 1971, Cochran and Jones 1971, Goshen
1966, Herman and Swank 1967, Hersch 1970, McGee 1971,
Ryan 1966, Smith 1966, Zusman 1969).
26
Occasionally the concept of accountability, or the
"watchdog role," as one of the functions of citizen partic
ipation arose. It was suggested that through active in
volvement, citizens would be in a position to continually
monitor agency effectiveness (Desehin 1973, Warren 1974).
General : Opponents
General opposition to the concept of citizen parti
cipation has been based upon several different ideas.
Citizens' sense of responsibility has been questioned.
Their motivation has come under scrutiny and has occasion
ally been found to be somewhat at variance with the rather
lofty principles and values that are said to be shared by
the professional community. For example, a desire to
further their own personal or group goals or involvement
for reasons that have nothing to do with the improvement of
mental health services, has been reported (Hochbaum 1969).
Moreover, participation itself may lead professionals to
compromises which result in less than adequate services
(Hochbaum 1969). In one study it was found that
volunteers were motivated by tangible, material or con
crete incentives (Flynn 1973). It has been argued that
operationalizing the concept of participatory democracy is
not possible in the field of mental health (Beck 1969).
The ability of the citizen to comprehend the issues
and methods involved in providing mental health services
27
has been questioned along with the idea that citizens may
have knowledge of their own local situations that could be
effectively utilized by professionals and planners.
Specific
Although there are mixed feelings among many pro
fessionals concerning the concept of citizen participation,
the literature identifies a few principal approaches toward
participation and suggests issues which might influence and
affect the quantity and quality of citizen inputs.
Funding and Auspices of Agency
Two of the basic considerations seem to be the
source(s) of agency funding and the kinds of strings that
may be attached to it. This is believed to be important
since an agency's financial status seems to have a direct
bearing on its receptivity toward citizen participation
(Bertelsen and Harris 1973, Campbell 1971, Rabiner 1972).
One obviously cannot consider funding without distinguish
ing private from public agencies. The latter enjoy access
to tax monies, and it has been suggested that this leads
to increased utilization of citizen participation because
of legislative mandates that accompany the funds (Hall
1971).
It seems reasonable to assume that the source of
funding for an agency will affect the quality and quantity
28
of citizen input. Additionally it appears that agencies
that are more dependent on the local community for funding
will have more citizen input than agencies that are
relatively independent of this funding source.
Characteristics of Clients
and Communities Served
It is important to note how communities vary from
one another and to isolate and examine the variables in
volved. For example, the number and quality of particular
organizations through which community people traditionally
voice their opinions needs to be considered. Also the
extent to which the community is demanding and vociferous
can be important. Also one should consider and try to
ascertain the composition ethnically, racially, economic
ally, etc., of the community served, for it was found that
citizen participation is reduced where the educational
levels of the community people were low (Christensen 1972)
Basically, it seems clear that the composition of a
community can and does have a direct bearing on the range
and extent of this type of participation.
Considering the above, it would seem that citizen
participation would be greater in communities that have
existing organizations through which citizens can voice
their opinions as well as in communities where higher
socio-economic groups reside.
29
Characteristics of Agency
It was found that the internal agency factor most
strongly associated with the level of citizen participation
is the strategy used by the agency to obtain community in
puts (Christensen 1972). This relates to the extent to
which an agency engaged in community organization efforts,
versus its reliance upon a more traditionally oriented
psychotherapeutic approach with individual clients.
Important considerations would also include how well
defined the functions of community participation are
(Rabiner 1972), and the size of the agency’s program. It
has been suggested that smaller sized programs are more
responsive to the mandate to implement consumer participa
tion than the larger ones (Metsch 1972). In other words,
large, complex bureaucratic operations have less receptiv
ity to consumer participation than smaller programs
(Loewenberg 1967).
Certain assumptions seem to flow from the above
material. It would seem that the smaller and less
complicated an agency and its programs were, the greater
the likelihood that substantive participation would be
realized. Also, it seems that an agency that engages in
more community related services would be the agency that
enjoys greater citizen participation.
30
Characteristics of Citizen Inputs
Relatively speaking, a great deal has been written
regarding this subject area. The literature encompasses
considerations of the various ways that citizens can and
do provide input, at what points this input is utilized,
and a qualitative as well as quantitative examination of
the input in terms of the characteristics of the citizens
involved.
Three basic ways that citizens can participate have
been identified (Piven 1966). They can be involved in
policy making structures, as staff, or as active constitu
ent groups. Further refinement would include citizens in
the roles of volunteer and interagency liaison person.
However citizens are used, it has been demonstrated that
their continued involvement requires that they experience
some sense of impact deriving from their suggestions
(Regester 1974). Conflict between the citizen and the
professional has been widely experienced but hopefully
some learning and some sensitivity has been derived from
the process (Hallowitz 1968). One obstacle to greater
communication and better working relationships has been
identified as the social class difference between pro
fessional and non-professional consumer and community
groups (Favazza 1974). Agency volunteers, on the other
hand, were frequently seen as coming from socio-economic
31
groups having moderate to high levels of income and very
high levels of education similar to those enjoyed by mental
health professionals (Flynn 1973). Participation and in
volvement from disadvantaged groups is sought sometimes
(Enelow 1972) but more often than not citizen input is
dominated by, if not limited to, persons from the middle or
upper classes with whom the professional feels more comfort
able in terms of shared values and life styles (Flynn
1973).
From a review of the literature it seems reasonable
to assume that citizens will participate more willingly and
with more consistency if they are involved at the earliest
possible stages, if they perceive their contributions as
having impact, and if there are a variety of ways in which
they can participate meaningfully.
Characteristics of Staff
Several authors have indicated that the background
and area of expertise of agency staff members are import
ant factors to consider in predicting the level of citizen
participation in setting agency policies (Campbell 1971,
Parker 1970). Sparer went further and suggested that
staff’s personalities cannot be overlooked as this factor
has as much influence on the relationship with consumer
groups as does the administrative posture of the agency
toward such groups. He also stressed the importance of
32
the need for staff to understand the social, political and
cultural forces that affect the issues and processes of
consumer involvement (Sparer 1970).
Staff members' attitudes toward citizen participation
was also found to be important. It was found that the age,
ethnicity and job tenure of the staff significantly affect
their attitude toward citizen participation (Brengarth
1972). Another important characteristic was the willing
ness of staff members to share power in decision making
(Bertlesen and Harris 19 73, Hochbaum 1969).
From the above review of influential factors it seems
reasonable to assume that agencies having staff members who
resemble the ethnic and racial composition of the community
will have more citizen and community participation. It is
also reasonable to assume that agencies having staffs that
are willing to share their decision making power will ex
perience more citizen participation than agencies that
operate on a more traditional, authoritarian basis and are
therefore less willing to relinquish power.
Characteristics of Administrators
Several authors have indicated that citizen and
consumer participation can pose serious threats to the
professional (Galihar 1971, Parker 1970). These threats
can result in fearfulness that is translated into action
either by exclusion of citizens on boards or by efforts
33
to circumscribe their roles (Parker 1970). It was further
suggested that the administrator has a great deal of in
fluence on citizen participation (Akponwei 1973, Brengarth
1972, Hall 1971). The willingness of the administrator to
share power was highlighted as a factor that strongly in
fluences the level of citizen participation in a given
agency. Further, the administrator’s attitude toward
citizen participation was found to be an important determi
nant (Brengarth 1972). Other characteristics that have
been stressed include the personality, orientation, and
training of the administrator (Hall 1971). All the above
mentioned characteristics of the administrator were seen
by Hall as very much affecting the level of citizen and
consumer participation on boards (Hall 1971).
It is therefore reasonable to assume that the
attitudes of administrators toward citizen participation
influence the quantity and quality of citizen, consumer,
and community input. Furthermore, agencies having ad
ministrators who have been trained for this function, will
have more citizen participation than agencies that are
administered by mental health professionals without
administrative experience or training.
Characteristics of the Participants
A review of the literature reveals a concern on the
part of several authors regarding the characteristics of
34
the people who actually do participate. Various factors,
or facets, have been examined which suggest that the actual
participant may not always be representative, either in
dividually or in composite, of the population which the
agency serves.
Frequently participants have been found to be middle-
aged persons with high socio-economic status (Anderson
1973, Au Yeung 1973). The participants’ motives may be for
the attainment of material rewards (Flynn 1973) or status
(Garvelinic 1973) and rather than come to the position via
popular election, they may have been selected for any
number of reasons. An additional, important consideration,
includes the degree to which the participant may or may not
have been influenced by the community culture (O’Donnell
1966).
One assumption that the authors of this study feel is
warranted is that while an attempt to secure participants
(via boards, etc.) who are representative of the community
served appears to be a generally accepted value, the
realization of this goal occurs infrequently. This seems
to be the case because of a variety of factors, including
the availability and willingness of suitable individuals,
as well as the attitude of the agency administrator regard
ing the utilization of such individuals.
35
Conclusion
For the past decade, increased emphasis has been
placed upon citizen participation in the planning and
implementation of community health and welfare facilities
and programs (Hall 1971). In the legislation discussed in
this chapter, there are explicit mandates requiring
citizen participation. However, in recent years questions
have been raised concerning the quality and extent of
citizen involvement. Different studies have reported that
quite a few community mental health centers have no genuine
citizen involvement and no clear role and function,defined
other than a tokenistic, advisory role (Au Yeung 1973,
Chu and Trotter 1972, Hall 1971). Furthermore, an exam
ination of the literature reveals that there is no common
agreement regarding the operational definition and
implementation of citizen participation. It seems that
clarity is lacking in terms of the whys and hows of
citizen participation. Therefore, this study of the extent
and prevalence of citizen participation in the field of
mental health is quite timely.
CHAPTER III
FINDINCS
The purpose of this section is to analyze the data
collected in this study pertaining to the characteristics
of administrators and agencies, the extent of use by
agencies of community and other inputs to the administrât
ive process, and the perceptions of administrators of the
utility and impact of the inputs to agency policy and
programs. Data collected from the forty-eight mental
health agencies are compared to the 204 agencies in the
aggregate sample. The term "aggregate" refers to the 204
agencies in the overall sample of this research project
and includes (1) mental health agencies (2) child welfare
agencies (3) family health agencies (4) residential treat
ment agencies and (5) family counselling agencies.
Characteristics of the Administrators
Administrators were interviewed regarding their
title, age, sex, race or ethnicity, field of training,
educational degree, number of years at the agency and
number of years in their present position (Appendix B,
Questions 3 through 10).
36
37
When the forty-eight mental health administrators
were questioned regarding their official titles, twenty-
three (23) indicated they were entitled Director, six (6)
were entitled Administrative Director, six (6) District
Director, five (5) Clinical Director and five (5) Assist
ant Director.
In comparing mental health administrators to the
aggregate sample, we find that twenty-three (51.1%) of
those in mental health are entitled Director, while only
forty-eight (23.5%) of administrators in the aggregate are
entitled Director. However, fifty-one (25%) of the
administrators surveyed in the aggregate sample are en
titled Assistant Director while only five (11%) of the
mental health administrators carry this title. If the
title Director denotes more total responsibility than the
title Assistant Director, then the majority of mental
health administrators carry more total responsibility for
their agencies' functions than interviewees in the
aggregate sample.
Data regarding the sex of the administrators indi
cates that thirty-nine (81.3%) of the forty-eight mental
health administrators are male while one hundred thirty-
five (66.2%) of the administrators in the aggregate
sample are male. This finding is not surprising in the
context of widespread social discrimination against women.
38
In mental health agencies, the age of the adminis
trators ranges from twenty-seven to sixty-seven years.
The mean age is 44.8 years. There appears to be no
significant difference in the ages of the two groups.
Most of the administrators in the mental health
agencies are Caucasian. While forty-three (89.6%) are
Caucasian, only five (10.4%) are representative of ethnic
minority groups. Among those minority group members,
three (6.3%) are Black, one (2.1%) is Asian, and one
(2.1%) is identified as "other." There were no Latin or
Native American administrators. Most of the administrators
in the aggregate sample are Caucasian (77.5%). However,
all the ethnic minorities mentioned above were included in
the data reported for the aggregate group; there is re
presentation from the Latin and Native American community
in the aggregate sample but not in the mental health
sample. While the data indicates that the majority of the
administrators in both the mental health and aggregate
samples are Caucasian, it appears that minority adminis
trators are particularly underrepresented in mental health
agencies.
Administrators in the mental health agencies are
generally well educated. Twenty-five (53.2%) have
obtained the M.D. or Ph.D. degree. Fifteen (31.9%) have
either -a. M.S. or M.S.W. degree. Only seven (14.9%) have
39
a B.A. or B.S. degree, and only one administrator has less
than a four year degree. Administrators in the aggregate
sample tend to be well educated. However, there is a
higher percentage of administrators who are Ph.D.'s or
M.D.'s in the mental health sample (while 53.2% have these
degrees in the mental health sample, only 28% possess the
degree in the aggregate sample). This doubtless reflects
the fact that many of the mental health administrators
are trained unlike administrators of other social agencies
(the most common degree in the aggregate sample is the
M.S. or M.S.W.; 43.5% of the administrators have these
degrees).
Mental health administrators tend to be relatively
long term employees of these particular agencies. The
range of tenure extended from less than one year to thirty
years with a mean of seven years. Over half the adminis
trators had been with the agency between four and ten
years. In the aggregate sample, the administrators also
tend to be relatively long term employees. There was no
significant difference between the two samples with
respect to length of tenure. This data suggests that
administrators tend in social agencies to be promoted
from "among the ranks."
40
Characteristics of the Staff
Administrators were asked the size of their staffs,
the percentage of staff who are professionals and the per
centage of ethnic minority members on their staffs
(Appendix B, Questions 11 through 13).
The range of full time and part-time staff for
mental health agencies extends from 0 to 516. In this
area we find extremes in the size of staffs offering
direct services. There is a mean of 62.3 employees and a
medium of 23.5 employees. In the aggregate sample, theye
is a mean of 7 3.8 employees and a medium of 2 5.5. The
data indicates that mental health agencies in this study
have smaller staffs than the agencies in the aggregate.
In terms of professional staff the data shows that the
mental health agencies surveyed employ a greater number
than the aggregate agencies. While the ranges are identi
cal, 0-96, the mental health mean is 31.354 while the
aggregate sample's mean of professional staff is 24.617.
However, it should be noted that the data is not suffic
iently refined to allow for an analysis of the number of
I
agencies that have professional staff of ninety-six (96)
I
or more.
Characteristics of Funding and
Auspices of Agencies
Administrators were asked about auspices of their
41
agencies (i.e., publie-government, non-profit or profit
agency), sources of funding, and the organization of their
agencies (i.e., are they free-standing, a district office
or a unit within a department)(Appendix B, Questions 14
through 18).
The mental health sample is almost evenly divided
between public-government agencies, twenty-one (43.8%) and
non-profit agencies, twenty-four (50%). The remaining
three (6.3%) fell into the category of profit agencies.
There are relatively more public agencies in the mental
health sample than in the aggregate sample; 128 (62.7%)
agencies in the aggregate sample are non-profit. While
almost one-half of the mental health sample agencies are
public, twenty-one (43.8%), only sixty-six (32.4%) agen
cies in the aggregate sample are publie-government
agencies.
It appears, then, that mental health agencies rely
heavily upon public funds. Only three (5.25%) agencies
received no public funding at all. However, it appears
that mental health agencies do utilize fees and private
insurance payments; of the forty-eight agencies surveyed,
only ten (21.3%) have no fees paid by clients' personal
resources or private insurance. Mental health agencies
do not appear to rely extensively on donations or other
charitable funds; twenty-nine (61.7%) receive no donations ;
42
thirty-six (76.6%) received no funds from United Way,
U.J.A., Catholic charities, AID, etc.; forty-four (93.6%)
received no funds from foundations. The complete data is
not available for the aggregate sample so a comparison of
data cannot be reported.
Participating administrators were asked whether or
not they expect the level of government funding received
by agencies to increase, decrease, or stay the same in the
next five years; most of them report that they expect such
funds to increase. Of the forty-six responses, thirty
(65.2%) foresaw an increase in their funding, nine (19.6%)
expect their funds to stay the same and seven (15.2%)
expect their funds to decrease. Over half of the aggregate
respondents (73.1%) expect their funding to increase. It
seems, then, that both mental health agencies and those in
the aggregate sample expect their agencies' funding to
increase, despite the current economic situation.
The administrators were asked whether their agencies
were (1) free-standing, (2) district -offices or branches,
or (3) units on or near the site of a larger agency.
Nearly half of the mental health agencies (45.8%) are
classified as free-standing ; only twelve (25%) of the
agencies in the mental health sample are classified as
units. The remaining fourteen (29.2%) agencies are
classified as district offices. Over half (56.7%) of the
43
aggregate agencies are classified as free-standing. It
seems, therefore, that more agencies in both samples tend
to classify themselves as free-standing agencies.
Characteristics of Clients
This section describes agency clientele in terms of
geographic residence, referral source, ethnicity, economic
status and average numbers served.
Definition of Service Area
Mental health administrators responded that 72.9% or
thirty-six of the forty-eight agencies, have defined geo
graphic catchment areas. In the aggregate sample, 70% or
roughly the same percentage, have geographic catchment
areas (Appendix B, Question 19). There is, however, a
larger governmental role in defining geographic boundaries
for mental health agencies (88.5% are governmentally de
fined) than for the total sample (only 61,2% are defined
by the government)(Appendix B, Question 20). It appears
then, that mental health agencies are more closely linked
to government planning than the agencies in the aggregate
s amp1e.
Georgraphic Residence of Clientele
Since the majority of agencies in both samples have
defined service areas, it is expected that most agency
clientele would reside in the immediate surrounding areas.
44
Administrators were asked to estimate the percentage of
their clients residing in (1) the surrounding area, (2)
the wider Los Angeles region, and (3) state or nationwide.
(Appendix B, Question 21). Data appear to indicate that
most clients do in fact reside in immediate surrounding
areas though clientele from mental health agencies are
even more likely than clientele from agencies in the
aggregate sample to live in surrounding areas. (While a
mean of 81.5% of clientele from mental health agencies
reside in the community only a mean of 70.3% of clientele
in the aggregate sample live there.) That a higher per
centage of mental health clientele reside within the
immediate area doubtless stems from the fact that the
Community Mental Health Services Act mandates that clients
reside within an agency's catchment area.
Referral Sources
In an attempt to identify primary client referral
sources, administrators were asked to approximate the per
centage of clients referred or located by the following
mechanisms: (1) referral by other agencies, (2) self-
referral, (3) agency reach-out efforts, and (4) referral
from other sources such as clergy, physicians, etc.
(Appendix B, Question 22). Data obtained from the mental
health administrators indicate that most clients are
*
referred by other agencies or refer themselves (mean
45
percentages of 41.6 and 35.5 respectively are so referred)
These findings are consistent with referral patterns in
the aggregate sample. However, it should be noted that
there is a noticeable lack of outreach efforts, particu
larly in mental health agencies (only a mean percent of
4.9 of the clients are located through outreach), and over
half of the agencies in both samples do not report this as
a referral source.
Ethnicity/Racial Identity
of Clientele
Administrators were asked to estimate the ethnicity
or racial identity of their clientele, that is, they were
asked to estimate the percentages of Anglo-Caucasian,
Asian, Black, Latino and Native American persons utilizing
their agencies' services (Appendix B, Question 23). The
ethnic/racial breakdown is presented in Table I.
Although the mean percentage of the minorities is
approximately 33.3%, the median is significantly lower.
This indicates a lower minority representation than the
mean might suggest.
When the relative representation of ethnic groups in
the clientele of mental health agencies is compared to
clientele of agencies in the aggregate sample, it appears
that mental health agencies serve relatively fewer members
of ethnic minority groups. While the mental health mean
46
TABLE I
ETHNICITY OF CLIENTELE
(in %)
Ethnic/Racial Group
Anglo-
Cauca-
s ian Asian Black
Lat
ino
Native
Arne r i -
can
Mean
Mental
Health 66. 7 3.1 14.7 14. 8 0.4
Descriptive
Measurements
Aggre
gate 54.6 2.8 19.0 22.2 1.1
of Mental
Health and
Aggregate
Sample
Data
Median
Mental
Health
Aggre
gate
79.0
59.6
1. 5
1.1
6.0
10.2
9.5
14.8
0.0
0.0
Range
Mental
Health 3-96"^ 0-30 0-90 0-83 0-10
Aggre
gate 0-96'^ 0-50 0-95 0-96'^ 0-12
96 may be any % between 96-100
percentage of Ango-Caucasians is 66.7%, the aggregate mean
is 54.6% of the clientele. Analysis of the findings re
veals however, that there is considerable variation among
agencies with respect to ethnic and racial representation
47
in clientele, as the range of percentages of Anglo-
Caucasians extends from 3% to 96%.
Economic Status of Clientele
Administrators were asked to estimate the percentage
of clientele falling within the following three income
categories : (1) income in excess of $20,000 yearly (de
fined as affluent-upper income), (2) income of between
$5,000 and $19,000 yearly (defined as middle income and
(3) income below $5,000 yearly (defined as poverty)
(Appendix B, Question 24).
The agencies surveyed vary significantly in terms of
the economic status of their clientele. This is reflected
by the wide range that appears in Table II.
The data reveals that mental health agencies serve a
mean percentage of 5.1% of affluent clientele, a mean
percentage of 43.4% of middle income persons, and a mean
percentage of 51.4% of poverty clientele. Additionally,
in 47.7% of the mental health sample, administrators re
ported no clientele in the affluent category. In compari
son, the mean percentages of clientele from different
economic groups in the aggregate sample are 4.9% of
affluent clients, 34.6% of middle income clients, and 59.6%
of poor clients; and 55.1% of this samplers administrators
reported no clientele in the affluent income bracket.
It appears that the economic status of the mental health
TABLE II
ECONOMIC STATUS OF CLIENTELE
(in %)
48
Income Level
Upper
Income
Middle
Income
Poverty
Level
Mean
Mental
Health 5.1 43.4 51.4
Descript- .
Aggre-
ive gate 4.9 34.6 59.6
Measure-
Median
ments of
Health
and Agpe-
gate
Aggregate
Sample
0. 7
0.0
46.0
30. 2
48.5
67.0
Data Mental
Health 0-40 3-83 2-96*
Aggre
gate 0-50 0-96* 0-96*
^96 may be any % between 96-100
clientele is significantly higher than that for the
aggregate sample (50% of the agencies in the aggregate
sample derive more than 67% of their clientele from the
poverty category while 50% of the mental health agencies
49
derive less than 48.5% of their clients from the poverty
category.
Average Number of Clients
Seen Per Week
Finally, administrators were asked to report the
average number of clients seen per week. Mental health
administrators reported a range of 45 to 3,140 clients per
week with an average weekly rate of approximately 428
clients. This figure is lower than the mean number of
clients reported by administrators in the total sample
(mean of 502 clients). On the surface then, it would
appear that mental health agencies serve comparatively
fewer clients than other agencies. However, in both
samples, a few large agencies affected the means. When the
median is used as the measure of central tendency mental
health agencies appear to serve more clients per week than
other agencies. (The median agency in the mental health
sample serves 282.5 clients per week, while the median
agency in the aggregate sample serves only 205.7 clients
per week.)
Characteristics of the Communities
Administrators were asked to describe the surround
ing communities in terms of size, race/ethnicity, and
economic status. They were also asked to assess the ex
tent the communities are organized into effective local
50
civic associations (Appendix B, Questions 26-31).
Size of Population Served
Communities were ranked according to whether they
contained fewer than 30,000 persons, between 30,000 and
60,000 persons, between 60,000 and 100,000 persons or more
than 100,000 persons. The majority of the communities
contain more than 60,000 persons. Of the forty-five
communities surrounding responding mental health agencies,
forty-two (93.3%) contain more than 100,000 persons, while
three (6.7%) contain between 60,000 and 100,000 persons.
The mental health agencies tend to have larger catchment
areas than agencies in the aggregate sample as evidenced
by the fact that 93.3% of the mental health agencies have
more than 100,000 persons, while only 84.6% of the
agencies in the aggregate sample are this large.
Ethnicity/Race of the Community
Administrators were asked to estimate the percentage
of their community that are (1) Anglo-Caucasian, (2) Asian,
(3) Black, (4) Latino, and (5) Native American (Appendix
B, Question 2 7).
Clearly there is a wide range with respect to the
ethnic/racial breakdown of the communities surveyed, as
indicated by the data presented in Table III.
TABLE III
ETHNICITY OF COMMUNITY
(in %) -
51
Ethnic/Racial Group
Anglo
Cauca-
s ian Asian Black
Lat
ino
Native
Ameri
can
Mean . -
Mental
Health 63.7 2.6 15.1 17.3 0.5
Descript
ive
Aggre
gate 55.2 3.8 18.6 20.9 1.0
Measure
ments
of
Mental
Health
and
Median
Mental
Health
Aggre
gate
73.5
62.7
1.2
1.8
8.0
10. 0
10. 7
14. 3
0.0
0.0
Aggre
Range
gate
Sample
Mental
Health 2-96"" 0-18 0-85 0-85 0-6
Data Aggre
gate 0-96* 0-25 0-95 0-96* 0-12
^96 may be any % between 96-100
The mean percent of Anglo-Caucasians in the mental
health sample is 6 3.7 with a median of 73.5% , while the
mean and median percentages of Anglo-Caucasians for the
aggregate s amp1e are somewhat lower (mean percent of 55.2%
52
and a median of 62.7%). The relatively high représenta--
tion of Ango-Caucasians in the clientele of mental health
agencies that was reported earlier (see Table I, page 46)
may stem, in part then, from similar characteristics of
the surrounding communities or catchment areas of the
mental health agencies ^ Yet, it appears that mental health
agencies are somewhat less responsive to the needs of
minority clientele than agencies in the aggregate sample.
While agencies in the aggregate sample generally serve a
higher percentage of Blacks and Latinos than th,e percent
age reported in surrounding communities, the clientele of
mental health agencies contains a somewhat lower percent
age of these groups than reported to reside in surrounding
areas.
Economic Status of the Community
Administrators were then asked to describe surround
ing communities in terms of economic status, by estimating
the percentage of the population who earn (1) income in
excess of $20,000 yearly (defined as affluent-upper income)
(2) income of between $5,000 and $19,000 yearly (defined
as middle income) and (3) income below $5,000 yearly
(defined as poverty)(Appendix B, Question 28).
There is a wide range in reported income of
surrounding communities with respect to the economic
descriptions given as indicated by the data presented in
53
Table IV.
TABLE IV
0
ECONOMIC STATUS OF
(in %)
COMMUNITY
Income Level
Upper
Income
Middle
Income
Poverty
Level
Mean
Descript
ive
Measure-
ments
Mental
Health
Aggre
gate
13.3
9.9
53.5
45. 3
35.1
44.2
Median
of
Mental
Mental
Health 9.5 58.0 27.5
Health
and
Aggre
gate 4.7 49. 3 35.0
Aggregate Range
S amp1e
Data
Mental
Health 0-60 5-96* 0-96*
Aggre
gate 0-60 0-96* 0-96*
^96 may be any % between 96-100
The data indicate that the surrounding communities
of mental health agencies appear to be somewhat more
affluent than communities of agencies in the aggregate
54
sample. While the mean percentage of poor persons in
agencies in the aggregate sample is 59.6%, the mean per
centage for mental health agencies is only 51.4%. It is
interesting to note that both mental health agencies and
the agencies in the aggregate sample have a higher percent
age of poor persons in their clientele (see Table II, page
48) than would be anticipated from the reported economic
characteristics of their surrounding communities (e.g.,
while poor persons are reported to compromise an average
of 35.2% of surrounding communities in the mental health
sample, 51.4% of their clientele are reported to be poor
persons).
Administrator's Assessment of
the Community
Administrators were asked to assess the community
served in terms of (1) extent of shared community spirit
and identity, (2) number of local civic associations or
organizations, and (3) citizen groups’ influence on commu
nity institutions. (They rated communities as high,
medium, or low with respect to these items)(Appendix B,
Questions 29-31).
With respect to "sense of community spirit and
identity," the mental health administrators rated nineteen
(43.3%) communities as low in spirit, fifteen (33.3%) as
possessing moderate spirit, and eleven (24.4%) as high in
55
spirit. (These rankings are not significantly different
from rankings of administrators in the aggregate sample.)
Asked to rank their communities in terms of "the
number of civic associations or organization," mental
health administrators ranked nine (22.5%) as low, sixteen
(40.0%) as medium and fifteen (37.5%) as high, while the
aggregate ratings were forty-seven (26.1%) low, fifty-one
(28.39%) medium and eighty (44.4%) high.
Finally, with respect to "citizen groups’ influence
on community institutions," mental health administrators
rated seventeen (41.5%) communities as possessing low in
fluence, ten (24.4%) as possessing moderate influence and
fourteen (34.1%) as possessing high influence. (These
rankings also are not significantly different from rank
ings in the aggregate sample.)
It appears, then, that administrators generally tend
to believe that their communities do not possess a high
sense of civic spirit, or that they have significant in
fluence on community institutions (the modal rankings on
the first two items is "low"). However, it seems that
administrators are more inclined to believe that their
communities have significant numbers of civic organiza
tions, since most ranked communities as "moderate" to
"high" in this regard.
56
The Number of Ways an Agency Uses
Inputs from the Environment
Questions in the interview schedule probe the extent
to which administrators utilize a number of ways or "in
put devices" to receive information from sources external
to the agency. Points are assigned to agencies that
utilize the following kinds of input devices: (1) the
number of boards or related committees used, (2) the
extent agencies maintain liaison with community or other
external groups, (3) the extent agencies utilize research
and consultation undertakings and (4) the number of inputs
from non-professional staff (Appendix C, Index I-A). High
scores reflect relatively high use of inputs.
In terms of overall inputs used by agencies, mental
health agencies do not appear to differ significantly from
agencies in the aggregate sample. The agencies with the
least use of inputs accumulate sixteen points in both the
mental health and aggregate samples. Fifty-three is the
highest number of points reported for agencies in both
samples. In addition, the index means are virtually
identical; the mean for the mental health sample is 32.313
and 31.971 for the aggregate group.
After looking at the overall number of inputs used
by agencies sampled, the data is examined in terms of each
of the different types of input devices noted above.
57
Internal input devices utilized by agencies include
the number and type of boards, special study groups, panels
or citizen groups sponsored by the agency to work on policy
and program or community problem matters (Appendix C,
Index I-B). The means for both samples again are virtually
identical (5.854 for mental health and 5.863 for the
aggregate group). It appears, therefore, that there is no
significant difference in the total number of internal in
put devices utilized by agencies in both samples.
However, some individual items within the index
merit attention. The mental health administrators report
that fourteen (29.2%) of forty-eight agencies have no
boards, twenty-four (50.0%) have only one board (adminis
trative board), while ten (20.8%) agencies report the use
of two or more boards. It appears that administrators use
boards sparingly to secure information and assistance.
Furthermore, thirty (62.5%) agencies utilize no special
study groups or aA hoc task forces to work on policy or
program matters and only three (6.3%) administrators report
having boards composed of past or present clients. It
seems, therefore, that many of the mental health agencies
had little or no input from organized bodies of clients or
consumer groups.
Administrators were asked to indicate whether their
agencies used a number of external input devices including
58
membership in inter-agency and/or community groups,
composite groups of agency and citizens mixed, professional
or agency associations ; hiring of new careerists or local
community people to work with community or neighborhood
groups. Administrators were also asked if their agencies
have a staff member whose major responsibility consists of
liaison with community organizations (Appendix C, Index
I-C). It appears that there is no significant difference
between the mental health and aggregate samples with res
pect to the number of external input devices; the mental
health means is 5.854, while the mean of the aggregate
sample is 5.863.
It is important, however, to describe the particular
external devices that are used by administrators in the
mental health sample. As can be seen in Table V, forty
(84.0%) out of forty-eight agencies maintain membership in
an inter-agency group ; thirty-two (66.7%) agencies have
affiliation with professional or agency associations; nine
teen (39.6%) have affiliation with citizen or consumer
groups; nineteen (39.6%) have affiliation with composite
groups. Of twenty-seven agencies responding, nineteen
(39,6%) indicate that they do hire new careerists or
community people. Thirty-four (70,8%) of forty-eight
agencies report a staff member working as liaison to
community organizations.
TYPE AND
TABLE V
NUMBER OF EXTERNAL INPUT DEVICES
59
Number of External Devices
4 or
P 1
2 3 more
Inter-
*
Agency 8 14 8 3 15
Groups (16.7%) (29.4%) (16.7%) (6.3%) (31.5%)
Citizen or
Community 2 9 6 5 1 7
Groups (60.4%) (12.5%) (10.4%) (2.1%) (14.6%)
Composite 29 7 5 2 5
Groups (60.4%) (14.6%) (10.4%) (4.2%) (10.4%)
Profess ional
or Agency 16 8 5 3 16
Associations (33.3%) (16.7%) (10.4%) (6.3%) (33.3%)
*
These percentages add up to less than
100% due to missing data.
It appears, then, that mental health agencies seek
external input most heavily from inter-agency groups and
professional or agency associations and use of a staff
person working with community groups; there is relatively
little contact with client, consumer or composite groups
and the agencies make only modest use of new careerists.
Research and consultation undertakings represent
another source of inputs from the environment. Adminis
trators were asked (1) whether or not the agency has
60
conducted or participated in a survey of community prob
lems or needs within the past three years, (2) whether or
not spot surveys of client satisfaction or dissatisfaction
have been conducted within the past three years, (3)
whether or not the agency hired or invited consultants to
meet with staff to work on problems within the past three
years and (4) whether or not the agency conducted any
program evaluation within the last three years (Appendix
C, Index I-D).
There again appears to be no significant difference
in scores on this index between the mental health and
aggregate samples. Within both the mental health and
aggregate samples, the range describing the number of re
search and consultation undertakings extends from four to
seventeen. The means are almost identical (10.583 for the
mental health sample and 10.417 for the aggregate sample).
In the mental health sample, agencies appear to use con
sultants, program evaluations, and surveys of client
satisfaction more than surveys of community needs.
Table VI indicates that thirty-seven (77.1%)
agencies conducted at least one survey of client satis
faction or dissatisfaction within the past three years;
thirty-six (75.0%) agencies used consultants at least once
during the past three years ; thirty-two (66.6%) agencies
report the use of program evaluations within the last
61
three years; twenty-eight (58.3%) conducted at least one
survey of community needs within the past three years.
In general, the data appears to indicate substantial
investment of agency resources in research or consultation,
although there was no attempt to assess the size or quality
of such undertakings.
TABLE VI
USE OF RESEARCH AND CONSULTATION
Frequency of Usage
0 1 2 3
4 or
more
Surveys of
Community
Needs
20
(41.7%)
11
(22.9%)
6
(12.5%)
4
(8.3%)
7
(14.6%)
Surveys of
Community
Satisfaction
11
(22.9%)
11
(22.9%)
7
(14.6%)
9
(18.8%)
10
(20.8%)
Use
o f
Consultants
12
(25.0%)
3
(6.3%)
1
(2.1%)
4
(8.3%)
28
(58.3%)
It is interesting to note that thirty-two agencies
state that public legislation requires program evaluations;
governmental pressure may be associated with the seemingly
extensive use of evaluations.
Inputs from non-professional staff are examined as a
fourth way in which agencies derive inputs from the
62
environment (Appendix C, Index I-E). Administrators were
asked whether or not the agencies utilize (1) organized
groups of volunteers to perform direct services, public
relations or fund raising functions and (2) new careerists
or community persons. Of the forty-eight agencies in the
mental health sample, nineteen (39.6%) report no group of
organized volunteers (see Table VII). Twenty-seven (56.2%)
agencies report that new careerists are hired. It can be
seen, then, that more mental health agencies use new
careerists than organized groups of volunteers. It should
be noted that many agencies utilize volunteers, but did not
report this since they appropriately are not "organized
bodies."
TABLE VII
THE USE OF VOLUNTEERS AND NEW CAREERISTS
Frequency of Use
^ 0 1 2 3 or more
^ Organized
^ 19 14 7 8
4 - 1 Groups of
o
39.6% 29.2% 14.6% 16.7%
^ Volunteers
P -I
E -
In order to understand fully the extent to which
agencies derive inputs from the environment, administrators
63
were given points for the number of different input devices
used by agencies. If a response to the questions in the
foregoing section is (1) "not applicable," (2) "no answer"
or (3) "don't know," the agency receives no points. If
there is any other response given, the agency receives one
point.
The range of scores for both the mental health and
aggregate samples extends from one to four, indicating the
use of from one to four different input devices. Means for
both samples are again virtually identical (mental health
reports a mean of 3.375, while aggregate mean is 3.466).
In conclusion, nearly half of the agencies sampled
has input from all four areas, but as the other indexes
show us, there is variation within each of those areas.
Composition of Agency Boards
This index was constructed to determine the extent
that the most powerful boards in agencies are pluralistic.
The formal authority of boards is determined by asking
administrators to estimate the formal power of boards to
initiate and veto in each of six areas of administration,
namely, personnel management, general administration,
planning, grant application, evaluation of the program and
the hiring and firing of the executive director. If an
agency has only one board, its single board is classified
as its most powerful board; otherwise the board that
64
receives the highest "formal authority" score is classified
as most powerful (see Appendix C, Index 4-J).
Boards are given one point when more than 20% of their
membership is comprised of poor persons, females, etc.
(Appendix C, Index 2-A). They receive no points if they
include less than 20% of these groups. A board receiving
six points by this definition is highly inclusive, while a
board receiving 0 points is non-inclusive.
The mental health sample data reveals that one board
receives no points and no board meets all the six criteria
Seven (24.1%) receive four points and seven (24.1%) receive
three points, and three (10.3%) receive five points. The
range in the mental health agencies extends from one to
five and in the aggregate sample, from zero to six. Since
the mean of the mental health sample is slightly higher
than the mean of the aggregate sample with respect to this
index (2.862 compared to 2.783), the mental health boards
appear somewhat more pluralistic than boards of other
agencies. However, the boards of mental health agencies
meet less than half the arbitrarily defined criteria of
pluralism.
A second sub-index measures the extent to which the
most powerful boards in the agencies are pluralistic by
using the same criteria discussed with respect to the
previous index (Appendix C, Index 2-C). However, criteria
65
required to enable a board to accumulate points are made
less stringent (e.g., a board in the previous index needs
more than 20% minority representation to be given a point ;
under this index only 10% minority representation is re
quired) .
Accordingly, boards are given one point when they
include more than 10% of each of these groups. With this
relaxed level, all boards in the mental health sample
receive at least one point. One agency meets all six
criteria. The mean on this index is 3.317 for the mental
health boards as compared to the aggregate sample mean
of 3.276; these means indicate that agencies meet in
general more than half the arbitrarily defined criteria of
participation.
A third sub-index uses the same criteria discussed
above to measure pluralism of the least powerful boards in
agencies (Appendix C, Index 2-B).
Accordingly, boards are given 0 points if a board has
less pluralism using the 20% criteria described above.
The mean for mental health agencies for the less powerful
boards is 3.333, a mean noticeably higher than the aggre
gate sample mean of 2.529. However, it should be noted
that only ten have second boards. (Four did not know the
composition of the boards.)
66
Importance of Inputs to
Agency Administration
It is important not only to ascertain whether social
agencies utilize in a formal sense inputs from the environ
ment, but also to determine whether boards and other de
vices affect, in important ways, agency policy. Adminis
trators were asked to discuss the relative importance of
the various input devices to agency policy, and their
responses were utilized to construct indexes described sub
sequently in this section of the data analysis.
Importance of Volunteers --.
Auxiliaries
This index is directed at measuring the extent to
which volunteers or auxiliaries participate in planning
agency policy. Specifically, the questions that comprise
this index are directed at determining the regularity of
the meetings of these groups, the extent that they initiate
recommendations about agencies' policies and programs, and
the extent that they discuss agency policy and programs at
meetings (Appendix C, Index 3-A).
Among the forty-eight mental health agencies sur
veyed, nineteen have no organized groups of volunteers.
Of the twenty-nine agencies that utilize such groups, it
would appear that many in fact encourage volunteers to
participate in the planning of agency policy. (62% of the
twenty-nine agencies with organized groups of volunteers
67
received at least four points on the index; the highest
possible score on the index is six points.) It should be
noted, however, that in both samples at least 50% of the
respondents received a score of two or less. The mean for
the mental health sample is 2.313 which is somewhat higher
than the aggregate sample mean of 2.279.
Importance of External
Inputs to Agencies
This index focuses on the importance of external
inputs to agencies. Specifically, the series of questions
comprising this index is directed at measuring the extent
that information derived at agency meetings with other
agencies, citizen groups, new careerists, and professional
associations is disseminated among staff members and what
value the information has in terms of shaping the agencies'
policies and programs (Appendix C, Index 3-B).
Among the forty-eight mental health agencies the
range of scores on the index extends from 0 to 16, with a
mean of 8.958 and a median of 9.214. There appears to be
no significant difference between the mental health and
the aggregate samples.
The data appear to indicate that agencies do commun
icate information derived at the meetings to the agency
staff regularly. It is interesting to note that informa
tion derived at the meetings of professional associations
68
is communicated less frequently than information derived
from other kinds of external groups. When characterizing
the purpose of the meetings with external groups, thirty-
two out of forty-eight mental health administrators stated
that their agencies utilize inputs from external groups
extensively to gain insights regarding community needs and
to assess agency policy.
Importance of Research/
Consultation
This index section is comprised of four items in the
! questionnaire. The questions relate to the agencies'
I participation, or lack of it, in surveys of community
I problems and/or needs and client satisfaction and dissatis-
I faction. Also the utilization of consultants to work on
I problems or provide new knowledge and the agencies' use of
: program evaluation is measured,
! The mental health sample's responses have a mean of
I
: 3.250, a mode of 2.000 and a median of 2.346. The aggre
gate sample's data is identical with the exception of a
higher mean (3.750). Nearly one-half of the aggregate
sample (49.5%) are either at or below a score of three.
The maximum score is eight points and this indicates great
est use of the factors cited above.
The data seem to indicate that the mental health
respondents are essentially the same as the aggregate
69
sample respondents in terms of the overall use of the
surveys mentioned, the use of consultants and program
evaluation.
Importance of Internal Boards A
The questionnaire items that comprise this index
I pertain to the most powerful boards of agencies and
I attempt to probe the extent that such boards discuss policy
! and administration. (For example, the extent the boards
I emphasize in discussions social problems addressed by the
I agency, policies and procedures related to funding, agency
I evaluation and planning, and general agency administration)
I
I (Appendix C, Index 3-D). Higher scores indicate more
I frequent board consideration of the above topic; a board
reported to discuss all the topics extensively received a
score of eight.
The possible range in this index is 0 to 8, This is,
in fact, the mental health sample's range. Mental health
agencies have a mean of 4.063 and a median of 5 (fourteen
agencies have no boards).
It appears that many agency boards do not discuss all
the topics frequently, for the mean of the mental health
sample is roughly one-half of the highest possible
score. Also, it should be noted that the mental health
mean (4.063) is somewhat lower than the mean of the aggre
gate sample (4.475). The mental health sample reflects
70
more frequent board discussions of "social problems" and
"evaluation and planning" than the other topics.
Importance of Internal Board B
This index section is constructed essentially the
same as the one described in detail above. It differs only
in that it relates to an agency's second most powerful
board (Appendix C, Index 3-E). In the mental health sample
only ten agencies had two or more boards. The mean score
for the less powerful boards is only 1.042, indicating that
such boards do not extensively discuss agency policy.
Extent Agencies Have Many Sources
of Important External and
Internal Devices
This index is directed at ascertaining the extent
agencies have a large number of input devices that
importantly focus on agency policy (Appendix C, Index 3-F).
The maximum possible score on this index is twenty-two.
Among the mental health agencies surveyed, 54.2%
scored seven or less and two agencies (4*1%) had scores of
0 (no important inputs utilized). The mental health scores
were widely dispersed with a range extending from 0 to 22,
and a mean of 7.521. The relatively low mean in this
index suggests that, in fact, many input devices may not
be important to the planning of agency policy.
71
Characteristics of Agency
This index is directed at determining the thrust of
agency goals and priorities with respect to clientele, the
socio-economic level of intended clientele, the location
where services (e.g., in-house or in the community) are
provided, the principle source of new clients (e.g.,
referrals or self-referrals), the goals of service (e.g.,
treatment or prevention), and the social change mission of
the agency. Five questions were asked to examine these
primary focuses , (Appendix C, Index 4-A). It is assumed
that agencies that have service goals that emphasize
services to low income clientele, that seek to prevent
social problems, and that provide outreach services in the
community would be more likely to utilize inputs from the
environment in agency administration, since such goals may
require such inputs. Relatively high scores on this index
indicate that the administrator emphasizes these goals.
Interestingly, only one (1.1%) agency out of the
forty-eight mental health agencies emphasizes provision of
services in the community; sixteen (33.3%) provide services
only in the agency and thirty-one (64.6%) use both commun
ity and agency for rendering services. Similarly, only two
(4.2%) mental health agencies use outreach programs as
their primary source of new clients ; fourteen (29.2%) use
self-referral and fifteen (31.3%) use agency referral as
72
primary sources. Most mental health agencies emphasize
services to a combination of lower or middle classes;
twenty-nine (60.4%) agencies emphasize service to lower
and middle classes, and only fourteen (29.2%) specifically
focus service on low income clientele. There is no
significant difference between the mental health or aggre
gate samples (both have a mean of roughly 9.9 in this
index).
Extent Agency Facilitates Inputs
Through Use of Resources
This index was constructed to determine the extent
agencies facilitate external input to agency policy and
administration through use of staff and economic resources.
Some of these resources that were measured included regular
formal budget item for research and consultation, staff
responsibility for liaison with community organizations and
agencies, and the ongoing support assistance and services
given by agency staff to boards (Appendix C, Index 4-B).
A relatively high score indicates that an agency devotes
extensive resources to such activities. The mental health
agencies range in scores from zero to fourteen on this
index with a mean of 5.558. More than half (54.2%) of the
forty-eight mental health agencies have a regular budget
item for consultation or research; eleven (22.9%) include
budget items for both activities. Thirty-four (70.8%) of
73
of the forty-eight mental health agencies reported that
they have a staff liaison person with the community other
than the executive director.
Only three (8.8%) of the thirty-four mental health
agencies reportedly pay board members. Furthermore, one-
half of the agencies provide no training for board members.
It is noteworthy that twenty-six (76.5%) of the thirty-four
agencies who responded give on-going staff support to
boards.
In conclusion, although there is little remuneration
for board membership and lack of training to boards, re
latively high is on-going support by the staff to boards ;
and many agencies include research and consultation as a
budget item and hire community workers. Comparisons to the
aggregate sample with respect to this index cannot be made,
because data for the aggregate sample has not yet been
tabulated.
Extent of Pressure an Agency Receives
from the Environment for Citizen
Participation and Evaluation
In this section indexes were constructed that measure
the extent agencies and administrators are pressured to
implement citizen participation and program evaluation
(Appendix C, Indexes 4-C, 4-D). Extent of pressure from
the environment is measured by ascertaining if legislation
requires citizen participation or program evaluation.
74
whether funding sources require- them and whether adminis
trators associate with other administrators who favor these
activities.
Pressure for Citizen Participation
Six questions pertain to the extent of pressure an
agency receives from the environment for citizen partici
pation. These questions probe whether an agency receives
public funding that requires citizen participation, the
amount of pressure an agency receives from public and
private funding sources to increase citizen participation,
and the attitude of other administrators in the field
toward citizen participation (Appendix C, Index 4-C).
Positive answers receive two points while negative answers
receive zero points; since there are six questions, the
highest possible score is twelve and indicates extensive
pressure from the environment for participation.
Among the forty-eight mental health agencies surveyed,
twenty-five agencies (52.1%) have a score of six or more.
(The range extends from zero to eleven with a mean of
5.229.) In comparison with the aggregate sample, it
appears that mental health agencies tend to receive more
pressure for citizen participation. Among the 204
agencies surveyed in the aggregate sample, only sixty-
eight agencies (33.3%) have a score of six and above.
Moreover, the mean of the aggregate sample is lower than
75
the mental health mean; the aggregate sample mean is only
4.554 in contrast to the mental health sample mean of
5.229.
It is interesting to note that of the forty-eight
mental health agencies surveyed, twenty-six agencies
(70.3%) have legislation accompanying public funding that
requires citizen participation. It may be that the high
dependence of mental health agencies on public funding
discussed earlier is the reason that mental health
agencies score relatively high on this index ; among
agencies receiving primarily private funding, 73.3%
reported having no pressure at all for citizen participa
tion. However, it should be noted that only six agencies
(19%) reported receiving extensive on-going pressure from
public funding sources to increase citizen participation
although 50% report that they receive some pressure.
In conclusion, mental health agencies receive more
pressure from the environment for citizen participation
than other agencies surveyed in the project. However,
though a majority (70.3%) of the mental health agencies
has legislation mandating citizen participation, about 50%
have no pressure at all from public funding sources to
increase citizen participation. While legislation re
quires citizen participation in mental health agencies,
there appears to be very little effort from public funding
76
sources to monitor the mandate.
Pressures for Program Evaluation
The same criteria to measure pressure for citizen
participation were used to measure environmental pressure
for evaluation (Appendix G, Index 4-D). The highest
possible score is ten on this index ; a score indicating
extensive pressure from the environment to implement re
search. Among forty-eight mental health agencies surveyed,
twenty agencies (41.6%) receive scores of six or more, with
a mean of 5.146. Mental health agencies appear to receive
more pressure for program evaluation than agencies in the
aggregate sample. (The latter sample has a mean of only
4.843.)
It is interesting to note that among the forty-eight
mental health agencies surveyed, thirty-two agencies (78%)
are subject to legislation accompanying public funding that
mandates program evaluation. Of these thirty-two agencies,
twenty-five (61%) believe that pressure to conduct program
evaluation from public funding sources is extensive;
another ten (31%) agencies experience occasional pressure.
It appears that public funding sources monitor evaluation
requirements far more extensively than citizen participa
tion requirements. It should be noted, however, that
agencies primarily receiving private funds do not exper
ience as extensive pressure ; only three (2%) experience____
77
extensive pressure from private funding sources. The above
information indicates that the agencies receiving public
funds are pressured to conduct program evaluation far more
than agencies receiving private funds.
Attitudes of Administrators Toward
Citizen Participation
In this section two indexes are used to measure the
extent executives emphasize negative and positive charac
teristics of citizen participation. In addition, a third
index is used to measure their overall attitudes. Each
executive was asked to rate the appropriateness of several
criticisms against citizen participation and several state
ments in support of citizen participation. Each answer is
given a score; a high score indicates that executives do
not stress objections to participation.
Negative Emphasis
In this index, executives were asked to react to four
criticisms of citizen participation (Appendix C, Index
4-G). They can strongly agree or disagree with the
criticisms or adopt a relatively neutral stance. The
highest possible score is twelve and indicates strong dis
agreement with the criticisms.
In mental health agencies, the range of scores is
eight with a mean of 8.708 and a median of 8.833. Thirty-
five (73%) out of forty-eight agencies have a score of
78
eight and above with the highest possible score being
twelve. This indicates that a majority of the adminis
trators do not strongly accept objections to citizen
participation. These findings are virtually identical to
the aggregate sample.
Of the four criticisms against citizen participation,
it is found that only one is felt to be ’ ’ very appropriate”
by a majority of the mental health agencies. This state
ment is ”The squeaky wheel gets the most attention”;
twenty-four (53.3%) out of the forty-five executives who
expressed an opinion find this criticism appropriate. The
other three criticisms are deemed inappropriate by at least
48.9% of the forty-five agencies; administrators particu
larly object to the criticism that citizen participation
’’ wastes agency resources” (twenty-eight or 63.6% of
administrators disagree strongly with this).
Positive Emphasis
In this index, administrators were asked to react to
five arguments supportive of citizen participation
(Appendix C, Index 4-H). A relatively high score indi
cates that the executive strongly accepts arguments
supportive of participation. (The highest possible score
here is fifteen.)
In the mental health sample, the range is five with
a mean of 13.604; thirty-seven (76%) out of forty-eight
79
administrators receive a score of thirteen or more. There
is no significant difference between the mental health and
aggregate samples.
It is interesting to note that there are. at least
75% of the mental health administrators who are in agree
ment with all of the positive statements; in only three
instances do administrators strongly reject arguments
supportive of citizen participation. In conclusion, a
majority of the administrators in both samples accept
positive characteristics of citizen participation.
Composite Attitudes of
Executives
This index measures the overall or composite atti
tudes (positive and negative) of administrators toward
citizen participation (Appendix C, Index 4-1). The scores
in the previous two indexes were combined to give an over
all description of the attitudes of the administrators.
High scores indicate that administrators on balance support
participation by emphasizing positives and de-emphasizing
negatives. (The highest possible score is twenty-seven.)
In the mental health sample, the range is ten with a
mean of 22.313. Among the forty-eight agencies surveyed,
thirty-four (70%) score between twenty-two to twenty-six.
In short, a majority of the executives of the mental health
agencies are highly supportive of participation, a finding
80
that parallels attitudes of administrators in the aggregate
sample.
Formal Authority of Boards
Two indexes were constructed to measure the formal
authority of agency boards. Administrators were asked to
describe the formal authority of agency boards with respect
to various administrative tasks to determine if a board has
relatively high formal authority (Appendix C, Index 4-J).
Boards with administrative responsibility with respect to
the tasks are given three points; with approval respons
ibility, two points; with right of consultation, one point ;
and with no function, zero points. The highest possible
score of eighteen indicates a board has extensive formal
authority with respect to personnel management, hiring and
firing of executive director and personnel, general
administration, planning, grant application and program
evaluation.
Board A
This index measures the formal authority of boards
coded as Board A, Among the thirty-four agencies in the
mental health sample that have such boards, twenty-two
(64.7%) receive a score of nine and above (eight have the
maximum score of eighteen). This data suggests that a
majority of the mental health agencies have moderate to
81
high authority in at least one of their boards.
Regarding the formal authority of Board A, at least
32.4% of the boards have administrative responsibility in
each of the six functions. They have the most respons
ibility in the area of planning; twenty-three (67.6%) out
of the thirty-four agencies have administrative respons
ibility with respect to planning. In the areas of person
nel responsibility, general administration, program evalua
tion and grant application, there is a wider range of
formal authority (e.g., with respect to the function of
hiring and firing, twenty or 58.8% of thirty-four agencies
have administrative responsibility, while ten or 29.4% have
no function whatsoever)..
Board B
This index measures the authority of Board B,
(Boards coded as B boards generally are non-administrative
boards such as advisory boards.) Each executive was asked
to evaluate the responsibility of Board B in terms of the
six agency functions described in the previous sub- index.
Among the forty-eight mental health agencies surveyed,
only ten agencies have a second board. Only one board has
administrative responsibility in any of the six functions
while at least half of the cases have only consultative
responsibility for each task.
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS
Purpose of Study
In recent years community agencies in all fields have
been urged to make deliberate efforts to achieve increased
citizen participation from community and client groups.
Some agencies have been mandated by legislation or funding
bodies to achieve this participation. However, the term
’ ’citizen participation” has been vague and not clearly
defined. Some studies have attempted to measure selective
citizen input but few comprehensive studies have examined
a range of devices used by agencies to secure inputs from
the environment.
The purpose of this study is to describe the extent
of use of inputs from the environment by mental health
agencies in Los Angeles County and to compare the mental
health agencies with a large number of other social
agencies serving the community. It is hoped that this
study may be useful to administrators, planners, legis
lators and funding agencies by providing base line data
useful to the planning of future policies.
82
83
A number of devices for securing inputs from the
environment to agency planning and administration were
identified, including boards, agency liaison with commun
ity and professional groups, use of volunteers and new
careerists, use of consultants and use of program evalua
tion. The researchers secured information pertaining to
the extent of utilization of the above devices and the
perceived importance of such devices to agency policy and
programs. Administrators were asked in addition to
describe characteristics of their agencies in terms of
goals, and nature of clientele and catchment areas.
Finally, administrators were questioned regarding their
attitudes toward citizen participation and the possible
impact of it upon agency policy and programs.
Descriptive Data
The aggregate sample of social agencies included 261
agencies; 204 interviews were conducted. From the seventy
mental health agencies selected, forty-eight administrators
were interviewed. The relatively high response rate (78.1%
of the aggregate sample and 68.5% of mental health
agencies) may indicate interest on the part of adminis
trators in citizen participation issues.
Characteristics of the Administrators
The administrators in the mental health agencies for
84
the most part tend to be male, Caucasian and highly
educated to a greater degree than administrators in the
aggregate sample. Females and minorities are under-
represented in positions of responsibility, a trend that
doubtless reflects a general lack of opportunity in
American society for these groups. Mental health agencies
seem to draw heavily upon the medical staff, since twenty-
one out of forty-eight (43.7%) administrators hold medical
degrees.
Funding and Agency Auspices
Mental health agencies appear to be more closely
linked to the government than agencies in the aggregate
sample. There are relatively more public government
agencies in the mental health sample than in the aggregate
sample and they appear to rely heavily on public funds.
Only three mental health agencies receive no public funding
at all. It should be noted, however, that the majority of
the mental health administrators predict that the level of
the agencies’ budget and programs will probably increase
over the next five years, but are less optimistic regarding
an increase in government funding during this period.
Characteristics of Clients
and Community
The majority of mental health agencies serve defined
geographic catchment areas, areas that tend more than
85
agencies in the aggregate sample to be defined by govern
mental mandate. It is surprising to note that, although
most of the mental health clients reside in the immediate
surrounding community, there is a noticeable lack of out
reach efforts; only two mental health agencies reported
making such an effort and more than one-half of agencies
in both samples did not report outreach. (The referral
sources most frequently used were other agencies and self
referral.) It may be that, with the decline of the
' ’community health movement” of the 1960’s, mental health
agencies have placed less emphasis upon outreach and that
administrators should consider devoting more resources to
it.
The ethnicity of the mental health client population
corresponds to ethnicity of the community. However, in
comparing the mental health agencies with the aggregate
agencies, it is apparent that mental health agencies serve
a lesser proportion of minority clients than do agencies
in the aggregate sample.
However, in terms of the economic status of clients,
the findings reveal that, both mental health agencies and
aggregate sample serve a substantial number of poverty
clients. It is possible then, that relatively more low
income Caucasians than low income minorities use mental
health agencies. It may be that low income minorities use
86
a different set of mental health agencies than the out
patient clinics included in this sample (e.g., residential
treatment homes). Further analysis is needed of patterns
of utilization of mental health agencies.
Administrators were asked to describe character
istics of surrounding communities in terms of extent of
community civic spirit, the number of civic organizations,
and the effectiveness of citizen groups in terms of in
fluencing community institutions. Administrators believe
in general that their communities have relatively many
civic organizations but relatively low sense of community
spirit. Administrators also believe that citizen groups
have relatively little influence on community institutions.
In an attempt to determine the extent that agencies
facilitate inputs through use of staff time and economic
resources, administrators were asked the amount of time
spent in orientation and training of board members, the
expenses paid to board members as well as the amount of
hours that the staff members devote to the board. The
finding reveals little remuneration in terms of wages; only
three mental health agencies reported paying board members.
In 52% of the agencies there is not any formal training
or orientation for the board. However, twenty-six agencies
out of thirty-four responding, provide on-going support for
board members by agency personnel. One might speculate
87
that boards are not more pluralistic .in part because
members receive little formal training or pay and so do not
attract relatively uneducated and poor persons.
Input Devices: Agency Provision
for Citizen Input
This section describes highlights of findings re
garding input devices and utilization of these devices by
the agencies in the sample. These findings pertain to the
composition and importance of boards, agency liaison with
external groups, and research and consultation efforts. It
should be noted that out of forty-eight mental health
agencies, fourteen have no boards, twenty-four have one
board, while ten have two or more. (No data was available
for the aggregate sample at the time the report was
compiled.)
With respect to the composition of the boards by sex,
minority, income, age, community residence, and working
class, it is found that no mental health agency boards in
clude all six groups at the 20% level. But the mental
health agency boards are somewhat more pluralistic than
the aggregate sample, though, in both samples, the boards
include fewer than half of the six groups at a 20% level of
participation. However, when the percentage level was
relaxed to 10%, both the mental health and aggregate
samples include slighly more than half the groups on their
88
central boards. It was not possible at the time this re
port was written to obtain data to ascertain which of the
six groups in particular are not included on the boards.
Formal authority of the boardswas measured. Each
executive was asked to evaluate the responsibility of
boards in terms of personnel matters, hiring and firing of
the executive director and personnel, general administra
tion, planning, grant application and program evaluation.
No comparison of the two samples can be made because of in
sufficient data when this report was compiled. It is note
worthy that at least 32.4% of the mental health boards have
administrative responsibility in each of the six functions.
Responsibility is most marked with respect to planning
(67%), and with respect to hiring and firing (58.7%).
These findings appear to indicate extreme discrepancies in
regards to boards of mental health agencies; while fourteen
agencies have no boards, many agencies appear to give their
boards an extensive administrative responsibility. It may
be that public mental health agencies that are mandated by
legislation to utilize boards give to their boards more ad
ministrative responsibilities than private agencies. How
ever, it is not possible for this report to determine if
there is a relationship between auspices and board
composition and powers.
With respect to internal and external input devices.
89
there is no significant difference between mental health
agencies and agencies in the aggregate sample. The major
ity, 60%, of mental health agencies do not sponsor citizen,
consumer or composite groups. However, one agency has a
board composed of past and present clients. There is
little agency effort expended in studying consumer prob
lems. In 62% of the agencies there have been no special
study groups or ad hoc task forces to work on policy
matters or programs during the past three years. Mental
health agencies seek most of their input from interagency
and professional associations rather than from client or
consumer groups. Agencies appear to make extensive use of
staff persons who act as liaison to the community.
(Seventy percent employ such staff.) With respect to re
search and consultation, mental health agencies emphasize
consultation and program evaluation rather than for surveys
of community needs or spot checks of client satisfaction.
The emphasis upon research is not surprising in view of
the fact that agencies receiving public funds are both
mandated and pressured to conduct program evaluation much
more so than agencies receiving private funds. There is a
noticeable lack of use of non-professionals or new
careerists in mental health agencies.
90
Pressure for Citizen Participation
The extent of pressure agencies receive from the
environment to implement citizen participation was
measured. Administrators were asked whether their agencies
receive public or private funding that requires citizen
participation. In comparing mental health agencies with
agencies in the aggregate, it was found that mental health
agencies receive more pressure. Furthermore, mental health
agencies receiving public funding are more likely to re
ceive pressure to implement citizen participation than
agencies funded by private sources. In the mental health
sample, 70% of the agencies have legislation accompanying
public funding that mandates citizen participation. How
ever, 50% of these agencies report no pressure at all to
increase citizen participation and only 19% report receiv
ing extensive pressure. In contrast, the agencies receiv
ing private funding report that 73% have no pressure at all
for citizen participation. Although agencies with public
funding are more likely to receive pressure for participa
tion, it appears that there is generally very little effort
by the government to monitor the mandate. These findings
indicate that further research is needed to explore the
future of public enforcement of participation.
91
Attitudes of Administrators for
Citizen Participation
Several interesting findings emerge with respect to
administrators' attitudes toward participation. Neither
mental health administrators nor administrators in the ag
gregate sample tend to accept objections to citizen parti
cipation. Indeed, the majority of administrators in both
samples accept arguments supportive of citizen participa
tion ; it is interesting to note that 75% of the mental
health administrators agree with all of the positive state
ments in the questionnaire, while only three administrators
believe the arguments are incorrect. The prevailing
positive attitudes of administrators are surprising in
light of the fact that many agencies appear not to utilize
boards. Further research is needed to probe this apparent
contradiction.
Considering that fourteen of the mental health
agencies have no boards, that the boards tend not to be
pluralistic, that major input sources are derived from
other professionals, and there is little governmental
monitoring to increase citizen participation (even though
70% of the agencies are required by law to implement
citizen participation), there is need for further analysis
of citizen participation in mental health agencies. In
particular there is need to compare agencies that have
92
different levels of participation to ascertain how programs
and priorities are affected by the level of participation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akponwei, Patrick S. ’ ’Citizen Participation in the Health
Care Delivery Aspect of the Indianapolis Model
Cities Program.” Dissertation Abstracts
International 34 (197 3): 602-A,
Anderson, John B. ’ ’ Associations Between Participation in
Community Mental Health Planning and Adherence to
Community. Mental Health Ideology: A Study of Citizen
Participation in Two Community Mental Health Center
Planning Projects.” Dissertation Abstracts
International 34 (197 3): 2772-A. "
Anderson, D. M. ; and Kerr, M. ’ ’Citizen Influence in Health
Service Programs.” American Journal of Public Health
6 (1971): 1518-1523. '
Appel, Kenneth E.; Zerof, Herbert C.; and Mudd, Emily H.
’’Community Resources.” American Journal of
Psychiatry 122 (1966): 1014-1017.
Au-Yeung, Benjamin. "A Study of Citizen Participation in
a Community Mental Health Center.” Social Service
Review 47 (Sept. 1973): 423-433.
Baker, F. , et al. ’’ The Changing Mental Hospital: Its
Perceived Image and Contact with the Community.”
Mental Hygiene 53 (April 1969): 23 7-244.
Beck, Bertram M. ’ ’Community Control : a Distraction, Not
an Answer.” Social Work 14 (Oct. 1969): 14-20.
Becker, A. ; Murphy, N. M. ; and Green, Blatt M. ’ ’ Recent
Advances in Community Psychiatry.” New England
Journal of Medicine 12 and 13: 621-625; 674-679.
Berlin, Irving. ’’Professional's Participation in Community
Activities: Is It Part of the Job?” American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 41 (April 19 71): 494-500.
Bertelsen, Kris ; and Harris, M. Robert. "Citizen
Participation in the Development of a Community
Mental Health Center.” Hospital and Community
Psychiatry 24 (Aug. 1973): 553-556.
93
94
Block, Bertram; and Kase, Harold M. ’ ’Interagency Co
operation in Rehabilitation and Mental Health.”
Social Service Review XXVII (1963): 26-32.
Bloom, Bernard, Ed. An Introduction to Community Mental
Health: Text and Readings. Pre-publication draft.
_. ’’Community Mental Health in an Era of Rapid Social
Change.” Canada’s Mental Health 15 (1967): 8-13.
Bolman, William. ’ ’Community Control of the Community
Mental Health Center : Case Examples.” American
Journal of Psychiatry 129 (Aug. 1972): 181-186.
_. ’’ Theoretical and Empirical Bases of Community
Mental Health.” American Journal of Psychiatry
(1967): 8-13.
Boone, Dorothy; and Mannino, Fortune. ’ ’Cooperative
Community Efforts in Mental Health. Public Health
Report 30 (March 1965): 189-193.
Bornstein, Robert. ’’ Elected Residents Serve on Board.”
Hospitals 47 (June 19 7 3): 65-67.
Bowen, Libbie B.; and Elam, Barbara. ’ ’Developing an Inner
City Health Association.” Mental Hygiene 54 (1970):
Brengarth, Joyce A. ’ ’ Consumer Participation in the
Administrative Process of the Health Services and
Mental Health Administrât ion*- a Case Study.”
Dissertation Abstracts International 33 (1972) :
6452-A.
Breslow, Lester. ’’ New Partnership in the Delivery of
Services: A Public Health View of the Need.”
American Journal of Public Health LVII (July 1967):
Budner, S.; Chazin, R. M.; and Young, H. ’’ The Indigenous
Non-Professional in a Multi - Service Center.”
Social Casework 54: 354-359.
Burke, Edmond M. ’ ’ Planning for Beliak’s Third Revolution.'
Community Mental Health Journal 5 (1969): 256-263,
Busse, Ewald W. ’ ’The Origins of Priorities and the
Effect of Pressure on Mental Health Services.”
Hospital and Community Psychiatry 22 (December
1971): 357-361.
95
Cadmus, R. R. ’’The Language of Protest is Difficult to
Interpret, But Understanding is Vital.” Modern
Hospital 113 (Aug. 1969): 78-91.
Campbell, John. ’’ Working Relationships Between Providers
and Consumers in a Neighborhood Health Center.”
American Journal of Public Health 61 (January 1971):
97-103.
Christensen, Terry. ’’Citizen Participation and the
Participation of the Poor in the Community Action
Program.” Dissertation Abstract International 34
(1972): 371-A.
Chu, Franklin D. ’ ’The Nader Report : One Author’s
Perspective.” American Journal of Psychiatry 131
(July 1974): 775-782.
Chu, F. B. ; and Trotter, S. ’ ’ Fires of Irrelevancy : Nader
Report.” Mental Hygiene .56 (Fall 1972): 6-11.
Clayton, T. ’ ’The Changing Mental Hospital: Emerging
Alternatives.” Hospital Community Psychiatry 25
(June 1974): 386-392.
Cochran, M. and Jones, W. ’ ’ Mental Health and the Commun
ity: A Case Study.” Community Mental Health
Journal 7 (June 1971): 161-168.
Constantine, A., et al. ’ ’This hospital holds itself
accountable to community.” Modern Hospital 113
(Aug. 1969): 89-92.
Corcoran, E. G. ’ ’ Mental Health Advisory and Lay Advisory
Boards.” Hospital Progress 45 (July 1964): 82-84.
Cowen, Emory, et al, ’ ’ Utilization of Retired People as
Mental Health Aids with Children.” Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 38 (Oct. 1958): 900-908.
Curren, N. J. ’ ’ Ralph Nader, the Consumer and the Hospi
tals. New England Journal of Medicine 2 84 (May
1971): 1017-1018.
Cumming, G. R. ’ ’Community Planning and financing of
mental health facilities.” Hospitals 38 (Feb. 1964)
50-54.
96
Cutler, R. L.; Speith, P. E,; and Wilkinson, M. F.
"School and Community Mental Health Programs.”
Review of Education Research (1962) Univ. of
Michigan: 476-483.
Daniels, R. S. ’ ’Guidelines for community mental health
plans and programs.” Community Mental Health
Journal 5 (1969): 225-226,
Davidson, H. A. ’ ’ Mental Hospitals and the civil liberties
dilemma.” Mental Hygiene 51 (July 196 7): 371-380.
Desehin, C. ’ ’Community Control, Myth or Reality?”
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 40 (Oct. 197 3):
740-743.
Devise, P. ’ ’Planning Emphasis Shifts to Consumers.”
Modern Hospital 113 (Sept. 1969): 133-136.
Diamond, H. and Santore A. ’ ’Basic Tasks in Developing
a Community Mental Health Center.” Hospital and
Community Psychiatry 2 5 (Apr. 1974): 232-235.
’’Does the Community Care?” British Medical Journal 5515
(Sept. 1966): 655-656.
Dorsett, C. H. , et al. ’ ’Designs Link Mental Health
Facilities with Community Activities.” Hospitals
38 (Feb. 1964): 84-92.
Downs, H. ’’Role of the Citizen and of the Community in
Mental Health.” Mental Hygiene 51 (Apr. 1967):
236-241.
Eddy, W. B. ; Paap, S. M. ; and Glad, D. D. ’’Solving
Problems in Living: The Citizen's Viewpoint.”
Mental Hygiene 54 (19 70): 64-72.
Eisenthal, S. and Malamud, W. I. ’’ Evaluation of Priorities
in a Community Mental Health Center.” Community
Mental Health Journal 9 (Fall 1973): 215-223.
Enelow, A. and Westor, D. ’ ’Cooperation or Chaos : Mental
Health Administrators' Dilemma.” American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry 41 (July 1972): 603-609.
Ewalt, J, R. and Einalt, P. L. ’ ’ History of the Community
Psychiatry Movement.” American Journal of
Psychiatry 126 (July 1969): 43-51.
97
Favazza, A. R. ’'Mental Health Paraprofessional: Indigenous
and Middle Class." American Journal of Public
Health 64 (Sept. 1974): 907-908.
Featherman, R. E., et al. "Using Volunteers in a
Community Mental Health Center." Hospital and
Community Psychiatry 2 2 (Apr. 1971): 113-114.
Fine, M. and Epstein, S. J. "The School Psychologist's
Contribution to the Community Mental Health Center."
Journal of School Psychology 7 (1968-1969): 70-74.
Fischler, G. L. "The Effects of Consumer Control on the
Delivery of Services." American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 41 (Apr. 1971): 501-505.
Flynn, J. P. "Local Participants in Planning for
Comprehensive Community Mental Health Centers :
The Colorado Experience." Community Mental Health
Journal 9 (Spring 19 7 3): 3-10.
Fouri, D. P. "Consumer Participation in the Planning and
Administration of Public Social Programs."
Dissertation Abstracts International 33 (1972):
5809-A.
Freed, H. M. and Miller, L. "Planning a Community Mental
Health Program: A Case History." Community Mental
Health Journal 7 (June 19 71): 107-117.
Freed, H. "Promoting Accountability in Mental Health
Services.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 42
(Oct. 1972): 761-770.
Freedman, A. M. "Presidential Address: Creating the
Future." American Journal of Psychiatry 131
July 1974): 749-756.
Frumkin, M. L. The Comprehensive Human Services Delivery
System and Mental Health: Problems and Prospects.
A paper prepared for the Interagency Liaison Branch
of the National Institute of Mental Health 10-12-
1972.
Galiher, C.; Needleman, J.; and Rolfe, A. "Consumer
Participation." HMSA Health Reports 86 (Feb. 1971):
99-105.
98
Garber, R.S. "Working together for Community Mental Health
Services." Journal of the Tennessee Medical Associa-
tion 5 7 (May 1964): 171-176.
Garvelink, R. H. "A Study of Citizen Committees : The
Relationship of the Positions in the Community Power
Structure of the Citizens Serving as Members of
Citizens Committees and the Citizens Advocating the
use of Citizens Committees." Dissertation Abstracts
International 31 (19 70): 6302-A.
Gaylin, S. "Psychiatric Planning at the Community Level."
American Journal of Psychiatry 121 (Aug. 1964):
153-159.
Gendlin, E., et al. "Volunteers as a major asset in the
treatment program." Mental Hygiene 50 (July 1966):
421-427.
Gerty, F. J. "Roles and Responsibilities in Mental Health
Planning." American Journal of Psychiatry 121 (1965)
835-838.
Gorman, M. "The Citizen and the World-wide Fight against
Mental Illness." International Journal of
Psychiatry 4 (Oct. 1967): 316-323.
Goshen, C. E. "The Changing Role of the Mental Health
Organization." Community Mental Health Journal 2
(1966): 121-123.
Graves, J. B. "Involvement of Consumers." Hospitals 44
(Oct. 1970): 46-50.
Hall, H. B. "Community Participation in Management of
Facilities Serving the Mentally Retarded." Social
Services Review 45 (Sept. 19 71): 340-341.
Hallowitz, E. "The Role of a Neighborhood Service Center
in Community Mental, Health." American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 38 (Apr. 1968): 705-714.
Halpert, H. P. "Public Relations in Mental Health
Programs." Public Health Reports 80 (Mar. 1965):
195-200.
Hanson, G. D. "Mental Health/Clinic Center Board Members :
Their Responsibilities and Orientation Needs."
Social Services Review 46 (Sept. 1972): 450.
99
Hatch, J. "Community Shares in Policy Decisions for Rural
Health Center." Hospitals 43 (July 1969): 109-112.
Herman, A. and Swank, L. "Unifying Hospital and Community
Efforts." Hospital and Community Psychiatry 18
(Mar. 1967): 83-4.
Hersch, C. "Social History, Mental Health, and Community
Controls." American Psychologist (Aug. 1972):
749-754.
_____. "The Process of Collaboration II. Implementation
and Its Discontents or You Don't Learn That in
School." Community Mental Health Journal 6 (Aug.
1970): 300-312.
Hochbaum, G. M. "Consumer Participation in Health
Planning: Toward Conceptual Clarification." American
Journal of Public Health 59 (Sept. 196 9): 698-705;-
Hochberg, J. D. "The Companion Program : Implementing the
Manpower Recommendations of the Joint Commission on
Mental Health and Illness." American Psychologist 18
(1963): 224-226.
Huffine, C. L. and Craig, T. J. "Catchment and Community."
Archives of General Psychiatry 28 (Apr. 1973):
483-488.
Hush, H. "Adopting the Family Agency Program to the
Community." Social Casework 46 (Apr. 1966): 222-227.
lefeld, F. W. and Lindeman E. "Professional and Community :
Pathways Toward Trust." American Journal of
Psychiatry 128 (Nov. 1971J1 583-589.
Isihiyama, T. "The Mental Hospital Patient : Consumer as a
Determinant of Services." Mental Hygiene 54 (Apr.
1970): 221-9.
Kane, R. L. "Determination of Health Care Priorities and
Expectations Among Rural Consumers." Health
Services Research 4 (Summ. 1969): 142-151.
Karno , M. ; : Kénhedy, , J, G . ; ■ and LipschuIt z , S .
"Community Psychiatry at U.C.L.A.: A Decade of
Training." American Journal of Psychiatry 131
(May, 1974): 601-604.
100
Klerman, G. "Current Evaluation Research on Mental Health
Services." American Journal of Psychiatry 131
(July 1974): 783-787.
Kolb, L.JC. "Community Mental Health Centers: Some Issues
in Their Transition from Concept to Reality."
Hospital and Community Psychiatry 19 (Nov. 1968):
335-340.
Kraus, R. I. and Phillips, N. "A Process to Help Community
Mental Health Boards Plan Programs and Facilities."
Hospital Community Psychiatry 35 (Apr. 1974): 2 39-
241.
Landsberg, G. and lacono, A. "Incorporation of Community
and Patient Feedback into Mental Health Program
Planning Through Research Operations." American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 41 (Mar. 1971J1 2 82-283.
Lee, D. "Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services:
A Re-definition." Dissertation Abstracts Inter
national 35 (19 73): 334-B.
Lee, 0. J. "Community Leaders and Their Involvement in the
Health Systems of a Metropolitan Community,"
Dissertation Abstracts 29 (1968): 3681-A.
Lemkau, P. V. "Assessing a Community's Need for Mental
Health Services." Hospital and Community Psychiatry
18 (Mar. 1967): 65-70.
Levine, R. H. "Consumer Participation in Planning and
Evaluation of Mental Health Services." Social Work
15 (Feb. 1970): 41-46.
Lieberman, M. "The Development of a Community Mental Health.
Center : A Study in the Politics of Mental Health."
Dissertation Abstracts 29 (1968) : 4068-A.
LilleskoV, R.; Gilbert, M.; Milalov, T.; and Barksdale, C.
"Child Development Center of the Jewish Board of
Guardians." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 40
(Mar. 1970): 281-82.
Lindenberg, R. R. "One Community's Approach to Integrated
Mental Health Planning : Challenge, Accomplishments,
Problems." American Journal of Public Health 58
(July 1968): 1173-80.
101
Loewenberg, F. M. "The Directors: A Pilot Study of
Volunteer Participation in Decision Making in
Voluntary Group Service Agencies." Dissertation
Abstracts 28 (1967): 4720-A.
Lurie, A. and Rosenberg, G. "Problems in Community Organ
ization for Mental Health." Hospital and Community
Psychiatry 23 (Nov., 1972): 350-353.
Macstravic, R. E. "Community Participation and Influence
in Health Care Delivery : Expectations, Performance,
and Satisfaction." Dissertation Abstracts Inter
national 34 (1973): 5524-B.
Maloof, B. A. International Co-operation: New Directions
for Mental Health (Sept. 1972) .
McGarry, A. L. and Kaplan, H. A. "Overview : Current Trends
in Mental Health Law." American Journal of
Psychiatry 130 (June 1973): 621-630.
Mandeville, P. F., et al. "Changing Points of Emphasis in
Training the Community’s Natural Counselors."
Mental Hygiene 5 3 (Apr. 1969): 20 8-213.
Mannino, F. V. "Developing Consultation Relationships with
Community Agents." Mental Hygiene 48 (July 1964):
356-632.
Margolis, P. and Bonstedt, T. "What is Community Psychi
atry." Diseases of the Nervous System (1970):
251-258.
May, A. R., et al. "Participation of General Practitioners
in Community Psychiatry." British Medical Journal 2
(Apr. 1968) : 168-171.
Mayer, J. E. and Temms, N. "The Client Speaks : Working
Class Impress ions of Casework." Social Service
Review 46 (Mar. 1970): 132.
McCaslin, N. and Klappersack, B. "Radical Approaches to
the Formation of a Community Mental Health Center :
New Ways of Outreach and Delivery of Services to a
Poor, Integrated Community." American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 42 (March 1972): 256.
102
McGee T. "Community Involvement in Community-Based Mental
Health Services Through Group Processes." American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry 41 (Mar. 1971): 287-292.
_____; and O’Brien, W. "Citizen Participation in
Community Mental Health at the Municipal Level."
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 42 (Mar. 1972):
259-260.
tf
_____; and Wexler, S. "The Evolution of Municipally
Operated, Community Based Mental Health Services
Community Mental Health Journal 8 (Nov. 1972):
303-312.
Mercer, J. R. ; Dingman, H. F. ; and Tarj an, G. "Involve
ment, Feedback, and Mutuality : Principles for Con
ducting Mental Health Research in the Community."
American Journal of Psychiatry 121 (Sept. 1974):
228-237.
Metsch, J. M. "A Model of the Adaptive Behavior of
Hospital Administrators to the Mandate to Implement
Consumer Participation in Planning and Management."
Dissertation Abstracts International 33 (1972) :
3734-B.
Meyers, W. F.; Grisell, J.; Gollin, A.; Papernow, P.;
Hutcheson, B. R.; and Serlin, E. "Methods of
Measuring Citizen Board Accomplishment in Mental
Health and Retardation." Community Mental Health
Journal 8 (Nov. 19 72): 313-320.
Miller, S. M. and Rein, M. "Participation, Poverty and
Administration." Public Administration Review 29
(Feb. 1969): 15-25.
Moynihan, D. P. ’ ’ What is Community Action?" Pub lie
Interest 5 (Fall 1966): 3-8.
Murrell, S. A. "Community Involvement in Mental Health
Programs : The Syandotte County Mental Health and
Guidance Center.” Community Mental Health Journal !
(1969): 82-87.
Neugeboren, B. "Psychiatric Clinics : A Typology of
Service Patterns." Social Service Réview 45
(Mar. 1971): 107-108.
103
O’Connor, G., et al. ’ ’Regional data collection as an Aid
to Institutional Administration and Program
Planning.’’ Mental Retardation 5 (Aug. 1967): 3-6.
O’Donnell, E. J. ’ ’Community Value Orientations and Mental
Health: An Exploration of the Impact of Community
Culture on the Ideological Beliefs of Mental Health
Leaders and the Organizational Behaviors of Mental
Health Associations. ’ ’ Dissertation Abstracts 27
(1966): 4345-A.
_____; and Chilman, C. . ’ ’Poor People on Public Welfare
Boards and Committees : Participation in Policy-
Making?’’ Welfare in Review (U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare) SRS 7 (May-June 1969).
O’Donnell, J. ’ ’The Professional Volunteer Versus the
Volunteer Professional. ’ ’ Community Mental Health
Journal 6 (June 1970): 236-245.
Oppliger, S. ’’ A Network of Volunteers for Community
Programs.’’ Hospital and Community Psychiatry 22
(Apr. 1971): 111-112.
Osterweil, J. ’ ’School Psychology and Comprehensive
Community Mental Health Planning.’ ’ Community Mental
Health Journal 2 (1966): 142-145.
Ozarin, L. D. ; Feldman, S. and Spaner, F. ’’ Experience with
Community Mental Health Centers.’ ’ American Journal
of Psychiatry 127 (Jan. 1971): 912-916.
; and Spaner, F. E. ’ ’ Mental Health Corporations : A
New Trend in Providing Services.’’ Hospital and
Community Psychiatry 2 5 (Apr. 1974): 225-227.
Padilla, E. ; Elinson, J. ; and Perkings, M.E. ’ ’The Public
Image of Mental Health Professionals and Acceptance
of Community Health Services.’ ’ American Journal of
Public Health 56 (Sept. 1966): 1524-1529.
Palmiere, D. ’’Problems in Local Community Planning of
Mental Illness Facilities and Services.’ ’ American
Journal of Public Health 55 (Apr. 1965): 561-569.
Panzetta, A. F. ; Sloane, R. B. ; and Aronson, H. ’ ’ A Survey
of Attitudes of Chairmen of Departments of
Psychiatry Toward Community Mental Health.’ ’ American
Journal of Psychiatry 130 (Feb. 1973): 175-178.
104
Papanek, G. 0. "Dynamics of Community Consultation."
Archives of General Psychiatry 19 (Aug. 1968):
189-196.
Pappas, W. "Hospital-Community Councils." Hospital and
Community Psychiatry 17 (Dec. 1966): 367-368.
Parker, A. "The C'o-’ nsumer as Policy-Maker: Issues of
Training." American Journal of Public Health 60
(Nov. 1970).
Peterson, M. L. "What is Needed is Care as They See it.
Not as We Do." Modern Hospital 113 (Aug. 1969):
84-87.
Petris, N. C. "New Approaches to Mental Health in the
California Legislature." International Psychiatric
Clinics 6 (1969): 361-378.
Piven, F. "Participation of Residents in Neighborhood
Community Action Programs." Social Work 11 (Jan.
1966): 78-80.
Plagge, G. Y. "Survey Shows Where Improvements are
Needed." Hospitals 42 (Feb. 1968): 119-122.
Polak, P. and Jones, M. "The Psychiatric Nonhospital : A
Model for Change." Community Mental Health Journal 9
(Summer 1973): 123-132.
"Position Statement on Community Mental Health Centers."
American Jdürnal- of . Psychiatry 130 (February 197,3) :
239-340.
Potuznik, J. and Blanks, M. "Community Relations : Elected
Residents Serve on Board." Hospitals 47 (June 1973):
60-65.
Rabiner, C. J. "Organizing a Community Advisory Board for
a Mental Health Center." Hospital and Community
Psychiatry 2 3 (Apr. 1972): 118-121.
Racy, V. "Inter-professional Teamwork and Community Mental
Health." Canada’s Mental Health 15 (1967): 12-16.
Raskin, D. E. "Participatory Management in Psychiatry."
American Journal of Psychiatry 130 (Feb. 1973):
219-221.
105
Regester, D. C. "Community Mental Health: for whose
Community." American Journal of Public Health 64
(Sept. 1974): -86-893.
Resenbluum, M. "Citizen Participation and Influence in
Comprehensive Mental Health/Mental Retardation
Programs, Real or Apparent?" Journal of American
Orthopsychi a, try 40 (Mar, 19 70J1 231-233.
Richardson, W. C., et al. "First Question in Health
Planning: Does the Public know what it wants, or
not?" Modern Hospital 110 (May 1968): 115-117.
Rubin, B. "Community Psychiatry," Archives of General
Psychiatry 2 0 (May 1969): 497-507.
Rubin, L. "Maximum Feasible Participation." The Annals
385 (Spring 1969): 14-29.
Ruiz, P. and Behrens, M. "Community Control in Mental
Health: How Far Can It Go." The Psychiatric
Quarterly 47 (1973): 317-324.
Ryan, P. E. "Cooperative Action for Mental Health."
Journal of the Tennessee Medical Association 57
(May 1964): 177-181.
Ryan, W. "Citizens in Mental Health--What are they for?"
Mental Hygiene 50 (Oct. 1966): 597-600.
Sata, L. "A Mental Health Center's Partnerships with the
Community." Hospital and Community Psychiatry 23
(Aug. 1972): 242-245.
Scheidlinger, S. and Sarka, A. "A Mental Health Consulta
tion-Education Program with Group Service Agencies
in a Disadvantaged Community." Community Mental
Health Journal 5 (1969): 164-171.
Scherl, D, J, "Changing Influences on Delivery of Mental
Health Services and the Roles of the State Mental
Hospital." Hospital and Community Psychiatry 2 5
(June 1974): 375-378.
Schiff, S. and Kellam, S. "The Woodlawn Mental Health
Center: A Community Mental Health Center Model."
The Social Service Review 40 (Sept. 1966): 255-263.
Simmons, J. E. "The Clinic and the Community." Mental
Hygiene 50 (Oct. 1966): 606-610.
106
Smiley, C. and Craik, M. "Citizen Advocacy in a Mental
Retardation Unit." Canada's Mental Health 20
(March 1972): 18-22.
Smith, E. "Current Issues in Mental Health Planning."
Community Mental Health Journal (1966): 73-77.
Smith, M. and Hobbs, N. "The Community and the Community
Mental Health Center." American Psychologist 21
(June 1966): 499-509.
Spensley, J., et al. "L.P.S. and the Mental Health Center."
California Medicine 114 (Jan. 1971): 49-57.
Steinhart, M. "The Selling of Community Mental Health."
The Psychiatric Quarterly 47 (1973): 325-340.
Stretch, J. "Community Mental Health : The Evolution of a
Concept in Social Policy." Community Mental Health
Journal (1967): 5-12.
Stephanos, R. C. "Citizen's Corporations as True Community
Mental Retardation and Mental Health Centers."
Archives of General Psychiatry 55 (July 19 71):
410-412.
"The California Mental Health Services Act." One-Ten 3
(Apr. 1972): 1-22.
Thomson, R. "The Whys and Why Nots of Consumer Participa
tion." Community Mental Health Journal 9 (Summ.
1973): 143-150.
Thompson, T. "Consumer Involvement in Health: A Conceptual
Approach to Evaluating the Consumer Participation
Process in Neighborhood Health Centers."
Dissertation Abstracts International 35 (1974): 334-
338.
Titmus, R. M. "Community Care of the Mentally 111: Some
British Observations." Canada's Mental Health 8
(1965).
Usdin, G. L. "Hospital-Community Reciprocity Enhances
Touro's Mental Health Program." Hospital and
Community Psychiatry 20 (Jan. 1969): 8-9.
107
Visotsky, Harold M. "Role o£ Government Agencies and
Hospitals in Community-centered Treatment of the
Mentally 111." American Journal of Psychiatry 122
(Mar. 1966) : .1007-1011.
Warren, Roland. "Citizen Participation and Community
Mental Health Centers." Paper presented at an
Interagency Liaison Branch, OPC, NIMH-sponsored
Interagency Technical Workshop on "Citizen
Participation," on December 14, 1974, Rockville, Md.
Wohlgemath, H. "Public Welfare's Untapped Resource: The
Advisory Committee as Advocate." Child Welfare 48
(1969): 476-480.
Woloshin, A. A. and Pomp, H. C. "Implementation Barriers
to Community Mental Health Programs." Psychotherapy
and Psychosomatics 16 (1968): 6-15.
Wylan, L., et al. "Involving General Practitioners in
Community Mental Health." Hospital and Community
Psychiatry 18 (Sept. 1967): 255-258.
Zusman, J. "Design of Catchment Areas for Community
Mental Health Services." Archives of General
Psychiatry 21 (1969): 568-573.
APPENDIX A
LETTER TO ADMINISTRATORS
108
109
A P P E N D I X A
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
S C H O O L O F S O C I A L W O R K
U N I V E R S I T Y P A R K
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A S 0 0 0 7
D e a r
W e a r e w r i t i n g t o y o u a t t h i s t i m e t o r e q u e s t y o u r a s s i s t a n c e i n a
m a j o r s t u d y o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f e x e c u t i v e s r e g a r d i n g a s p e c t s o f c i t i z e n ,
c o n s u m e r a n d c o m m u n i t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a g e n c y o p e r a t i o n s .
P l e a s e e x c u s e t h i s p h o t o c o p i e d l e t t e r , b u t w e a r e t r y i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s
i n i t i a l c o n t a c t w i t h a l l o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w h o w i l l b e i n v o l v e d i n
t h i s s t u d y a s e a r l y a s p o s s i b l e .
B r i e f l y , i n r e c e n t y e a r s c o m m u n i t y a g e n c i e s i n a l l f i e l d s h a v e b e e n
u r g e d t o m a k e d e l i b e r a t e e f f o r t s t o a c h i e v e i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n f r o m
c o m m u n i t y a n d c l i e n t g r o u p s . I n s o m e i n s t a n c e s l e g i s l a t i o n o r f u n d i n g b o d i e s
h a v e m a n d a t e d s u c h a c t i v i t y ; i n f a c t , a d d i t i o n a l p r e s c r i p t i v e l e g i s l a t i v e
p r o p o s a i s a r e u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a t t h i s t i m e . V a r i o u s r e s p e c t e d p r o
f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s h a v e r e p o r t e d t h e e x p e r i e n c e s o f s e l e c t e d a g e n c i e s a r o u n d
t h e n a t i o n a n d a u t h o r s h a v e o u t l i n e d t h e p r e s u m e d a d v a n t a g e s - d i s a d v a n t a g e s ,
c o s t s a n d b e n e f i t s , w h i c h s e e m t o o c c u r . D e s p i t e t h i s l e v e l o f i n t e r e s t
a n d t h e r e p o r t s o f a c t i v i t y t h e r e i s o b v i o u s l y c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n f u s i o n i n t h e
m i n d s o f m a n y p l a n n e r s a n d a g e n c y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a s t o w h a t i s c u r r e n t l y
h a p p e n i n g i n t h e i r f i e l d . W h a t w o r k s a n d w h a t d o e s n ' t ? \ i h a t p r ’o b l e m s
a r e a g e n c i e s e n c o u n t e r i n g ? W h a t b e n e f i t s a r e d e r i v e d b y w h i c h a g e n c i e s
S e r v i n g w h i c h g r o u p s o f c l i e n t s i n w h i c h c o m m u n i t i e s ? U p t o n o w t t o o n e h a s
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s t u d i e d t h e s e q u e s t i o n s f r o m t h e v a n t a g e p o i n t o f a g e n c y
e x e c u t i v e s b a s e d o n t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n s ' o f t h e l i a b i l i t i e s a n d o p p o r t u n i t i e s
a f f o r d e d b y v a r i o u s a p p r o a c h e s f o r d e r i v i n g c i t i z e n a n d c o n s u m e r i n p u t .
T h i s s t u d y p r o p o s e s t o c o n d u c t s u c h a s u r v e y i n t h e L o s A n g e l e s M e t r o p o l i t a n
A r e a .
W e h a v e c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e o f a g e n c i e s f o r
i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s s t u d y . W i t h i n s e v e r a l d a y s a f t e r y o u r e c e i v e t h i s l e t t e r
w e w i l l t e l e p h o n e y o u t o a r r a n g e a c o n v e n i e n t t i m e t o m e e t w i t h y o u a t y o u r
a g e n c y . I t i s c r u c i a l t h a t t h o s e a g e n c i e s s e l e c t e d d o i n f a c t a g r e e t o
p a r t i c i p a t e . W e k n o w y o u r s c h e d u l e i s h e a v y , b u t f r a n k l y , w e f e e l t h i s
S u r v e y i s b o t h v i t a l a n d e s p e c i a l l y t i m e l y . W e t h e r e f o r e h o p e t h a t w h e n w e
t e l e p h o n e , y o u w i l l b e a b l e t o a r r a n g e a t i m e t h a t i s c o n v e n i e n t f o r y o u .
T h e i n t e r v i e w w i l l n o t l a s t l o n g e r t h a n a n h o u r , a n d w e d o h o p e t h a t y o u
w i l l a g r e e w i t h u s t h a t t h i s s t u d y i s i m p o r t a n t e n o u g h f o r y o u t o p a r t i c i p a t e .
W e b e l i e v e t h i s s t u d y w i l l b e o f g r e a t v a l u e t o a g e n c y e x e c u t i v e s ,
p l a n n e r s , e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s , a n d f u n d i n g a g e n c i e s , a n d w i l l h a v e a n i m p a c t
o n t h e s h a p i n g o f f u t u r e p o l i c i e s . N e e d l e s s t o s a y , w e a r e h o p i n g f o r c a n d o r ,
a n d a l l r e s p o n s e s w i l l b e t r e a t e d c o n f i d e n t i a l l y a n d r e p o r t e d i n a m a n n e r
t h a t a s s u r e s b o t h a g e n c y a n d p e r s o n a l a n o n y m i t y .
110
- 2-
A f i n a l n o t e . W e h a v e e n d e a v o r e d t o d e s i g n t h i s s t u d y t o b e p r a c t i c a l
a n d r e a l i t y - o r i e n t e d . T h e s t u d y ' s s p o n s o r s h i p a n d s u p p o r t i s d e r i v e d f r o m
t h i s S c h o o l o f S o c i a l W o r k , U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , a n d t h e e f f o r t s
o f t w e n t y - s e v e n g r a d u a t e - s c h o o l s t u d e n t s a n d o u r s e l v e s . W e h a v e t h e i n d e
p e n d e n c e t o r e p o r t f u l l y a n d o b j e c t i v e l y , b u t w e d o n e e d t o k n o w a b o u t y o u r
e x p e r i e n c e , o p i n i o n s a n d p e r s p e c t i v e .
I f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e f e e l f r e e t o t e l e p h o n e e i t h e r o f u s
a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y ( 7 4 6 - 2 7 1 1 ) .
T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r h e l p .
*'^W’ « = - e u Ac
JÙ>Vv«-eu
S a m u e l H . T a y l o r , D S W B r u c e J a n s s o n , M . A . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r I n s t r u c t o r I n t e r v i e w e r
P . S . P a r t i c i p a t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s w i l l r e c e i v e a r e p o r t o f t h e s u m m a r y
f i n d i n g s t h i s c o m i n g M a y .
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE
111
112
A P P E N D I X B
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A S C H O O L O F S O C I A L W O R K
I n t e r v i e w S c h e d u l e
A g e n c y I d e n t i f i c a t i o n N u m b e r
I d e n t i f y i n g I n f o r m a t i o n
1 ) N a m e o f A g e n c y _ _ _ _ _ _
2 ) N a m e o f A d m i n i s t r a t o r - I n t e r v i e w e e
3 ) P o s i t i o n o r T i t l e o f A d m i n . - I n t e r v i e w e e
4 ) S e x : F _ _ _ _ M
5) A g e : ( I f a p p r o x i m a t e , r o u n d b y 5 ’ s a n d p a r e n t h e s e s )
6 ) R a c e / E t h n i c i t y : C a u c , _ _ _ _ L a t i n o _ _ _ _ B l a c k _ _ _ _ A s i a n N a t . A m .
7 ) F i e l d o f T r a i n i n g o r D i s c i p l i n e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8 ) H i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n d e g r e e ( A . A . , A . ^ B . , M . S . , P h . D . , e t c . )
9 ) N u m b e r o f y e a r s e m p l o y e d a t t h i s a g e n c y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
1 0 ) N u m b e r o f y e a r s i n p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n a t t h i s a g e n c y _
1 1 ) N u m b e r o f f u l l a n d p a r t - ^ t i m e s t a f f e m p l o y e d a t t h i s a g e n c y t o p r o v i d e d i r e c t
s e r v i c e s t o c l i e n t s : ( N o t e : s u m p a r t - t i m e t o f u l l t i m e e q u i v a l e n t s )
1 2 ) H o w m a n y o f t h e s e s t a f f p e r s o n s a r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s ? ( M . S . W . , P h . D . , e t c . )
1 3 ) O f t h e t o t a l s t a f f w h o p r o v i d e d i r e c t s e r v i c e s t o c l i e n t s , h o w m a n y a r e
m e m b e r s o f e t h n i c / r a c i a l m i n o r i t y g r o u p s ? ( B l a c k , L a t i n o , A s i a n , N a t - A m . )
( N o t e : s u m p a r t - t i m e t o f u l l t i m e e q u i v a l e n t s )
F u n d i n g a n d A u s p i c e s o f t h e A g e n c y
1 4 ) A u s p i c e s — T y p e o f A g e n c y : ( c h e c k o n e )
P u b l i c - g o v e r n m e n t N o n - p r o f i t _ _ _ _ _ P r o f i t ^
113
-2-
1 5 ) S o u r c e s o f a g e n c y f u n d i n g a n d s u p p o r t b y p e r c e n t a g e s : ( U s e b e s t e s t i m a t e d
j u d g e m e n t o f i n t e r v i e w e e * r o u n d o f f a n d t o t a l t o 1 0 0 % )
a . F e e s p a i d b y c l i e n t ’ s p e r s o n a l r e s o u r c e s o r p r i v a t e i n s u r a n c e _ _ _ _
b . F e e s p a i d b y p u b l i c p r o g r a m s ( e . g . M e d i c a r e , M e d i c a i d ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c . D o n a t i o n s f r o m i n d i v i d u a l s , c o r p o r a t i o n s o r b y f u n d r a i s e r ^
d . U n i t e d W a y , U J A , C a t h o l i c C h a r ’ s , A . I . D . , e t c . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
e . F o u n d a t i e n s
f . G o v e r n m e n t ( c i t y , c o u n t y , s t a t e , f e d e r a l , i n c l u d i n g
g r a n t s a n d c o n t r a c t s )
1009g
1 5 ) A s y o u l o o k a h e a d t o w a r d t h e n e x t 5 y e a r s w o u l d y o u p r e d i c t t h a t t h e l e v e l
o f t h e a g e n c y ' s b u d g e t a n d p r o g r a m s w i l l p r o b a b l y : ( c h e c k o n e )
a ) S t a y t h e s a m e e x c e p t f o r i n f l a t i o n a d j u s t i n g i n c r e m e n t s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b ) I n c r e a s e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
0) D e c r e a s e ( a c t u a l $ a m o u n t o r b y i n f l a t i o n ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 7 ) W h e t h e r t h e l e v e l o f y o u r a g e n c y ’ s f u n d i n g i s e x p e c t e d t o i n c r e a s e o r
d e c r e a s e o r s t a y t h e s a m e i n t h e n e x t f i v e y e a r s , d o you e x p e c t t h a t t h e
p r o p o r t i o n o f g o v e r n m e n t f u n d i n g w i l l :
a ) s t a y t h e s a m e _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) i n c r e a s e _ _ _ _ _ _ c ) d e c r e a s e
1 8 ) I s t h i s a g e n c y :
a ) A f r e e s t a n d i n g a g e n c y ( g o v e r n m e n t o r n o n - p r o f i t ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b ) A d i s t r i c t o f f i c e o r b r a n c h o f a l a r g e a g e n c y s t r u c t u r e _
c ) A u n i t o r d e p a r t m e n t o n o r n e a r t h e s i t e o f a l a r g e r
a g e n c y s t r u c t u r e
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f C l i e n t s a n d C o m m u n i t i e s s e r v e d b y t h i s A g e n c y
1 9 ) D o . y o u h a v e , a d e f i n e d g e o g r a p h i c c a t c h m e n t a r e a ? Y e s N o _
2 0 ) I f y e s , h o w w a s t h i s c a t c h m e n t a r e a d e f i n e d ?
a ) F e d e r a l , s t a t e , o r c o u n t y d e s i g n a t i o n _ _ _ _ _ _
b ) I n t e r - a g e n c y a g r e e m e n t o r U n i t e d W a y , e t c .
e ) B y b o a r d a n d / o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h i s a g e n c y _
- 3-
114
X
2 1 ) A p p r o x i m a t e l y w h a t p e r c e n t a g e o f y o u r a g e n c y ' s c l i e n t s c o m e f r o m
a ) I m m e d i a t e s u r r o u n d i n g c o m m u n i t y o r c a t c h m e n t a r e a _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ %
b ) W i d e r L o s A n g e l e s m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n
c ) S t a t e o r n a t i o n w i d e
%
%
100%
2 2 ) A p p r o x i m a t e l y w ’h a t p e r c e n t a g e o f y o u r c l i e n t s a r e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e
f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s :
a ) R e f e r r a l s f r o m o t h e r a g e n c i e s
b) S e l f r e f e r r a l s
c ) A g e n c y r e a c h - o u t e f f o r t s
d) O t h e r s o u r c e s ( c l e r g y , p h y s i c i a n s , e t c . )
%
%
%
%
100%
P l e a s e a s s i g n a n a p p r o x i m a t e % f i g u r e t o e a c h o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d
b e l o w , i n t e r m s o f t h e i r p r o p o r t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n y o u r a g e n c y ' s
c l i e n t e l e .
2 3 ) E t h n i c i t y / R a c i a l I d e n t i t y 2 4 ) E c o n o m i c S t a t u t
a)
f a )
c)
d)
3 )
A n g l o C a u c .
A s i a n
B l a c k
L a t i n o
N a t . A m e r i c a n
100%
a )
f a )
c)
d)
_ A f f l u e n t U p p e r M i d d l e
I n c o m e ( o v e r $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 )
M i d d l e I n c o m e ( $ 5 t o
" 1 9 , 0 0 0 )
P o v e r t y ( b e l o w $ 5 , 0 0 0
o r W e l f a r e )
D o n ' t k n o w .
100%
2 5 ) I n a n a v e r a g e w e e k , h o w m a n y c l i e n t s o r p a t i e n t s d o y o u a c t i v e l y s e r v e ?
( c o u n s e l l i n g , i n t a k e , r e f e r r a l s , e t c . ) . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D e s c r i p t i o n o f n e a r b y c o m m u n i t y o r c a t c h m e n t a r e a s e r v e d b y t h i s a g e n c y .
2 5 ) S i z e o f P o p u l a t i o n S e r v e d 2 7 ) E t h n i c i t y / R a c e o f P o p u l a t i o n
a )
f a )
c)
d)
e )
f)
3 0 . 0 0 0 p e r s o n s
3 0 . 0 0 0 t o 6 0 , 0 0 0 p e r s o n s
_ 6 0 , 0 0 0 t o 1 0 0 , 0 0 0
a)
f a )
A n g l o - C a u c .
A s i a n s
_100,000
J J n d e f i n a b l e
D o n ' t k n o w
c)
d) __
e)
f)
B l a c k s
L a t i n o s
100?^
J N a t i v e A m e r .
O t h e r / D o n ' t k n o w
115
-4-
2 8 ) É c o n o m i e S t a t u s
a ) A f f l u e n t / u p p e r m i d d l e
b ) _ _ _ _ _ _ M i d d l e i n c o m e
c ) _ _ _ _ _ _ P o v e r t y
d ) D o n ’ t k n o w
100%
H o w w o u l d y o u r a t e o r d e s c r i b e t h e c o m m u n i t y o r c a t c h m e n t a r e a i n t e r m s o f t h e
f o l l o w i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ?
2 9 ) S e n s e o f s h a r e d 3 0 ) # o f l o c a l c i v i c 3 1 ) C i t i z e n g r o u p s i n f l u e n c e
c o m m u n i t y s p i r i t a s s o c i a t i o n s a n d o n c o m m u n i t y i n s t i t u t i o n s
a n d i d e n t i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s
H i g h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . ■ ■ ■
M e d . __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
L o w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D o n ' t k n o w
A g e n c y B o a r d s : A d m i n i s t r a t i v e a n d A d v i s o r y
( N o t e : B o a r d s m u s t b e i n t e r n a l ; s p o n s o r e d b y o r p r i m a r i l y l i n k e d t o t h i s a g e n c y )
3 2 ) D o e s y o u r a g e n c y h a v e a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o a r d , c o m m i s s i o n o r t r u s t e e s w h o
a r e l e g a l l y e m p o w e r e d t o o v e r s e e a n d c o n t r o l t h e c o n d u c t o f t h i s a g e n c y ?
( N o t e : I n t e r v i e w e e o r a s u b o r d i n a t e m u s t m e e t w i t h t h e b o a r d a t i t s
r e g u l a r m e e t i n g s . )
a ) _ _ _ _ ' N o n e
b ) O n e ( N a m e o f b o a r d ) _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _
c ) T w o ( N a m e o f s e c o n d b o a r d )
3 3 ) D o e s y o u r a g e n c y h a v e a n a d v i s o r y b o a r d o r b o a r d s w h i c h s e r v e t o p r o v i d e
a d v i c e a n d c o n s u l t a t i o n t o t h i s a g e n c y ? S u c h a n a d v i s o r y g r o u p ( s ) m a y b e
l i n k e d t o a n y p a r t o f t h e a g e n c y ' s s t r u c t u r e , s u c h a s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
b o a r d , t h e e x e c u t i v e , o r v a r i o u s p r o g r a m c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e a g e n c y .
N a m e o f B o a r d
a ) _ _ _ _ N o n e
b ) O n e ( N a m e o f b o a r d ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c ) T w o ( N a m e o f s e c o n d b o a r d )
116
- 5-
34) D o e s y o u r a g e n c y h a v e a b o a r d , p a n e l o r o t h e r g r o u p c o m p o s e d e x c l u s i v e l y
o f p e r s o n s w h o a r e e i t h e r c u r r e n t o r p a s t c l i e n t s o f t h i s a g e n c y ?
( N o t e : t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r m u s t m e e t r e g u l a r l y w i t h t h e b o a r d )
N a m e ( s )
a) ___
b) ____
c ) _ _ _ _
d) ___
N o n e
O n e ( N a m e o f b o a r d ) _ _ _
T w o ( N a m e o f 2 n d b o a r d )
3 o r m o r e ( N a m e o f b o a r d s )
3 5 ) D o e s t h i s a g e n c y h a v e ( o r d i d i t h a v e w i t h i n t h e p a s t 6 m o n t h s ) a n y s p e c i a l
a d h o c t a s k f o r c e s , s t u d y g r o u p s , o r c o m m i s s i o n s w h i c h w e r e s p o n s o r e d b y
t h i s a g e n c y t o w o r k o n p o l i c y , p r o g r a m o r c o m m u n i t y p r o b l e m m a t t e r s ?
( N o t e : T h e t a s k f o r c e s , e t c . , m u s t b e d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h e a d m i n i s
t r a t o r o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s )
N a m e ( s )
a) _ _
b ) _
c) ___
d ) _ _ _ _
N o n e
O n e ( N a m e o f b o a r d ) _ _ _ _
T w o ( N a m e o f 2 n d b o a r d )
3 o r m o r e ( N a m e o f b o a r d s )
3 6 ) D o e s t h i s a g e n c y h a v e a n y o r g a n i z e d g r o u p s o f v o l u n t e e r s w h o p e r f o r m d i r e c t
s e r v i c e s , p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s o r f u n d r a i s i n g f u n c t i o n s f o r t h e a g e n c y ? ( N o t e :
t h e v o l u n t e e r s m u s t b e r e s p o n s i b l e t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s )
a)
b ) . .
N o n e
O n e ( N a m e o f b o a r d )
c ) _ T w o ( N a m e o f b o a r d )
d ) 3 o r m o r e ( N a m e o f b o a r d )
117
-6-
3 7 ) ( i f y e s t o Q . 3 6 )
D o v o l u n t e e r s / a u x i l i a r i e s i n i t i a t e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a b o u t a g e n c y p o l i c i e s
o r p r o g r a m s ?
a ) r e g u l a r l y _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) o c c a s s i o n a l l y c ) r a r e l y o r n e v e r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
3 8 ) ( I f y e s t o Q . 3 6 o n v o l u n t e e r s )
A r e t h e r e r e g u l a r m e e t i n g s o f v o l u n t e e r s / a u x i l i a r i e s
a ) . . _ _ _ _ _ Y e s b ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o
3 9 ) ( I f y e s t o Q . 3 8 )
A t s u c h m e e t i n g s d o t h e v o l u n t e e r s / a u x i l i a r i e s d i s c u s s a g e n c y p o l i c y a n d
p r o g r a m s ?
a ) r e g u l a r l y b ) o c c a s s i o n a l l y c ) r a r e l y o r n e v e r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
E x t e r n a l : S p o n s o r s h i p i s I n d e p e n d e n t o f t h i s A g e n c y .
D o e s t h i s A g e n c y ( t h r o u g h s t a f f o r b o a r d m e m b e r s ) p r e s e n t l y m a i n t a i n p a r t i c i
p a t i n g m e m b e r s h i p i n I n t e r - A g e n c y a n d , o r c o m m u n i t y g r o u p s ?
I n t e r - A g e n c y G r o u p s
4 0 ) a ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o n e
b ) . _ _ _ _ _ _ O n e ( N a m e ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T w o ( N a m e ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ■ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
d ) T h r e e ( N a m e ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
e ) 4 o r m o r e ( N a m e ) . ■ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 1 ) T o w h a t e x t e n t i s i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d a t t h e s e m e e t i n g s c o m m u n i c a t e d t o
a g e n c y s t a f f o r b o a r d s ?
a ) r e g u l a r l y b ) o c c a s s i o n a l l y _ _ _ _ _ _ c ) r a r e l y O r n e v e r
N . A . _ _ _ _ _ _
4 2 ) C o m n i u n i t y , C i t i z e n o r C o n s u m e r G r o u p s o n l y
a ) _ _ _ _ _ _ N o n e
b ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O n e ( N a m e ) • _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c ) _____ _ _ _ _ T w o ( N a m e ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
d) . T h r e e ( N a m e ) ...... . . . _ _ _ _
e ) 4 o r m o r e ( N a m e ) ...... ...
118
- 7-
4 3 ) T o w h a t e x t e n t i s i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d a t t h e s e m e e t i n g s c o m m u n i c a t e d t o
s t a f f o r b o a r d ?
r e g u l a r l y o c c a s i o n a l l y r a r e l y o r n e v e r / N . A . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
4 4 ) C o m p o s i t e G r o u p s ( A g e n c y a n d C i t i z e n s : M i x e d )
a ) __
N o n e
h ) O n e ( N a m e )
c ) _ T w o ( N a m e )
d ) T h r e e ( N a m e )
e ) 4 o r m o r e ( N a m e )
4 5 ) T o w h a t e x t e n t i s i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d a t t h e s e m e e t i n g s c o m m u n i c a t e d t o
s t a f f o r b o a r d s ?
r e g u l a r l y _ _ _ _ _ _ o c c a s i o n a l l y r a r e l y o r n e v e r / N . A . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
4 6 ) P r o f e s s i o n a l o r A g e n c y A s s o c i a t i o n s
a ) N o n e
b ) O n e ( N a m e )
c ) ,. T w o ( N a m e )
d )
T h r e e ( N a m e )
e ) 4 o r m o r e ( N a m e )
4 7 ) T o w h a t e x t e n t i s i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e d a t t h e s e m e e t i n g s c o m m u n i c a t e d t o
s t a f f o r b o a r d s ?
r e g u l a r l y _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o c c a s i o n a l l y r a r e l y o r n e v e r / N . A . _ _ _ _ _ _ -
4 8 ) I n g e n e r a l h o w w o u l d y o u c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e f u n c t i o n s a n d v a l u e o f t h e a b o v e
s e r i e s o f c o n t a c t s w i t h a l l k i n d s o f e x t e r n a l g r o u p s w i t h w h i c h y o u a n d / o r
y o u r s t a f f a r e i n v o l v e d ? ( c h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y )
a ) a l l o w s s t a f f t o b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h o t h e r c o m m u n i t y
a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f
b ) a l l o w s a g e n c y t o e n h a n c e i t s i m a g e
_c) p r o v i d e s i n p u t s t h a t a l l o w a s s e s s m e n t o f c o m m u n i t y n e e d s
_ _ d ) p r o v i d e s i n p u t s t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
a g e n c y p o l i c i e s .
_ e ) o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
119
-8-
O t h e r S o u r c e s o f I n f o r m a t i o n o r F e e d b a c k R e g a r d i n g C o m m u n i t y N e e d s o r A g e n c y
F u n c t i o n i n g
4 9 )
50)
51)
5 3 )
54)
H a s t h i s a g e n c y c o n d u c t e d o r a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a s u r v e y o f c o m m u n i t y
p r o b l e m s a n d / o r n e e d s w i t h i n t h e l a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s ? ( N o t e : T h e s t u d y
m u s t h a v e b e e n c o n d u c t e d f o r t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s )
a )
b)
c)
d)
e)
N o n e _
O n e
T w o
T h r e e
4 o r m o r e
( I f y e s t o Q . 4 9 )
T o w h a t e x t e n t d i d t h e s u r v e y ( s ) h a v e v a l u e i n t e r m s o f s h a p i n g a g e n c y
p o l i c i e s / p r o g r a m s ?
a ) V e r y M u c h _ _ _ _ _ _
b ) S o m e w h a t _ _ _ _ _ _ _
c ) L i t t l e o r n o n e
H a s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s c o m m i s s i o n e d o r c o n d u c t e d a
s y s t e m a t i c o r s p o t s u r v e y o f c l i e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n o r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h
a n y o f t h e a g e n c y ’ s s e r v i c e s o r p r o g r a m s w i t h i n t h e p a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s ?
a ) N o n e _ b ) O n e _ c ) T w o d ) T h r e e e ) 4 o r m o r e _
5 2 ) ( i f y e s t o Q . 5 1 )
T o w h a t e x t e n t d i d t h e s u r v e y s h a v e v a l u e i n t e r m s o f s h a p i n g a g e n c y
p o l i c i e s / p r o g r a m s ?
a ) V e r y m u c h _ b ) S o m e w h a t c ) L i t t l e o r N o n e d ) O t h e r _
H a s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s h i r e d o r i n v i t e d c o n s u l t a n t s
w i t h i n t h e p a s t t h r e e y e a r s t o m e e t w i t h t h e b o a r d , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r
s t a f f o f t h e a g e n c y t o e i t h e r w o r k o n p r o b l e m s o r p r o v i d e n e w k n o w l e d g e ?
a ) N o n e b ) O n c e c ) T w i c e d ) T h r e e T i m e s
4 o r m o r e t i m e s
( I f y e s t o Q . 5 3 )
T o w h a t e x t e n t d i d t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n ( s ) h a v e v a l u e i n t e r r a s o f s h a p i n g
a g e n c y p o l i c i e s / p r o g r a m s ?
a ) V e r y m u c h _ b ) S o m e w h a t c ) L i t t l e _ d ) O t h e r _
120
- 9-
5 5 ) D o e s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t o r h a v e a r e g u l a r f o r m a l b u d g e t i t e m f o r :
C o n s u l t a t i o n ( a ) _ _ _ _ _ _ Y e s b ) N o
R e s e a r c h ( a ) Y e s b ) N o
5 6 ) D o e s t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s h i r e n e w c a r e e r i s t s o r s i m i l a r
c a t e g o r i e s o f p e o p l e ?
a ) Y e s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) N o
5 7 ) ( I f y e s t o Q . 5 6 )
D o y o u h i r e n e w c a r e e r i s t s o r l o c a l c o m m u n i t y p e o p l e t o w o r k w i t h c o m m u n i t y
o r n e i g h b o r h o o d g r o u p s ?
a ) Y e s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) N o
5 8 ) ( I f y e s t o Q . 5 6 )
D o n e w c a r e e r i s t s o r o t h e r c o m m u n i t y p e r s o n n e l i n i t i a t e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
a b o u t a g e n c y p o l i c i e s o r p r o g r a m s ?
a ) r e g u l a r l y b ) o c c a s i o n a l l y _ _ _ _ _ c ) r a r e l y o r n e v e r _ _ _ _ _ _
5 9 ) D o y o u ( o r h a v e y o u ) c o n d u c t e d a n a g e n c y p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n w i t h i n t h e
l a s t t h r e e y e a r s ?
a ) Y e s b ) N o
6 0 ) ( I f y e s t o Q . 5 9 )
T o w h a t e x t e n t d i d t h e s t u d y ( i e s ) h a v e v a l u e i n t e r m s o f s h a p i n g a g e n c y
p o l i c i e s o r p r o g r a m s ?
a ) V e r y m u c h _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) S o m e w h a t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c ) L i t t l e o r n o n e _ _ _ _ _
6 1 ) D o y o u h a v e s t a f f m e m b e r ( s ) w h o s e m a j o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y c o n s i s t s o f l i a i s o n
w i t h c o m m u n i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d o t h e c o m m u n i t y a g e n c i e s ( i . e . , o t h e r t h a n
t h e e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r ) ,
a ) Y e s b ) N o
6 2 ) ( I f y e s t o Q . 6 1 )
T o w h a t e x t e n t d o e s t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y t h i s s t a f f a b o u t t h e c o m m u n i t y
h a v e v a l u e i n t e r m s o f s h a p i n g a g e n c y p o l i c i e s a n d p r o g r a m s ?
a ) V e r y m u c h _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) S o m e w h a t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c ) L i t t l e o r _ n o n e _ _ _ _ _ _ _
121
-10-
S t r u c t u r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f M a j o r A g e n c y B o a r d s
6 3 ) H a v e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r c h o o s e t h e t w o b o a r d s ( o r o n e i f t h e r e i s o n l y o n e )
" m o s t i m p o r t a n t " t o a g e n c y p r o g r a m s a n d p o l i c i e s ; i f t h e a g e n c y i s p a r t o f
a l a r g e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m , d o n o t i n c l u d e a n y b o a r d s h e r e u n l e s s
t h i s a d m i n i s t r a t o r m e e t s o n a r e g u l a r b a s i s w i t h t h e b o a r d .
( I f t h e r e i s n o b o a r d , p r o c e e d t o q u e s t i o n n u m b e r 1 5 2 )
a ) N o b o a r d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
b ) B o a r d A
( N a m e )
Y e a r e s t a b l i s h e d
c ) B o a r d B
( N a m e )
Y e a r e s t a b l i s h e d
I f t h e r e w a s a n y t h i n g n o t e w o r t h y a b o u t t h e b o a r d s ' s f o r m u l a t i o n p l e a s e
d e s c r i b e :
P l e a s e d e s c r i b e t h e p r i n c i p l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e b o a r d i n t h e c o n t e x t o f
t h e f o l l o w i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t a s k s ( n o t e w h e t h e r t h e b o a r d h a s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , w h e t h e r i t m u s t a p p r o v e o r d i s a p p r o v e p o l i c y e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h e
e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r o f t h e a g e n c y , o r w h e t e r i t m a y b e c o n s u l t e d . )
C h e c k o n e c a t e g o r y f o r e a c h f u n c t i o n
R o l e o f B o a r d
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e
R e s p o n s i b i l i t y
I n i t i a t e & V e t o
6 4 )
6 5 )
66)
6 7 )
68)
7 0 )
7 1 )
7 2 )
7 3 )
7 4 )
7 5 )
F u n c t i o n s
P e r s o n n e l
A p p r o v e
P r o g r a m s
V e t o O n l y
M a y b e
C o n s u l t e d
N o
F u n c t i o n
H i r i n g - F i r i n o - o f
E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r &
P e r s o n n e l
G e n e r a l A d m i s t r a t i o n
P l a n n i n g
G r a n t A p p l i c a t i o n
E v a l u a t i o n o f P r o g r a m
122
-11-
H o w o f t e n ( f r e q u e n t l y ) d o e s t h e b o a r d m e e t i n a n a v e r a g e y e a r ?
D o e s N o t
M e e t O n c e 2-M- 5 - 9 9 o r M o r e T. es
7 5 ) B o a r d A
7 7 ) B o a r d B
P e r Y e a r
O p e r a t i n g P r o c e d u r e s o f B o a r d s
A r e f o r m a l m i n u t e s a n d a g e n d a s p r e p a r e d f o r t h e m e e t i n g s ?
7 8 ) B o a r d A Y e s _ _ _ _ _ N o _ _ _ _ _ ■ '
7 9 ) B o a r d B Y e s N o _ _ _ _ _ _ _
( I f y e s t o Q . ' s 7 8 - 8 9 )
A r e m i n u t e s a n d a g e n d a s d i s t r i b u t e d i n a d v a n c e o f m e e t i n g s ?
8 0 ) B o a r d A Y e s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o _ _ _ _ _ _ _
8 1 ) B o a r d B Y e s _ _ _ _ N o _ _ _ _ _ _ _
H o w m a n y o n g o i n g s i z b c o m m i t t e e s d o e s t h e b o a r d h a v e ?
8 2 ) B o a r d A N o n e 1 o r 2 3 o r m o r e _ _ _ _
8 3 ) B o a r d B N o n e 1 o r 2 3 o r m o r e
W h o p r e p a r e s t h e a g e n d a f o r m e e t i n g s ?
8M-) B o a r d A A d m i n i s t r a t o r B o a r d M e m b e r J o i n t l y ^
8 5 ) B o a r d B A d m i n i s t r a t o r B o a r d M e m b e r J o i n t l y _
I s r o t a t i o n o f f t h e b o a r d r e q u i r e d a f t e r a s e t t i m e p e r i o d ?
8 6 ) B o a r d A Y e s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o
8 7 ) B o a r d B Y e s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N o _ _ _ _ _ _
T o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u , a s a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r , h a v e i n f l u e n c e i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o r
s u g g e s t i o n o f n e w b o a r d m e m b e r s ?
M u c h S o m e L i t t l e o r N . A ,
I n f l u e n c e I n f l u e n c e N o n e
8 8 ) B o a r d A
8 9 ) B o a r d B
123
-12-
S t a f f a n d E c o n o m i c R e s o u r c e s A v a i l a b l e t o t h e B o a r d
9 0 ) A r e o n e o r m o r e m e m b e r s o f t h e s t a f f a s s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e o n g o i n g s u p p o r t j
a s s i s t a n c e a n d s e r v i c e s t o t h e b o a r d ?
a ) Y e s b ) N o
H O W m a n y h o u r s o n t h e a v e r a g e a r e d e v o t e d b y y o u a n d / o r s t a f f t o t h e a c t i v i t i e s
o f t h e b o a r d s i n a g i v e n m o n t h ?
N o n e % D a y % t o 1 D a y 1 t o 3 D a y s 3 o r m o r e
9 1 ) B o a r d A
9 2 ) B o a r d B
9 3 ) D o y o u p a y a n y b o a r d m e m b e r s f o r e x p e n s e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b o a r d d u t i e s ?
a ) Y e s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) N o
T r a i n i n g
D o y o u p r o v i d e f o r m a l o r i e n t a t i o n o r t r a i n i n g e x p e r i e n c e f o r : ( c h e c k a l l t h a t
a p p l y )
N o n e
9*+) B o a r d A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9 5 ) B o a r d B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e B o a r d
A l l B o a r d M e m b e r s O f f i c e s N e w
A s N e e d e d O n l y M e m b e r s
S e x
M a l e 9 6 ) .
F e m a l e 9 8 )
àSÊ.
U n d e r f O 1 0 0 )
9 1 - 6 0 1 0 2 ) ]
O v e r 6 0 1 0 9 )
O c c u p a t i o n
B u s i n e s s E x e c u t i v e s 1 0 6 )
o r P r o p r i e t o r s
B o a r d A
N u m b e r
B o a r d B
N u m b e r
9 7 ) .
9 9 ) .
101)
1 0 3 ) '
1 0 5 ) '
107)
124
-13-
S t a f f o f H e a l t h a n d _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 0 8 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 1 0 9 ) ,
W e l f a r e A g e n c i e s
O t h e r P r o f e s s i o n a l s 1 1 0 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 1 )
C r a f t , S a l e s , S e r v i c e s , 1 1 2 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ _ _ _ 1 1 3 )
a n d T e c h n i c a l
H o u s e w i v e s 1 1 9 ) . 1 1 5 )
O t h e r 1 1 6 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 1 7 ) .
P l a c e o f R e s i d e n c e
R e s i d e n t s f r o m n e a r b y 1 1 8 ) ^ _ _ 1 1 9 ) .
c o m m u n i t y o r c a t c h m e n t a r e a
L . A , C o u n t y b e y o n d n e a r b y 1 2 0 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 1 )
c o m m u n i t y
O t h e r 1 2 2 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 3 ) .
R a c e
A n g l o C a u c a s i o n 1 2 9 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 5 )
B l a c k 1 2 6 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 7 ) '
L a t i n o 1 2 8 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 2 9 )
A s i a n . 1 3 0 ) 1 3 1 ) ]
N a t i v e A m e r i c a n 1 3 2 ) _ _ _ _ ; 1 3 3 )
O t h e r 1 3 9 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 3 5 ) ]
T e n u r e
N u m b e r o f P e r s o n s o n 1 3 6 ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 3 7 ) _
B o a r d f o r M o r e T h a n
3 Y e a r s
H o w M a n y N e w M e m b e r s 1 3 8 ) _ _ _ _ _ 1 3 9 )
A p p o i n t e d i n t h e L a s t
Y e a r
I n c o m e
M i d d l e o r U p p e r 1 9 0 ) 1 9 1 ) _
P o v e r t y o r M a r g i n a l 1 9 2 ) _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ■ ' ■ 1 9 3 )
125
-19-
C o n t e n t o f b o a r d m e e t i n g d i s c u s s i o n s a n d b u s i n e s s . H o w o f t e n d o t h e
f o l l o w i n g t o p i c s c o m e u p a t t h e b o a r d m e e t i n g s ? P l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r
f r e q u e n t l y , o c c a s i o n a l l y o r r a r e l y / n e v e r .
a ) A g e n c y p r i o r i t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t
t o t h e k i n d s o f s o c i a l p r o b l e m s
a d d r e s s e d b y t h e a g e n c y
F r e q u e n t l y O c c a s i o n a l l y R a r e l y o r n e v e r
1 9 9 ) B o a r d A - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _
1 9 5 ) B o a r d B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
b ) P o l i c i e s a n d P r o c e d u r e s
r e l a t e d t o f u n d i n g
1 9 6 ) B o a r d A
1 9 7 ) B o a r d B
c ) E v a l u a t i o n a n d P l a n n i n g
1 9 8 ) B o a r d A
1 9 9 } B o a r d B
d ) G e n e r a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
1 5 0 ) B o a r d A
1 5 1 ) B o a r d B
N o t e : Q u e s t i o n s # 1 5 2 t h r o u g h # 1 5 5 a p p l y o n l y t o a g e n c i e s / d e p a r t m e n t / b r a n c h e s
w h e r e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o r h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s d o n o t h a v e a n a d m i n i s t r a
t i v e o r a d v i s o r y b o a r d w i t h w h i c h t h e y m e e t o n a r e g u l a r b a s i s ,
( i . e . t h e y a r e a c o n s t i t u e n t p a r t o r a l a r g e r a g e n c y w h i c h h a s a n
o v e r a l l b o a r d ) .
1 5 2 ) T o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u h a v e c o n t a c t o r c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h t h e o v e r a l l b o a r d
o f t h i s a g e n c y w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e u n i q u e a s p e c t s , p r o b l e m s , o r g o a l s o f
y o u r p a r t i c u l a r d e p a r t m e n t .
a ) V e r y o f t e n b ) O c c a s i o n a l l y c ) R a r e l y o r n e v e r _ _ _ _ _
d ) N . A , _ _ _ _ _
1 5 3 ) T o t h e b e s t o f y o u r k n o w l e d g e , t o w h a t e x t e n t d o e s t h e b o a r d d i r e c t l y
s e t p o l i c i e s a n d i n f l u e n c e t h e p r o g r a m s o f y o u r d e p a r t m e n t ?
a ) V e r y m u c h b ) S o m e w h a t c ) L i t t l e o r n o n e _
126
-15-
1 5 9 ) T o w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u f e e l t h a t t h e o v e r a l l a g e n c y b o a r d i s c o m p o -
s i t i o n a l l y r e f l e c t i v e o f t h e f u l l d i v e r s i t y o f y o u r c o m m u n i t y ' s v a r i o u s
s o c i o e c o n o m i c a n d r a c i a l / e t h n i c g r o u p i n g s ?
a ) V e r y r e f l e c t i v e b ) S o m e w h a t c ) L i t t l e o r n o n e __
1 5 5 ) W o u l d i t b e h e l p f u l t o y o u t o h a v e a n o n g o i n g b o a r d w h i c h y o u w o u l d
b e a b l e t o u s e f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n ?
a ) V e r y h e l p f u l _ _ _ _ _ _ b ) S o m e w h a t c ) L i t t l e o r n o n e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f A g e n c y a n d C l i e n t e l e
D e s c r i b e t h e p r i m a r y f o c u s o r g o a l s o f e x i s t i n g a g e n c y p r o g r a m s
1 5 6 ) I n t e n d e d c l i e n t e l e : a ) L o w i n c o m e b ) ^ M i d d l e / u p p e r c ) B o t h l o w &
- m i d d l e ( a m i x )
1 5 7 ) L o c a t i o n w h e r e s e r v i c e s
a r e p r o v i d e d t o c l i e n t s a ) __ I n a g e n c y b l d g . b ) I n c o m m u n i t y c ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B o t h
1 5 8 ) P r i n c i p a l s o u r c e o f n e w S e l f A g e n c y O u t - A l l
c l i e n t s : a ) __ R e f e r r a l s b ) _ _ _ R e f e r r a l s c ) __ r e a c h d ) T h r e e
1 5 9 ) G o a l o f s e r v i c e : a ) __ T r e a t m e n t b ) _ _ ^ P r e v e n t i o n c ) _ _ _ B o t h
1 6 0 ) R e l a t i o n s h i p t o o t h e r a ) A g e n c y m a k e s l i t t l e e f f o r t t o c h a n g e p o l i c i e s
a g e n c i e s : o f o t h e r c o m m u n i t y / r e g i o n a l a g e n c i e s
b ) O n g o i n g e f f o r t s t o c h a n g e a g e n c y o r n e t w o r k
s e r v i c e s / p o l i c y
1 6 1 ) I s t h e r e l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t a c c o m p a n i e s p u b l i c f u n d i n g u s e d b y y o u r a g e n c y
t h a t r e q u i r e s c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n b o a r d s ?
a ) Y e s b ) N o c ) D o n ' t k n o w d ) N o t a p p l i c a b l e _ _ _
1 6 2 ) ( I f y e s t o Q . 1 6 1 )
H a v e y o u e v e r s e e n a c o p y o f t h e l a w o r r e c e i v e d a m e m o o u t l i n i n g t h e l a w ' s
r e q u i r e m e n t s ?
a ) Y e s b ) N o _ _ _
1 6 3 ) I s t h e r e l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t a c c o m p a n i e s p u b l i c f u n d i n g u s e d b y y o u r a g e n c y
t h a t r e q u i r e s e v a l u a t i o n o f p r o g r a m s ?
a ) Y e s b ) N o c ) D o n ' t k n o w d ) N . A . _ _ _
127
-16-
( I f y e s t o Q . 1 6 3 )
1 6 9 ) H a v e y o u e v e r s e e n a c o p y o f t h e l a w o r r e c e i v e d a m e m o o u t l i n i n g t h e
l a w ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s ?
a ) Y e s b ) N o _
T o w h a t e x t e n t i s t h e r e m o n i t o r i n g a n d / o r p r e s s u r e b y f u n d i n g b o a r d s
( g o v e r n m e n t o r U n i t e d W a y ) t o c o n d u c t p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n ?
1 6 5 ) F r o m g o v e r n m e n t a l s o u r c e s ?
a ) E x t e n s i v e b ) O c c a s i o n a l c ) N o n e
1 6 6 ) F r o m n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l f u n d i n g s o u r c e s s u c h a s U n i t e d W a y ?
a ) E x t e n s i v e b ) O c c a s i o n a l c ) N o n e _ _ _ _
T o w h a t e x t e n t i s t h e r e m o n i t o r i n g a n d / o r p r e s s u r e b y f u n d i n g s o u r c e s t o
i n c r e a s e c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n ?
1 6 7 ) F r o m g o v e r n m e n t a l s o u r c e s
a ) E x t e n s i v e b ) O c c a s i o n a l q ) N o n e _
1 6 8 ) F r o m n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l f u n d i n g s o u r c e s s u c h a s U n i t e d W a y ?
a ) E x t e n s i v e b ) O c c a s i o n a l c ) N o n e
D o e s t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r f i n d i n c o n t a c t s w i t h a s s o c i a t e s w h o o c c u p y a d m i n i s t r a
t i v e p o s i t i o n s i n a g e n c i e s t h a t t h e r e a r e f a v o r a b l e , m i x e d , o r u n f a v o r a b l e
p e r c e p t i o n s o f :
F a v o r a b l e M i x e d U n f a v o r a b l e
1 6 9 ) C i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n b o a r d s a ) b ) c )
1 7 0 ) U s e o f e v a l u a t i o n a n d s u r v e y s a ) _ _ _ _ _ b )
c )
1 7 1 ) U s e o f n e w c a r e e r i s t s o r
c o m m u n i t y l i a i s o n w o r k e r s a ) b ) _ C )
1 7 2 ) T o w h a t e x t e n t h a v e y o u e x p e r i e n c e d p r e s s u r e
c o n s u m e r s t o i n c r e a s e c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n
f r o m c o m m u n i t y g r o u p s o r
a t y o u r a g e n c y i n t h e p a s t
s e v e r a l y e a r s .
a ) E x t e n s i v e b ) S o m e c ) N o n e
1 7 3 ) I n t h e f u t u r e d o y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e r e w i l l b e p r e s s u r e i n g e n e r a l f o r
c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e n e x t s e v e r a l y e a r s ? ( f r o m c o m m u n i t y ;
f u n d i n g s o u r c e s ? )
E x t e n s i v e p r e s s u r e i s p o s s i b l e
P r o b a b l y n o p r e s s u r e f o r t h c o m i n g _
C a n ' t e v e n S p e c u l a t e
128
-17-
A d j n i n î s t r a t o r ' s P e r c e p t i o n o f I n p u t S o u r c e s
W e h a v e e l i c i t e d i n t h i s i n t e r v i e w s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g
u t i l i z a t i o n o f c o m m u n i t y i n p u t s i n t h e p r o c e s s o f a g e n c y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . N o w
w e ' d l i k e t o t a l k w i t h y o u a b o u t h o w y o u f e e l a s a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r a b o u t s u c h
i n p u t s . Y o u a r e a f t e r a l l o n t h e " f i r i n g l i n e " a n d a r e i n a n e x c e l l e n t p o s i t i o n
t o a s s e s s t h e r e l a t i v e i m p o r t a n c e a n d p o s s i b l e s h o r t c o m i n g s o f c o m m u n i t y i n p u t s .
T h e r e h a s b e e n a l o t o f p r a i s e a s w e l l a s c r i t i c i s m o f t h e u s e o f c i t i z e n
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n b o a r d s o f a g e n c i e s . I n y o u r r e c e n t e x p e r i e n c e a t y o u r a g e n c y
h o w a p p r o p r i a t e a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t i c i s m s o f c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n b o a r d s .
V e r y T o S o m e N o t
A p p r o p r i a t e E x t e n t A p p r o p r i a t e
1 7 9 ) T h e s q u e a k y w h e l l g e t s t h e m o s t
a t t e n t i o n
1 7 5 ) I t l e a d s t o u n n e c e s s a r y c o n f l i c t
1 7 6 ) I t w a t e s a g e n c y r e s o u r c e s t h a t
c o u l d b e u s e d f o r s e r v i c e
1 7 7 ) C i t i z e n s t e n d t o c r i t i c i z e , y e t
t h e y d o n ' t m a k e p o s i t i v e s u g g e s t i o n s
1 7 8 ) O t h e r ( p l e a s e d e s c r i b e )
P r o p o n e n t s o f c i t i z e n s p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n b o a r d s s u p p o r t e x t e n s i v e u s e o f c i t i z e n s
o n b o a r d s . W e w o u l d l i k e y o u r a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e i r c l a i m s .
H o w a p p r o p r i a t e f r o m y o u r p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g a r g u m e n t s o f
p e r s o n s w h o s u p p o r t e x t e n s i v e i n p u t s f r o m c i t i z e n s i n a g e n c y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ?
V e r y N o t
A p p r o p r i a t e S o m e w h a t A p p r o p r i a t e
1 7 9 ) M o r e p e o p l e s h o u l d a c t i v e l y
p a r t i c i p a t e a s a p a r t o f g o o d
c i t i z e n s h i p .
1 8 0 ) A g e n c i e s n e e d c i t i z e n s a n d g r o u p s
t o w h o m t h e y s h o u l d b e a c c o u n t a b l e ,
1 8 1 ) C i t i z e n s a n d c o n s u m e r s h a v e a p e r
s p e c t i v e a n d k n o w l e d g e t h a t i s o f t e n
d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h a t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l s .
1 8 2 ) C i t i z e n s c a n b e p o w e r f u l a l l i e s i n
d e a l i n g w i t h f u n d e r s a n d g o v e r n m e n t .
1 8 3 ) C i t i z e n s s e r v e a s a c o m m u n i c a t i o n
b r i d g e f o r s h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o
a n d f r o m t h e c o m m u n i t y .
1 8 9 ) O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
129
-18-
O n b a l a n c e , a f t e r a s s e s s i n g t h e p r o s a n d c o n s d o y o u t h i n k i t i s i m p o r t a n t
t o y o u t o h a v e a h o a r d ? ( N o t e : I f n o b o a r d a t a g e n c y , w o u l d y o u w a n t o n e . )
C o d e a f t e r I n t e r v i e w
1 8 5 )
1 8 6 )
a ) H i g h l y p o s i t i v e
O n b a l ,
_b) p o s i t i v e ^
O n b a l .
_c) n e g a t i v e .
V e r y
_d) n e g a t i v e
I n r e c e n t y e a r s t h e r e h a s b e e n a g r e a t d e a l o f a t t e n t i o n d e v o t e d t o
i n c r e a s i n g c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . ( c o m m u n i t y i n v o l v e m e n t ) ; h o w e v e r
t h e r e h a s n o t b e e n a s m u c h a t t e n t i o n d e v o t e d t o s p e l l i n g o u t g u i d e
l i n e s , h e l p f u l h i n t s o r d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b l e m s t h a t m a y d e v e l o p .
C o u l d y o u g i v e m e y o u r o p i n i o n s , b a s e d o n y o u r o w n e x p e r i e n c e o r
w h a t y o u ' v e h e a r d f r o m o t h e r s , a b o u t w h a t p r o b l e m s o r r e s i s t a n c e s
m a y v e r y l i k e l y b e e n c o u n t e r e d w h e n o n e i n c r e a s e s c i t i z e n p a r t i c i
p a t i o n ?
________ E x i s t i n g b o a r d m e m b e r s r e l u c t a n t t o i n c l u d e o t h e r s
_ _ _ _ A b s e n c e o f a g e n c y r e s o u r c e s f o r s t a f f i n g
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ L a c k o f k n c K v l e d g e a b o u t h o w t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e
. O t h e r s , s u c h a s a g e n c y s t a f f r e s i s t a n c e
_ _ _ _ _ O t h e r ( s p e c i f y )
1 8 7 ) Q u e s t i o n i s a p p l i c a b l e o n l y t o a g e n c i e s t h a t h a v e s o m e b o a r d s t r u c t u r e
I f c i t i z e n i n p u t s h a v e m a d e s o m e i m p a c t u p o n a g e n c y p r i o r i t i e s a n d
p r o g r a m s , i n w h a t d i r e c t i o n h a s s u c h p a r t i c i p a t i o n p u s h e d t h e a g e n c y ?
( T h i s i s a n u n s t r u c t u r e d q u e s t i o n : t a k e n o t e s a n d a f t e r i n t e r v i e w
m a k e a l i s t f o r i m p a c t i t e m s ) .
1. , ___________
2. ■■__ : __________________________
3 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
9 .
5 .
1 8 9 ) I r e a l i z e t h i s h a s b e e n a l o n g i n t e r v i e w t h a t h a s c o v e r e d m a n y a r e a s
a r e t h e r e a n y a r e a s w e h a v e n o t c o v e r e d ? I s t h e r e a n y t h i n g y o u w a n t
t o e x p r e s s o r h i g h l i g h t a b o u t t h e s u b j e c t o f c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n ?
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF INDEXES
130
131
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF INDEXES
Note: Throughout the indexes, higher scores indicate relatively
more extensive use of community and other inputs than lower
scores,
INDEX NUMBER SUBJECT ITEMS IN INDEX
I-A The Total Number of Ways Q ’s 32, 33, 34, 35,
an Agency uses inputs from 36,40, 42, 44, 46, 61
the environment (overall): 49,51, 53,56, 57, 59
I-B The Number of Internal In- Q's 32, 33, 34, 35
put Devices Used by Agen
cies:
I-C The No. of External Input Q ’s 40,42,44,46,
Devices Used by Agencies: 57,61
I-D The No. of Research and Q's 49, 51, 53, 59
Consultation Undertakings:
I-E The Number of Inputs from Q's 36, 56
Agencies from non-profes
sional staff:
I-F The No. of Different Input See Index I-A
Devices Used by Agencies:
NOTE: Hereafter in remaining indexes that involve boards, "A
Boards" are designated as the most powerful Boards as
computed by Index 4-J: "B Boards" are designated as
the least powerful Boards (if an agency has only one board,
it is classified as an "A Board"). In short, the designa
tion of certain boards as "A or B Boards" on the interview
schedule should not be confused with the definition of "A
132
INDEX NUMBER SUBJECT ITEMS IN INDEX
and B Boards" in the indexes.
2-A Who participates on "A Board" (i. e. , all boards
coded as A BOARDS on the interview schedule).
(Highest score of 6 means that agency has a
highly inclusive board. )
If a Board has less than 2 0% women (Q 98),
it gets 0 points: otherwise it gets 1 point.
If a Board has less than 20% persons under
age 40 (Q 100) it gets 0 points: otherwise
it gets 1 point.
If a Board has less than 2 0% crafts-sales,
etc. , it gets 0 points: otherwise 1 point.
If a Board has less than 20% from the com
munity area (Q 112) it gets 0 points: other
wise 1 point.
If a Board has more than 80% Caucasian
(Q 124) it gets 0 points: otherwise 1 point.
If a Board has less than 20% poverty-mar
ginal (Q 142) it gets 0 points: otherwise 1
point.
2-B Use the same items to Q ’s 99, 101, 113,
compute extent of plural- 119, 125, 143
ism of all boards coded as
B Boards on the interview
schedule.
2- C Repeat the Index for "A See index 2-A
Boards", but now make the
percentages 10% and 90%
instead of 20% and 80%.
2-D Repeat the index for "B See Index 2-B
Boards", but now make the
percentages 10% and 90%
instead of 20% and 80%.
INDEX NUMBER SUBJECT
133
ITEMS IN INDEX
IMPORTANCE OF INPUTS TO AGENCY ADMIN-
ISTRATION
3-A Importance of Volunteers
and Auxiliaries to Agency
Administration:
Q's 37,38,39
3-B Importance of External In
puts to Agency Administra
tion:
Q's 41,43,45,47,
48, 58, 62
3-C Importance of Research-
Consultation :
Q's 50, 52, 54, 60
3-D Importance of the most
powerful Boards to Agency
Administration:
Q's 144,146,148,
150
3-E Importance of least power
ful Boards to Agency Ad
ministration:
Q's 145,147,149,
151
3-F
4-A
4-B
Extent Agencies Have
Many Sources of Important
External and Internal
Devices :
Characteristics of Agency
Goals :
Extent Agency Facilitates
Inputs By Committing
Resources to Them:
Q's 37, 38, 39,41,
43,45,47,48,58,62,
50.52.54.60.144,
146.148.150.145,
147,149,151
Q's 156, 157, 158,
159,160
Q's 55, 61, 90, 91,
92, 93, 94,95
4-C Extent of Pressure an
Agency Receives from
Environs for Citizen Par
ticipation:
Q's 161, 162, 167,
168,169,171
INDEX NUMBER SUBJECT
134
ITEMS IN INDEX
4-D
4-G
4-H
4-1
Extent of Pressure an Agen- Q's 163, 164, 165,
cy Receives for Evaluation 166, 170
(Higher score means higher
pres sure) :
Attitudes of Executives
Toward Citizen Participa
tion (extent they emphasize
negative attributes of parti
cipation) :
Attitudes of Executives
Toward Citizen Participa
tion (extent they emphasize
positive attributes of parti
cipation):
Composite Index
Q's 174 - 177
Q-s 179 - 183
Combine Indexes
4-G and 4-H
4-J Formal authority of
Boards of Agencies
Boards "A" = 64, 66
68.70.72.74
Boards"B" = 65, 67, .
69.71.73.75
APPENDIX D
CALIFORNIA MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES ACT
135
6^ ■ ^ f T *
Meota
ii- r* ,TW!=4
aSFSaSNCES to tee functions of local HHABs
IN THE WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
136
(Amended by Stats. 1969, Ch. 722.) :
5604. Each community mental health service shall have '
an advisory board of 14 members appointed by the governing
body. Three members of the advisory board shall be '
physicians and surgeons engaged in the private practice of!
medicine, one of vmom, when available, shall be a specialist ;
in psychiatry. One member shall be the chairman of the local ;
governing body, and five members shall be persons ;
representative of the public interest in mental health, mental '
retardation and alcoholism. The advisory board shall also ■
contain a psychologist, a social worker, a nurse, a psychiatric
technician, and a hospital administrator, preferably with ;
psychiatric hospital experience. The term of each member of ;
the board shall be for three years; provided, however, that of |
the members first appointed, five shall be appointed for one !
year, four for a term of two years, and fbur for a term of three :
years. If, however, prior to the expiration of such term a
member ceases to retain the status which qualified him for
appointment on the board, his membership on the board shall
terminate and there shall be a vacancy on the board.
If two local agencies jointly establish a community health
service under Article i (commencing with Section 6300) of
Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code,
the advisory board for such community mental health service
shall consist of an additional two memoers, one of whom shall
be the chairman of the second governing body, such that the
chairmen of both local agencies are members, and the second
of whom shall be an additional person representative of the
public interest in mental health, mental retardation, and
alcoholism.
No member of the advisory board shall be a full-time or
part-time county employee of the county mental health
- service, an employee of the State Department of Health, an
employee of tne Department of Benefit Payments, or an
employee of a Short-Doyle contract facility.
Tne chairman of a governing body may designate a
member of that body to serve in his stead as a member of the
advisory board.
If it is not possible to secure membership as specified from
among persons who reside in the county, the governing body
may substitute representatives of the public interest in
mental health, mental retardation, and alcoholism who are
not full-time or part-time employees of the county mental
health service, the State Department of Health, the
Department of Benefit Payments, or on the staff of a
Short-Doyle contract facility.
5604.5. The board of supervisors may pay from any
available funds the actual and necessary expenses of the
members of the advisory board of a community mental health
service incurred incident to the performance of their official
duties and functions. Such expenses may include travel,
lodmng, and meals for the members of such an advisory board
whHe on official business as may be approved by the board of
supervisors. .
(A d d ed by Stats. 1973, C h. 407.) '
5605. Local mental health advisory boards shall be sul>
ject to the provisions of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section
64950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government
Code, relating to meetings of local agencies.
137
Pane 2.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 196S, Ch. 9S9.)
5606. The local mental health advisory board shall :
(a) Review and evaluate the community's mental health
needs, services, facilities, and special problems.
(b) Review pu.n.
(c) Advise and report directly to the governing body aa to a
program of community mental health services and facilities,
submit an annual report to the governing body, and, when re
quested by such governing body may make recommendations
regarding the appointment of a local director of mental health
services.
(d) After adoption of a program, continue to act in an
advisory capacity to the governing body and to the local direc
tor of mental health services.
(Repealed and added by Stats. 195S, Ch. 989.)
5606.5. Each local mental health advisory board shall have
a technical advisory com mittee on drug abuse, the members
of which shall be appointed by the board of superyisors. The
membership of the advisory com mittee shall be composed of
representatives of law enforcement agencies, public drug
pro^ams, private drug programs, education, and the generd
public selected by the board of supervisors.
The county technical advisor)' committee shall:
(a) Review and evaluate the community’s drug program
needs, services, facilities, and special programs.
(b) Review the drug program portion of the courtty
Short-Doyle plan.
(c) After adoption of a program, continue to act in an
advisory capacity to the county drug program coordinator
designated pursuant to Section 5602 and the local mental
health advisory board,
(d) Report its findings and recommendations to the
county drug program coordinator designated pursuant to
Section 5802 and the local mental health advisory board.
(A ddW by Stats. 1972, C h. 1255. S ee n o te follow ing Section 4330.)
5608. The local director of mental health services shall
have the following powers and duties ;
(d) He shall recommend to the governing body, after run-
.gylt-’rînn with the advisory board, the provision of services,
establishment of faculties, contracting for services or facili- .
ties and other matters necessary or desirable in accomplishing
the purposes of this division ;
5 6 5 1 . T h e c o u n t y S h o r t - D o y l e p l a n shall i n c l u d e t h e
f o l l o w i n g : _ . _ . , - -
(i) A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s u s e d to i n s u r e c i t i z e n
a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e c o u n t y ’s m e n t a l h e a l t h [
p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s a t all s t a g e s o f its d e v e l o p m e n t . S u c h I
p r o c e d u r e s shall b e re^/ie’- v e d a n d , a o o r o v e d b v t h e local |
yrtenhp.l h e a l t h ad . v i s Q r v b o a r d . !
T h i s s e c t i o n shall b e c o m e o p e r a t i v e o n t h e s a m e d a t e as |
R e o r g a n i z a t i o n P l a n N o . 1 o f 1 9 7 0 b e c o m e s o p e r a t i v e . :
(A m en d ed by Statis. 1973, C h. 1061.)
5 6 5 2 . W h e n t h e c o u n t y S h o r t - D o y l e p l a n is s u b m i t t e d t o
t h e D i r e c t o r o f t h e S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h it shall b e
a c c o m p a n i e d b y a d o c u m e n t i n d i c a t i n g t h e p l a n h a s b e e n
r e v i e w e d b y t h e loc a l m e n t a l h e a l t h a d visor)' b o a r d .
(A m en d ed b y Stats. 1973, C h. 142. E ffectiv e Ju n e 30, 1973. O p e ra tiv e on
July 1. 1973.) - .
5653. In developing the county Short-Doyle plan, opti
mum use shall be made of appropriate local public and private
organizations, community professional personnel, and state
agencies. Optimum use shall also be made of federal, state,
county, and private funds which may be available for mental
health planning. ... . .. . . .. . - - -- - -

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A survey of Los Angeles area administrators' perceptions regarding the nature and extent of citizen... Family counseling

Asset Metadata

Creator Barnes, Anne Marie (author), Dabbs, Norma Chaney (author), DeBose, Herman Leon (author), Lombardo, William Peter (author), Miyamoto, Beverly Jean (author), Nab, Ann Mac (author), Nee, Gladys Lee (author), Ozaki, Mamie Mamiko (author)

Core Title A survey of Los Angeles area administrators' perceptions regarding the nature and extent of citizen, community and other inputs utilized in the development of agency policy and decision making: C...

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Master of Social Work

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Social Sciences

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-119691

Unique identifier UC11274178

Identifier EP70681.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-119691 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier EP70681.pdf

Dmrecord 119691

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Barnes, Anne Marie; Dabbs, Norma Chaney; DeBose, Herman Leon; Lombardo, William Peter; Miyamoto, Beverly Jean; Nee, Gladys Lee; Ozaki, Mamie Mamiko; Nab, Ann Mac

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA