Community Service Programs Of California Community Colleges: An Analysis Of Recent Developments

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content KEIM, miiaro Alan, 1323- COMMUNITY SERYICE PROGRAMS OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES: AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1370 Education, higher University Microfilms, A XEROX C om pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan © C opyright by WILLIAM A LAN KEIM 1970 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES: AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS A Dissertation - Presented to the Faculty of the School of Education University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education by William Alan Keim January 1970 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Date.... 1 M ju .u a ..., 1 .9 .21 . Guidance Committee Chairmai TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. THE PROBLEM ........................... Background of the Problem Statement of the Problem Statement of the Purpose Questions to Be Answered Scope of the Study Basic Assumptions General Procedures Definition of Terms Organization of the Remainder of the Study REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . Background for American Education The Land Grant Colleges and Service to the Community The Development of the Junior College The Community College and Community Services The California Junior College Association Recent Developments— National Summary of the Chapter THE PROCEDURES . . . ............... Delimiting the Study The Format of the Study Developing the Questionnaire Marking the Questionnaire Organizing the Findings Completing the Study Summary of the Chapter Page 1 13 105 ii Chapter Page IV. FINDINGS DERIVED FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE . The Colleges General Information About the Colleges Organization and Administration of Community Services Finances— Financial Support Use of College Facilities and Services Community Services Educational Services Cultural and Recreational Services Community Research and Development Future of Community Services— Financial Support Summary of the Chapter V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............' . . . . Summary Conclusions Implications Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . ......................... / APPENDICES.......... ........................... Ill 216 251 259 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Distribution of College Total Student Enrollment, Fall Semester, 1968 in 62 Public California Junior Colleges............................... 120 2. Total Student Enrollment, Fall Semester, 1968, in 62 Public California Junior Colleges................................ 122 3. Distribution of the Estimated Population Served by 51 California Public Junior College Districts, Fall, 1968 125 4. Estimated Population Served by 51 California Public Junior College , Districts, Fall, 1968 126 5. The Number of Chief Administrative Officers Assigned to Community Services in the Public Junior Colleges in California Included in This Study................ 128 6. The Number of College Personnel Assigned to the Administrative Task of Commu nity Services in Those Public Junior Colleges Included in This Study, Between 1966-1967 and 1969-1970 .... 132 7. The Mean for the Community Services Per sonnel of the Total Colleges Reporting in This Survey......................... 133 8. The Community Services Tax Rate Levied by the 51 Public Junior College Districts Reported in This Study, Between 1966-1967 and 1969-1970 136 9. Community Services Income Produced from the Community Services Tax Rate Levied by Those Districts Reporting for All Four Years............................. 140 iv Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.- 16. The Mean of the Expenditure of Restricted Community Services Funds for Four Specific Areas in 24 Public Junior College Districts ............... The Number of Districts Which Reported Either No Change, a Decrease, or an Increase in the Expenditure of Restricted Community Service Funds in 24 Public Junior College Districts ..................... The Number of Public Junior Colleges Included in This Study Which Charged a Fee for Community Services Classes, Forums, Seminars, and Recreational Services ............................... A Summary of the Public Junior Colleges in This Study Which Charged Fees As a Source of Income to Support Pro grams of Community Services .......... The Number of Public Junior Colleges Which Received Financial Support Beyond State and Federal Funds in Their Programs of Community Services. Yearly Figures Are Categorized by District Types and the Total Represents the Number of Colleges Which Reported in This Study .... ........ Various Sources of Additional Funds for Community Services Programs in the California Public Junior Colleges Which Are Included in This Study . . . . Use of College Facilities by Community Organizations and Percentage of In crease of Use of Such Facilities by Community Organizations for the Years 1966-1967 to 1969-1970, by the Public Junior Colleges Reporting for All Four Years .......... Page 143 144 147 151 158 159 162 v Table Page 17. Reported Numbers of Persons Attending Events Sponsored by Community Organizations and Percentage of Increase in the Numbers of Persons Attending Such Events for the Years 1966-1967 to 1969-1970, by the Public Junior Colleges Reporting for All Four Years....................... 165 18. The Number of Junior Colleges Included in This Study Which Sponsored Educational Services from 1966-1967 to 1969-1970 (Non-credit Short Courses, Seminars, Workshops, Conferences, Institutes, Etc.) .................................. 170 19. The Number of Junior Colleges Included in This Study Which Sponsored Educational Services from 1966-1967 to 1969-1970 (Community Counseling and Consulta tive Services) ................... 174 21. The Number of Junior Colleges Included in This Study Which Sponsored Educational Services from 1966-1967 to 1969-1970 (Radio-TV Stations for Community Use) . 177 21. The Number of Junior Colleges Included in This Study Which Sponsored Educational Services from 1966-1967 to 1969-1970 (Faculty and Student Programs) ........ 180 22. The Number of Junior Colleges Included in This Study Which Sponsored a Program in Leadership in Community Research and Development....................... 183 23. The Means of the Sponsorship of Community Education Services of Public Junior Colleges Which Reported for the Period 1966-1967 to 1969-1970 184 24. Cultural Services Offered by the Public Junior Colleges Included in This Study Which Reported for All Four Years......... .................... 186 vi Table Page 25. Recreational Services in Public Junior Colleges Included in This Study .... 192 26. Responses to the Question, "Has Your College, Through Community Services, Sponsored Any Program Which Could Be Described As 'Seeking a Solution to Community Problems'?" .................... 196 27. Responses to the Question, "Have You Helped to Identify Community Needs, Interest, and Resources Through Community Surveys?" ................... 198 28. Responses to the Question, "Have You Helped to Identify Community Needs, Interest, and Resources Through Advisory Committees Whose Purpose Is Attacking Unsolved Problems?" . . . 200 29. Responses to the Question, "Have You Helped to Identify Community Needs, Interests, and Resources Through Special Minority or Ethnic Advisory Committees?" ................. 202 30. Responses to the Question, "Do You Offer Any 'Off Campus' Community Service Programs?"........................... 204 31. Responses to the Question, "Have You Assisted the Community in Long- Range Planning?"..................... 205 32. Growth Rates in the Use of Community Research and Development in Programs of Community Services in the Public Junior Colleges Which Responded for All Years in the Period of Study . . . 206 33. The Number of Colleges Which Ranked the Community Services in the Order of Emphasis Which Each Function Received.................. 208 vii Table Page 34. Responses to the Question, "In Your Judg ment, Is the Future of the Community Services Programs in Your College Dependent Upon the Continuance of the Restrictive Tax Source?"........ 214 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Per Cent of Colleges with Chief Administra tive Officers Assigned to Community Ser vices in Those Public Junior Colleges in California Which Are Included in This Study, Between 1966-1967 and 1969-1970 ............................. 2. Growth Rates of the Number of Community Organizations Using Public Junior College Facilities and the Numbers of Persons Attending These Events. There Are 55 Colleges Included in This Portion of the Study ............. Page 130 167 ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background of the Problem The evolutionary development of the junior college in the State of California has had one recurring theme and that theme has been to meet the requirements of the times. Originally the junior college was an extension of the secondary school and was designed to offer two additional years of study to those students who could profit from it. Within a brief period the junior college in California had assumed the task of offering lower division transfer courses, terminal and vocational programs, and general and adult education courses (27:75). Following World War II the junior college in California was recognized as a rapidly growing educational agency which was emerging as a community-related institu tion. Although it was 1956 before the term community services appeared in official statements of the function of the junior college, it was evident to most that a community-related college would assume this role (22:52). 1 2 The development of the California.Junior College Association and the creation of its Committee on Commu nity Services crystalized the definition of community services and brought into sharp focus the fact that junior colleges had, as a major function, the task of offering this service to all members of the community (54:6). Beginning in 1964 the California Junior College Associa tion directed effort toward the clarification of community services and during a very brief period of time this philosophical ideal, which tends to strengthen the rela tionship between the junior college and its community, has had great impact upon the posture of the California public junior college. In 1966 a section on community services was added to the Accrediting Commission for Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges accreditation kit and community services became an official requirement for accreditation (73:,5-6). In a space of less than ten years, community services had risen from a mere listing in a State Department of Education report to one of the four major functions of the California public junior college. This remarkable rise in emphasis for what was once considered recreational offerings is testimony to the importance of the concept as a viable force in moving the junior college into a position of more general relevancy to its community. Because each college is a unique institution reflective of the goals, not only of the larger society but of the requirements of its immediate environment, there is a diversity of programs and offerings in commu nity services throughout the State of California. How ever, there is a thread of uniformity which comes from guidelines suggested by the California Junior College Association, communication between institutions stimulated by the work of its Committee on Community Services, and the development of national goals and statements emanating from the American Association of Junior Colleges and its community services project. In addition, the Accrediting Commission's requirements categorically list those areas which it considers as essential or desirable as offerings and directions for programs of community services. This dissertation is a study designed to report on the present status of community services in existing public junior colleges with emphasis upon the examination of recent developments since the Accrediting Commission adopted its requirements on community services in 1956. Recommendations for the continued development of community services in these institutions will be made in the con cluding portion of the study. The study covers the academic period of 1966-1967 through 1969-1970. Statement of the Problem Community services, as a function of the junior colleges in California, was first recognized by the Board of Directors of the California Junior College Association in April, 1965 (45:2). Shortly after this position was adopted as an official statement by this institutional organization, the Accrediting Commission for Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges in 1966 accepted the recommendation of the Committee for Community Services of the California Junior College Association and included a section on community services in the accreditation:process. Since that time there has been no complete analysis of the relevancy of the definition or of the application of community services, either in the Position Statement of the California Junior College Association or in the section of the accreditation report which deals with community services. As a partial response to that problem, this study was designed to survey and report the programs of community services offered in the public junior colleges in California during the academic period 1966-1967 and 1969-1970 and to make recommendations based on the data gathered and reported in the study. Statement of the Purpose The purpose of the study was to review the appropriate literature in the field under investigation, survey the programs of community services which were offered during the period of the study, determine any recent developments or directions of community services offerings, and to make recommendations for the continuance and support of the concept of community services as a function of the California public junior college. Questions to Be Answered Answers were sought in this dissertation to the following questions: 1. What change in the number of personnel assigned to the administration of Community Services has occurred during the period of the study? 2. What change has occurred in the amount of Community Services Tax which has been levied by the districts, and what change has occurred in the percentage of income which has been spent for programs of community services? 3. Has any change occurred in the number of junior colleges seeking supplemental funds for the support of programs of community services? 4. Has there been any significant change in the types of programs being supported through supplemental funds? 6 5. Has there been significant change in the number of community organizations using college facilities and has there been any increase in the numbers of people attending these events? 6. Has there been any significant change in the numbers of junior colleges offering programs of educational services through community services? 7. Has there been any significant change in the numbers of junior colleges offering programs of cultural and recreational services? 8. Has there been any significant change in the number of colleges seeking solutions to community problems through programs of community services and if so, what form has this change taken? 9. What value do personnel in community services place upon the continuance of the permissive override tax as a means of future support for programs in community services? Scope of the Study The scope of the study was delimited in the following manner: 1. Only public junior colleges in the State of California which were in operation for all or part of the academic year 1968-1969 were included in the study. 2. The administrator at each college designated as being responsible for the operation of the program of community services was selected as respondent for this study. Basic Assumptions The study was undertaken subject to the following basic assumptions: 1. Community services, as a definable concept, is accepted by junior college boards of educa tion, administrators, faculty, and staff as a recognized function of the public junior college in the State of California. 2. Because of the position of the California Junior College Association in designating community services as one of the four major functions of the junior college and because of the position of the Accrediting Commission in requiring community services as a condi tion of accreditation, it is assumed that public junior colleges are involved to some degree in community services programming as an objective of the college. 3. Because of the diversity of community colleges, some are providing more and differ ent services than are others. 4. Community services personnel are familiar with and understand the terminology of community services as it appears in the accreditation materials and as it is used in general docu ments and publications pertaining to community services in the State of California. 5. Because of the rapid growth of community services, the academic period from 1966-1967 through 1969-19 70 is sufficient to note significant differences and changes can be measured over this period. General Procedures In order to provide a basis for investigation, a review of the literature for description and definitions of the historical development of the junior college and community services was conducted. A survey of the legis lation which affects community services in California junior colleges, and an examination of the development of the California Junior College Association's Committee on Community Services and its effect upon the development of community services was made. 9 A questionnaire was developed which conformed to the general organization of the requirements for community services as outlined by the Accrediting Commission for Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The questionnaire was submitted to selected members of the California Junior College Association Committee on Community Services and their suggestions and recommendations were incorporated into a final draft of the instrument. The questionnaire was then mailed to all public junior colleges in the State of California which had been in operation for all or a part of the academic year 1968-1969. Community services personnel were selected to be the respondents to the questionnaire. The results of the questionnaire received from the respondents form the basis for the principal findings of this study. Finally, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for the future culminate the study. Definition of Terms For the purposes of this study, the following definitions were used: The American Association of Junior Colleges.— A national institutional organization dedicated to fur thering the objectives of junior colleges in the United States. California Junior College Association.— An 10 institutional organization composed of junior colleges in the State of California dedicated to furthering the goals of the junior college movement in California. Community services.— The use of school facilities, educational services, cultural and recreational services all form part of those services which a public junior college may provide for its community above and beyond regularly scheduled day and evening classes. Independent junior college district, single and multi-campus.— A publicly supported and controlled junior college with either one or more campuses organized, within one single county, to provide an educational program only for grades 13 and 14 and empowered to grant the degrees commensurate with junior college educational achievement. Joint junior college district, single and multi campus .— A publicly supported and controlled junior college district, with either one or more campuses whose district boundary lines include a portion of more than one county, organized to provide an educational program only for grades 13 and 14. Permissive override tax.— At present there are several types of permissive override taxes, but for the purposes of this study, the term applied to the special tax which a board of education may levy to finance a program of community services in a California public 11 junior college. An amount up to a maximum of 5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation may be levied in any fiscal year to support programs of community services. This tax may be levied without a vote of the electorate of the district. The term "permissive override tax" is used synonymously with "restricted tax" for purposes of this study. Public junior college.— A post-high school educa tional institution providing a variety of educational services which include lower division transfer courses, technical and vocational curricula, guidance services, and community services. The terms "community college" and "junior college" are used synonymously with "public junior college" in this study. Unified junior college district, single and multi-campus.— A publicly supported and controlled junior college district with one or more campuses organized, within a single county, to provide an educational program from the primary grades through grades 13 and 14. Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter II contains a review of the available literature including a study of the growth of the junior college movement and the relationship of the design of the land grant college and university extension services 4 to the concept of the community college. The review also includes a study of the California legislation which provides for junior college community services programs, the development of the California Junior College Associa tion and its Committee on Community Services, the effect which the Committee has had on the accreditation process and on legislative attempts to repeal the permissive override tax, and the development of the American Asso ciation of Junior Colleges1 project on community services. In Chapter III the procedures followed in con ducting this study and collecting the data are described. In Chapter IV the findings developed from the results of the questionnaire are reported. In Chapter V the conclusions and implications from the study are presented and recommendations for the future of community services in public junior colleges are made as they relate to the findings of this study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The major purpose of this chapter is to review the professional literature relating to the problem encom passed by this study. The chapter is divided into six major areas. The first section provides a brief back ground for American education and attempts to identify those principles which form the basis for our American educational patterns. The second section examines the land grant colleges and the development of the Extension concept in the United States. The third part deals with the broad development of the junior college and traces the beginnings of the movement through the comprehensive community college of today. The final three parts of the chapter examine the growth of community services as a function of the community college. In the section dealing with California community services particular attention is given to the part played in the development of this function by the California Junior College Association and its Committee on 13 14 Community Services and the legal basis for the function of community services.In addition, a review of the work of the Committee on Community Services is provided. The chapter concludes with a description of recent national developments in community services through the participa tion of the American Association of Junior Colleges. Background for American Education The family unit In examining the nature of the development of higher education in the United States, it is inevitable that one look to the foundation of European education for those clues which will help distinguish American educa tional development from others. It is not the purpose here to trace the evolutionary process through which sociological forces combined to produce the European institutions of higher education of the 17th century. Nor can we tarry long over the perplexing forces which produced the Colonist and his uniqueness in a world dominated by monarchial doctrine. We must simply accept him as he was, European in heritage but New World in per ception and vision. His education was determined by three influences which came to bear upon him in the wilderness: the family, the church, and the community (3:15-18). It is difficult for us today to visualize the total impact of the hostile environment upon the family unit of the 17th century. The Colonial family, living an agrarian life, facing dangers, living with starvation, and needing to learn basic vocational skills, was faced with the need to emphasize the strengths of the family unit in order to survive. Thus, we find a generation of pioneers, encamped on the shores of a new world, enjoying the direct inheritance of a medieval past, and dependent almost entirely upon the nature and character of the life of the family (3:15). The ifamily, of course, played an impor tant role in the matter of education, far more important to the transfer of culture than any contribution made by the ten existing formalized institutions of instruction (3:15). , The effect of the wilderness This wilderness had a profound effect upon the educational philosophy of the Americans who were creating, on the edge of a new continent, the seed bed for an educational philosophy which was to be unique in the world. Bernard Bailyn describes this early phenomenon: In the course of adjustment to a new environment, the pattern of education was destroyed: the elements survived but their meaning had changed and their functions had been altered. [3:14] Bailyn goes on to point out that as the Colonies expanded and the populations increased, there occurred a different attitude about the sharing of education between the family and the community. 16 What the family left undone by way of informal educa tion the local community most often completed. It did so in entirely natural ways,,for so elaborate was the architecture of family organization and so deeply founded was it in the soil of the stable, slowly changing village and town communities in which inter-: marriage among the same groups had taken place genera tion after generation, that it was at times difficult for a child to know where the family left off and the greater society began. The external community, com prising with the family a continuous world, naturally extended instruction. [3:15] The concept of the individual personality was perhaps the most significant feature in the development of basic edu cational philosophy which contributed to the formation of American society. The high ideal, born of terrible necessity, of the worth of the individual combined with the commonality of community needs, produced a new and unexpected genus whose character differed from known 17th century educational patterns. yhe influence of the Greeks These known educational patterns were, of course, greatly influenced by the thread of Greek culture which had sustained itself through the intricate passages of history. How this thread was able to survive the collapse of the Roman Empire and extend beyond the barrier of the Dark Ages will probably never be fully known. Somehow, the basic concepts of the worth of the individual and the relationship between the citizen and his community did survive the Dark Ages to influence the intellect of the Renaissance man. Haskins suggests that the survival route 17 for this Greek influence was the Iberian Peninsula and the Arabic heritage: Between 1100 and 1200, however, there came a great influx of new knowledge into Western Europe, partly through Italy and Sicily, but chiefly through the Arab scholars of Spain— the works of Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, and the Greek physicians, the new arithmetic, and those texts of the Roman law which had lain hidden through the Dark Ages, [17:5] Will Durant, speaking of this influence as part of the phenomena of the Renaissance, has this to say about the Greek culture: Since the second birth of the European mind the spirit of Greece has so thoroughly seeped into modern culture that all civilized nations are influenced by it. [11:667] He, of course, referred to all of Europe, including the English-speaking people of the British Isles, where the cultural influence of the Greeks seemed to ,-play an impor tant part in the nature of the individual citizen. This conscious assimilation of the past was a significant part of the character of those early settlers who braved the watery perils of transatlantic travel to face a hostile wilderness. They took with them this thread of Greek culture which had survived so many hundreds of years and had been passed through generations of peasants in the form of a basic democratic psychological attitude toward environmental conditions and the relationship of men to one another. In addition to the cultural influence, the 18 American Colonists physically and geographically had much in common with the early Greeks who, during the early Anatolian migrations, because of their regional problems, sought some common vinification along ethnic and regional lines (21:130). There are, in fact, some remarkable similarities between early Greek environmental struggle and the uncompromizing nature of the New World wilder ness. Europeans coming, as they did, against this hostility, faced it with a heritage of the importance of the individual. A part of this attitude can be attributed to the perception of the individual as viewed by ancient Greece. Wener Jaeger points this out precisely: Historically it must be admitted that, since at the summit of their philosophical development the Greeks formulated and tried to solve the problem of the individual's place in the community, the history of personality in Europe must start with them. [20:xix] This emphasis on the individual and how he relates to the total community is, of course, an important factor in the development of a society and is linked directly to the concept of education as articulated by the emerging social order. A social order which places little emphasis on the importance of the individual will no doubt reflect a society which differs from one which sees more value in, let us say, the importance of ranking the institution above the individual. Likewise, the development of education as a means of qualifying citizens for participation in the political .community found its origin during the age of Sophocles, and as this concept transcended the prin ciple of aristocratic education for the Greeks, education of the individual became a concern of the communities of the Greek city states (20:287). Professor Jaeger further identified the link with the community by providing this point on Greek educational philosophy: To begin with, education is not a practice which concerns the individual alone: it is essentially a function of the community. [20:xiii] The lofty ideals of the Greeks were used as models by the intellectuals of the Colonies and were cited as examples of the ultimate search for mans' s control of his destiny. The formation of the United gtates Alexander Hamilton, speaking at the Constitu tional Convention in Philadelphia on June 18, 1787, referred to early Greek experiences in the formation of governments: He did not mean corruption, but a dispensation of those regular honors and emoluments, which produce an attachment to the government. Almost all the weight of these is on the side of the States; and must continue so as long as the States continue to 20 exist. All the passions then we see, of avarice, ambition, interest, which govern most individuals, and all public bodies, fall into the current of the States, and do not flow in the stream of the general government. The former, therefore, will generally be an overmatch for the general government and render any confederacy, in its very nature, precarious. Theory in this case fully confirmed by experience. The Amphyctionic [sic] Council had it would seem ample powers for general purposes. It had in particular the power of finding and using force against delinquent members. What was the consequence? Their decrees were mere signals of war. The Phocian [sic] war is a striking example of it. Philip at length taking advantage of their disunion, and insinuating himself into their councils, made himself master of their fortunes. [10:217-18] Thus we find that the Colonists emerged through the torture of a revolution with a plan to form a nation with a character of its own. A people keenly interested in individual development but also greatly influenced in educational patterns by the force of the family unit, the church, and the community itself. It is of great significance in understanding the "community" character of early American education to recognize that little mention of education as an institution is ever made in historical records. The following documents, regarded as being illustrative of the formation of the United States, make no mention of education. 1. Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, October 14, 1774. 2. Resolves Adopted in Charlotte Town, Mecklen burg County, North Caroline, May 31, 1775. 21 3. Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775. 4. Resolution Introduced in the Continental Congress by Richard Henry Lee (Va.) Proposing a Declaration of Independence, June 7, 1776. 5. The Declaration of Independence— 1776 In Congress, July 4, 1776. 6. The Articles of Confederation, March 1, 1781. (10:1-37) Great debate and arguments raged over trial by jury, property rights, privileges of commerce, type and administration of government, religion, freedom of speech, taxes, judicial systems, minting of money, declaration of war, and the making of treaties, but no records are available to indicate that these founding fathers regarded education either as a right or a privilege. It apparently was an affair for the family, the church, and local communities. The documents them selves reveal no inclination of the need to consider education on a national level. James Madison, taking voluminous notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787, recorded verbatim presentations which make no direct reference to education as a consideration in adopting the Constitution of the United States (10:109-745). 22 The Constitution itself merely implies that it is a responsibility of the States to regulate education. This lack of attention to the institution of edu cation on the part of the Founding Fathers does not neces sarily indicate a lack of concern on their part. It serves our purpose only to point out that the evolution of Ameri can education was linked irreversibly to the community. The Land Grant Colleges and Service to the Community As the United States grew into a nation during the 19th century, it discovered that its uniqueness reflected itself in its institutions. America's preoccupation with the development of the individual led directly to a spe cial relationship which the individual felt toward his environment. Part of this environment, of course, was the educational community, which had been only slightly modified throughout his early colonial experience. Americans, now on the edge of full-scale development into a nation, began to require more of higher education than just professional preparation. The concept of service became a dominating influence in the early 19th century and the controversies over value? of higher education found this locus in the socioeconomic and intellectual forces which were at work in the young land. This emphatic demand for service to the community eventually led to a variety of programs in higher education and gave 23 a specific character to the evolving institutions of higher education. Brubaker and Rudy, writing in gigher Education in .Transition, identify the idea of service as one of the distinguishing characteristics which differentiated American higher education from that found in other parts of the world, and they see this service concept manifested in a "positive dedication to the service of an evolving, dynamic, democratic community." (8:378) By the middle of the 19th century, there were present in American society identifiable factors which led to the Morrill Act of 1862. These influential factors are identified ]ay Eddy in his book on the land grant colleges, entitled; Colleges f or < Our Land arid Times : ;1. A wealthy nation with a new concept of democracy, 2. Dissatisfaction with existing education, 3. A growing body of knowledge in science, 4. A burgeoning industrial complex, 5. The urge to help the farmer by realizing the potential impact of science on agriculture. ( 12:22) , The Morrill Act of j-862 The Morrill Act of 1862 is usually identified with the first manifestations of the desire on the part 24 of the United States to recognize the need for higher education to respond more clearly to the requirements of the times. The basic provision of the Act was to provide a grant of federal land in the amount of 30,000 acres for each senator and representative in Congress from that state for the purpose of supporting an institution of higher learning (2:43). Section 4 of the Morrill Act clearly states the purposes of these land grant colleges in such a way that there is no doubt of the intention of the Act that higher education would become more relevant and responsive to modern times: The endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and to the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislature of the states may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuants and professions of life. [9:20] Although the obstacles to its success were enor mous, the first Morrill Act had a significant impact upon the growth of higher education. The land grant colleges themselves, once organized, "had nothing to teach and nothing to teach it with. Further ■ore, they had no one to teach it." (12:81) The colleges were confronted with controversy over subject matter and riddled with discontent among faculty members. Some were organized in states which 25 were becoming industrialized while others were still fighting frontier battles. Eddy sums up the sixteen years from 1863 to 1879: Before they would find a place in the changing nation, the colleges would have to find themselves. They would have to understand the size of the task they were called upon to perform. They would have to experience the dependence of a nation upon them. But a start had been made, and the struggle was soon to be over. [12:81] During the first two decades of their existence, the land grant colleges were caught up in the struggle for identity, but as they began to succeed in educating citizens who could relate to the social order, the concept began to take shape. Legislative advances The agricultural depression of the 1880's, which was the result in part of the population move from rural to urban areas, had an impact on the land grant colleges. This was, in part, the reason for the Hatch Act of 1887 which provided for the establishment and maintenance of the agricultural experiment station at each land grant college. In 1890 the second Morrill Act provided for con tinuing annual federal appropriations (12:82). The number of land grant colleges increased. Curriculum expanded and enrollment reached new heights during the period between 1880 and 1900. Eddy comments on this period: 26 As society became more complex, the colleges lost their singleness of purpose and became universities serving all interests. At the turn of the century, the Land-Grant College idea had finally taken shape. The colleges had grown in concert with the age of their childhood. [12:112] By 1914 the Smith-Lever Act had been passed, which laid the groundwork for the development of extension work by the land grant institutions in both agriculture and home economics (2:44). The theme of assistance to agri culture and industrial classes can be traced throughout the history of the land grant college, having been spelled out by Morrill in the Act of 1862. In establishing the land grant colleges, the federal.policy, which was a true reflection of the needs of society, emphasized vocational and professional, rather than liberal, education. It also emphasized practical scientific research and education of the many rather than the few (2:46). The extension programs However, it was the great President of the Univerr sity of Wisconsin, Charles Van Hise, who in 1906 organized a program of; General Extension of the University and firmly established the principle of service to the community. As early as 1904 he said, I shall nev.er rest content until th/s beneficent influences of the University . . . shall be made available in every home in the state. [12:114] The effect of the extension movement in Wisconsin 27 on the rest of the land grant institutions was electrify ing and by 1913 twenty-eight extension divisions were organized in other land grant and private institutions (47:1166). Use of the University by the community was not a sudden movement, however. The Hatch Act had lent impetus to the growth of meetings between college personnel and farmers in order to carry out the business of the experimental station. By 1893 Wisconsin state appropria tion had risen to $12,000 in order to conduct these meetings under the supervision of a superintendent with faculty status (29:109). Ross, writing in Democracy's College, mentioned that these meetings were often carried on in conjunction with the Grange, the Alliance, and organizations of special producers. In addition, bulletins, farmer's reading courses, and informal gratherings were the beginnings of extension centers to aid citizens of the community (31:165-66). It remained only to shift emphasis from the farmer-oriented extension service to a program with greater sensitivity toward the character of general education. This, of course, did not develop as a plan by educators but rather as a desire on the part of people to compensate for their lack of formal education (12:106). The idea of "General Extension" or "University 28 Extension," as it came to be known, is traced to earlier experiments in the Chautauqua and lyceum movements. The lyceum of town meeting concept developed best in the New England states, - K but the Midwest, settled heavily by New Englanders, contained the seed of the traditions brought from the land of stone walls and rocky fields and implanted there it flourished (5:88). Even though the task of general education seemed immense, the pattern set by Americans of individual human development, community involvement, and educational institutions as a responsive unit quickly carried the university extension idea forward. The success of Wisconsin's extension department was not only rapid but sustained, and seemed to prove the soundness of Van Hise's judgment (25:98). The sweep of the movement carried rapidly into neighboring Midwestern states and George Vincent, son of the founder of the Chautauqua Movement and President of the University of Minnesota, saw to it that extension centers stretched across the state (25:99) . Early in the twentieth century, it became apparent that the extension service was having a substantial impact upon farmer's organizations and that women from rural areas were learning domestic skills in home economics (12:181-92). University extension, as a philosophy, had extended the idea of service to the community well beyond 29 what the land grant colleges had visualized as their goal. In 1951 land grant colleges in the United States enrolled more than 274,000 men and women in extension courses and 81,000 in correspondence courses (12:244). Eddy, in summation of the land grant colleges, expressed his belief that American higher educational institutions are responsive in nature. Wherever a need resembling education is shown, the colleges move to meet the need. Their anxiety to be of service and to serve the constituency in every possible way sometimes takes them far beyond the normal channels of education, and into areas educa tionally questionable. This is an inherent tempta tion in the effort of the colleges to root themselves deeply in common life. [12:245] The Development of the Junior College The influence of the university It is apparent that during the nineteenth century there developed among educators uncertainty about the function of the lower division of the university and that this factor, combined with the astonishing growth of the public high schools, created an educational atmosphere which was conducive to the creation of an additional branch of higher education. Extensive dialog about lower division course work was characteristic of university leadership as early as the mid-nineteenth century. In addition, the growth of the high schools as a responder to economic and social 30 demands of American society led many in higher education to regard this institution as meeting the requirements for the preparation for specialization (7:9). The university, concerned as it was with special ization, had long operated on the principle that it was important to get started on this specialization as early as possible. "Thus the job of preparing students during the lower division years was looked upon as a necessary chore." (15:16) By the late nineteenth century the American uni versity was rapidly becoming a responsive instrument to the peculiar needs of the American society and close attention was being given to the kinds of knowledge being disseminated by the university (15:17). This dynamic but subtle change in the function of higher education created the need to keep the university relevant to society, and it was forced to rely on the concept that a student must be "ready" before he could embark on his specialized studies (15:16-17). Secondary schools As a result of the discussion which generated around this problem it was natural that certain points of view would be proposed and that leaders supporting a specific point of view would be identified. Henry Tappan of Michigan was one of the leaders with the point of view that the first two years of college rightfully belonged to the secondary schools. He felt, as did Folwell of the University of Minnesota, that the universities should be freed from the need to provide these "capstone years of secondary education," thus enabling them to become pure universities (9:46). While there seems to be little sup porting historical evidence that the elongation of secondary schools was a successful idea, several attempts were made to add years of work to the high schools. In 1880, for example, the thirteenth year was added to the high school in Greeley, Colorado (19:36). In 1895 the East Side School of Saginaw gave freshman college work in Latin, algebra, trigonometry, English, and history (14:53) . Most historians agree that the pressures brought on by the vastly increasing numbers of students which deluged the universities in the late nineteenth century found the high schools unable to meet the requirements of the universities for bright, capable students. These experiments were met with varying.degrees of enthusiasm and nearly all such efforts were eventually abandoned (7:11). It remained for the universities themselves to provide the solution by leading the way from the secondary controversy into the area of the examination of university curriculum and organization. 32 yhe junior college--beginnings Early success in this critical analysis is dramatically evident in the work of President William Rainey Harper, who in 1892 created two major divisions of the University of Chicago: the "Academic College" and the "University College." The Academic College changed its name in 1896 to "Junior College" and the University College became the "Senior College." (33:46) In addition, Harper is credited with influencing a number of high schools (Joliet, Illinois, in 1901) to offer post graduate courses and is responsible for convincing some four-iyear institutions of higher education to concentrate their effort on the first two years of college work (14: 60-62) . Harper was the first to call these two-year colleges junior colleges (15:19). There continues to be some controversy over the initial use of the title to identify this division of the university and the growth of the post-high school courses: The very first use of the term "Junior College" has not been clearly established. Several institutions have been described as the first junior college: Lewis Institute of Chicago, the lower division pro grams of the University of Chicago and the University of California, Bradley Institute, Monticello Seminary, Joliet, Goshen, perhaps others. [15:15] However, Walter Eells, Executive Secretary of the American Association of Junior Colleges from 1939 to 1945, identifies the University of Chicago as the first to use the term junior college (14:;47f) . 33 Regardless of the origin of the term, the univer sities supported the basic idea of the function of the new institution: The promise of the rise of a new institution that could perform this function and then transfer the student to the university at the proper time was welcome. [15:16] It can be seen that the development of the junior college was influenced by the universities, many of which had their origins in the land grant movements f and all of which were struggling to fulfill their mission in an exploding society in the throes of an industrial revolu tion . It is well to note, however, that the road to total acceptance of the junior college was not altogether smooth and that it eventually was successful was primarily due to the quality of the student which it produced. Ralph Fields points out that the success of the transfers from junior colleges in both the universities and the colleges to which they transferred was without question an important factor in the early development of the junior college move ment. [15:16] Nor should the fact be overlooked that the growth of the junior college idea was not limited to the geqgraphic area of the Midwest: In 1892 The University of California also drastically reorganized its structure, establishing a "junior certificate" for admission to the upper division. [15:19] Alexis F. Lange became an influence in the 34 development of the junior college between 1906 and 1924 and most historians agree that the pattern of Harper in the Midwest and Lange in California between them provided the major stimulus for the rise of the new junior college. It becomes clear that the universities of America provided the dynamic leadership which led to the growth of the junior colleges or, put another way, it is evident that where this leadership existed in a viable form, the idea of the junior college flourished. The State University of Missouri, the University of Minnesota, the University of Texas, as well as Chicago, California, and Stanford, all helped spread the growth of the junior college idea. Direct credit for the movement began to appear early in the twentieth century. The definition of junior college appeared in the Cyclopedia of Education in 1912: Junior College— a term used by the University of Chicago, the University of California, and a few other institutions of higher learning, to designate that part of the four-year college course embraced in the freshman and sophomore years, the college course being thus divided into a junior college of two years, and a senior college of two years. [24:573] Other institutions While the universities, with the need for special ization dictating their curriculum and organization, saw great value in the two-year junior college, not all other educational institutions viewed this development with joy and gratitude. 35 For the four-year hilltop college, committed to the education of the individual person and not the specialist, the creation of a new institution devoted to lower division work became not a promise, but a threat (15:16). This attitude was soon reversed, however, and while the acceptance of the junior college student by the four-year institutions was not as uniform as that of the universities, it became the position of these colleges to "encourage” junior colleges (15:20). Leonard Koos con ducted a study in the early 1920's which showed that of 166 separate four-year colleges, 10 8 had received applications from junior college students and almost all had admitted those students with full credit. F. M. McDowell, who completed the first national study of junior colleges, included normal schools as a distinct type of institutions which were affected by the growth of the junior college. He indicated that the normal schools viewed the rise of the junior colleges as a means for gaining recognition for themselves in higher education. The two-year normal schools in 1919 were just beginning to gain status by improving the quality of their work and were listed, because of their course offerings acceptable as transferable credit, as junior colleges (51:45). Thornton, referring to the McDowell study, summarizes this development period and refers to four 36 major influences in the evolutionary period as they were identified by McDowell: 1. The university was moved to encourage the develop ment of junior colleges because of its own rapid growth and unhealthy tendency to large classes, because it felt a need to divide secondary work from that of the university, and because a junior college allows for closer contact with and control of youth ful students. 2. The normal schools of that day wished to offer collegiate work in addition to purely pedagogical subjects, so many of them became junior colleges. 3. The extension of the high school seemed to be an additional step in the evolution of our system of public education. 4. The problem of the small college, too weak to offer a strong four-year program and practically forced by the developing pattern of accreditation to concentrate its efforts on a more attainable objective. [33:50] The impetus for the junior college movement has its roots in the need for a separate institution between the high schools and the college, with a particular need for this institution to offer transferable credit to the hard-pressed, overcrowded university. Other institutions played a role in the development of the junior college but the first steps were taken by leaders in the univer sity system. H. G. Noffsinger, writing in the Junior College Journal in 1935, stated: The universities incubated the junior college idea that President Harper hatched . . . . [42:396] As it became evident that the movement to establish junior colleges was on a sound basis, organizations such as the American Association of Junior 37 Colleges appeared on the scene (7:29). Perhaps the action of this group, as a newly-formed organization, in adopting a definition of the junior college summed up the struggle for identity which characterized the birth of this newest of agencies in higher education: The junior college is an institution offering two years of instruction of strictly collegiate grade. [49:3] As Thornton points out, it is best to examine the present-day community college as having developed through three major stages: 1. The first and longest lasted from 1850 to 1920. During that period the idea and the acceptable prac tice of the junior college, a separate institution offering the first two years of baccalaureate curric- ulums, were achieved. 2. The concepts of terminal and semi-professional education in the junior college . . . gained wide spread currency with the foundation of the American Association of Junior Colleges in 1920. 1920-1945. 3. The changes in post-high school education brought by the war emphasized a third element of responsi bility, service to the adults of the community. 1945 to present. [33:45-46] It is, of course, impossible to examine any reasons for the development of the junior college as though education as an institution existed in a vacuum without influence upon the society which it served. Nor can one ignore the basic fabric of the socioeconomic forces which prevailed in the land during these formula- tive years. Michael Brick establishes such a framework within which the university, the high schools, the normal 38 schools, and the other educational institutions played out their roles as agents of change: Four basic social and economic forces led to the junior college idea: (1) equality of opportunity, (2) use of education to achieve social mobility, (3) technological progress, and (4) acceptance of the concept that education is the producer of social capital. [7:2] These forces which set the stage for the changes in education were evident in the United States in the pre- Civil War days and are part of the dramatic sweep of Jacksonian democracy and the era of the common man. Charles and Mary Beard refer to this period as a time of dramatic mental activity and creative thinking in respect to everything human (4:245). While there were personalities and new ideas suggested to meet specific problems, the first stage of the development of the junior college was most certainly no isolated consideration within the power limits of educators, but was rather a part of the majestic march of history which was the United States of America in the nineteenth century seeking its identity. Expansion of the idea— terminal and semi-professioyiaT education Of particular interest is the development of the junior college during the era in which the established two-year institution became more than just preparation for the university. This evolvement was no doubt 39 inevitable, since it occurred during one of the most liberal reform movements in the history of the United States and seems to have roots in the progressive atti tudes which characterized basic reform of the early twentieth century. California became a leader in the movement to extend the offerings of the junior college, and although the enabling legislation of 190 7 tied junior colleges to the secondary schools, they, as institutions, functioned as they did in other states (23:208). Fresno City High School in 1910 became the first high school district to offer post-graduate courses and is generally regarded as the first public junior college in the State. The real significance of Fresno, however, is not that it occurred but that it occurred during the days when optimistic reform was in the minds of the people of California. In 1907 a group of progressives, having won a municipal election at Los Angeles, formed a coalition Lincoln-Roosevelt League. Made up of liberal Republicans, the League was pledged to free the State from the domination of the Southern Pacific Railroad. This feeling, of course, reflected the growing national mood regarding the need to have government regulation of business (30:471). In 1910 the League ran Hiram W. Johnson for governor and after a spectacular campaign elected him to 40 set off a far-reaching movement of comprehensive reform. The movement included measures providing for statewide initiative, referendum and recall, election laws, con servation laws, child labor, pension, and minimum wage laws (30:472). There was little in the State which touched upon the human condition which was not examined and affected during this period. Included, of course, was education. The most significant step in the upward extension to higher education came during the last year of Governor Johnson's administration when provisions were made for State and County financial support of the junior college departments of the high schools (19:56). This unlocked the door to development and the overpowering problems of finance were at least partially solved. It is evident that with this beginning step, it became possible to implement the idea of the junior college in California, since from 1917 through the next 42 years junior colleges were opened at a raite of better than one per year (23: 208). This seems to suggest an impetus to the growth of this institution which may properly have come from the mood and spirit of Californians who from 1910 through 1918 embarked upon the task of creating a society which would conform to the needs of the people of the State. All institutions became respondents to this spirit and education and the junior college were no exceptions. 41 There were, of course, educational leaders who during this time testified by word and deed as to their belief in the junior college. Two of these men were Alexis Lange, Dean of the School of Education at the University of California and David Starr Jordan, President of Stanford University (23:213). Men of this stature, giving their support and assistance, meant a great deal during the period when occupational education became a function of the California junior college. Writing early in the argument in favor of the occupational concept, Dr. Lange expressed his opinion by stating, "The junior college cannot make preparation for the university its excuse for being." (40:471) In addi tion, he stated, with remarkable foresight, that the junior college will function adequately only if its first concern is with those who will go no farther, if it meets local needs efficiently, if it enables thousands and tens of thousands to round out their general education, if it turns an increasing number into vocations for which training has not hitherto been afforded by our school system. [40:472] Various leaders supported this idea and since the junior colleges in California began as an extension of the high school and since there was an almost worshipful devotion to public education in this state, it was natural that some dialog about advanced occupational education would produce devotees to the principle. Thornton identifies Hill at Chaffey College and Snyder at Los Angeles Junior College as two of the early 42 advocates of semi-professional vocational terminal courses (33:51). He clearly feels that the trend of thought which was stimulated by these men led to the establishment of occupational courses in junior colleges over the nation (33:52) . Variety within instifcutipns It would be both futile and impossible to trace, through this phase of the junior college movement, the wide diversities which became apparent as this newest of institutions of higher education began to appear in large numbers throughout the nation. Curriculum development in occupational and terminal programs began to occupy the attention of the educators and large numbers of these courses began to be noticed, p. C. Colvert, writing for the Junior College Journal in 1947, stated that 32 per cent of all courses being offered in junior colleges across the nation were terminal in nature (38:246). This represented an increase of 14.5 per cent as reported by F. M. McDowell in 1917 (33:51). Several factors contributed to the unique and perhaps unforeseen development of the junior college's effort to include terminal courses in its curriculum. One significant factor was the accumulation of student characteristic studies which began to give the junior college insight into its product. Snyder, mentioned 43 earlier, writing in 1933 during the epoch of the effi ciency expert and the rise of management technique, called attention to the fact that "at least 50 per cent of junior college graduates do not continue their studies and that semi-professional courses were needed just as much as transfer courses." (44:236-37) Thornton identifies four major factors in the rapid expansion of occupational education in the junior colleges: 1. The leadership of state agencies for vocational education, set up under the Smith-Hughes Act and related federal legislation, was especially effective in the states that considered the public junior colleges to be part of secondary education. 2. The widespread unemployment of the depression years also encouraged the spread of occupational education; it was realized that specific training beyond the high-school level would give an applicant a competitive advantage in the job market. 3. The increasing mechanization of production, especially during World War II, required workers with higher levels of technical skills, and the junior colleges were quick to organize classes to train them. 4. Finally, the emphasis of many of the public junior colleges on a close working relationship with their communities encouraged groups of employers or of workers to request the establishment of additional occupational courses. [33:52-53] This last factor is, of course, the key to the development of the junior colleges in the United States. It is an instrument of response. Created to fill a gap caused by improperly organized higher education, it responded to the need as a preparation agency for the universities which, because of inherent inflexibility, could not 44 respond or adapt to a viable society. The junior college responded to fill the gap caused by inflexible secondary education dealing with large numbers of students and finally, after proving its success in a few short years, it began to respond directly to the communities which it served. Hillway, in describing the wide variety of course offerings, succinctly pinpoints the reason for the growing success of the junior college: This variety has come both from the diversity of the roots from which the modern two-year college has grown and from the attempts made by individual institutions to meet the educational needs of particular communi ties. [19:94] This impact of direct and immediate response, so uncharac teristic of the traditional institution of higher educa tion, is the thread of truth which knits together the skein of the complex evolutionary processes which in a few short years has led directly to what we now realize is a community institution responding to the American idea of education. Gleazer, Executive Director of the American Association of Junior Colleges, writing in 1968, states it this way: It was out of this ground, then, that a new kind of educational institution arose in America. Eclectic and opportunistic, the community college had its force and meaning rooted in the urgent needs of community life, in the process of change, and in the faith that among the ways to better life none was more important than education. [16:20] Following World War II the junior college rapidly developed into the community college. Each college 45 achieved a separate identity consistent with its community and great efforts were directed toward the identification of the purposes of the junior college as it had developed. The community college concept There seems to be little doubt that between the expansion of terminal and occupational curriculum of the junior college and the present, an educational metamor phosis took place. This phenomenon is characterized by the use of the title community college. Few are agreed as to when this occurred; however, most have some common agreement as to probable reasons for its occurrence. We can see emerging in the early twentieth century some indication that there was more to the purpose of the junior college than classes for transfer and vocational occupational courses. In 1930 Nicolas Riccardi, writing in the first issue of the Junior College Journal, defined the functions of the junior college with an interesting use of words: A fully organized junior college aims to meet the needs of a community in which it is located, including preparation for institutions of higher learning, liberal arts education for those who are not going beyond graduation from the junior college, vocational training for particular occupations usually designed as semi-professional vocations, and short courses for adults with special interests. [43:24] The use of the term "fully organized" has come to repre sent, more or less, the difference between the use of the terms "junior college" and "community college," and the 46 reference to "adults with special interests" clearly heralded the notion that there might be something else in the wind besides traditional adult education course work. Subsequent statements and definitions have all tended to throw more and more emphasis upon the concept that the junior college is, in reality, a community institution (39:245). By 1939 the Junior College Journal ran an article, the title of which was "The Junior College As a. Community Institution." Thirty years later the common term through out the nation has come to be community rather than junior college. The following books, listed chronologically, represent a graphic evolution of the use of the name Community College: 1. The Junior College. Leonard Koos, 1924. 2. The Junior College. Walter Eells, 1931. 3. The Public Junior College. Nelson Henry, 1956. 4. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. L. Medsker, 1960. 5. The Open-Door College: A Case Study. Burton Clark, 1960. 6. The Community Junior College. James Thornton, 1960. 7. The Community College Movement. Ralph Fields, 1962. 47 8. This Is the Community College. Edmund Gleazer, 1968. (16:144-45) This bibliography, while short, contains some of the best-known works on the community college and the books are listed by Gleazer as the best available for general interest and for use as textbooks (16:143). In less than forty years the trend toward a more comprehen sive program has seen the name of the institution change from junior to community college. In his book published in 1968, Gleazer explains the difference between the terms "community college" and "junior college": . . . "junior college," the older term, describes an institution which offers the first two years of college. Preparation of students who transfer to the four-year college or university is usually one of its major functions. [16:27-28] He goes on to explain: For the most part, the community college has become a comprehensive institution with a great variety of programs to match the cross section of the community represented in its students .... The comprehensive community college exists to give students opportunity beyond the high school to find suitable lines of educational development in a social environment of wide range of interests, capacities, aptitudes, and types of intelligence. [16:28] Whatever the source of definition of the distinguishing difference between junior and community colleges, there can be little doubt that as the institution extended its perimeters to become more 48 comprehensive in scope, it likewise assumed a posture in the community which made it acceptable as a comprehensive college. The college, offering instruction adapted in content, level, and schedule to the needs of the community which it served, assumed a dimension of relevancy which early developments of the junior college had not achieved. In California in 1969, of the 89 public two-year colleges listed in the California Junior College Associa tion Directory, six still retain the title junior college (52:1-7). The remainder still use the title college, but the overwhelming indication in this State is to discon tinue the outdated title junior college. The development of the junior college into a com prehensive community college is, of course, one more reflection of the idea that this unique institution is a responsible instrument tuned to the needs of the immediate society which it serves. Historical perspective.— According to Thornton, the period 1945 to the present is characterized by the growth of the concept of the community college. It is his contention that during World War II the junior colleges faced lower enrollments in day classes and emphasized training for defense work as a natural extension of the recent addition of college-level occupational curriculums. The attention which was focused on the junior college during the war years stimulated them to engage in commu nity activities (33:53). 49 Whatever the critical issues were which identified the junior college as an emerging institution, it is generally agreed that immediately following World War II there was a new dimension of the junior college which gave it a new identity. In 1947, the President's Commission on Higher Education dramatically reported an astonishingly comprehensive definition of the "community college." Whatever form the community college takes, its purpose is educational service to the entire community, and this purpose requires of it a variety of functions and programs. It will provide college education for the youth of the community certainly, so as to remove geographic and economic barriers to educational opportunity and discover and develop individual talents at low cost and easy access. But in addition, the community college will serve as an active center of adult education. It will attempt to meet the total post-high school needs of its community. [26:67-68] This rapid transition of the junior-community college can be traced through the fluid socioeconomic conditions of our society or explained by the examinations of various pressures or power structures or, in the final analysis, shrugged off as a simple evolutionary process beyond the control or understanding of any individual. However, Cyrus Hillway lists three major currents as having created the modern two-year junior and community college: 1. The nineteenth century efforts to reform American university education, 2. The extraordinary growth in the United States of the various types pf adult and vocational education as our economy became increasingly industrialized, 3. The continuing democratic tendency toward the 50 extension and equalization of educational opportunity for all Americans. [19:33] It would be difficult to add to these currents or trends. As we look back over the three stages as outlined by Thornton, we can only conclude that the ideals embodied in these trends are faithful to these developmental stages as expressed by Thornton, and that the extension and equalization of educational opportunity is consistent with the finest American ideals of public education. Perhaps the evolution to the community college will shine as an example of the effort to democratize higher education and in a sense really reflects the dedicated conscience of a people who seek to come closer to the principles of a free society. The Community College and Community Services The process of the development of the junior college into the community college of our present time is significant to any study of the function of community services at the community college level. This phenomenon of the community college as a community services agency became a function of the two-year institution simply in an attempt to satisfy the community needs, and the recogni tion that the community college was best able to perform the function led to the acceptance of the role of the com munity college as an agency for community services (29:9). 51 Medsker, in his detailed analysis of the functions of the community college, describes the inevitability of the junior college performing as an agency for community services: It is hardly conceivable that an institution could long remain in a community and not feel the obligation and the challenge to perform such services. [23:83] He was, of course, referring to the function of community services and defines the term in the following manner: The term "community services" has come to denote generally the various special services which an educational institution may provide for the community. Examples of such services are workshops, forums, and institutes; research and advisory assistance to com munity groups; cultural and recreational activities, including community music and theatre groups; and widespread use of the college plant for community activities. [23:78] Although this comprehensive definition, written in 1960, is in some respects not entirely fulfilled throughout the nation, it is, in reality, a description of those commu nity services being offered as an outgrowth of the accep tance of community services as a function of the community college. Today there is almost unanimous agreement that community services is a major function of any two-year institution claiming a comprehensive program. Harlacher, in the recent study of community services which he com pleted in 1967 for the American Association of Junior Colleges, states in his preface: 52 Community service is now widely recognized as a major function of the community college. [50:ii] Background for community servxces While this statement may be true today, the entire span of community services as a function of the community college has a surprisingly short history. Bogue notes that the community service function did not appear as a significant development in junior colleges until after 1930 (6:207). Some attempts have been made to trace the development of this function as an inevitable growth of the public school systems of the mid-nineteenth century and its subsequent link with the university extension concept (65:39-48). What the evolutionary process actually was which produced the major functions of the community college is hard to determine; however, most agree that this unique American college was essentially a community institution having its roots deep in the heritage of the family and the American idea that the community had responsibility for educational matters. In American educational history can be noted several examples which clearly indicate that institutions which were not part of the community, which did not respond to community needs and requirements, simply ceased to exist. Harold Punke, writing in 1951, observed that 53 institutions which stand aside from major currents of social and cultural growth limit their influence and invite isolation. He gives two classic examples when he notes: "The Latin Grammar School and the Academy stood apart and became isolated and essentially extinct.1 1 (28:215) More recent identification While much has been written on the historical development of the junior college, it remained until the mid-1950's before the identification of community services became clearly evident. During this time most sources available generally agree on a list of five functions or purposes for the junior college: 1. Preparation for advanced study 2. Terminal or vocational education 3. General education 4. Adult or continuing education 5. Community services. (18:69; 22:52; 23:78-83; 36:428) These purposes, although modified by some authors to emphasize one point or another, continued to be listed through the 1960's and in addition, the word comprehensive began to add strength to the need to meet the educational needs of all the community through community services. Blocker describes this emerging institution as one "dedi cated to serving the educational needs of all individuals in the community through comprehensive curriculum guidance programs and community services." (37:20) Thornton, writing in I960, emphasized that the latest task for the community junior college is the func tion of community services (33:66). A year later D. Grant Morrison defined one of the four generally accepted purposes of the community college in this way: To provide continuation education for those adults interested in improving themselves as workers, members of a family, and citizens. Particular emphasis is placed on community services programs tailored to the particular needs of the area. He further stated: The community that has a measure of local control and support has an obligation to provide educational opportunities to all who can benefit. [33:463] Description of community service's' Perhaps because we are a community-oriented society with deep philosophical attachment to the prin ciples of local control with its influence over our institutions, we have great need for the use of the term "community." Consequently the use of the term."community services" as used by the community colleges has undergone various definitions and descriptions. 55 James Reynolds, writing in the Fifty-fifth Year book of the National Society for the Study of Education, states that he views community services as involving both college and community resources and conducted for the purposes of meeting specified educa tional needs of individuals or enterprises within the college or the community. [18:142] Community service and adult education Reynolds lists examples of community services and concludes that each example has had two common charac teristics : (a) each activity was provided to help satisfy a genuine educational need in the community. (b) the chief beneficiaries of each of the activities were adults. [18:143] The conclusion which he reaches from this analysis is that these characteristics are also common to adult education, but rather than become entangled in making artificial distinctions, he merely places adult education within the common field of community services. He does this indicating that there is no uniform agreement to the meaning of the two terms by those who contribute to the literature (18:143). While this is generally true today, it was espe cially true in 1956 when educators were recognizing that traditional adult education programs were often little more than formalized evening classes for adults (46:47). 56 Much has been written about the difference between adult education and community services, but there seems to be growing evidence to support the notion that adult education can be classified as a community service (65:53). Actually there are many professional adult educators who believe in the concept of community involve ment and who have been pressing for years for the adult educators to break out of the pattern of traditional evening classes for adults and to begin to participate in the movement to provide educational services for community improvement. As early as 1953 Sheats, Jayne, and Spence called for such an extension: . . . the kind of adult education that will increase and improve citizen participation in decision-making, that will lead to the enrichment of community living, that will release the full power of a society rooted in respect for human dignity and the sanctity of human personality. [32:v] This basic struggle, hinted at by Reynolds as a confusion of terms, is by no means settled. Adult educators meeting with community services personnel in 1969 at Atlanta at the annual Conference of the American Association of Junior Colleges, engaged in extensive dialog to determine whether or not community services personnel of the community colleges could be absorbed into the Association of Adult Educators of America. After a vigorous struggle, a committee was authorized to 57 recommend a separate organization for community services personnel (56). Its formation is under way at this time. The issue serves to point up the fluidity of the community college and its struggle with agencies which have failed to convert in time to the immediate requirements of the community. In this respect the community college, if it continues alone in its role as a responsive instrument, will survive while other agencies cease to exist. Types of community services Reynolds, using current materials from authors in New York, Texas, and California, designed a list of the types of community services which are the product of programs sponsored by community colleges. His categories are: 1. Mutual aid for meeting college-community needs 2. Community experience programs 3. Public affairs education 4. Specialized community services a. economic conditions b. public education c. health d. cultural and recreational activities e. conservation 5. Community development 6. Community participation and leadership training 7. Use of mass media of communication 8. Public relations programs 9. Community use of school plant 10. Adult education. (18:143-56) Reynolds gives detailed descriptions of each of these categories but the theme which runs through each descrip tion is that community services of the two-year college is an attempt to join the college and community together in attacking unsolved problems (18:143-56). It is interesting to note that Medsker, writing during the same period, reported on the individual pro grams being offered by 243 two-year institutions in rank order of the number of schools reporting each category: Community Services Offered 143 Widespread use of the college physical plant by community groups 114 Assistance by college in safety and thrift campaigns, fund drives, and the like 107 Organization of special events, such as work shops, institutes, forums, for business, professional, or governmental groups, either for the purpose of in-service training of employees or the general improvement of the group 105 Promotion of cultural and recreational activ ities, such as the development of community musical groups, sponsoring of little theatre groups 83 Promotion by the college of community events in which public affairs are discussed 59 No. Reporting Community Services Offered 66 Organization projects with other community agencies relating to the improvement of health conditions in the community 65 Use of the college staff and students in making studies of the community (such as occupational surveys, sociological studies) 42 Widespread use of college staff as speakers to community groups 42 Organization of services using college staff or students, or films and lectures from outside, to further the conservation of natural resources 41 Research by college staff and students for business or professional groups in the community 41 Organization of child-care programs for demon stration and instructional purposes. [23:79] It can be seen that nationally through the past 30 years, community colleges have become an important agency for community services and that during this period there has been developed a working definition of community services. In addition, community services has come to be widely recognized as a major function of the community college. In summarizing the development of community services, Harlacher comments upon the .philosophical base upon which a college and community embrace one another through a program of community services: An effective program of community services is built upon a solid foundation of citizen participation and college-community interaction, and a thorough under standing of the community. [65:71] 60 Community services in California junior colleges' When the California Legislature in 1917 passed the statute for State financial support to the junior colleges, they opened the way for this phase of education to grow and to develop. During the next three decades there emerged an institution which was community-related, offering lower division transfer courses, terminal and vocational programs, and general and adult education courses. It was during this period that the legal posi tion and the place of the junior college in California education was assumed and institutionalized (27:75). Following World War II there was a movement in the State Legislature to identify more clearly directions and purposes of the institutions engaged in higher education in the State of California, and in 1947 the rapidly- growing institutional organization of the junior colleges, the California Junior College Association, was asked to state the purposes and objectives of the California public junior colleges. These purposes, identified by the California Junior College Association, appeared in a report to the State Legislature entitled, A Report of a j Survey of the Needs of California in Higher Education. The purposes of the public junior college were listed as: (1) terminal education, (2) general education, (3) orientation and guidance, (4) lower division transfer courses, (5) adult education, (6) removal of matric-7 ulation deficiencies. [34:21] 61 In 1947 there was no mention of community services by the recognized institutional organization which spoke for the junior colleges. However, in the next few years there was increased interest and awareness of the community-related nature of the junior college and, as has already been noted, national attention to community services was relatively common by the mid-fifties. Reynolds, Medsker, Punke, and others were making strong statements about the need for close identity of the junior college with the needs of the community. During this period the community services tax law became part of the Education Code in California and this gave strong impetus to future development of comprehensive programs (13:1365). It became apparent that California was not only keeping pace with the motivating forces which were shaping the emerging community college but that she was making provisions to support the concept.. In addi tion, in 1956 A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education appeared. It was published by the California State Department of Education and listed the functions of the junior college: (1) occupational education, (2) general education, (3) lower division college education, (4) guidance (5) community service. [22:52] In the broad area of community services the study included adult education, but recommended that a modification of 62 programs be made which offered courses on the high school level. A Master Plan for Higher Education in California In 1959 California Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 88 was adopted and provided that the State Board of Education and the Regents of the University of California prepare a study and recommendation for a Master Plan for Higher Education in the State of California (l:iii) . The report outlined the functions of the three identified segments of higher education in the State with principal attention to the degree-granting status of each segment. The significance of the report was the inclusion of the junior colleges as a full-fledged member of the family of institutions engaged in higher education. The report noted that the University of California, the State college system, formerly the normal schools and later the State teachers' colleges, shared the responsibility for duplica tion, fragmentation, and lack of coordination charac teristic of the two branches of higher education at this time (1:34). The junior colleges were recognized for their tremendous growth and the dual purpose of transfer and terminal education (1:35). However, no mention was made of community services in higher education and the subsequent statutes adopted in 1960 reaffirmed the condition which had led California in developing junior 63 colleges from the secondary school system: 22650. The public junior colleges are secondary schools and shall continue to be part of the public school system of this State. [13:1421] Likewise, the Education Code spelled out the scope of instruction for the junior college: Public junior colleges shall offer instruction through but not beyond the 14th grade level, which instruction may include, but shall not be limited to, programs in one or more of the following categories: (1) Standard collegiate courses for transfer to higher institu tions; (2) Vocational and technical fields leading to employment; and (3) General or liberal arts courses. Studies in these fields may lead to the Associate in Arts or Associate in Science degrees. [13:1421-22] In addition, the Master Plan called for the creation of a Coordinating Council for Higher Education made up of all segments of higher education including the junior college (1:3). Since 1960 this Coordinating Council has played an important role in the part which the junior college has assumed in higher education. The Council has created numbers of ad hoc committees to help it in its task as an advisory body to the segments of higher education. Such a committee was created in 1965 in response to the need to recommend the expenditure of funds available under Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329. This federal law is concerned with community services and grants federal funds to establish programs in the field. The work of the Coordinating Council has also led to studies and considerations in the growing comprehensive 64 nature of the junior college. It would appear that the functions listed for the junior college by the Master Plan for Higher Education and spelled out as they were in the Education Code would limit the junior colleges in their emerging role as a comprehensive institution. Actually, however, this was not to be the case. Section 22650 stated without equivocation that the junior colleges were part of the public school system, thereby making them eligible for all parts of the Education Code including the provisions for the levying of the permissive community services tax. Provisions of the Education Code which form the legal basis for community services There are three provisions of the California Education Code upon which the programs of junior college community services are based. They are: 1. Article 12: Community Services Classes Sections 6321 through 6324 2. Chapter 4. Use of School Property for Public Purposes, Sections 16551 through 16566 3. Chapter 6. Community Recreation, Sections 16651 through 16664. These three provisions provide the framework for the utilization of the school plant by groups for a wide variety of activities. These activities, based upon the 65 broad definitions provided in the Education Code, are sponsored both by community groups and by the community college itself. They constitute the major portion of many community services programs. Perhaps the most important single factor which contributes to the success of the community services movement in California is the provision of the Education Code which allows a local school district to levy a permissive over-ride tax of up to five cents per $100 of assessed valuation in order to finance those sections of the Code which apply to Use of School Property for Public. Purposes and Community Recreation. Community services classes may be financed from a district's general fund or are expected to pay for themselves. This study will reflect the importance of this tax to the community services movement and will reaffirm a survey made in the State of California in 1966 by the California Junior College Association, Committee on Community Services, which concluded that the major reason for the success of community service programs in the State is the existence of this restricted community services tax (58:3). The tax may be levied without a vote of the electorate of the district, but more important, it is a restricted tax and may not be used for any other purpose than specified by the Education Code. 66 Efforts to modify the Education Code m respect to community services Because of the great desire on the part of the State Legislature to reform tax measures for the support of education, there have been several proposals during the past four years, three separate measures having been introduced in the California Assembly to repeal the Community Services tax provision of the Education Code: (1) 1965, AB 2270, (2) 1966, AB 52, and (3) 1967, AB 272. Later in this chapter it will be seen that the California Junior College Association, Committee on Community Services, had a role in the defeat of these measures. The following are the sections of the California Education Code which form the basis for community services. Budget Provisions 20601. (a) On or before the first day of July in each year, the governing board of each school district shall file with the county superintendent of schools a tentative budget showing all the purposes for which the school district will need money and-the estimated amount of money that will be needed for each purpose for the ensuing fiscal year. These purposes shall be classified to set forth the data by functions and objects of expenditure within the major classifica tions of administration, instruction, operation of plant, auxiliary services, community services, capital outlay, and such additional major classifications as may be prescribed by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and expenditures proposed to be made from bonds or other income not yet authorized. Within the major classifications of administration, instruction, operation of plant, maintenance of plant, auxiliary agencies, and community services there shall be set 67 forth as separate entries the amount of proposed expenditures for salaries and wages and maintenance and operation and such additional intermediate classification as may be prescribed by the Superin tendent of Public Instruction. Proposed capital outlay appropriations shall be set forth by land, building, and equipment classifications. Wherever a district has a special reserve fund, as provided in Sections 21401 to 21404, inclusive, the amount in such fund at the end of the last preceding fiscal year, and the amount to be added during the ensuing fiscal year, shall be shown. [13:1354-55] Permissive Over-ride Tax 20801. The maximum rate of school district tax for any school year is hereby increased by such amount as will produce the amount of the proposed expeditures of the school district required or authorized pur suant to Sections 13561 and 13561.1, Sections 16551 to 16566, inclusive, and Sections 16651 to 16664, inclusive, of this code as shown by the budget of the district for such school year, as finally adopted by the governing board of the district, less any unen cumbered balances remaining at the end of the preceding school year derived from the revenue from the increase in the rate of tax provided by this section. The increase provided by this section shall not exceed five cents ($0.05) per each one hundred dollars ($100) of the assessed value of property within the district, and said increase shall be in addition to any other school district tax authorized by law to be levied. 20801.1. Not withstanding the provisions of Section 20801, a district may accumulate from year to year any unencumbered balance derived from the tax levied under Section 20801, provided that the accumulated money is ultimately expended for a purpose authorized by Sections 13561 and 13561.1, Sections 16551 to 16566 inclusive, or sections 16651 to 16664, inclusive. [13:1365] Community Services Classes Establishment by Governing Board 6321. The governing board of any school district maintaining secondary schools is authorized without the approval of the State Department of Education to establish and maintain community service classes in 68 civic, vocational, literacy, health, homemaking, technical and general education, including but not limited to classes in the fields of music, drama, art, handicrafts, science, literature, nature study, nature contacting, aquatic sports and athletics. Such classes shall be designed to provide instruction and to contribute to the physical, mental, moral, economic, or civic development of the individuals or groups enrolled therein. Admission 6321.5. Community services classes shall be open for the admission of adults and of such minors as in the judgment of the governing board may profit there from. Scheduling of Classes 6322. Community service classes may be convened at such hours and for such length of time during the day or evening and at such period and for such length of time during the school year as may be determined by the governing board of the district. Recognition of Accomplishment 6322.5. Governing boards shall have the authority to provide for granting appropriate certificates or other recognition of skill or accomplishment in such classes. No Apportionment from State Funds 6323. Attendance or average daily attendance in community service classes pursuant to this article shall not be reported to the State Department of Education for apportionment. No apportionment from state funds shall be made to establish or maintain such classes. Expenses 6324. Governing boards may expend from the general fund of the district any money which is budgeted for community services to establish and maintain community service classes and may charge student fees not to exceed the cost of maintaining such classes or may provide instruction in such classes for remuneration by contract, or with con tributions or donations of individuals or groups. [13:292] 69 Use of School Property for Public Purposes 16551. The governing board of any school district may grant the use of school buildings or grounds for public, literary, scientific, recreational, educa tional, or public agency meetings, or for the discus sion of matters of general or public interest upon such terms and conditions as the board deems proper, and subject to the limitations, requirements, and restrictions set forth in this chapter (commencing at Section 16551). The governing board of any school district may grant the use of school buildings or grounds to any church or religious organization for the conduct of religious services for temporary periods where such church or organization has no suitable meeting place for the conduct of such services upon such terms and conditions as the board deems proper, and subject to the limitations, requirements, and restrictions set forth in this chapter. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 16561, the governing board shall charge the church or religious organization using such property for the conduct of religious services an amount at least sufficient to pay the cost to the district of supplies, utilities and salaries paid school district employees necessitated by such use of such property. General Restrictions on Use 16552. No use shall be inconsistent with the use of the buildings or grounds for school purposes, or interfere with the regular conduct of school work. Creation of Civic Centers and Authorization of Use of Other Properties 16556. There is a civic center at each and every public school building and grounds within the State where the citizens, parent-teachers' association, Camp Fire Girls, Boy Scout troops, farmers' organizations, clubs, and associations formed for recreational, educational, political, economic, artistic, or moral activities of the public school districts may engage in supervised recreational activities, and where they may meet and discuss, from time to time, as they may desire, any subjects and questions which in their judgment appertain to the educational, political, economic, artistic, and moral interests of the citizens of the communities in which they reside. Governing boards of the school districts may authorize the use, by such citizens and organizations of any other properties under their control, for supervised 70 recreational activities. Use Subject to Rules and Regulations; Interference with Use for School Purposes 16557. The use of any public schoolhouse and grounds for any meeting is subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as the governing board of the district prescribes and shall in nowise interfere with the use and occupancy of the public schoolhouse and grounds, as is required for the purposes of the public schools of the State. Charge for Use 16561. The use of schoolhouses, property, and grounds pursuant to this chapter (commencing at Section 16551) shall be granted free, except as other wise provided by Section 16562, to public agencies, or to senior citizens' organizations or to other organi zations, clubs, or associations organized for cultural activities (such as folk and square dancing) and general character building or welfare purposes. For any other use of schoolhouses, property, and grounds pursuant to this chapter, including uses for which changes may be made under Section 16562, the governing board of any school district may charge not to exceed an amount sufficient to pay the cost to the district of supplies, utilities, and salaz/ies paid school district employees necessitated by such use of schoolhouses, property, and grounds of the district. Charge for Use Where Admission Fees Are Charged or Contributions Solicited 16562. In the case of entertainments or meetings where admission fees are charged or contributions are solicited and the net receipts of the admission fees or contributions are not expended for the welfare of the pupils of the district or for charitable purposes a charge shall be made for the use of the school houses, property,.and grounds which charge shall not be less than the fair rental value for the use of such schoolhouses, property and grounds, as determined by the governing board of the district. The governing board may, however, permit such use, without charge, by organizations, clubs, or associa tions organized for senior citizens and for cultural activities and general character building or welfare purposes, when membership dues or contributions solely for the support of the organization, club, or association, or the advancement of its cultural, 71 character building or welfare work, are accepted. Necessary Expenses for Use 16563. Lighting, heating, janitor service, and the services of the person when needed, and other necessary expenses in connection with the use of public school buildings and grounds pursuant to this chapter (commencing at Section 16551), shall be provided for out of the county or special school funds of the respective school districts in the same manner and by the same authority as similar services are provided for. [13:959-62] Community Recreation Purposes of Chapter 16651. The purposes of this chapter (commencing at Section 16651) are: (a) To promote and preserve the health and general welfare of the people of the State and to cultivate the development of good citizenship by provision for adequate programs of community recreation. (b) To authorize public corporations or districts having powers to provide recreation, cities, counties, cities and counties, and public school districts to organize, promote, and conduct such programs of com munity recreation as will contribute to the attainment of general educational and recreational objectives for children and adults of the State. Definition of Terms 16652. The following terms, wherever used or referred to in this chapter (commencing at Section 16651) have the following meanings, respectively, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: (a) "Public authority" means any city of any class, city and county, county of any class, public corpora tion or district having powers to provide recreation, or school district in the State. (b) "Governing body" means, in the case of a city, the city council', municipal council, or common council; in the case of a county or city and county, the board of supervisors; in the case of a public corporation or district, the governing board of the public corpora tion or district; and in the case of a school district, the governing board of the school district. (c) "Recreation" means any activity, voluntarily engaged in, which contributes, to the physical, mental, 72 or moral development of the individual or group par ticipating therein, and includes any activity in the fields of music, drama, art, handicraft, science, literature, nature study, nature contacting, aquatic sports and athletics. (d) "Community recreation" and "public recreation" mean such recreation as may be engaged in under direct control of a public authority. (e) "Recreation center" means a place, structure, area, or other facility under the jurisdiction of a governing body of a public authority used for commu nity recreation whether or not it may be used primar ily for other purposes, playgrounds, playing fields or courts, beaches, lakes, rivers, swimming pools, gymnasiums, auditoriums, rooms for arts and crafts, camps, and meeting places. Playgrounds, outdoor playing fields or courts, swimming pools, and camps, with necessary equipment and appurtenances for their operation, under the jurisdiction of a governing board of a public authority used foie community recreation shall be con sidered recreation centers within the meaning of this chapter ’ (commencing at Section 16651) whether or not they may be used primarily for other purposes. Powers of Governing Body of Public Authority 16653. The governing body of every public authority may (a) organize, promote, and conduct programs of community recreation, (b) establish systems of playgrounds and recreation, and (c) acquire, construct, improve, maintain, and operate recreation centers within or without the territorial limits of the public authority. No events for which an admission price is charged shall be held pursuant to this chapter (commencing at Section 16651), except amateur athletic contests, demonstrations, or exhibits and other educational events. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the transportation of a school band in school buses for commercial purposes. Use of School Property 16659. The governing body of any school district may use the buildings, grounds, and equipment of the school district, or any of them, to carry out the purposes of this chapter (commencing at Section 16651), or may grant the use of any building, grounds, or equipment of the district to any other public authority 73 for the purposes, whenever the use of the buildings, grounds, or equipment for community recreational purposes will not interfere with use of the buildings, grounds, and equipment for any other purpose of the public school system. Nothing in this section is intended to repeal any provision of, or to restrict or otherwise affect the use of school buildings under Sections 16551 to 16566, inclusive, of this code. Fees for Use of Facilities 16661. The governing body of a school district may require persons, other than students, or organi zations desiring to use the recreational facilities on school grounds or belonging to a school or the facilities provided by the district at a community recreation center maintained solely by the district to pay such fees for such use as the said governing body may prescribe. Expenditures and Effect of Chapter 16663. All necessary expenses incurred by the governing body of any school district in carrying out the purposes of this chapter (commencing at Section 16651) are a charge against the funds of the district from whatever source the funds have been received. All such expenditures shall be made in the same manner as funds are expended for other school purposes. Nothing in this chapter (commencing at Section 16651) shall be construed to change in any way existing laws regarding the use of school grounds or school buildings by governing boards of school districts, except as specifically provided in this chapter (commending at Section 16651). [13:992-96] The California Junior College Association History Of great significance to the development of the community college in California has been the rise of the California Junior College Association. During the 1920's there was a need felt by the chief administrators of the then thirty junior colleges which were in operation in 74 the state. Section meetings for junior college presidents were held in conjunction with the annual high school principals' association meetings until 1929 when a federation was formed of the three groups of junior college personnel which had, for convenience, formed on regional lines. The first meeting of this federation was held in 1930. It was not until 1947, following the problems of growth brought on by World War II, that a new constitution was adopted forming the California Junior College Association. In 1958 it was incorporated as a non-profit educational association (54:2). Since 1958 the California Junior College Associa tion has grown as an institutional association, taking a leadership role in the identification of purposes and needs of the California junior colleges. Recognition of the importance of the association came in 1960 when Dr. Henry Tyler, Executive Secretary, was asked to serve on the Master Plan for Higher Education team as the junior college representative (lsvii). In 1968 a new constitution was adopted which provided for more broadly based participation at the local and state levels for trustees, administration, and faculty. There are more recent moves to include students in the organization and there is, of course, a committee structure to provide for community services. 75 The Committee on Community Services In September, 1964, Ervin Harlacher, Director of Community Services at Foothill College and a Kellogg Fellow at the University of California at Los Angeles, directed a letter to Dr. Robert Swenson, President of the California Junior College Association, in which he out lined the need for the association to establish a committee on community services. Harlacher, documenting the growth of the community services in the California junior colleges, listed six major reasons for the establishment of such a committee: (1) Research indicates that community service is now recognized as a major function of the community junior college. (2) Community services is recognized in the California Education Code, with provisions for financing, as a function of the junior college. (3) There is need to clarify the task and a committee could do this, especially in the area of finance. (4) There is need for definition and a committee could provide this. (5) There is no leadership in the area of community services and no accreditation recognition of the function. . (6) There is danger of splitting community services into committee areas of adult education, public relations, and recreation. [63:1] In addition, Harlacher outlined what he considered the charge of such a committee on community services to be: (1) to provide statewide leadership in the establish ment and expansion of programs of community services in the several junior colleges; (2) to prepare junior college guidelines for the use of the community services tax funds; (3) to develop an official definition of community services; 76 (4) to encourage cooperative programs of community services among neighboring junior colleges; (5) to stimulate the development of additional community services as needed. [63:2] The Board of Directors of the California Junior College Association at the September meeting, with the advice of Dr. Swenson, established the Ad Hoc Committee on Community Services and appointed the following people to serve as Committee members: George Clark, Dean of Community Services, Cabrillo College; Foster Davidoff, President, Compton College; David Epperson, Administrative Assistant for Community Services, Orange Coast College; George J. Faul, President, Monterey Peninsula College; William Keim, Administrative Dean of Community Services, Cerritos College; Ervin Harlacher, Chairman, Director of Community Services, Foothill College; William Miller, Coordinator of Community Educa tion, College of San Mateo. The Board of Directors, likewise, adopted Harlacher's suggested functions for the Committee as the official purposes of the ad hoc body. By September, 1965, the Ad Hoc Committee had been named by the Board of Directors as a regular standing committee of the Associa tion and the Ad Hoc membership had been appointed to the 77 standing committee. After less than a year of operation as an Ad Hoc Committee on Community Services, Dr. Harlacher submitted an annual report to the Board of Directors which outlined the accomplishments of this Committee for the year 1964-1965: (1) Co-sponsored with the College Association for Public Evens state conference, "The Cultural Renais sance and the Community College" (December 12, 1964, College of San Mateo). Published proceedings and circulated throughout state. (2) Recommended that regional CAPE organizations be affiliated with CJCA as soon as legally possible and that the Committee on Community Services maintain an official relationship with these regional organi zations as charged by the CJCA Board of Directors: (a) to provide state-wide leadership in the estab lishment and expansion of programs of community services in the several junior colleges and (b) to encourage cooperative programs of community services among neighboring junior colleges. (3) Provided assistance to colleges in Southern California and Central California interested in forming regional block booking organizations similar to CAPE. [64:1] CAPES CAPE (College Association for Public Events) was also in its formulative stages at this time and was seeking affiliation with CJCA. It was begun in the northern Bay ' Area of the State in an effort to encourage cooperative programming among junior colleges and to promote block booking of events. It has since grown to include 96 member institutions with an annual expenditure for speakers and programs of $380,470 in 1968 (69). CAPE added the "s" to its name to include 78 Services sometime in 1965 and became the operational arm of the Committee on Community Services with the approval of the Committee of a Resolution of the California Arts Commission dated October 27, 1965 (67). Subsequent efforts to effect a financial link with the California Arts Commission have failed to materialize and CAPES has progressed successfully as a non-profit organization for the past four years. The annual report continued: (4) Recommended that junior college governing boards which have not already done so adopt a written policy on off-campus speakers. (5) Approved dissertation study: "Community Services Programs in Independent Junior College Districts in California Which Levy the Restricted Community Services Tax" to be conducted at the University of Southern California by Mr. Wallace Cohen, Dean of Social Science, El Camino College (approved by CJCA Board of Directors, January 29, 1965). (6) Recommended inclusion of the community services function in the new official statement on the role of the California public junior college (adopted by CJCA Board of Directors, April 11, 1965). (7) Presented panel discussion on Community Services Act at California Association for Health, Physical Education and Recreation Conference, April 10, 1965, Monterey. (8) Conducted workshop on community services: "Commu nity Services, Its Past, Present and Future" at CJCA spring meeting, April 12, 1965. (9) Conducted study of districts maintaining junior colleges which levy the restricted community services tax. (10) Held exploratory talks with California Art Commission's officers and members regarding possible cooperative action. (11) Prepared directory of California junior college community services personnel. (12) Prepared Junior College Guidelines for the Expenditure of Restricted Community Services Tax Funds (adopted by CJCA Board of Directors, May 27, 1965). 79 (13) Recommended to Committee on Accreditation that in light of the new official statement on the role of the California public junior college, which lists commu nity service as a major function, the accreditation report outline be modified to include a special sec tion on community service. It was further recom mended that accreditation teams be requested to include the area of community service in their inves tigations during the current academic year even though accreditation kits had not been revised. (14) Established Committee on Community Services as a standing committee of the Association. In addition to this astonishing list of completed projects, the report indicated two other categories: Projects Under Way and Recommendations: Projects Under Way: (1) Preparation of position paper on the community service function of the California junior college. (2) Collection of individual board policies on off- campus speakers from state junior colleges for circu lation as part of the Committee's clearing house function. (3) Survey of current programs of community services in California junior colleges as aid to cooperative planning with California Arts Commission. (4) Preparation of section on community services for Western Association of Schools and Colleges' accredi tation kit. (5) Feasibility study of state conference on commu nity services, possibly co-sponsored by CAPE. Recommendations: (1) Junior College Guidelines for the Expenditure of Restricted Community Services Tax Funds— The Committee on Community Services at its June 28, 1965 meeting recommended that the CJCA Executive Secretary dis tribute the guidelines to superintendents of districts maintaining junior colleges for subsequent presenta tion to governing boards: (a) information or adoption by each board; (b) delineation by each board of specific services included in its program of community services as provided for in the guidelines. (2) Repeal of restricted community services tax (Education Code, Section 20801)— The Committee on Community Services at its June 28, 1965 meeting 80 recommended that the CJCA Board of Directors be fully informed as to the potential outcomes of the Petris- Unruh Tax Reform Bill (AB 2270) with regard to the program of community services. [64:2-3] It is not the purpose here to recite the history of the Committee on Community Services, but no considera tion of the impact of the program of community services in California junior colleges would be valid without serious referral to the pioneering work done by this Committee during the first year of its operation. Of particular significance to the rapid development of community services in the junior colleges of California are the following items listed under "Accomplishments": 1. The inclusion of community services in the official statement by the California Junior College Association of the purposes of the junior college in California. 2. The preparation of the Junior College Guide lines for the expenditure of the Community Services tax fund. 3. The recommendation of the inclusion of community services as a part of the accredita tion process. In addition, the Committee on Community Services on three occasions helped influence legislation directed toward the elimination of the restricted tax fund. AB 2270, mentioned in the category "Recommendations" was the first 81 of these. It basically shifted support of the schools from the property owner to an income tax structure and limited property tax (55:7). The bill passed the Assembly but died in the Senate during the last session of the legislature and the California Junior College Association gave much effort to the defeat of the measure. It was following the defeat of this bill that effort was made by the Committee to produce guidelines for the expenditure of the community services tax funds, and to secure the endorsement of these guidelines by separate governing boards. Guidelines for use of the Community Services Tax In May, 1965, the Board of Directors of the California Junior College Association adopted a series of "guidelines" designed to provide direction to junior college districts in the appropriate use of the tax monies raised from the levy of the community services tax. The following guidelines are based on legal provisions and they are recommended for expenditure of restricted community services tax funds. These guidelines place emphasis on (1) use of restricted tax funds for opera tion of programs of community services, (2) use of restricted tax funds for capital outlay expenditures which are directly essential to the program of commu nity services, (3) local control, and (4) district definition of program of community services. A. Operation 1. That restricted community services tax funds be used for operation of programs of community services. 82 2. That the governing board of each district main taining a junior college delineate what specific services for the community are to be included within its program of community services, in accordance with the definitions contained herein. B. Capital Outlay 1. That restricted community services tax funds be used for those capital outlay expenditures which are directly essential to the operation of the program of community services as defined. 2. That use of restricted community services tax funds for capital outlay items which are shared by the regular college program and the program of community services be limited to that propor tion of the usage which falls under community services. 3. That restricted community services tax funds which are accumulated from year to year for capital outlay purposes be spent only for community services as defined, in accordance with the statutes. C. Community Services Fund 1. That counties be encouraged to apportion to the community services fund' the total income from the tax levied against both secured and unsecured tax rolls. 2. That all expenditures for community services be itemized under Class 1100— Community Services of the District Budget. 3. That all income from community services activ ities be credited to the community services fund. [66:2] College governing boards were encouraged to adopt these guidelines as a means of strengthening the function of community services in the junior college. Henry Tyler, Executive Director of the California Junior College Asso ciation directed a letter to the superintendents and presidents of the member colleges soliciting their help in gaining adoption of the guidelines by individual boards (71:9) . 83 In spite of these efforts, however, few colleges adopted the guidelines. They continue to serve as a legal description of the perimeters of the community services program, however, and the Committee refers all colleges with beginning programs to these important principles. The function of community services in the role of the junior college On April 11, 1965, the California Junior College Association Board of Directors adopted a Position State ment on the Role of the Junior College and although the words community service were not mentioned in the title, it is the first time in the history of the Association that a position was taken regarding this type of service to the community. In addition to the listing of four major categories in the mission of the public junior college, the statement contained a reference to the status of the junior college in regard to its role in higher education as opposed to its historical commitment to the secondary program. The status of the junior college is a logical result of its dramatic growth and evolution. It has r.eached the point where it is clearly higher educa tion, with only vestigial remains of its secondary legacy. The high school and the junior college share the common task of serving the local community. There, however, their similarity ends. Circumstances have shaped them into different types of organization, each having its own mission and its own way of accom plishing the general task of public education. The mission of the public junior college in California may logically be divided into four major categories: 84 (1) Providing lower division collegiate transfer education; (2) providing other post high school education, both credit and non-credit, to meet educational, technical, and vocational needs of individual communities; (3) providing guidance services to direct students into those areas of education in. which they can succeed and which will prepare them as productive citizens in their communities; and (4) providing a flexible program of education, cultural, and recreational services above and beyond regularly scheduled day and evening classes, tailored to meet the needs of the community. [45:1-2] It is interesting to note that since this Position Statement appeared in 1965, no change has occurred in the official attitude of the Board of Directors and the most recent brochure of the California Junior College Associa tion published in 1968 lists these four divisions as they originally appeared (54:6). The portion of the Statement which deals with services to the community was suggested through the work done by the Committee on Community Services and remains an important part of the stimulation of the growth of commu nity services in the junior colleges of California. Accreditation In August, 1966, Henry Tyler, also Secretary to the Accrediting Commission for Junior Colleges, sent a memorandum to all junior colleges which read: A new section on Community Services has been added to both the Standardi (page S-4) and the Application (pages A-10 and A-ll). In the case of colleges being visited during the fall, 1966, semester, this section can be ignored if the Application is already so far 85 advanced that its inclusion would be awkward. To the extent feasible, however, it is hoped that Evaluation Teams will consider it. The inclusion of community services as a critical item to be considered in the accreditation process is, perhaps, the most important item to affect the growth and development of community services in the State of California. Once again the Committee on Community Services played an important role in this process, working with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges to develop the areas to be covered and the language to be used. Community services became one of the six major areas of the college to be evaluated by accrediting teams. This inclusion of community services in the accreditation kit began early in the 1965 school year when an outline for a comprehensive program of community services was prepared by the Committee on Community Services sub-committee headed by William Keim. By December, 1965, a prepared outline was presented to the Commission and adopted almost exactly as it had been written. The following is the outline for accreditation teams in reporting on the school to be accredited: V. Community Services A. Organization and Administration A major function of the junior college is that of providing a flexible prpgram of educational, cultural, and recreational services, above and 86 beyond regularly scheduled day and evening classes, tailored to meet the needs of the community. B. Use of College Facilities and Services A junior college should become a center of community life by encouraging the use of college facilities by community groups when such use does not interfere with the instruc tional and co-curricular programs of the college. Such services may include 1. Provision of physical facilities; 2. Co-sponsorship of community events and activities; 3. Community use of library facilities. C. Educational Services Junior colleges should provide educational services which utilize the special skills and knowledge of the college staff and other experts and which are designed to meet the needs of groups in the college district commu nity at large and to assist them in long-range planning. Such educational services may include 1. Non-credit short courses— seminars, work shops, institutes, conferences, symposiums; 2. Leadership in community research and development; 3. Community counseling and consultative services; 4. Use of radio-television stations; 5. Provision of faculty and student programs for community groups. D. Cultural and Recreational Services Every junior college should contribute to and promote the cultural and recreational life of the college community and the development of skills for the profitable use of leisure time. Such activities may include 1. Community forums and lecture series; 2. Fine arts series, film series, and exhibits; 3. Athletic activities; 87 4. Community performing groups including chorus, orchestra, and theater; 5. Arts festivals; and 6. Planetariums and museums. [73:5-6] Junior colleges seeking accreditation must answer the following questions and provide the descriptions required: V. Community Services A. Organization and Administration 1. Provide a description of your organization for community services. 2. Describe briefly your program of community services, including objectives, institu tional concept and definition, and special services which you provide. 3. Is your program financed by the restricted community services tax? If so — a. Include a three-year financial history of major categories of income and expenditures. b. Are these expenditures compatible with the CJCA-approved Guidelines for the Expenditure of Restricted Community Services Tax Funds? c. What percentage of the cost of these programs has been defrayed by admis sions? If not — a. How is your program financed? 4. What use is the college making of citizens and faculty advisory committees in the development of a comprehensive and diversified program? 5. How does your college insure that its program of community services reflects the characteristics and needs of the community? B. Use of College Facilities and Services 1. What use does the community make of your college facilities and services? Describe your program briefly. 88 2. To what extent is community use of facil ities taken into consideration in planning for college facilities? 3. To what extent does the college use off- campus facilities for community services? C. Educational Services 1. What is your practice concerning special educational services to the community such as non-credit short courses, leadership in community research and development, commu nity counseling and consultative services, use of radio-television stations, provision of faculty and student programs for commu nity groups? 2. What measures are taken to coordinate your program with your day and evening instruc tional departments and community and regional groups, in order to avoid unneces sary duplication of services? 3. Does your college assist the community in solving problems through such appropriate means as assistance with local surveys, cooperation with civic groups, etc? If so, please give examples. D. Cultural and Recreational Services 1. Describe the cultural and recreational services which your college provides for the community. 2. How has your college assisted in coor dinating the cultural and recreational development of the community? [73:A10-All] Since the Accrediting Commission's inclusion of community services as a major function of the junior college, there has been a noticeable rise in interest on the part of institutions to provide for a more comprehen sive program. Tax measures proposed AB52— 1966.— In addition to AB2270— 1965, 89 mentioned earlier, there have been two other bills con sidered in subsequent sessions of the Legislature which would have affected the status of the community services tax. The first, introduced by Speaker of the House, The Honorable Jesse Unruh in 1966, was known as AB52 and called for the elimination of most of the restricted taxes from the Education Code. It based support of education on a sales tax and was entitled "The Property Tax Relief and School Improvement Act of 1966.” The Committee on Community Services immediately began to work through various legislators and in particular, the Consultant for the Assembly Committee on Education. Several meetings were held in Sacramento between members of the Committee on Community Services and the principals involved in the proposed legislation. On March 17, 1966, Harlacher received a letter from the Committee Consultant which expressed the attitude of those sponsoring the legislation and seemed to deal a blow to the concept of the continuation of the tax. . . . It is the Speaker's [Mr. Unruh's] view that community services and recreation programs have come of age, and are well able to compete'before school boards with other school programs without the necessity of hiding behind the skirts of a special permissive override tax. My latest conversations with Mr. Unruh indicate that he strongly feels that to allow the community services tax to remain in law would simply open the door for the retention of special override taxes for a great many other worthy 90 programs, thus frustrating the tax relief aspects of AB 52. [68:1] The Committee on Community Services, however, was not to be deterred, and an extra effort to convince the Speaker prior to his presentation of the bill on the floor of the Assembly was made. Legislators known to favor community services were contacted, and Harlacher and Keim met with Mr. Unruh to convince him of the value of the retention of the community services tax. Following the conference Mr. Unruh requested that a letter be submitted. He replied to the letter on March 31, 1966. Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1966 relative to the provisions repealing the community services tax which are presently in AB 52. I have considered this matter at length, and I have decided to submit amendments to the bill which will leave this particular permissive override tax in the law intact. I have decided upon this action for several reasons, although I must admit that I am still concerned over the possibility that groups and associations interested in the retention of other permissive over rides may now see in this action a cause to pursue the retention of their particular override. One of my reasons for placing this tax back in the present law unchanged is my growing conviction that community services are somewhat different from normal educational services in that they provide service to an entire community. Another reason revolves around my feeling that it is possible that junior college boards would not reserve the funds presently raised by the community services tax for community services purposes. At the same time, I am convinced that sooner or later the proponents of community services programs will have to justify their programs to the public in much the same way that all normal educa tional programs are presently presented to local electors. [72:1] The amended AB52 passed the Assembly vote but was defeated in the Senate. 91 AB272-^-1967.— This bill, introduced by Mr. Unruh, was, once again, a bill designed to give property tax relief, more appropriation to school districts, and to broaden the base for State aid to special programs. It was a far-reaching bill in terms of school finance and because of the mood of the times and the great desire on the part of the Legislature to provide some semblance of school finance reform, the measure passed both houses and became law on August 5, 1967. Efforts of the Committee on Community Services and the Legislative Committee of the California Junior College Association were to no avail and because of the qualifications of the bill, no real opposition to it could be mustered in time to prevent its passage. The qualification is simply that each school district should determine its own tax rate.: Termination of Maximum Tax Rates; Legislative Intent 20751.1. On and after July 1, 1971, the maximum tax rates prescribed by Section 20751 and any other applicable provisions of this code shall have no force or effect and shall be inoperative with respect to any school district. It is the intent and purpose of the Legislature that school district governing boards have prime and direct responsibility for the development of budget and expenditure programs, together with full authority to fix tax fates which they deem necessary to support the educational programs of the district. [13:1362] This permits expenditure of money for community services and is consistent with that which Mr. Unruh expressed in his letter regarding AB52. Community 92 services, if worthwhile, should stand on its merit in the community in "much the same way that all normal educa tional programs are presently presented to local electors." (72:1) July 1, 1971, will be the time when community services in the community colleges of California will no longer have a restricted tax base upon which to depend. The program will have to compete with all tax monies of the district and will depend, in the final analysis, upon the position of the California Junior College Association regarding the role of the junior college and on the requirements set forth by the accreditation association. At least one other factor will help determine the continued existence of community services and that is the force which is being generated throughout the United States in regard to the task of community services in community colleges. This force must be considered as we examine recent developments in the field of community services. Recent Developments— National Federal legislation: Title I The Higher Education Act, passed by the Congress on October 20, 1965, provides a program of financial aid to colleges and college students. Title I of this Act, Community Services and Continuing Education Programs, has 93 had considerable impact upon the direction of some commu nity services programs in the State. By definition spelled out in the regulations governing the Higher Education Act, "community services program” means an educational program, activity, or service offered by an institution (s) of higher education and designed to assist in the solution of community problems in rural, urban, or suburban . . . areas with particular emphasis on urban and sub urban problems. "Community service program" may include but is not limited to a research program, an extension or continuing education activity, or a course, provided, however, that such courses are extension or continuing education courses and are either fully acceptable toward an academic degree, or of college level as determined by the institution offering such courses. [59:6] Junior colleges are recognized as being part of higher education: (f) "Institution of higher education" means an educational institution in any State which (1) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary educa tion, or the recognized equivalent of such a certifi cate, (2) is legally authorized within such State to provide a program of education beyond secondary education, (3) provides an educational program for .which it awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, . . . [59:7] On October 29, 1965, California Governor Edmund G. Brown wrote a letter to Commissioner of Education Dr. Francis Keppel in which he designated the Coordinating Council for Higher Education of the State as the agency 94 responsible for the preparation and administration of the "State Plan" which is called for in Title I (57:1). The Coordinating Council appointed an Advisory Committee to review guidelines for the preparation of the State Plan and this Commitee has functioned each year as a review and recommending body for application for federal monies under Title I. William Keim, Cerritos College, and Harvey Rhodes, Columbia College, serve on this State Advisory Committee as representatives of the junior college segment of higher education. The State participation in the program requires that the State Plan be amended each year and that the annual amendment contain a program plan describing "a com prehensive, coordinated, and statewide system of community service programs and the basis for selecting such pro grams." (35:3) During the first three years under Title I, more than $1,500,000 in federal funds was approved in California./ although most of these projects did not originate in the junior colleges (60:1). The policies and procedures used in selecting institutions for partici pation under the State Plan included determination of accreditation, maintenance of financial records, and that the programs, services, or activities had to be designed to assist in the solution to urban, suburban, or rural problems which were outlined in the State Plan. 95 It is significant that during 1965-1966 the Coor dinating Council received 68 proposals and granted awards for thirteen projects. Three junior colleges, one private university, six State colleges, and all nine campuses of the University of California received funds. In its second year of operation the Council reviewed 38 proposals and granted eight awards. One junior college, one private university, five State colleges, and all nine campuses of the University of California were approved. In 1967-1968, 26 proposals were received and 15 recommended for approval. Of these four public junior colleges submitted applica tions but only one was approved (60:1-2). Each year there has been special effort made to encourage cooperative programming among the segments of higher education. In addition, various aspects of urban and suburban problems are selected by the Council for emphasis. The 1968-1969 emphasis is placed on "The Nature of Life in Ghetto Com munities." In previous years emphasis was placed on "Personnel Training" and "Disadvantaged Persons." Whether junior colleges can ever provide personnel in community services to complete the complicated applica tion for Title I funds or whether or not they can compete with the State colleges and university for these funds remains to be seen. Certainly there is some significance in the fact that in 1968-1969, 21 junior colleges made inquiries and requested the forms for the application for 96 funds under this Act. This figure is at least three times as great for junior colleges as in previous years (70:1-5). The Kellogg Foundation and the American Association of Junior Colleges By far the most significant national development in the field of community services and perhaps the greatest step in the recognition of it as a legitimate function of the community college occurred during September, 1968. During the summer of that year the W. K. Kellogg Foundation decided to underwrite a three- year project to assist the American Association of Junior Colleges in their work in developing community services. Dr. Edmund Gleazer, Executive Director, in explaining the project and introducing Dr. Kenneth Cummiskey as its Director, addressed a letter to member institution presidents on September 6, 1968. He expressed the interest of the Association in community services by declaring . . . the American Association of Junior Colleges has become increasingly aware of the need for greater emphasis on community service activities in our member institutions. The special place that is held by the community or junior college suits it particularly well to respond to the myriad legitimate needs of its com munity and to become a focal point of educational and cultural activity. We at the Association have carried on a series of discussions with the W. K. Kellogg Foundation about the potential for service in two-year colleges. The Foundation is now enthusiastically committed to help ing these institutions provide leadership and technical 97 assistance to their communities in community service activities. In support of this commitment, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation is underwriting a three-year project to assist the Association's work with member institu tions. Dr. J. Kenneth Cummiskey has joined the AAJC staff to direct this project. [62:1] This support for community services can be attributed in part to the report written by Harlacher in November, 1967, for the Association. The report, entitled The Community Dimension of the Community College was a 200-page survey of the scope of community services as it exists in the community colleges throughout the nation. California colleges were singled out time after time for their effort in this dimension report. Early in September Dr. Cummiskey outlined the objectives of the project and established priority items for the first year of the American Association of Junior Colleges program. The project is intended to provide technical assistance to colleges in developing and improving their programs in community services. A major objective is the development within each college of an overall plan for community services and the establishment of an administrative and staff structure conducive to implementing the plan. The project's top priority items include the following: 1. The formation of an advisory committee to provide guidance and assistance in AAJC's efforts. 2. The planning of national and regional workshops and conferences to assist presidents and the community service directors in developing their programs. 3. Stimulating the development of orientation and training programs for community service coor dinators . 4. The assisting of colleges in developing funding sources and improving the climate for public funding of community services programs. [61:1] By January, 1969, the project was publishing the first bulletin devoted entirely to community services in the United States and Dr. Cummiskey had expanded the objectives to include the function of a clearinghouse for information relative to community services in junior colleges; a consultant service, and to assume the responsibility as a publisher of a newsletter and reports (53:2). During the first year of the project five issues of the bulletin have been published as well as three major community services working papers which have covered the following areas of interest: Myran, Gunder. "Community Services: An Emerging Challenge for the Community College" Traicoff, George. "Obtaining Financial Support for Community Services Programs" Distasio, Patrick. "Community Services: A Center for Community Development" An advisory committee was appointed and a list of twenty-three consultants in community services was com piled and distributed throughout the country (53:3). Three regional workshops were conducted— in Dallas, Texas San Francisco, California; and Moline, Illinois. The conference in San Francisco, held February 26-27, 1969, was co-sponsored with the Committee on Community Services of the California Junior College Association. In addi tion, close liaison by the American Association of Junior Colleges project on Community Services with the Kellogg Leadership project at Michigan State University has in part resulted in a two-week national workshop during the summer of 1969. The topic of this community college work shop is "Developing Effective Community Services Programs. There is no question but that community services as a function of the community college has gained strength and direction as a result of the interest in community services expressed by the activity of the American Asso ciation of Junior Colleges. Another step was taken on April 9, 1969, in Washington, D.C., when a steering committee of community services representatives from New York, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and California organized a National Council on Community Services for Community and Junior Colleges. The author was present, representing California The Council is structured to provide a unified voice for the community services field by: - encouraging community programming in community junior colleges - encouraging community involvement as a total college effort - educating the public to the potential of commu nity programming in community junior colleges - encouraging a coordinated attack on pressing community problems by the community junior 100 college and other agencies, institutions and groups committed to the resolution of these problems - promoting federal, state and local legislation to support community service programs as a regular function of the community college - establishing the community service function of the community college as an accreditation criterion for the college - stimulating professional interchange among community service practitioners - promoting closer relationships among state, regional and national associations devoted to similar goals. [48:1] The decision to organize a Council, which could be formed as an affiliate of the American Association of Junior Colleges Project on Community Services, was made as a result of the deliberations at the Atlanta Conference in March, 1969. At this conference a workshop on commu nity services, which included adult educators, deans of extended day, and directors of community services, recommended that: a working committee be appointed by Dr. Cummiskey to study the alternatives of community services organiza tion and to plan and recommend an organizational structure for community services personnel. [56:1] The committee consideration and recommendation resulted in the National Council which will be affiliated with the American Association of Junior Colleges through the community services project. The organization of the Council will be a major step in the continued recognition of community services as a function of the junior college in American society. 101 The Community Services Project of the American Association of Junior Colleges has performed at least one major service to those community colleges which are either engaged in or contemplating involvement in a program of community services. It has provided a four-point defini tion of the function known as community services. Taken from Harlacher's study, the definition clearly shows the influence of California legislation and the effect of the work of the California Junior College Association Committee on Community Services in its early involvement in the process of delineation. Use of facilities, educational services, and recreation mentioned here as national objectives show the effect which the California community colleges have had on the development of community services. The final item, leadership in community involvement, is the next and perhaps the most important development in community services in the rest of the nation as well as in California. Community services is now widely recognized as a major function of the community college. And while the community college services its community through its regular programs and activities, an increasing number of colleges now provide in cooperation with other community agencies, special programs of community services, i.e., educational, cultural, and recrea tional services above and beyond regularly scheduled day and evening classes. By so doing, these institu tions recognize that by definition the community college has an obligation to: 1. Become a center of community life by encouraging 102 the use of college facilities and services by community groups when such use does not interfere with the college1s regularly scheduled day and evening programs; 2. Provide educational services for all age groups which utilize the special skills and knowledge of the college staff and other experts and are designed to meet the needs of community groups and the college district community at large; 3. Provide the community with the leadership and coordination capabilities of the college, assist the community in long-range planning, and join with individuals and groups in attacking unsolved problems; 4. Contribute to and promote the cultural/ intellec tual/ and social life of the college district commu nity and the development of skills for the profitable use of leisure time. [53:1] The dramatic sense of direction which is now evident in the community services movement is expressed by Harlacher in the Community Dimension of the Community College: The full potential of the program is not yet realized by all institutions. But there is reason to believe that the next great thrust of community college development will be in the direction of community services. [50:ii-iii] Summary of the Chapter In the first of the six sections of this chapter an examination of the principles of American education was made, followed by a brief review of the land grant colleges and the Extension Program development in the United States. A summary of the historical development of the junior college was then made with emphasis upon the influence of the University, the effect of the secondary system upon the development, and the support 103 given to the movement by personalities as well as other types of educational institutions. The process of curric ulum development from transfer education through terminal and semi-professional course offering was then examined with an analysis being made of those functions which led to the concept of the community college. A review of the development of the community services function of the community college was then provided with details of the types of programs which characterize this function. The development of community services in California was summarized through pertinent literature relating to the California Master Plan for Higher Education and the California Junior College Association. Included was a section describing the legal provisions for community services in the State of California and a review of federal legislation affecting community services. Particular attention was directed toward an analysis of the creation and developmental tasks of the Committee for Community Services of the California Junior College Association. A review of the documentation of the accomplishments of this Committee was provided as well as a concluding section dealing with the effect on community services of the creation of a Kellogg-sponsored project of community services through the American Association of Junior Colleges. 104 In general, the literature reveals a philosophical relationship between the rise of the land grant extension programs and the growing comprehensive nature of the community college. It likewise reveals a relationship between successful institutions of higher education and their capacity to become instruments responding to the direct needs of the community. Finally, the literature reveals that, as the community colleges move forward in fulfilling their educational mission, there probably will be a major thrust in the area of community services development. CHAPTER III THE PROCEDURES The procedures for organizing and conducting this study of recent developments in community services programs in California community colleges include the following steps: (1) delimiting the study, (2) selecting a format for the study, (3) developing the questionnaire, (4) mailing the questionnaire, (5) organizing the findings, (6) completing the study. The remainder of this chapter is concerned with the detailed description of each of these procedures. Delimiting the St^idy After a careful review of the development of the community services function of the community college, it seemed appropriate to delimit this study to an investiga tion of the programs of community services in the 88 pub lic junior colleges which were in operation in the State of California for all or part of the school year 196 8- 1969. Of primary importance in this decision was the method of financing programs of community services in 105 106 California public junior colleges. The permissive tax rate allows for program development from a restricted financial base not available to other than the public junior colleges. In addition, in the State of California, patterns of administration and staff support for programs in public institutions can differ significantly from those of private two-year colleges. The Format of the Styidy It was determined that a study of this type should be conducted through the use of a questionnaire survey of the junior colleges which met the criteria outlined above. Developing the Questionnaire The questionnaire was developed after a review of the literature, and through discussions with various community services personnel in the State of California. It was determined that the basic structure of the ques tionnaire would correspond as nearly as possible to the section on community services as outlined in the standards for Accrediting Junior Colleger, July 1968 and as expanded in the Application for Accreditation, July 1968— Western Association of Schools and Colleges. This decision was, in part/ the result of the wish to gather meaningful data which would best describe trends and which would be based upon a set of uniform standards 107 ! which had been used since 1966. It was determined that community services personnel, to whom the questionnaire was directed, would be familiar with the terminology of the application for accreditation and that the question naire would, in turn, be helpful to those whose job it was to evaluate the program of community services. A draft of the proposed questionnaire was developed and presented to the following members of the California Junior College Standing Committee on Community Services for their advice and criticism: 1. Dr. Keith Broman— Coordinator of Community Activities, Mira Costa College 2. Dr. George J. Faul— President, Monterey Peninsula College 3. Arthur Knopf— Coordinator of Community Services, Riverside City College 4. Dr. William P. Niland— President, Diablo Valley College 5. Timothy Welch— Dean of Community Services, Cabrillo College Many valuable suggestions were made by the individuals in the group and their ideas were incorporated in a pilot questionnaire. This instrument was then resubmitted to the group for application to their own institutions. Several additional suggestions on the 10 8 nature and extent of specific questions resulted from the pilot project and these were incorporated in the final questionnaire. The questionnaire, when completed, consisted of six main sections, 24 subsections, and 177 individual items. A copy of the questionnaire form is found in Appendix A. Marking the Questionnaire The junior college administrators responsible for the programs of community services were selected as the respondents to the questionnaire. These persons were identified from the Directory of Community Services Personnel published by the Committee on Community Services of the California Junior College Association in 1968. In those institutions where a chief administrator for com munity services did not exist, the questionnaire was directed to the Office of the President. In April, 1969, the mailing of the questionnaire, with a covering letter, was made. A copy of the covering letter is found in Appendix B. In less than three weeks, 39 colleges had returned the questionnaire. At that point a reminder was mailed to those colleges which had not responded, and within three weeks of the second contact, 21 additional colleges had responded. A personal call to several of the remaining colleges produced two 109 ’ additional questionnaires in time to be included in the study. In all, 62, or 70.5 per cent, of the eligible colleges returned a marked questionnaire. Organizing the Findings The findings were organized into two categories: district information and individual college campus information. It became necessary in the organization of the findings occasionally to report the information from a district base rather than from a college base. One example of this is in the matter of finances, where meaningful data is often available only on a district basis. In all instances the difference in categories of information is identified in Chapter IV of this study. Following the completion of the questionnaire by the participating colleges, the information was collated and tabulated and was used to provide the findings in Chapter IV of this dissertation. Completing the Study Once the information had been gathered from the questionnaires, the balance of the study was designed to interpret the findings. This interpretation was completed in terms of conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further research. The study, in addition, was reviewed and summarized. 110 I Summary of the Chapter In summary, the study consisted of a questionnaire survey which was developed through the assistance of members of the California Junior College Association Standing Committee on Community Services and followed the basic outline for accreditation by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. A pilot questionnaire was administered by members of the Community Services Committee and their suggestions were incorporated into the final questionnaire. The instrument itself allowed for the collection of information which reflected the posture of both district and individual colleges in matters pertaining to the program of community services. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS DERIVED FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this study was to examine community services programs in public junior colleges in the State of California and to analyze recent developments in order to note differences in program emphasis over the past three years. In addition, it was expected that plans for the immediate future would be evident and could become part of the examination of developments. In order to secure the necessary data for this study a questionnaire was developed and sent to all 88 public junior colleges which were in operation during all or a portion of the school year, 1968-1969. Of the colleges contacted, 62, or 70.5 per cent, responded by returning the questionnaire; of the 67 public junior college districts in operation during 1968-1969, 51, or 76.1 per cent, are represented in the survey. In most instances data is drawn only from those questions which have complete responses indicated for a four-year period. This is noted in the representation of the findings. Ill 112 Because of the nature of the distribution of the permissive override community services tax within districts, it was desirable, for the purposes of the study, to place the junior colleges into categories which describe the financial and governance structure of the district. In April, 1969 the Coordinating Council for Higher Education published a Directory of Higher Education Institutions in California in which it identified five distinct types of junior college districts then in existence. These districts were: 1. Independent junior college districts 2. Joint junior college districts 3. Unified junior college districts 4. Union junior college districts 5. Joint union junior college districts The basis for the different types of districts is, of course, the way in which financial support is levied and collected and the manner in which the district is governed. An independent junior college district has its own board of trustees charged only with the governance of the junior college. In addition it regulates, within the provisions of the law, its own tax rates which are levied to support the educational program of the college. A joint junior college district differs in that its boundaries lie within more than one county. This becomes 113 primarily a problem of finances, with the distribution of taxes collected on properties with varying tax rates. The unified junior college district has one board of trustees serving kindergarten through grade 14 and one financial base to serve all levels of education. The union junior college district is, in reality, an anachronism, since only one existed in 1968-1969. Before the wide practice of the unification of school districts, many union high school districts were formed to serve, as an independent agency, several elementary school districts. At least one of these districts established a junior college and retained the original structure. In addition, in 1968- 1969 one of these union junior college districts existed across county lines and there was one joint union junior college district. For the purpose of examination of the use of the permissive community services tax it was thought best to categorize the districts further by identifying single campus and multi-campus districts. Since only one commu nity services tax can be levied, a single campus district has an advantage in the distribution of the funds over a multi-campus district. This fact alone can determine the quantity of community services offerings on any single campus. By this process of dividing single and multi campus districts it, in effect, creates three additional 114 classifications. Both of the junior colleges were, of course, single campuses. The following list indicates the types of districts identified and gives the total disr tricts and colleges for the year 1968-1969. . Number Reporting Type Descriptive Title - ---------------- ' ■ ---- Districts Colleges I Independent junior college district--single campus 29 29 II Independent junior college district— multi-campus 10 20 III Joint junior college dis trict— single campus 5 5 IV Joint junior college dis trict;— multi-campus 1 2 V Unified junior college dis trict— single campus 3 3 VI Unified junior college dis trict— multi-campus 1 1 VII Union junior college dis trict— single campus 1 1 VIII Joint union junior college district— single campus 1 51 1 62 However, after a personal interview with the presidents of the colleges in categories VII and VIII, it was determined that' the basis of the data from the financial portion of the questionnaire from these particr ular colleges would be identical with other categories, and they were, therefore, for the sake of simplicity, absorbed into categories I and III. This did not violate 115 the principle of separation of districts and the following totals were used in the analysis of the data: Number Reporting Type Descriptive Title : ---------- - 4-- Districts Colleges I Independent junior college dis trict— single campus 30 30 II Independent junior college dis trict— multi-campus 10 20 III Joint junior college district— single campus 6 6 IV Joint junior college district— multi-campus 1 2 V Unified junior college dis trict— single campus 3 3 VI Unified junior college dis trict— multi-campus 1 51 1 62 The numbers of the various types of colleges by district are not the same for each of the four years of the study. The following totals were used in the analysis of information from the questionnaire when the findings involved the need of a four year pattern of growth. All findings in this category of growth are identified in this chapter as they relate to specific questions. The number of colleges included in this study, which were in operation during each year, were as follows: 116 1966-1967 1967-1968 1968-1969 1969-: Type I 29 30 30 30 Type II 17 19 20 20 Type III 6 6 6 6 Type IV 2 2 2 2 Type V 3 3 3 3 Type VI 1 1 1 1 Total number 1 arroc 58 61 62 62 Percentages of Questionnaire Returns from All Public Junior Colleges by Categories Type Percentage of District Returns Percentage of Campus Returns I 76.9 76.9 II 90.9 66.7 III 60.0 60.0 IV 100.0 100.0 V 60.0 60.0 VI 100.0 50.0 The balance of this chapter is a report of the findings of the questionnaire presented in the basic sequence of questions which were used to secure the information, As has been mentioned, a good portion of the questionnaire follows the outline for the accredita tion application for the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The exception to the basic format was an 117 inclusion cf questions on details of financing, general information about the college, questions concerning the involvement of the college in the solutions to community, problems, and the opportunity to express opinions about the future of the function of community services. The following data represent the findings of the questionnaire survey. The Colleges The public junior colleges included in this report as Type I, independent, single campus districts, were: Barstow College Butte College Cabrillo College Cerritos College Chaffey College Citrus College Compton College Cuesta College El Camino College Grossmont College Lassen College Marin College Mira Costa College Monterey Peninsula College Napa Junior College Ohlone College Palomar College Pasadena City College Redwoods, College of the Rio Hondo Junior College 118 Riverside City College San Jose City College Santa Ana College Santa Barbara City College Santa Rosa Junior College Sequoias, College of the Sierra College Southwestern College Taft College Yuba College The public junior colleges included in this report as Type II, independent, multi-campus districts, were: American River College Columbia Junior College Contra Costa College Cypress Junior College De Anza College Diablo Valley College Foothill College Fullerton Junior College Laney College Los Angeles City College Los Angeles Harbor College Los Angeles Pierce College Los Angeles Trade-Technical College Los Angeles Valley College Modesto Junior College Moorpark College Orange Coast College Reedley College Sacramento City College Ventura College 119 The public junior colleges included in this report as Type III, joint junior college, single campus dis tricts , were: Antelope Valley College Chabot College Hartnell College San Bernardino Valley College Shasta College Victor Valley College The public junior colleges included in this report as Type IV, joint junior college, multi-campus districts, were: Bakersfield College Porterville College The public junior colleges included in this report as Type V, unified, single campus districts, were: Long Beach City College Palo Verde College San Francisco, City College of The public junior college included in this report as Type VI, unified, multi-campus district, was: San Diego Mesa College General Information About the Colleges 1. Indicate your college total enrollment for the Fall semester, 1968 As illustrated in Table 1, 10 colleges, or 16.1 per cent of the total colleges reporting, reported an TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF COLLEGE TOTAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT, FALL SEMESTER, 196 8, IN 62 PUBLIC CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGES Student Type District Percentage Enrollment I II III IV V VI (N = 62) Under 1,000 4 3 1 1 1 - 10 16.1 1,000-4,999 12 1 2 - - - 15 24.2 5,000-9,999 10 7 1 1 - 1 20 32.3 Over 10,000 4 9 2 — 2 - 17 27.4 Totals 30 20 6 2 3 1 62 100.0 enrollment during the Fall semester of 1968 of under 1,000 students. Most of the colleges in this group belonged to independent, single, or multi-campus districts. Fifteen colleges, or 24.2 per cent of those responding, indicated an enrollment between 1,000 and 4,999. Most were single campus independent districts. The third group of colleges, reporting between 5,000 and 9,999 students, numbered 20 and represented the largest percentage, 32.3 per cent. Again, most were colleges located in independent, single campus districts. In the large college category of over 10.000 students, 17 colleges reported an enrollment of between 10,000 and 21,000 students. The largest district report came from Type V, a single campus unified school district with 20,020 students in the Fall of 196 8. Of all 62 colleges reporting, 27.4 per cent were in the over 10.000 group with most being independent, multi-campus districts. Los Angeles Junior College District accounted for most of these colleges. As illustrated in Table 2, colleges from Type I— independent, single campus districts— reported total enrollments for the Fall of 1968 as 157,322, or 27.7 per cent of the total enrollment of all of the public junior colleges in California for the same period. Twenty colleges in Type II— independent, multi-campus districts— indicated a total enrollment of 163,990, or 28.9 per cent of the State total. Type III— joint, single campus— TABLE 2 TOTAL STUDENT ENROLLMENT, FALL SEMESTER, 1968, IN 62 PUBLIC CALIFORNIA JUNIOR COLLEGES Type of District Colleges Reporting Total Enrollment Percentage of Total State Enrollment in All Public Junior Colleges* I 30 157,322 27.7 II 20 163,990 28.9 III 6 34,194 6.0 IV 2 10,345 1.8 V 3 34,632 6 .i VI 1 6,354 1.1 406,837 71.6 *Report from Office of Chancellor, California Community Colleges, Sacramento, California, January 24, indicated a total enrollment in all public junior colleges. Fall semester, 1968, as 568,146. 123 districts reporting gave their total enrollment for the six campuses as 34,194, or 6.0 per cent of the State total. The two colleges in Type IV— joint, multi-campus districts— reported 10,345 students, or 1.8 per cent of the State total. Three colleges in-Type V— unified, single campus districts— reported a total enrollment of 34,632, or 6.1 per cent of the total junior college stu dents in the State, while the one college reporting in Type VI— a unified, multi-campus district— revealed an enrollment of 6,354, or 1.1 per cent of the total for the State. Total figures indicate that 71.6 per cent of all public junior college students in the State of California for the Fall semester, 1968, were enrolled in colleges included in this study. Of the 16 districts which did not return questionnaires, one had less than 1,000 students enrolled in the Fall of 1968; eight had between 1,000 and 4,999 enrolled; three districts had between 5,000 and 9,999; and four of the largest districts in the State had over 10,000 students enrolled during this period. These four districts alone, San Mateo Junior College District, Santa Monica Unified School District, Mt. San Antonio College Junior College District, and San Diego City College, which did not report for the unified school dis trict, represented a total of 60,578 students, almost half of those California public junior college students not included in the study. 124 2. Indicate the estimated popula tion of the community served by your District Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the findings which con cluded the general college district information requested on the questionnaire. Table 3 compares estimated district population by type of district and Table 4 presents information regarding percentages, not only of districts reporting, but of total estimated State population. Type I, the independent, single campus district, showed an estimated population of 4,954,000, or 31.1 per cent of the total of the districts reporting. Type II, the independent, multi-campus district, reported 8,094,000 residents, which not only represented 50.8 per cent of the districts responding, but indicated that 40.9 per cent of the population of the State of California resides in this type of district. Type III, the joint, single campus district, reported 963,000, giving the figure of 6.1 per cent of the total of the districts answering the ques tionnaire. Type IV, the joint, multi-campus district with its two colleges, reported 60,000 residents and accounted for only .4 per cent of the total. Type V, on the other hand, the unified, single campus district, still accounted for 1,166,000 people in the Fall of 196 8 and showed a respectable percentage of 7.3 of the total population of the districts reporting. Type VI, the single unified, multi-campus district, reported that 681,000 people were 125 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTIMATED POPULATION SERVED BY 51 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS, FALL, 1968- Population in Thousands Type District Frequency I II III IV V VI 0-50 3 - - - 1 - 4 50-99 4 - 1 1 - - 6 100-199 15 - 3 - - - 18 200-299 3 2 1 - - - 6 300-399 4 2 1 - - - 7 400-499 1 - •- - 1 - 2 500-599 - 4 - - - - 4 600-699 - - - - - 1 1 700-799 - - - - 1 - 1 800-899 - 1 - - - - 1 900-999 - - - - - - 0 100,000+ - 1 - - - - 1 Totals 30 10 6 1 3 1 51 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED POPULATION SERVED BY 51 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS FALL, 1968 Type District Estimated Population Per Cent of Total Percentage of Total State Population* I 4,954,000 31.1 25.0 II 8,094,000 50.8 40.9 III 963,000 6.1 4.9 IV 60 ,000 .4 .3 V 1,166,000 7.3 5.9 VI 681,000 4.3 3.4 15,918,000 100.0 80.4 Mean of Districts in the Study: 312,115 *California State Department of Finance Report, 1969, estimated the State total population at 19,782,000. 127 served by its two colleges and made up 4.3 per cent of the total of the districts in the study. The mean for the 51 districts was a population of 312,115. Of significance is the fact that the estimates show clearly that 80.4 per cent of the total population of the State of California was represented in the findings of the study. Organization and Administration of Community Services 1. Is there a chief administrative officer for your community services program? Criteria used to measure this response was whether or not an administrator, bearing a title which contained the term community services and having a major portion of his assignment in community services, was present in the college administrative organization. A president who stated that he was the chief administrative officer was not counted in the tabulation. It should be noted that 53.8 per cent of those colleges which did not return the survey questionnaire did not have a chief administrator for community services in 1968-69. In addition, 7.8 per cent of the non-respondents had temporarily assigned the function to some other administrator on the college campus. Table 5 illustrates the distribution of chief 128 TABLE 5 THE NUMBER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS ASSIGNED TO COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES IN CALIFORNIA INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 By Type Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Type I Independent— Single campus 16 13 20 10 22 8 22 8 Type II Independent— Multi-campus 9 8 9 10 15 5 16 4 Type III Joint— single Campus 1 5 1 5 1 5 2 4 Type IV Joint— multi campus 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 Type V Unified— Single campus 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Type VI Unified— Multi-campus 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Total Responses 28 30 32 29 41 21 44 18 Number Total Colleges Reporting 58 61 62 62 *Number varies due to college opening dates. 129 administrators by type of college district and shows growth over a four-year period for the six types. Type I, independent, single campus, shows an increase in the number of individuals, but since the number of junior colleges was not a constant factor in considering these findings, no significant percentage was derived. It could only be stated that there were 16 Type I administrators in commu nity services in 1966-1967 serving 29 junior colleges and that there were 22 chief administrators serving 30 junior colleges in 1968-1969 with 30 projected for 1969-1970. This general pattern held true for all types of districts included in the study. However, Figure 1 shows a significant change over a four-year period when each year was examined separately as to the percentage of chief administrators for community services for the number of colleges. In 1966-1967, 48.3 per cent of the junior colleges included in this study had chief administrative officers in community services; in 1967-1968 there were 52.4 per cent; in 1968-1969 the percentage had risen to 66.1 per cent; and in 1969-1970 the 62 colleges reporting indicated a projected rise of community services administrators which would raise the percentage total to 70.9 per cent. 130 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 58 Colleges 61 Colleges 62 Colleges 62 Colleges Fig. 1.— Per cent of colleges with chief adminis trative officers assigned to community services in those public junior colleges in California which are included in this study, between 1966-1967 and 1969-1970. 99 131 2. What is the total number of people assigned to the administrative task of community services who are paid for out of community services funds? Include all full-time personnel — secretarial, clerical, etc. Do not include part-time per sonnel who are paid on an hourly basis. In making an analysis of the number of college personnel assigned to the administrative task of community services, no advantage was seen in comparing the colleges by the six types of districts outlined in the previous questions. Therefore, all colleges were grouped as single campuses with no distinction as to district. Table 6 shows that during the four-year period covered by the study, there was a gradual addition of per sonnel to the administrative task of community services, with 58 colleges reporting 83 staff members in 1966-1967. In 1967-1968, 61 colleges were served by 102 community services workers and in 1968-1969 the 62 colleges in the study employed 12 7 people in the many programs. The total college projection for 1969-19 70 was placed at 135 per sonnel aiding the program development function of commu nity services. Table 7 attempts to clarify this information by providing a mean of employees for each year in an effort to show a pattern of growth for the four-year period. Thus, in 1966-1967 the 58 colleges reporting 83 employees represent a mean of 1.4 community services workers for the 132 TABLE 6 THE NUMBER OF COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE TASK OF COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THOSE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY, BETWEEN 1966-1967 AND 1969-1970 Number of Number of Colleges Reporting Personnel 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 0 24 20 13 12 1 8 8 9 12 2 17 22 21 17 3 5 5 9 8 4 3 4 6 6 5 1 2 3 6 6 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 9 1 1 0 0 10 0 0 1 0 11 0 0 0 1 Total Personnel: 83 102 127 135 *Total Colleges Reporting: 58 61 62 62 *Number varies due to college opening dates. 133 TABLE 7 THE MEAN FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES PERSONNEL OF THE TOTAL COLLEGES REPORTING IN THIS SURVEY A. COLLEGES REPORTING 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Total personnel 83 102 127 135 Total colleges reporting 58 6.1 62 62 The mean of com munity services personnel per college 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.2 B. THE MEAN OF THOSE COLLEGES WHICH REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL IN COMMUNITY SERVICES 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Personnel 83 102 127 135 Colleges with administrative personnel 35 42 49 50 The mean of com munity services personnel per college 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 134 58 schools. In 1967-1968 the mean increased to 1.7, while in 1968-1969 it moved to 2.0. It is anticipated that there will be an increase to a mean of 2.2 personnel assigned to the administrative task of community services in 1969-1970. The second part of Table 7 illustrates that if only those colleges with community services administrative personnel were considered in the report, the mean increased. In 1966-1967, 35 colleges reported hiring the 83 staff members which represented a mean of 2.3 per college. The table shows that within one year the number of colleges reporting the use of community services per sonnel had moved to 42, showing an increase of 20 per cent for one year. Information indicated an average of 2.4 persons for each college reporting. In addition, 1968- 1969 figures showed 2.5 as an employee average and 50 colleges of the 62 studied indicated that in 1969-19 70 each would employ, as an average, 2.7 persons to conduct the administrative task of community services. Finances— Financial Support In order to interpret the financial support pro vided for community services programs in individual colleges, it became advisable to group all financial information into district groups. Since the provision for levying the community services tax rate is based on district lines, it becomes possible to compare single campus with multi-campus districts and independent with unified and joint college districts when speaking of financial resources. Thus, this portion of the findings deals with district effort rather than individual campus programs. 1. Does your district levy the recreation-community services tax as provided for in Educa tion Code Section #20801? 2. If so, what is the amount of the restricted tax rate which your district levies? Table 8 illustrates the divergence of community services financial support by the districts involved in this study. In the school year 1966-1967, 27 districts were levying the full five cent permissive tax, three districts levied between 4.0 cents and 4.9 cents, while two districts imposed between 3.0 and 3.9 cents upon property owners for the support of community services. Seven other districts levied less than 1.9 cents and eight reported no tax at all to support a program of this type. During this school year, there were 50 districts reporting. In 1967-1968, 30 districts levied the maximum rate; three districts asked for between 4.0 and 4.9 cents and the remaining districts imposed a tax of less than TABLE 8 THE COMMUNITY SERVICES TAX RATE LEVIED BY THE 51 PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS REPORTED IN THIS STUDY, BETWEEN 1966-1967 AND 1969-1970 1966-1967 1967-1968 Amount Type of District Total Amount Type of District Total of Tax I II III IV V VI of Tax I II III IV V VI 5$ Maximum 18 5 2 1 1 0 27 5£ Maximum 20 6 2 1 1 0 30 4.0-4.9 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 4.0-4.9 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 3.0-3.9 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 3.0-3.9 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 2.0-2.9 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 2.0-2.9 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1.0-1.9 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1.0-1.9 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 Less than 1.0 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 Less than 1.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 No tax 4 0 2 0 1 1. 8 No tax 5 0 2 0 1 1 9 Number of districts reporting 29 10 6. 1 3 ' 1 50* Number of districts reporting 30 10 6 1 3 1 51 *50 districts in 1966-1967; Number varies due to district opening dates. TABLE 8— Continued 1968-1969 1969-1970 Amount Type of District Total Amount Type of District Totai of Tax I II III IV V VI of Tax I II III IV V VI 5<r Maximum L9 6 3 1 11 0 30 5% Maximum 19 6 3 1 1 0 30 4.0-4.9 0 1 1 0 00 0 2 4.0-4.9 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 3.9-3.9 2 1 1 0 0 0 4 3.0-3.9 2 2 1 0 0 0 5 2.0-2.9 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.0-2.9 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.0-1.9 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 1.0-1.9 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 Less than 1.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Less than 1.0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 No tax 6 0 1 0 1 1 9 No tax 4 0 1 0 1 1 7 Number of districts reporting 30 10 6 1 3 1 51 Number of districts reporting 30 10 6 1 3 1 51 H CO 138 4 cents. In the preceding year, there were twenty dis tricts in this category. For the remaining years in the study, there was a relative constancy in the numbers of districts which levied more than a 4 cent tax rate. In both 1968-1969 and 1969-1970, 30 districts levied a 5 cent rate, with one of the sample going from a 4 cent to a 5 cent and one shifting from a 5 cent to a 4 cent rate. Little difference was noted in total numbers, but there was evidence to support the contention that there was a slight shift upwards in the amount of tax rate levied. The 1969-1970 report indicated a definite trend away from no plan to levy the tax rate with only seven total dis tricts not anticipating use of the funds to support a program of community services. Of those districts which are classified as Type I and not levying the tax in 1969-1970, three were small rural colleges with a combined enrollment of less than 7,000 and the fourth district relied heavily on community contribution to support its community services program. One small college not levying the tax reponded to the question with the following explanation: With an assessed valuation of less than $24,000,000, a permissive tax would raise around $10,000, not con sidered worth the negative community resentment at such taxation. Likewise, the single Type III district not levying the tax was a small rural district with a single campus 139 and an enrollment of 1.439 students in the fall of 1968. The single campus unified school district, Type V, which has no tax, made the following comment: We have not used Community Services funds: When separated from the unified school district, budgeting will, of course, change. Further comment by this district indicated a desire to explore the potential of using the tax source for program funding. The single district in Type VI— multi-campus unified school district— which was not using the tax, responded in a one-word manner. In the space provided for the year 1969-1970, the respondent had written the word, "hopefully." 3. What is your community services income from- this tax rate? Of the 51 districts involved in this dissertation only 31 reported a figure for income for all four years of the study. As has been mentioned, in order to make a meaningful comparison or to identify growth, only those districts reporting for the entire period could be used in the examination of income. Table 9 shows that only Types I, II, and III fell into this analysis pattern and the total figures reflected a net increase in income of $3,917,000 for the 31 districts over a four-year period. This is nearly a 56 per cent increase. Further analysis indicated that by studying only those districts which had TABLE 9 COMMUNITY SERVICES INCOME PRODUCED FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES TAX RATE LEVIED BY THOSE DISTRICTS REPORTING INCOME FOR ALL FOUR YEARS Type of District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Districts Reporting All Four Years Type I: Independent Single campus $1,828,000 $2,009,000 $2,112,000 $2,385,000 20 Type II: Independent Multi-campus 2,772,000 3,115,000 5 ,549,000 5,854,000 7 Type III: Joint Single campus 352,000 437,000 646,000 640,000 4 Totals $4,952,000 $5,561,000 $8,307,000 $8,879,000 31 Note: Types IV, V, and VI did not report for all four years. 141 levied the maximum tax rate for all four years, there was a 29 per cent growth in net income for these 13 districts. This 29 per cent would represent, in general terms, a description of the increase in assessed valuation of these 13 districts. The remaining percentage of the 56 per cent growth factor was attributable to those larger districts which increased their tax rate in combination with the normal rate of increase in assessed valuation. A large multi-campus metropolitan district, as an example, went from less than 1 cent tax rate in 1966 to a rate of 3.25 cents in 1969, producing a difference in income of $2,505,000. 4. In your budget approximately what percentage of your community services restricted tax income was appropri ated for (a) civic center expendi tures, (b) educational services, (c) recreational services, (d) other (such items as capitaT outlay )T As in the previous question, only a portion of the districts supplied enough information to provide a com parison of percentages for all four years encompassed by the study. Of the 51 districts reporting, 24 answered the question fully and only this data was used in the report of the findings. In Type I— independent, single campus districts— 14 out of 30 districts reported, for a total of 46.6 per cent. Of the type II— independent, multi-campus districts— 80 per cent responsed, or 8 out of 142 10 districts in the category answered for all four years. In all other types represented, only 16 per cent response, or two districts out of a potential of 12, indicated per centages of expenditures of the restricted tax income between the years 1966-1967 and 1969-1970. Table 10 illustrates the mean percentages of the described categories for all districts. Civic center expenditure for the 24 districts reporting showed a drop of 1.2 per cent in the mean for the four-year period, while educational services, as a description of a commu nity services type of offering, declined in the mean average report a total of 1.9 per cent. Recreation over the four-year period also showed a drop of 2.8 per cent as an average for the 24 districts. The only category to show an increase in the mean growth occurred in the "other" category. It represented a reported increase of 5.9 per cent when shown as an average figure. In order to understand better the fluctuations which existed within the four categories, it might be better stated that over the four-year period nine dis tricts showed no increase or decrease in expenditures for the category "civic center," while five showed an increase and ten districts showed a net decrease in the amount of funds spent for this purpose. Thus, it can be seen in Table 11 that even though the mean percentage in expenditure for civic center showed 143 TABLE 10 THE MEAN OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RESTRICTED COMMUNITY SERVICES FUNDS FOR FOUR SPECIFIC AREAS IN 24 PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS Function 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Districts Reporting All Four Years A. Civic center 27.4% 25.4% 26.2% 26.2% 24 B. Educational services 29.4 28.0 27.5 27.5 24 C. Recreation 11.6 10.7 8.8 8.8 24 D. Other (Capital outlay) 31.6 35.9 37.5 37.5 24 Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% TABLE 11 THE NUMBER OF DISTRICTS WHICH REPORTED EITHER NO CHANGE, A DECREASE, OR AN INCREASE IN THE EXPENDITURE OF RESTRICTED COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDS IN 24 PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICTS Function Districts Which Reported No Net Change from 1966-67 to 1969-70 Districts Which Reported an Increase in Expenditure from 1966-67 to 1969-70 Districts Which Reported a Decrease in Expenditure from 1966-67 to 1969-70 Total Districts A. Civic center 10 24 B. Educational services 24 C. Recreational services 12 24 D. Other (Capital Outlay) 10 24 144 145 a decrease of 1.2 per cent, there were actually 14 out of the 24 districts which either increased the amount of budget support in this category or maintained the level of funds which had been spent during the school year 1966-1967. Educational services also reflect in Table 11 the fact that 17 out of the 24 districts either continued support.or strengthened their effort in this area of com munity services. Twenty out of 24 districts continued or increased funding for recreational services while only five of the total districts reported a decrease in the effort of support in the "other" category, such as capital outlay in support of community service programs. It is interesting to note that one district reported going from 2 per cent expenditure in 1966-1967 to a 75 per cent effort in this "other" category in 1969-1970. Further investigation revealed that at least two districts planned major recreation capital outlay expenditure for the school year 1969-1970, which helped to cause the net gain of 5.9 per cent in the area of capital outlay. 5. Did you have additional community services revenue from the following sources? (a) Fees for classes, (bT fees for forums, seminars, etc., (c) fees for recreational services. In determining the community services financial effort which a district makes, it was desirable to examine additional sources of revenue other than the restricted 146 tax fund. Typical of these sources are the fees charged for services. The California Education Code, 1967, Article 12, Section 6321, Community Services Classes and Chapter 6, Section 16651, Community Recreation, authorize the charging of fees to meet the expenses of the services offered by the district. Many districts avail themselves of the opportunity offered by the Education Code by using the provisions in order to secure funds. Table 12 illus trates the extent and variations of the use of fees in classes, seminars, and recreational services by the colleges. Of the Type I, independent, single campus dis tricts > nine schools collected fees for classes in 1966- 1967 and this figure increased to 12 in 1969-1970. How ever, 18 colleges in this category did not charge a fee in 1966-1967 and this figure had not increased by 1969-1970. This same pattern, which shows very little shift in the direction of collecting fees for classes, can be seen in all types of districts and reflected itself in the total responses. In 1966-1967, 13 colleges levied a fee and in 1969-1970, 17 colleges planned on using the source for funds. For the same period 40 colleges did not levy a fee and this figure had not decreased in 1969-1970. Fees for forums, seminars, workshops, and other short-term offerings varied only slightly from the pattern seen in the table representing class fees. In 1966-1967 TABLE 12 THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY WHICH CHARGED A FEE FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES CLASSES, FORUMS, SEMINARS, AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES A. FEES FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES CLASSES Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Type I 9 18 2 10 20 0 11 19 0 12 18 0 Type II 4 13 0 4 15 0 5 15 0 5 15 0 Type III 0 5 1 0 4 2 0 5 1 0 4 2 Type IV 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Type V 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 Type VI 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total response 13 40 5 14 43 4 16 43 3 17 40 5 Total colleges 58 61 62 62 147 TABLE 12— Continued B. FEES FOR FORUMS, SEMINARS, ETC. Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Type I 9 18 2 8 21 1 9 20 1 10 19 1 Type II 5 12 0 6 13 0 6 14 0 6 14 0 Type III 0 5 1 0 4 2 0 5 1 1 3 2 Type IV 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Type V 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type VI 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total response 14 39 5 15 41 5 16 42 4 18 39 5 Total colleges 58 61 62 62 148 TABLE 12— Continued C. FEES FOR RECREATIONAL SERVICES Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Type I 8 18 3 9 20 1 10 19 1 10 19 1 Type II 4 13 0 6 13 0 7 13 0 7 13 0 Type III 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2 2 Type IV 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Type V 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 1 Type VI 0 0 1 0.. 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total Response 14 38 6 17 39 5 19 39 4 19 38 5 Total Colleges 58 61 62 62 150 Type I— independent, single campus districts— nine colleges charged a fee for forums, seminars, etc., and in 1969-1970, ten of those colleges in Type I charged the fee. For the same period 18 colleges did not charge the fee and this grew to 19 colleges which projected plans for doing so in 1969-1970. Of the totals in this cate gory, there were 14 colleges in 1966-1967 which did charge a fee and this increased to 18 projected for 1969-1970. In 1966-1967, 39 colleges did not charge a fee, nor did they plan to in 1969-1970. Again, recreation showed the same pattern, with eight Type I colleges charging some fee for recreational services in 1966-1967 and ten in 1969-1970. Likewise, there was only a slight difference in the Type I colleges reporting no fee for both 1966-1967 and 1969-1970. There were 18 schools in the first instance and 19 in the second category. Totals were similar for recreational services fees with 14 charging fees in 1966-1967 and 19 in 1969-1970. In 1966-1967, 38 colleges did not charge a fee and in 1969-1970, 38 colleges reported that there were no plans for a fee charge for recreational services. Table 13 is an attempt to summarize the responses for the three areas for which fees are charged. The reports indicated that there was a slight increase in fee charging in all three areas for all schools reporting for the four-year period of time. There was also, in all TABLE 13 A SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES IN THIS STUDY WHICH CHARGED FEES AS A SOURCE OF INCOME TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Fees for classes 13 40 5 14 43 4 16 43 3 17 40 5 Fees for forums 14 39 5 15 41 5 16 42 4 18 39 5 Fees for recrea tional 14 38 6 17 39 5 19 39 4 19 38 5 services 152 three areas, no decrease in the number of schools from 1966-1967 to 1969-1970 which charged a fee. In recording the information, there was no dis- cernable pattern to indicate that a school which charged a fee for classes in 1966-1967 would likewise charge a fee during all four years. In fact, of all the 62 colleges reporting, there were only three which reported charging a fee for all three categories for all four years. These colleges belonged to independent districts, two being multi-campus in nature. Two other colleges reported a complete reversal in four years, one going from no fees in all categories in 1966-1967 to fees in all categories in 1969-1970, and the other college going from fees in the first year of the report to no fees in the final year. There were numerous instances of colleges rever sing themselves in single categories. An example would be that of the nine independent single campus colleges in Type I which charged a fee for classes in 1966-1967; only six of the original nine were included in the 12 colleges which reported a fee schedule for 1969-1970. Similar instances were noted throughout the responses to the question regarding additional community services revenue. 6. Did your college receive any federal funds for projects which were administered through com- munity services? In the use of federal funds for community services, colleges were asked to distinguish between project programs and the more usual form of federal support such as student work study. Colleges were asked to identify specific programs in the following way: 1. Was the program MDTA (Manpower Development and Training Act) in nature? 2. Was it designed for one particular interest group such as elderly, handicapped, disadvantaged, etc. 3. Was the primary purpose of the project the solu tion to a community-wide problem? 4. Was the project designed and initiated by Com munity services? There were 10 colleges in all that responded in the affirmative to the basic question of the use of federal funds. Types I, II, and III districts were included in this group. Three of the respondents were discarded because they did not provide enough support information to verify the use of federal funds over the past three years, and two additional questionnaires indicated a plan for the 1969-1970 year if funds were available. These two schools in the latter category were part of a large Type II independent multi-campus district which had never used federal funds to support community services activity. 154 Thus there remained five individual colleges which had used federal funding to support specific programs. Two of these colleges, both single campus inde pendent districts, have been using federal funds to administer programs through community services for the past four years. Both colleges indicated that the pro grams were MDTA in nature and designed for a particular group. In this case both were concerned with hard-core unemployables who had been referred to the community services program through the State Office of Employment. Both schools saw the program as a solution to a community problem and both had initiated the project. In addition to the MDTA hard-core unemployed, vocational nursing was listed as a project of one of the colleges and the other indicated that it had plans to conduct an expanded adult training center in 1969-1970 with federal funds under various acts and titles. These two colleges represented the schools using federal funds during the period covered by the study. Two other colleges had begun using MDTA project funds in 1968-1969 and planned to continue such use through 1969-1970. Efforts of both colleges were directed toward a specific group, in this case the Mexican-American population, and both agreed that the project was aimed toward the solution to a community problem. In addition, both had worked closely through the California State 155 Department of Employment and had handled enrollment in the program on a referral basis. The initiator of the project was identified as the Department of Employment by both of these colleges. The remaining example of a college using federal funds was a Type II independent multi-campus district and it had begun using this source of funds to support commu nity services programs in 1968-1969. Its project was identified as a demonstration program which had been sponsored through the Office of Economic Opportunity in concert with other agencies. The community services officer who completed the questionnaire had stated that the Office of Community Services had played a major sup portive administrative role. He also indicated plans for the continuation of this support in the future and had plans for two other projects under another act and title. Of the ten questionnaires selected as a meaningful response to this particular financial support section, nine indicated plans for the year 1969-1970. Some plans were identified, as has been mentioned, some were not fully explained, but all, to some degree or another, are included in the sum total of the colleges which have used, or are using, or who plan to use, federal funds in some community services project. 156 7. Are you in the process of applying for federal funds for a project through community services?" Of the ten colleges identified in the previous question as having either used or who are planning to use federal funds, five responded to this question in the affirmative and described their basic applications. The following are descriptions of the applications: College I "Senior Citizens Program" through Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965. II "Research and Action Project for Urban and Social Development" under Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Ill "Occupational and Educational Advisement" under Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (will serve an 8-campus district). IV Demonstration project under Office of Economic Opportunity. V "Training for Industry" and Learning Materials Center equipment for Adult Training Center under Title IIIA. 8. Did your college receive any funds for community services projects from any other sources? (Federal funds and restricted tax rate) 9. Was this money used to defray expenses of a particular program? Since all colleges answering Question 8 in the affirmative likewise answered "yes" to Question 9, both questions are included in this section of the findings derived from the questionnaire. 157 Table 14 illustrates the number of colleges, by type of district, which indicated receiving funds other than the restricted tax rate or special federal funding for community services projects. Most of the colleges reporting were in either Type I or Type II districts with only one college in 1967-1968 using such funds for its program. In 1966-1967 there were nine colleges of the 59 colleges included in the study which used additional funds. In 1967-1968, 15 of the 62 colleges reported using other sources of monies and in 1968-1969 the total number decreased to 11 colleges. Eight campuses reported plans for the use of funds in 1969-19 70. Table 15 identifies the source of funds for these colleges and gives the total number of respondents for each category of additional support. These totals differ from Table 15, since some single colleges reported using more than one source of funds. In the year 1966-1967 two schools applied for and received support from the California Arts Commission and three colleges used student body funds, college foundation program funds, and local Fine Arts Foundation or Council monies to help support and defray the expenses of particu lar programs. In 1967-1968 the California Arts Commission gave financial support to five community colleges and student body funds continued to support the community services offerings on the campuses of three colleges. In 158 TABLE 14 THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES WHICH RECEIVED FINANCIAL SUPPORT BEYOND STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS IN THEIR PROGRAMS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES. YEARLY FIGURES ARE CATEGORIZED BY DISTRICT TYPES AND THE TOTAL REPRESENTS THE NUMBER OF COLLEGES WHICH REPORTED IN THIS STUDY District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969 Type I 5 9 6 6 Type II 4 5 5 2 Type III 0 1 0 0 Type IV 0 0 0 0 Type V 0 0 0 0 Type VI 0 0 0 0 Total districts: 9 15 11 8 159 TABLE 15 VARIOUS SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS IN THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY Sources of Funds Report by Colleges 1966-■67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1. California Arts Commission 2 5 1 0 2. College student body 3 3 3 3 3. College founda tion programs 3 4 4 3 4. Local fine arts foundation or council 3 3 3 3 5. Other recreational agencies 0 1 1 1 *Totals 11 16 12 10 *Total differs from Table 15 because some colleges reported for more than one category of source of funds. addition, the same year saw college foundation contribu tions being used by four campuses and the continued support of local fine arts foundations or councils supported programs on three college campuses. During this same year one college reported receiving recreation funds from a local recreational agency to support the college recreation program. A dramatic reduction of the amount of support from the California Arts Commission testified to the cutback in State allocation to that body in 1968-1969. During this year only one college received support from the Arts Commission and none of the colleges reported help during the 1969-1970 period. No other change in the numerical distribution of sources of funds occurred during 1968-1969 and this pattern, except for a slight variation, remained static for the year 1969-1970. In 1969-1970 ten colleges would gain support for their community services program by appealing to and receiving funds from sources other than the income from the restricted tax or federal allocation. Use of College Facilities and Services 1. What is the estimated number of community organizations that use your facilities? In order to make meaningful comparisons in the degree of growth in the use of college facilities, it 161 became necessary to use only information which covered the four-year period of the study. Only the colleges which provided a figure for all four years were used. There were 26 Type I independent, single campus districts which met the criteria of the four-year period. Seventeen colleges were selected from the Type II independent multi campus category and the remaining types provided full information which permitted the use of all the colleges in these groupings. This process of selectivity elimi nated three colleges which had not been in existence for all four years and even though the information supplied by these schools supported the general growth rate seen in the overall pattern, the information was not used since it did not follow the basic criteria. Fifty-five colleges met the criteria and were used to report the findings from this portion of the question naire . Table 16 illustrates the rate of growth in the use of college facilities by community organizations both numerically in Section A and by percentages in Section B. Section B attempts to show overall change between the base year 1966-1967 and the final year included in the study, 1969-1970. Type I colleges showed an increase of 30.1 per cent in the use of the facilities and Type II schools reported an increase of 52.5 per cent for the same period. Type III recorded a 31.7 per cent growth in the TABLE 16 USE OF COLLEGE FACILITIES BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE OF USE OF SUCH FACILITIES BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE YEARS 1966-1967 TO 1969-1970, BY THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES REPORTING FOR ALL FOUR YEARS A. THE NUMBER OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS USING COLLEGE FACILITIES Colleges by Type District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting All Four Years Type I— Independent single campus 1965 2166 2392 2557 26 Type II— Independent multi-campus 1236 1412 1629 1885 17 Type III— Joint single campus 467 507 555 615 6 Type IV— Joint multi-campus 174 175 206 226 2 Type V— Unified single campus 135 135 145 150 3 Type VI— Unified multi-campus 10 10 10 10 1 Total: 3987 4405 4937 5443 55 162 163 TABLE 16— Continued B. PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE OF THE USE OF COLLEGE FACILITIES BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS FROM 1966-1967 TO 1969-1970 Colleges by Type District 1966-67 1969-70 Percentage Increase Type I 1965 2557 30.1 Type II 1236 1885 52.5 Type III 467 615 31.7 Type IV 174 226 29.9 Type V 135 150 11.1 Type VI 10 10 0.0 3987 5443 36.5 164 use of the college by community organizations, and Type IV indicated by the estimate of the numbers of organiza tions involved that there was a 29.9 per cent increase in this community services offering. Type V, the unified single campus, reported an 11.1 per cent growth rate, while the Type VI unified multi-campus college reported no increase for the period 1966-1967 through 1969-1970. Table 16, Section B, also provides a'total per centage increase for all colleges over the four-year period; a 36.5 per cent total increase was indicated by the 55 colleges reporting. Figure 2 (see page 167) illustrates the growth rate of the use of facilities by community organizations by individual year. Using 1966-1967 as a base year, an increase of 10.4 per cent for the first year is seen with a jump to 23.8 per cent for the second year. The 1969- 1970 year again indicates a 36.5 per cent increase over the base year 1966-1967. 2. What is the estimated number of persons who attended these events? In this question, as in the previous one, only information which represented a four-year period was used in reporting the findings. Table 17, Section A, provides a detailed numerical statement of the numbers of persons attending events sponsored by community organizations. Section B TABLE 1.7 REPORTED numbers of persons attending events sponsored by community organizations AND PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN THE NUMBERS OF PERSONS ATTENDING SUCH EVENTS FOR THE YEARS 1966-1967 TO 1969-1970, BY THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES REPORTING FOR ALL FOUR YEARS A. REPORTED NUMBERS OF PERSONS ATTENDING EVENTS SPONSORED BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Colleges by Type District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting All Four Years Type I— Independent single campus 693,875 1,012,275 1,110,900 1,205,125 26 Type II— Independent multi-campus 814,000 945,000 1,104,000 1,241,000 17 Type III— Joint single campus 73,000 99,500 119,300 138,100 6 Type IV— Joint multi-campus 157,600 163,000 175,000 190,000 2 Type V— Unified single campus 45,400 45,400 45,400 45,400 3 Type VI— Unified multi-campus 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 1 1,786,375 2,267,675 2,557,100 2,822,125 55 165 166 TABLE 17— Continued B. PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PERSONS ATTENDING EVENTS SPONSORED BY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS Colleges by Type District 1966-67 Attendance 1969-70 Attendance Percentage Increase Type I 693,875 1,205,125 73.7 Type II 814,000 1,241,000 52.5 Type III 73,000 138,100 89.1 Type IV 157,600 190,000 20.6 Type V 45,400 45 ,400 00.0 Type VI 2,500 2,500 00.0 Total: 1,786,375 2,822,125 57.9 167 Per Cent Increase 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1^- z z z : z z: 1 Z- 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Fig. 2.— Growth rates of the number of community organizations using public junior college facilities and the numbers of persons attending these events. There are 55 colleges included in this portion of the study. Use of Facilities (Increase by Percentage): --- 1966-67: 00.0% (base year) 1968-69: 23.8% 1967-68: 10.4% 1969-70: 36.5% Number of Persons Attending Events: ---- 1966-67: 00.0% (base year) 1967-68: 26.9% 1968-69: 43.1% 1969-70: 58.0% 168 illustrates the growth rate over the four-year period of time by providing the percentage increase between 1966- 1967 and 1969-1970. Type I showed a growth rate of 73.7 per cent, while Type II reported an increase of 52.5 per cent for the same period of time. Type III showed the greatest single increase by reporting an estimated 89.1 per cent jump in attendance at events sponsored by commu nity organizations. Type IV indicated a 20.6 per cent rate of growth in the number of persons and both types V and VI indicated no growth for the four-year period. There was a total rate of growth of 57.9 per cent noted in the findings. Figure 2 also illustrates the increase in numbers of persons on a year-to-year basis. If 1966-1967 is the base year with a zero growth indicated, there is seen a rate of growth of 26.9 per cent for 1967-1968 and 43.1 per cent for 1968-1969. This figure increases to 58 per cent of the number of persons attending events on the junior college campus which were sponsored by community groups and organizations. The 55 colleges selected as a sample represent 62.5 per cent of the 88 public junior colleges which were in existence at the time the ques tionnaire was distributed. Community Services Educational Services 1. In your community services program, do you sponsorT 169 (a) Non-credit short courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, institutes, etc. (b) Community counseling and consulta tive services (through community ser vices. (c) Radio-TV stations for com- munity use. (d) Faculty and student programs for community u s e (¥5 Leadership in community research and development. Part A of tables 18 through 22 illustrates the year-by-year educational services offerings of the colleges responding to the question. In each case, the colleges, grouped by type of district, were asked for an affirmative or negative response to each of the above statements. In addition, each college was asked to react to the statement for each of the school years included in the study. Table 18, Section A, provides the information derived from the questionnaire regarding non-credit short courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, institutes, etc. Of the total responses, 36 colleges reported that they did offer such programming in 1966-1967, while 16 did not. There were six colleges which did not respond to the statement. In 1967-1968, 41 colleges offered non credit short courses, seminars, etc., while 17 did not. There were only three colleges which did not respond. For the school year 1968-1969, there were 49 colleges with offerings of this type and the number of colleges not offering educational services for the same year had decreased to ten. Three colleges did not respond. In TABLE 18 THE NUMBER OF JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY WHICH SPONSORED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FROM 1966-1967 TO 1969-1970 A. NON-CREDIT SHORT COURSES, SEMINARS, WORKSHOPS, CONFERENCES, INSTITUTES, ETC. 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 District „ No Yes Ho Response AT No Yes No „ Response TT AT NO Yes No Response Yes H° Response Type I 18 5 6 Type II 10 7 0 Type III 5 1 0 Type IV 1 1 0 Type V 2 1 0 Type VI 0 1 0 22 5 3 11 8 0 5 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 24 3 3 16 4 0 5 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 23 2 5 17 3 0 5 1 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 Total 3g lg 6 responses Total co colleges 41 17 3 61 49 10 3 62 49 8 5 62 170 TABLE 18— Continued B. COLLEGES IN TYPE I AND II CATEGORIES WHICH REPORTED FOR ALL FOUR YEARS. TYPES III THROUGH VI ARE TOTAL REPORTS IN THE TABLE ABOVE. Colleges by 1966-6 7 1967--68 1968-69 1969-70 Total Reporting District Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No All Four Years Type I 17 3 18 2 19 1 18 2 20 Type II 10 7 9 8 13 4 14 3 17 Totals (including III through VI) 35 14 35 14 41 8 41 8 49 172 1969-1970, 49 colleges reaffirmed that each would offer a program while 8 schools had no such offerings scheduled. Five colleges did not respond. Since the number of colleges which did not respond varied both as to identity and to totals, it became neces sary to use data which was derived from only those colleges which reported either "yes" or "no" for the entire four-year period. Part B of Table 18 illustrates the numerical growth rate using such information.. Thus it can be seen that in 1966-1967, 35 colleges offered educa tion services through community services while 14 did not. These figures remained constant for the year 1967-1968, but in 1968-1969 there was an increase in the number of schools which included such service in their programs and the number jumped to 41. Since the number remained con stant for the four-year period, this increase resulted in a subsequent decrease to a total of eight for colleges not offering educational services. The 1968-1969 totals remained constant for 1969-1970. Table 23 (see page 184) translates these figures into percentages in order to provide a meaningful growth rate pattern for those colleges which made either a positive or negative response for all four years. In both 1966-1967 and 1967-1968, 71.4 per cent of the 49 colleges reported offering non credit short courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, institutes, etc., and in both 1968-1969 and 1969-1970, 173 83.7 per cent of the 49 colleges reported such offerings. Identical procedure was followed in the examina tion of information for the remaining portion of the question on educational services. Table 19, Section A, illustrates total response to the inquiry regarding com munity counseling and consultative services for the four- year period. There were 19 colleges in 1966-1967 offering such services, 20 in 1967-1968, 24 in the following year, and the total had increased to 26 in 1969-1970. Concur rently, 35 schools offered no such program in 1966-1967, with 39 in this category for 1967-1968, 36 in 1968-1969, and only 21 colleges indicated no projected plans for 1969-1970. Four colleges failed to respond to the question for the first year of the study, two for the second, two for the third, and finally, five schools made no response for the 1969-1970 school year. Section B of Table 19 illustrates the growth rate for those 51 colleges which reported for all four years. There were 16 colleges offering community counseling and consultative services in 1966-1967, 17 during the next year, 21 in 1968-1969, and 24 planned this type of educa tional service in 1969-1970. The total number of colleges not offering this service decreased from 35 in 1966-1967 to 27 in the final year of the study. Table 23 (see page 184) illustrates the percentage increase of the TABLE 19 THE NUMBER OF JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY WHICH SPONSORED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FROM 1966-1967 TO 1969-1970 A. COMMUNITY COUNSELING AND CONSULTATIVE SERVICES Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Yes No No Response Type I 9 16 4 9 19 2 10 18 2 10 15 5 Type II 4 13 0 4 15 0 7 13 0 9 11 0 Type III 4 2 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 5 1 0 Type IV 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Type V 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Total responses 19 35 4 20 39 2 24 36 2 26 21 5 Total colleges 58 61 62 62 174 TABLE 19— Continued B. COLLEGES IN TYPE I AND II CATEGORIES WHICH REPORTED FOR ALL FOUR YEARS. TYPES III THROUGH VI ARE TOTAL REPORTS IN THE TABLE ABOVE. Colleges by 1966-67 1967-68 1968--69 1969-70 Total Reporting District Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No All Four Years Type I 7 16 7 15 8 14 9 13 22 Type II 3 13 3 14 6 11 8 9 17 Totals (including types III through VI 16 35 17 34 21 30 24 27 51 176 growth rate for the colleges offering this service. Of the colleges reporting for the four years, 31.4 per cent offered a program of this type in 1966-1967, 33.3 per cent in 1967-1968, 41.2 per cent in 1968-1969, and 47 of the 51 colleges responding for all four years did plan community counseling and consultative services in 1969-1970. Table 20, Section A, illustrates the growth rate for all colleges that responded to the question of whether or not they offered community service educational services through the use of radio-TV stations. Eight colleges reported the use of radio or tele vision for community use in 1966-1967 and this total increased to 11 in 1968-1969, with 11 projected again for 1969-1970. Not using these media as a community services educational service were 46 colleges in 1966-1967 and after some fluctuation during the next two school years, the number remained the same. Only a scattering of colleges failed to respond to the question, four in the first year of the study, two in the second and third, and five in the fourth. Table 20, Section B, illustrates the growth rate for those colleges which reported for the entire four- year period. Eight colleges reported that radio or television was part of their educational services in 1966-1967 and with a slight decrease noted for the next year of the study, the total for colleges offering this I TABLE 20 THE NUMBER OF JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY WHICH SPONSORED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FROM 1966-1967 TO 1969-1970 A. RADIO-TV STATIONS FOR COMMUNITY USE Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Yes No No Yes No ' No Yes No No Yes No No Response Response Response Response Type I 3 22 4 3 25 2 5 23 2 5 20 5 Type II 3 14 0 3 16 0 4 16 0 4 16 0 Type III 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 Type IV 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Type V 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Total response 8 46 4 8 51 . 2 11 49 2 11 46 5 Total colleges 58 61 62 62 177 TABLE 20— Continued B. COLLEGES IN TYPE I AND II CATEGORIES WHICH REPORTED FOR ALL FOUR YEARS. TYPES III THROUGH VI ARE TOTAL REPORTS IN THE TABLE ABOVE. Colleges by 1966-67 1967-68 1968--69 1969-70 Total Reporting District Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No All Four Years Type I 3 19 3 19 5 17 5 17 22 Type II 3 14 2 15 3 14 3 14 17 Totals (including Types III through VI) 8 43 7 44 10 41 10 41 51 179 service had increased to ten for the periods 1968 through 1970. There was a concurrent adjustment of negative responses since the N factor remained constant for this phase of the report. Table 23 (see page 184) indicates a 15.7 per cent affirmative response for 1966-1967, with a decline to 13.7 per cent for the school year 1967-1968. In 1968-1969, however, of the 51 colleges which reported for the entire period, 19.6 per cent indicated use of radio or television as an educational service of their community services program. Of the total responses to the educational services question, more individual colleges indicated that more faculty and student programs for community groups were offered than in any other of the delineated areas. Table 21, Section A, illustrates that 45 colleges, of the 58 in operation in 1966-1967, indicated such a program. This figure increased to 50 in 1967-1968 and registered an additional jump to 53 for the following school year. In 1969-1970, 52 of the 62 colleges included in the study responded "yes" to the question of whether or not faculty and student programs for community groups were offered as an educational service. Negative responses showed a decrease from nine in the first year, ten in the second, seven in the third, to a total of five colleges not offering the service in 1969-1970. Only four colleges did not respond in 1966-1967, one in 1967-1968, two in TABLE 21 THE NUMBER OF JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY WHICH SPONSORED EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FROM 1966-1967 TO 1969-1970 A. FACULTY AND STUDENT PROGRAMS 1966-67 Colleges by District Yes No No Response 1967-68 Yes No No Response 24 5 1 15 4 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 50 10 1 1968-69 Yes No No Response 1969-70 Yes No No Response 24 1 5 17 3 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 52 5 5 Type I 21 4 4 Type II 13 4 0 Type III 6 0 0 Type IV 2 0 0 Type V 3 0 0 Type VI 0 . 1 0 Total responses Total colleges 45 9 58 61 25 17 6 2 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 53 7 62 2 0 0 0 0 0 62 180 TABLE 21— Continued B. COLLEGES IN TYPE I AND II CATEGORIES WHICH REPORTED FOR ALL FOUR YEARS. TYPES III THROUGH VI ARE TOTAL REPORTS IN THE TABLE ABOVE. Colleges by 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Total Reporting District Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No All Four Years Type I 19 3 20 2 21 1 22 0 22 Type II 13 4 13 4 13 4 13 4 17 Totals (including types III through VI) 43 8 44 7 45 6 46 5 51 182 1968-1969/ and five failed to respond for the 1969-1970 period. Section B of Table 21 illustrates the growth rate using information from those colleges which responded either "yes" or "no" for the four-year period. A steady growth of one more per year is noted for those offering the service, with a concurrent reduction rate of one per year for those colleges not offering this aspect of educa tional services. Table 23 (see page 184) illustrates the per centage growth rate for these 51 colleges. Offering faculty and student programs to community groups in 1966- 1967 were 84.3 per cent, 86.3 per cent did so in 1967- 1968, 88.2 per cent in the following year, and 90.2 per cent of those colleges which responded for the total period of the study indicated that in 1969-1970 faculty and student programs would be offered as an educational service through community services. The final question in educational services is identified as leadership in community research and development, and although the complete trend of this aspect of community services will be discussed later in the chapter, the year 1966-1967 is considered in this portion of the findings. Table 22 illustrates that of the 58 colleges reporting in 1966-1967, 20 indicated that a program 183 TABLE 22 THE NUMBER OF JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY WHICH SPONSORED A PROGRAM IN LEADERSHIP IN COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Colleges by District 1966-1967 Yes No No Response Type I 6 20 3 Type II 6 11 0 Type III 5 1 0 Type IV 2 0 0 Type V 1 2 0 Type VI 0 1 0 Total response: Total colleges for 1966-67: 20 35 58 3 TABLE 23 THE MEANS OF THE SPONSORSHIP OF COMMUNITY EDUCATION SERVICES COLLEGES WHICH REPORTED FOR THE PERIOD 1966-1967 TO OF PUBLIC 1969-1970 JUNIOR Community Education Service 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting All Four Years 58 Colleges 61 Colleges 62 Colleges 62 Colleges 1. Non-credit short courses, seminars, workshops, con ferences, institutes, etc. 71.4% 71.4% 83.7% 83.7% 49 2. Community counseling and consultative services 31.4 33.3 41.2 47.0 51 3. Radio-TV stations for community use 15.7 13.7 19.6 19.6 51 4. Faculty and student pro grams for community groups 84.3 86.3 88.2 90.2 51 5. Leadership in community research and development 34.5 ---- ---- 58 184 185 existed which provided leadership in community research and development. Thirty-five colleges reported no such involvement and three schools failed to respond. Cultural and Recreational Services 1. How many of the following individual programs have been sponsored through community services; (a) Community forums and lecture series, (b) Fine arts series, art gallery, films or exhibits, (c) Community performing groups (musical and theatre , etc. J~T (d) Art festivals, (e) plane^ tariums, museums' In this section of the questionnaire, colleges were asked to supply the specific numbers of cultural events which took place in the college program of com munity services. As in previous questions, only the colleges which responded for all four years were selected to show, through the findings, any indications of growth. In Table 24, Section A, is presented the number of commu nity forums and lectures for the four-year period. Of a potential of 58 colleges, 48 reported 589 separate events for the school year 1966-1967, or a mean per college of 12.3 events. There were 742 events, or a mean per college of 15.5, for 1967-1968, and 9 83, or a mean of 20.5, events for 1968-1969. The 48 colleges indicated a projected plan for 1079 community forum or lecture series events for 1969-1970, or an average of 22.5 single pro grams for each college represented in the findings. Table 186 TABLE 24 CULTURAL SERVICES OFFERED BY THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY WHICH REPORTED FOR ALL FOUR YEARS A. COMMUNITY FORUM AND LECTURE SERIES 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Number of colleges reporting all four years 48 48 48 48 Total number of events 589 742 983 1079 Mean of events 12.3 15.5 20.5 22.5 Per cent increase of number of events over base year — 25.9% 66.9% 83.2% B. FINE ARTS SERIES, ART GALLERY, FILMS, OR EXHIBITS 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Number of colleges reporting all four years 52 52 52 52 Total number of events 513 576 698 758 Mean of events 9.8 11.1 13.4 14.6 Per cent increase of number of events over base year — 12.3% 36.0% 47.8% TABLE 24— Continued 187 C. COMMUNITY PERFORMING GROUPS (MUSIC, THEATRE, ETC.) 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Number of colleges reporting all four years 44 44 44 44 Total number of events 340 393 415 479 Mean of events 7.7 8.9 9.4 10 .8 Per cent increase of number of events over base year — 15.6% 22.0% 40.9% D. ART FESTIVALS 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Number of colleges reporting all four years 49 49 49 49 Total number of events 59 60 75 91 Mean of events 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.9 Per cent increase of number of events over base year — — .27% .54% E. PLANETARIUMS, MUSEUMS 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Number of colleges reporting all four years 18 18 18 18 Total number of events 826 1037 1217 1397 Mean of events 45.9 57.6 67.6 77.6 Per cent increase of number of events over base year — 25 .5% 47.3% 69.1% 188 26, Section A, shows a growth rate of 83.2 per cent from 1966-1967 to the 1969-1970 period for this type of com munity services program. Section B of Table 24 illustrates the number of fine arts events, art gallery exhibits, film series, and exhibits. Reporting 513 such programs for 1966-1967, or a mean of 9.8 per college, were 52 colleges. In 1967- 1968, 576 events occurred, or an average of 11.1 per college, and the school year 1968-1969 showed 698 pro grams or a mean of 13.4 per college. Projected for the 1969-19 70 school year were 758 events of this nature; this would mean an average of 14.6 programs of this type being sponsored on each college campus included in the findings. Table 24, Section B, also demonstrates an increase in the percentage of community services fine arts series, art gallery exhibits, film series, and exhibits over the four-year period, there being a percentage increase of 47.8 from 1966-1967 to 1969-1970. Section C of Table 24 illustrates the numbers of community performing groups sponsored by community services. These groups include primarily musical and theatrical productions. Forty-four colleges reported a four-year pattern of events in which 340 such programs were offered in 1966-1967, or a campus average of 7.7 single programs. This average increased to 8.9 in 1967-1968, when the 44 colleges reported 393 events. The 189 following year, 415 such groups were part of the community services program, giving a mean of 9.4 per college and this was projected to increase to 10.8 per campus in 1969-1970, when 479 community performing groups plan to appear at the colleges which reported these findings. A 40.9 per cent increase in this function of community services is reported for the four-year period. Many public junior colleges sponsor specialized art festivals as part of the cultural services offered through community services. Section D of Table 24 illus trates the numbers of festivals offered over the four- year period by 49 colleges which reported. The gradual increase in the number of festivals can be seen in the comparison of events between 1966-1967 and 1969-1970. The average festival per campus increased during this period from 1.2 to 1.9. The 49 colleges offered 59 festivals in 1966-1967 and 91 in the projected year 1969-1970, almost doubling the number. Numerically, it would seem that colleges at the beginning of the study period sponsored one festival per year and that in 1969-1970, each college included in the findings for this question planned two festivals per year. An additional specialized cultural service is the area of planetariums and museums. Table 24, Section E, illustrates the growth rate of the 18 colleges included in the study which have facilities of this type. Although 190 50 colleges supplied a four-year pattern of response, most were negative in nature and the inclusion of them in Table 24 reduced the mean per college into a meaningless figure. In 1966-1967, 18 colleges sponsored 826 planetarium shows and museum exhibits for an average of 45.9 programs per college included in the findings. In 1967-1968 these same schools offered 1037 programs for a mean of 57.6 and this increased to 67.6 in 1968-1969 as a result of the indivi dual program total going to 1217 for the colleges reporting. Projected for 1969-1970 were 1397 programs for an average of 77.6 per college. Growth rate is evident in the 69.1 per cent increase during the four-year period of the study. This growth rate is significant since one of the larger colleges with 146 events in 1966-1967 and 175 events in 1967-1968 indicated that its planetarium would not be used because of mechanical difficulty in 1969-1970. The rate of growth increased in spite of this. 2. Does your college offer a recreation program through community services? Is it a cooperative program with other recreational agencies? In addition to cultural services, many community services programs in public junior colleges include recreational offerings. These programs are varied and range from fully developed programs of aquatics, sports, and fine arts to providing college facilities for other local recreational agencies. 191 Table 25, Section A, illustrates, by type of college district, the numbers of colleges which offer recreational programs through community services. As in other questions, only that information which represented a four-year report was used in order to gain meaningful growth rates. In 1966-1967, there was a total affirmative response of 37 colleges, while 21 colleges of all types reported that there was no program of recreation. Of the 58 colleges reporting, 63.8 per cent indicated that a program existed. In 1967-1968 this response had increased to 67.2 per cent, and again in 196 8-1969 this affirmative response had risen to 70.7 per cent. All colleges indicated that in 1969-1970, 72.4 per cent would offer a recreation program through community services. This represented a 13.5 per cent growth rate for the four-year period. Since total recreation, as a community function, is usually the product of many agencies, the question was asked, "Is your recreational program a cooperative pro gram with other recreational agencies?" In reporting the findings, no attempt was made to correlate the two ques tions on recreation. Therefore, it is not indicated what percentage of the "no" responses to the second question represent a "yes" response to the first question, "Do you offer a recreation program?" It is assumed that a response of "no" to the first question might likewise TABLE 25 RECREATIONAL SERVICES IN PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY A. RECREATION PROGRAM OFFERED THROUGH COMMUNITY SERVICES Colleges by District 1966--67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting All Four Years Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Type I 20 9 0 22 7 0 23 6 0 24 5 0 29 Type II 13 4 0 13 4 0 13 4 0 13 4 0 17 Type III 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 6 Type IV 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Type V 0 3 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Total response 37 21 0 39 19 0 41 17 0 42 16 0 58 Percentage response Yes 63.8 67.2 70.7 72.4 H vo to TABLE 25— Continued B. RECREATION PROGRAM IS A COOPERATIVE PROGRAM WITH OTHER RECREATIONAL AGENCIES Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting All Four Years Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Type I 4 22 3 9 17 3 10 16 3 12 14 3 26 Type II 6 11 0 6 11 0 6 11 0 6 11 0 17 Type III 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 1 5 0 6 Type IV 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Type V 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Total response 12 43 3 17 38 3 18 37 3 20 35 3 55 Percentage response Yes 21.8 30.9 32.7 36.4 vo u> 19 4 elicit a "no" response to the second. However, there were three colleges in the Type I category which declined to respond to the second question and only one of these schools had replied in the negative to the first question. It can only be stated that of the 53 colleges which answered "yes" or "no" to the query on cooperative pro gramming, 12 said "yes" and 43 said "no" during the school year 1966-1967. This represented a positive reply of 21.8 per cent of the colleges responding. In 1967-1968 this percentage rose to 30.9 and in 1968-1969 it jumped again, to 32.7 per cent. All colleges reported that 36.4 per cent of them would offer recreational services through community services in 1969-1970 and that they would be cooperative in nature. This year-by-year increase represented a 66.6 per cent growth rate for the four-year period, or, stated another way, of the colleges in the study two-thirds more were offering a cooperative program in recreation after a four-year period. Community Research and Development 1. Questions concerning the college1s attack on unsolved community problems Although leadership in community research and development has been mentioned earlier in this chapter, the function is examined in greater detail in this part 195 of the study. Individual colleges were asked to respond to six basic questions which dealt with the involvement of the junior college in the problems faced by communities. "Has your college/ through community services, sponsored any program which could be described as 1 seeking a solution to community problems1?".-Table 26 illustrates how many of the colleges responded and how many did not respond for the four-year period. In 1966-1967, 17 colleges of all types indicated that a program had been initiated through community services during the school year aimed at seeking a solution to community problems. Replying "no" to the question were 32 colleges, while 9 institutions declined to respond. Once again, only those schools which provided a response pattern of four years were included in the findings. Table 26, which tabulates the responses by types of district for each of the school years included in the study, also shows the percentage of affirmative responses which were given for each of the study years. The year 1966-1967 showed that 34.7 per cent of the 49 colleges which qualified for the summary had offered a program designed to seek a solution to com munity problems. In 1967-1968, 44.9 per cent of the colleges responded in the affirmative, and the figure rose to 61.2 per cent in 1968-1969. Each of the 36 colleges which answered "yes" to the question for the year 1969-1970 raised the total of "yes" respondents to a TABLE 26 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION, "HAS YOUR COLLEGE, THROUGH COMMUNITY SERVICES, SPONSORED ANY PROGRAM WHICH COULD BE DESCRIBED AS 'SEEKING A SOLUTION TO COMMUNITY PROBLEMS'?" Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting for Four Years Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Type I 6 19 4 8 17 4 14 11 4 19 6 4 25 Type II 6 9 2 8 7 2 10 5 2 10 5 2 15 Type III 2 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 Type IV 1 X 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Type V 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Total response 17 32 9 22 27 9 30 19 9 36 11 9 49 Percentage "yes " response 34.5 44.9 61.2 73.5 ID a \ 197 level of 73.5 per cent. Table 32, a growth rate table (see page 206) , illustrates that for this question there was an increase of 111.8 per cent from 1966-1967 to 1969- 1970 among the junior colleges included in the results. "Have you helped to identify community needs, interest, and resources through community surveys?”.— Table 27, using the format of the previous table, tabulates those colleges which responded for the entire period of the study. There were 47 such colleges, and 10 indicated that through the community services function of the institution a community survey was made in 1966-1967. Thirty-seven colleges indicated that this was not the case during the year in question and 11 colleges did not respond. By 1969-1970, there were 24 colleges with planned surveys to make, 23 with no plans, and the same 11 provided no response. Table 27 also illustrates the fact that in 1966-1967, 21.2 per cent of the 47 colleges sponsored community surveys and that by 1968-1969 this figure had risen to 51.1 per cent of the total. Table 32 (see page 206) likewise supports the increase in atten tion to this function by reporting a growth rate of 140 per cent from the base year 1966-1967 to the terminal year of the study, 1969-19 70. "Have you helped to identify community needs, interest, and resources through advisory committees whose purpose is attacking unsolved community problems?".— Table TABLE 27 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION, "HAVE YOU HELPED TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITY NEEDS, INTEREST, AND RESOURCES THROUGH COMMUNITY SURVEYS?" Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969--70 Colleges Reporting for Four Years Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Type I 6 18 5 5 19 5 8 16 5 14 10 5 24 Type II 2 14 1 4 12 1 5 11 1 6 10 1 15 Type III 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 4 Type IV 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 Type V 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Total response Percentage "yes " response 10 37 21.2 11 10 37 21.2 11 15 32 31.9 11 24 23 51 11 .1 47 81.0 H vo o o 199 28 illustrates the results of the question and tabulates, by type of college district, those schools which responded for all four years. In this case, 44 colleges were included in the findings, with 14 colleges giving only partial information or no information at all. This type of advisory committee was used by 17 colleges in 1966- 1967, or 38.6 per cent of the total number in the ques tionnaire results. In 1967-1968 there were 19 such colleges identified and this figure rose to 25 in 1968- 1969, and rose again to 32 in the final year of the study. Results indicated that by 1969-1970, 72.7 per cent of all colleges which were included had planned to use a spe cialized advisory committee. Table 32 shows a growth rate of 88.2 per cent for the four-year period. In addition, the 44 colleges included in the tabulation represented 75.9 per cent of the colleges in the total study. As pointed out pre viously in this chapter, 5 8 colleges are eligible for con sideration in each question by nature of providing the four-year period of response. "Have you helped to identify community needs, interests, and resources through special minority or ethnic advisory committees?"— Of interest in the findings was the next question, which asked whether or not the college, in its program of community services, had involved any special minority or ethnic advisory TABLE 28 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION, "HAVE YOU HELPED TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITY NEEDS, INTEREST AND RESOURCES THROUGH ADVISORY COMMITTEES WHOSE PURPOSE IS ATTACKING UNSOLVED PROBLEMS?" Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting for Four Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes No No Resp. Resp. Resp. Resp. Years Type I 8 16 5 8 16 5 12 12 5 16 8 5 24 Type II 5 8 4 7 6 4 8 5 4 10 3 4 13 Type III 3 1 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 Type IV 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Type V 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Total response 17 27 14 19 25 14 25 19 14 32 12 14 44 Percentage "yes " response 38.6 43.2 56.8 72.7 to o o 201 committees. Table 29 illustrates the pattern of responses of the 50 junior colleges which answered the question for all four years. These 50 colleges, out of a potential of 58, represented 86.2 per cent of the number of institutions which might have answered the question for the full period of the study. In 1966-1967 only four colleges, or 8 per cent of those responding, used minority or ethnic advisory committees; in other words, 46 of the 50 did not engage this segment of the community in seeking solutions to community problems. However, in one year the number using such committees more than doubled, and nine colleges reported the rise of such groups in 1967-196 8. In 1968- 1969, 28 colleges used minority or ethnic advisory groups for a total of 56.0 per cent of those colleges reporting and 37, or 74.0 per cent, of the colleges reported use of such groups in 1969-1970. Table 32 (see page 206) shows the phenomenal growth rate for this aspect of community services by demonstrating an increase of 825 per cent between the base year 1966-1967 and the projected year 1969-1970. Compared to all other rates of growth, this one question reported a greater rate than any other on the questionnaire. "Do you offer any 'off campus' community service programs?"— The fifth question on the survey having to do with community research and development asked colleges whether or not programs were offered in the community TABLE 29 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION, "HAVE YOU HELPED TO IDENTIFY COMMUNITY NEEDS, INTERESTS, AND RESOURCES THROUGH SPECIAL MINORITY OR ETHNIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES?" Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting for Four Years Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Type I 1 24 4 3 22 4 15 10 4 20 5 4 25 Type II 2 14 1 4 12 1 10 6 1 12 4 1 15 Type III 0 4 2 0 4 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 4 Type IV 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Type V 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Total response Percentage "yes " response 4 46 8.0 8 9 41 18.0 8 28 22 56.0 8 37 13 74.0 8 50 202 203 which were not held on the immediate college campus. Table 30 again illustrates the numerical spread of colleges which responded to the question; 79.3 per cent of the potential was realized when 46 colleges gave answers for the full period of the study. Totals showed that in 1966-1967, 15 colleges offered off campus pro grams, 31 did not, and 12 did not respond. For the year this represented a total affirmative response of 32.6 per cent. The following year, 20 colleges extended pro grams, 26 did not, and this brought the total percentage of "yes" answers to 43.5. In 1968-1969 the number of colleges using off campus sites for community services programs had risen to 29, or 63.0 per cent of those colleges responding. Finally, 71.7 per cent of the colleges planned to present other than on campus programs during the year 1969-1970. Table 32 illustrates the growth rate by demon strating a total increase of 120 per cent for the short four-year period. "Have you assisted the community in long-range planning (master planning, city beautification, rapid transit studies, etc.)?1 1 — In 1966-1967 only six of the 41 colleges reported an activity of this type in the program of community services; 41 negative responses were recorded and Table 31 illustrates that only 12.8 per cent of all colleges reported programs of community planning during TABLE 30 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION, "DO YOU OFFER ANY 'OFF CAMPUS' COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS?" Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting for Four Years Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Type I 9 13 7 9 13 7 14 8 7 15 7 7 22 Type II 3 13 1 7 9 1 10 6 1 12 4 1 16 Type III 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 Type IV 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Type V 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 Type VI 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total response 15 31 12 20 26 12 29 17 12 33 13 12 46 Percentage "yes " response 32.6 43.5 63.0 71.7 79.3 t o o TABLE 31 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION, "HAVE YOU ASSISTED THE COMMUNITY IN LONG-RANGE PLANNING?" Colleges by District 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Colleges Reporting for Four Years Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Yes No No Resp. Type I 1 24 4 5 20 4 9 16 4 9 16 4 25 Type II 4 11 2 4 11 2 6 9 2 8 7 2 15 Type III 0 3 3 0 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 Type IV 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 Type V 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Type VI 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Total response 6 41 11 10 37 11 18 29 11 20 27 11 47 Percentage "yes " response 12.8 21.3 38.3 42.6 to o u i 206 TABLE 32 GROWTH RATES IN THE USE OF COMMUNITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN PROGRAMS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THE PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES WHICH RESPONDED FOR ALL YEARS IN THE PERIOD OF STUDY Function Per Cent of Change from Base Year 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1. Seeking a solution to community problems 2. Helping to identify com munity needs, interests, and resources through community surveys 3. Helping to identify com munity needs, interests, and resources through advisory committees whose purpose is attacking unsolved problems +29.4 +11.7 4. Helping to identify com munity needs, interests, and resources through ,- ioc n ■ n • ■ +125.0 special minority or ethnic advisory com mittees +76.5 +50.0 +47.0 +600.0 +111.8 +140.0 +88.2 +825.0 5. Off-campus community services programs 6. Assisting the community in long-range planning +33.3 +66.6 +93.3 +200.0 +120.0 +233.0 207 this year. The following year showed a slight increase in the number of affirmative responses and the total per centage rose to 21.3. In 1968-1969, 38.3 per cent of the colleges were engaged in community planning, and in 1969- 1970, 20 of them, or 42.6 per cent, planned programs of this type. Table 32 (see page 106) shows a growth rate of 233.0 per cent for the year 1969-1970 over the base year 1966-1967. The 47 colleges which responded to this question represented 81 per cent of the total potential responses from the study. 2. Rank the four identified functions of com munity services in the order of the effort which each receives in your program (Rank~ 1 receives the most effort of time, bud get, and general emphasis): (a) use of facilities (b) educational services, (c) community involvement, (d) cul tural and recreational services There were 39 colleges which responded to the ranking question and which gave information for all four years. Use of facilities.— Table 33 (Section A) illus trates the degree to which this acknowledged function of community services in California received emphasis during the four-year period of the study. No effort was made to distribute the information by type of district and all eligible colleges are included. In 1966-1967 14 colleges placed their greatest 208 TABLE 33 THE NUMBER OF COLLEGES WHICH RANKED THE COMMUNITY SERVICES IN THE ORDER OF EMPHASIS WHICH EACH FUNCTION RECEIVED A. USE OF FACILITIES Rank 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1 14 12 10 9 2 10 8 8 7 3 12 15 14 13 4 3 4 7 10 Total colleges reporting 39 39 39 39 B. EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Rank 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1 10 10 14 15 2 10 11 12 11 3 15 13 7 8 4 4 5 6 5 Total colleges reporting 39 39 39 39 209 TABLE 33— Continued C. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Rank 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1 2 1 2 3 2 2 5 4 6 3 4 4 9 9 4 31 29 24 21 Total colleges reporting 39 39 39 39 D. CULTURAL-RECREATIONAL SERVICES Rank 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1 13 15 12 12 2 17 16 17 16 3 8 7 9 9 4 1 1 1 2 Total colleges reporting 39 39 39 39 210 effort in this category of the use of facilities. Ten colleges ranked this function as receiving the second most emphasis, and twelve ranked it third in importance. Three colleges gave it the least emphasis of the four major functions to be ranked. In 1967-1968, twelve colleges continued to rank use of facilities as the function with the most effort but this decreased to ten in 1968-1969, and finally dropped to nine colleges in 1969-1970. At the same time the number of colleges which ranked it as receiving the least emphasis in 1966-1967 rose to four in the following year, seven in 1968-1969, and finally to ten in 1969-1970. Table 33 (Section A) shows a decided shift in emphasis in the colleges which ranked use of facilities as either the most important in the community services program or as the function receiving the least amount of emphasis. There was little change in the ranking emphasis in either the second or third categories during the four-year period. Educational services.— In 1966-1967, ten colleges ranked educational services as number one in effort of the four functions. By 1969-1970, the emphasis had risen among fifteen colleges which rated the services as number one. Table 33 (Section B) illustrates the change in ranking for educational services. A somewhat similar 211 shift occurred in ranking number three, when fifteen colleges in 1966-1967 decreased to eight in 1969-1970. Both ranks of second and fourth remained somewhat static during the period of the study. In all cases, the colleges in 1966-1967 which had ranked educational ser vices as receiving the third most emphasis and which had changed the rank had upgraded it to either rank two or rank one. The shift of emphasis which occurred in this function had come primarily from the schools which three years previously had regarded it as in the lower half of the scale in importance to the college and its program of community services. Community involvement.— Community involvement, as a term in community services, is a relatively new one. In 1966-1967 there were few schools which identified this term as applicable to the colleges' program of community services. Table 33 (Section C) illustrates graphically the emphasis which the respondents placed upon this function in 1966-1967. Two colleges ranked it as one in effort, two placed it in the second position, and four ranked it third in importance. A total of 31 colleges of the 39 reporting relegated the function to the lowest possible scale position. The following year showed little improvement in the ranking and it was not until 1968-1969 that the colleges reported a significant shift in 212 emphasis for the function. The ranking picture continued to improve in 1969-1970 and three colleges reported a ranking of one, six colleges identified community involvement as receiving the second most emphasis, nine ranked it as third, and 21 colleges of the 39 reporting placed it in the lowest scale possible. The importance of these findings lies in the fact that during the four- year period 26 colleges did not change the rank position, 13 colleges ranked it higher, and no college lowered it in rank position. Culturalrrecreational services.— Of the four functions considered, perhaps the programs in cultural- recreational services received the least amount of change in emphasis. Table 33 (Section D) illustrates the rela tive stability of this important part of community ser vices programming. In 1966-1967, 13 colleges ranked it first in emphasis and this figure was 12 in 1969-1970. For the same period, 17 colleges determined that it received the second most emphasis and this was reported as 16 in the final year. It was ranked third by eight colleges in 1966-1967 and the number increased slightly to nine in 1969-1970. One college reported it as receiving the least emphasis in 1966-1967 and the report was two colleges in 1969-1970. 213 Analysis of the rankings A simple mean of the rankings for the four func tions indicated that cultural-recreational services remained number one in emphasis over the period of the study. The use of facilities dropped from second place to third and educational services rose from third to second place in effort. Community involvement, while showing improvement, remained in fourth place in time, budget, and general emphasis. Future of Community Services— Financial Support Finally, college community services administrators were asked to state whether or not the future of community services programs in their schools depended upon the con tinuance of the restricted tax source. The respondents were asked to check one of the following as being most applicable in his case: 1. Yes— entirely 2. Yes— partially 3. No 4. Undecided Table 34 illustrates the response pattern and gives the percentage of the total number of colleges answering the question. Twenty-five colleges replied "yes— entirely" and this represented 43 per cent of the total responses. "Yes— partially" was indicated by 214 TABLE 34 RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION, "IN YOUR JUDGMENT, IS THE FUTURE OF THE COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS IN YOUR COLLEGE DEPENDENT UPON THE CONTINUANCE OF THE RESTRICTIVE TAX SOURCE?" Response Number of Per Cent of Colleges Reporting Total Responses Yes Entirely Yes Partially 25 43 25 43 No 6 10 Undecided 2 4 Total colleges 100 reporting 215 25 colleges, or 43 per cent in this category also. Only six of the 58 colleges reported a "no" response to this question and this equated to 10 per cent of the total. Two colleges, or 4 per cent, remained undecided as to whether or not the future of community services depended upon the continuance of the restricted tax source. Summary of the Chapter A questionnaire form was developed and distributed to all 88 public junior colleges in the State of Cali fornia which were in operation during all or a portion of the school year 1968-1969. Sixty-two of the colleges responded to the questionnaire and the data derived from the responses were reported in detail in this chapter. The findings indicated that community services as a func tion of the junior college has increased in quantity and scope during the period of time covered by the question naire, 1966-1967 through 1969-1970. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to examine the community services programs offered in public junior colleges in California and to make an analysis of the recent developments which have occurred during the academic period 1966-1970. The remainder of this chapter provides a summary of a review of the literature, a summary of the findings of the study, the conclusions reached as a result of the analysis of the data provided by the study, the implica tions derived from the investigation, and the recommenda tions made relative to recent developments in the field of community services which were examined in this study. Summary Review of the literature A review of the literature was made with the material being divided into six principal categories: a brief review of the background for American education, 216 217 the land grant college movement and the growth of exten sion services, the development of the junior and community colleges, the community college and the development of community services as one of its functions, the California Junior College Association with emphasis on the role of the Standing Committee on Community Services, and a report on the recent developments of the community services con cept on the national scene with reference to the American Association of Junior Colleges. In examining the background of American education, the importance of the family, the church, and the commu nity to the pioneer facing the wilderness was noted. The European heritage and the influence of Greek cultural patterns was likewise seen as a backdrop to the colonist, who placed emphasis upon the individual and who regarded education as a charge, not only of the family, but of the church and the community itself. Little reference to education can be found in early political documents, which testified to the accepted belief that the Founding Fathers did not regard it as a responsibility of the governmental units. The beginnings of the land grant colleges were reviewed, beginning with the first Morrill Act of 1862. Attention was called to that section of the Act which enumerated the purposes for the adoption of the legisla tion. Background was set for the adoption of subsequent 218 legislation beginning with the Hatch Act of 1887, the second Morrill Act of 1890, and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 which affected extension work in both agriculture and home economics. The land grant colleges identified the unique position of American society by emphasizing prac tical scientific research and education for the many rather than the few. Near the start of the twentieth century, rapid advance in the concept of university extension service was made with such leaders as Charles Van Hise of the University of Wisconsin, who firmly established the con cept of the service of education to the community at large. The agrarian culture in the midwest led directly to the need for extension centers to aid citizens of the widely separated communities, but this soon gave way to the broader concept of general education, which some have viewed as a need on the part of people to compensate for lack of formal education. Other factors, of course, con tributed greatly to the people's wish for close involve ment with educational institutions. The New England philosophy of the town meeting and the frontier vision of man's influence over his environment both contributed to the expansion of the extension service. During the 19th century there developed a need for an additional branch or division of higher education which became the seedbed for the growth of the junior 219 college movement. This movement, beginning in the Midwest, was tied closely to the economic and social demands of the times which cried out for specialization in study. The universities began looking for a means of preparing a student so that he could be qualified to embark on his area of specialized study. Henry Tappan of Michigan supported the proposi tion that the first two years of college belonged to the secondary schools; this would then free the universities to become pure universities. Several attempts were made to experiment with the theory, but it remained for the universities themselves- to provide the solution. An early leader was William Rainey Harper of Chicago, who created two major divisions of the University of Chicago and who in 1896 applied the name "junior college" to the lower division of the University. It became clear that the universities in America provided the leadership which led to the growth of the junior college. The State University of Missouri, the universities of Minnesota, Texas, Chicago, California, and Stanford University all contributed to this growth. Other institutions of higher education came to encourage the junior college and to appreciate its role in offering- acceptable lower division course work. The junior college can generally be thought of as having developed through three identifiable periods: (1) 220 1850 through 1920— the growth of the idea and the accep tance of the practice of the junior college, a separate institution offering the first two years of baccalaureate curriculums; (2) 1920-1945— the concept of terminal and semi-professional education in the junior college; and (3) 1945 to present— service to the adults of the community. The development of the role of the junior college in the function of terminal and semi-professional educa tion has roots in California, support for the concept having come from Alexis Lange, Dean of the School of Education at the University of California, and from David Starr Jordan, President of Stanford University. Junior colleges, working closely with communities through technical advisory committees, became instruments of immediate response to community needs and the develop ment from junior to community colleges was both rapid and predictable. It is generally agreed that the unique position of the community college in American society developed as the institution filled the need for a responsive instrument tuned to the needs of the immediate society which it served. In addition, it is pointed out by one writer as having arisen from the continuing democratic tendency toward the extension and equalization of educational opportunity for all Americans. A review of the literature available in the field of community services leads many writers to the conclusion 221 that the development of these services as an outgrowth of the community college was inevitable. Definitions of community services generally agree that they represent special services which an educational institution may provide for its community. In any event,, community ser vices generally has come to be one of the stated functions of the community college. While community services vary according to geographic location, most lists of the types of services include descriptions of those services which represent an attempt to join the college and the community together in attacking unsolved problems. Most lists also include the use of school facilities by the community, educational services, and cultural and recreational offerings. As early as 1947, a statement by the California Junior College Association on the role of the junior college in California made no mention of community services and it was not until 1956 that a report by the California State Department of Education listed it, including adult educa tion, as a function of the junior colleges of the State. The Master Plan for Higher Education in California was adopted in 1959 and provided for a tri partite system of higher education, with the junior colleges of the State identified as a full-fledged member of the family of institutions engaged in higher education. Charged with the major responsibility of providing for lower division transfer courses, terminal and vocational education, and general education, the junior college was not charged with providing community services in the Master Plan. Section 22650 of the Education Code was added through the recommendations of the Master Plan and this portion of the Code stated that the public junior colleges were secondary schools and would continue to be part of the public school system of the State. This, in effect, linked the junior college with the financial system employed by the State to support public education and provided the legal basis for the levying of the restricted tax by local districts to support the concept of community services. There are three areas of the California Education Code which relate to this restricted tax: Section 6321, Community Services Classes; 16551, Use of School Property for Public Purposes; 16651, Community Recreation (all references are from the 1967 edition of the Education Code of the State of California. A section of the review of the literature was devoted to the role of the California Junior College Association, its growth as an association, its role as the voice of the junior college, and the position which it took in the establishment of a Standing Committee on Community Services in 1965. Within the first two years of its inception, the Committee had recommended and had secured endorsement for: (1) the inclusion of community 223 services in the official statement by the California Junior College Association of the purposes of the junior college in California, (2) the preparation of guidelines for the expenditure of the community services tax fund, and (3) the inclusion of the requirement for community services as a part of the junior college accreditation process. In addition, the Committee helped defeat three measures which were proposed to eliminate the restricted tax fund. During the past decade, 1960-1970, there have been several attempts to modify the Education Code in regard to restricted taxes. These attempts were part of a larger effort on the part of the Legislature of the State of California to seek reform measures for tax support of public education. Finally, a section of the review of the literature dealt with the development of community services as a function of the junior college on the national level. In 1965, Title I of the Higher Education Act was passed by Congress and was directed toward financial aid to col leges seeking support for programs of community services, and in 1968 the Kellogg Foundation supported a project through the American Association of Junior Colleges to help develop programs of community services. Programs in California affected by Title I were noted in the chapter and the work of the Kellogg project was reviewed. 224 The questionnaire findings In Chapter IV the information obtained from the questionnaire was reported. The following were the principal findings developed from the analysis of the questionnaire: 1. Of the 88 colleges eligible to participate in the study, 62, or 70.5 per cent, did so by returning the questionnaire. There were 51, or 76.1 per cent, of the public junior college districts in the State of California repre sented in the findings. 2. Of the six type districts identified, most fell into the category of independent junior college district, single campus. There were 29 colleges in this group for 1966-1967 and 30 colleges in the remaining years of the study. The second most numerous type of district was the independent junior college district, multi-campus, there being 17 reported in 1966-1967, 19 in 1967-1968, and 20 for the remaining two years. Type III, or the joint junior college district, single campus, had 6 colleges in the report and the unified junior college district, single campus, had 3 institutions in the findings, the latter designated as Type IV. Type V, the joint junior college district, multi campus , was represented by two colleges which had returned questionnaires, and the remaining type district report came from a single college in the category unified junior college district, multi-campus, designated as Type VI. Of the participating institutions, 10, or 16.1 per cent of the total, had a total student enrollment in the Fall of 1968 of less than 1,000 students. Reporting between 1.000 and 4,999 students were 15 colleges, or 24.2 per cent; 20 schools, or 32.3 per cent, indicated a student enrollment of between 5.000 and 9,999; and 17, or 27.4 per cent of the colleges reported a student body in excess of 10,000 students for the Fall of 1968. The 62 colleges which were included in the study represented 406,837 students in the Fall of 1968, or 71.6 per cent of the total State enrollment in all public junior colleges for that year. Of the 51 districts which reported district population estimates for the Fall of 1968, most served population areas of between 100.000 and 199,000 residents; 18 districts were in this category. Population areas of between 300,000 and 399,000 were served by seven districts and six districts encompassed populations of between 50,000 and 99,000 persons. In addition, there were six dis tricts serving between 200,000 and 299,000 residents. The rest of the districts were scattered, with one district reporting a population area in excess of one million. The mean population of the districts included in the study was 312,115 people. Residents of the districts included in the study in the Fall of 1968 comprised 80.4 per cent of the total population of the State of California. Of the colleges reporting, 28, or 48.3 per cent, employed chief administrative officers in community services during 1966-1967. In 1967-1968, 32, or 52.4 per cent, had such officers and in 1968-1969, 41 colleges, or 66.1 per cent, reported a chief administrative officer in community services. Of the 62 colleges which responded for 1969-1970, 44, or 70.9 per cent, indicated they would have % such a person in the college administration. All colleges reporting indicated a numerical growth of community services administrative 227 staff for the period of the study. In 1966- 1967, 83 personnel were reported and this figure grew to 135 such staff members in 1969-1970. Of those colleges reporting, there was a mean of 2.3 staff members assigned to the administration of community services in 1966-1967 which increased to a mean of 2.7 persons in 1969-1970. 8. Of the 50 districts reporting for the 1966- 1967 school year, 42 reported levying all or a portion of the community services tax. Of this figure, 27 districts asked for the full amount of the tax rate. In 1967-1968, of the 51 districts reporting, 42 utilized the per missive tax and of these, 30 levied the full amount. This report was the same for the following year of the study, with a slight change reported for the year 1969-1970. During this period, while 30 districts con tinued to levy the full amount of the tax, only seven districts had no plans for use of the tax funds. 9. By selecting only information from those dis tricts which reported for all four years of the study, data obtained shoed a 56 per cent increase in income in four years for the 31 228 districts which levied the community services tax. Analysis indicated that 13 of the dis tricts levied the maximum tax rate for all four years and that there was a 29 per cent net income increase for these districts. This increase would represent, in general terms, an increased assessed evaluation. The remainder of the growth rate was attributed to a large metropolitan district which levied a larger portion of the tax and increased its income by over 2 million dollars for this period of the study. 10. The percentage of expenditure of community services funds was reported by 24 of the districts for the following categories: (1) civic center, (2) educational services, (3) recreational services, (4) other (capital outlay). All areas showed a decline in the mean expenditure with the exception of the category "other," which had an increase in the mean of 5.9 per cent. Further analysis indicated, however, that in the other three categories there were more districts which had reported no change in the percentage of expenditures for the four-year period or had increased the expenditure than had decreased 229 the amount of money spent to support the function. In the category "civic center," 14 districts continued or increased the financial effort while ten decreased the expenditure. In educational services, 17 retained or increased the expenditure level while seven decreased the rate of support, and in the category of recreation, 20 dis tricts continued their support or increased it while only four saw fit to decrease the financial effort. 11. There is a slight increase in the total num bers of colleges which reported charging fees for classes, forums, and recreational ser vices. Most colleges, however, do not seek to supplement income through the method of charging fees for their offerings in community services. 12. Very few junior colleges included in this study reported using federal funds to support pro grams of community services. Only five colleges of the total number indicated that the use of federal funds had been made to administer programs through community services. Only two colleges reported that federal funds had been used for the four-year period and 230 that the programs had been MDTA in nature, dealing with hard-core unemployables. There were nine colleges which had indicated that applications had been made for federal funds for community services-sponsored programs in 1969. 13. Very few junior colleges receive financial support for community services from any source other than State and federal funds. There were nine such colleges in 1966-1967 which had received either grants from founda tions or had used student body funds or support from the California Arts Commission or had received gifts from patrons, etc. In 1967-196 8 there had been fifteen colleges using this additional support, 11 in the following year, and eight planned to use a source of funds other than regular State or federal financing in 1969-1970. 14. There has been a significant increase in both the number of organizations using junior college facilities and in the numbers of persons attending events sponsored by commu nity organizations. Colleges in the study reported a mean increase of 36.5 per cent for the number of community organizations using 231 junior college facilities between 1966-1967 and 1969-19 70. This same group of colleges, reporting for all four years, reported a mean increase for the same period of 58 per cent in the number of persons attending such events. 15. There has been a significant increase in the number of junior colleges which offer educa tional services through their programs of community services. There were 71.4 per cent of the colleges reporting for all four years of the study which sponsored non-credit short courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, institutes, etc. in 1966-1967 and this figure rose to 83.7 per cent in 1969-1970; 31.4 per cent of these colleges reported community counseling and consultative services as a community services program in 1966-1967 and 47.0 per cent reported the program for 1969- 19 70. Providing radio-TV stations for commu nity use in 1966-1967 were 15.7 per cent of the colleges and even this narrow response increased to 19.6 per cent in 1969-1970. Colleges sponsored more faculty and student programs for community groups than any other type of educational services— 84.3 per cent in 1966-1967 and 9,0.2 per cent in 1969-1970. 232 16. Of those colleges which reported for all four years the number of community forum and lec ture series events which had been sponsored through community services, there was an 83.2 per cent increase in the four-year period of the study. 17. A 47.8 per cent increase in the number of fine arts series, art gallery exhibits, or film series was reported by 52 colleges in the study. 18. A 40.9 per cent increase in community per forming groups (music, theatre, etc.) was reported for the four-year period. 19. There was an increase of 54 per cent in the number of art festivals reported by 49 colleges for the period between 1966-1967 and 1969-1970. 20. Reporting an increase of 69.1 per cent in the number of programs sponsored by junior college planetariums and museums through their offices of community services were 18 colleges. 21. A significant number of the junior colleges included in this study offer recreation pro grams through community services. In 1966- 1967, 63.8 per cent of the colleges had 233 programs in recreation and this increased to 72.4 per cent in 1969-1970. There was like wise an increase in the number of programs which were presented in conjunction with other local recreational agencies or which had, in some manner, shared expenses or facilities as a cooperative program. This percentage was reported as 36.4 per cent by 1969-1970. 22. In the area of community research and development, as a function of community services, there was significant evidence in the findings to indicate rapid development as a point of emphasis in programs of community services. With more than half of the public junior colleges in the State reporting in this study, there was an increase of 111.8 per cent in the number of colleges, during the four-year period, who reported that, through community services, the school was engaged in activities which sought a solution to community problems. For the study period there had been an increase of 140.0 per cent in the number of colleges involved in helping to identify community needs, interests, and resources through community surveys, and an increase of 234 88 per cent in the number of schools which used advisory committees in helping to identify community needs, interests, and resources. Perhaps the greatest increase noted in the report occurred in the area of community research and development when 37 colleges in 1969-1970 reported special minority or ethnic advisory committees as compared to four such committees reported for 1966-1967. An 825.0 per cent increase for a four-year period was demonstrated. In addition, there was an increase of 120.0 per cent in the number of off campus programs offered and more than half of the public junior colleges in the State of California reported an increase of 233.0 per cent in the use of the community services division of the college in assisting the community in long-range planning. 23. The respondents to the survey were asked to rank in order of the emphasis which the college placed on the major function of commu nity services: (1) the use of college facilities, (2) educational services, (3) community research and development, and (4) 235 cultural and recreational services. The col leges responding for all four years reported that cultural-recreational services remained number one in effect over the period of the study. The use of college facilities moved from second to third position, while educational services rose from third to second place in the emphasis which the community services program placed upon it. Community research and development or community involvement, while showing an increase over the four years, remained in fourth place in time, budget, and general emphasis. 24. A decided majority of the colleges reported that their program depended either entirely or partially on the continuance of the restricted community services tax. Conclusions The following are the principal conclusions reached from a review of the data collected in the study. 1. Historically, education as an institution in the United States is related to the family, the church, and the community. As the unique system of higher education, exemplified by the land grant colleges and the extension program, developed in the 19th century, there was a bond between higher education and the communities which existed within the perimeters served by the various institutions. The development of the community college is in the tradition of this concept of higher education, and the growth of the role of community services in California's junior colleges is in the spirit of service to the population of a given area. While there is difference of opinion as to the critical definition of community services, and while there is a wide variety of programs being offered within the scope of community services in community and junior colleges across the nation, community services has come to be. recognized as a function of the junior and community college in the United States. The California Junior College Association and its Standing Committee on Community Services has played an important role in the promotion of, and the clarification of, the function of community services in the junior colleges in the State of California. While there was a significant increase in the number of chief administrative officers assigned to community services during the period 1966-1967 to 1969-1970, there does not seem to be the same concurrent district effort to support the function of community services as there is to support the other stated purposes of the junior college in California. Of the districts included in the study there is evidence of an increase in the amount of the community service permissive tax rate levied to support programs of community services. While the junior colleges reporting in this study continue to support the three areas identified as functions of community ser vices— (1) use of college facilities, (2) educational services, (3) recreation and cultural services— and while the support shows an increase over the period of the study, there is a significant percentage of the community services restricted tax fund being spent in categories not associated with the requirements of the Accrediting Commission of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. 238 7. From the information derived from the ques tionnaire, it is evident that most colleges do not collect fees to support programs of community services, nor do they apply for or received federal funds or aid of any descrip tion beyond the restricted tax source to support programs of community services. 8. In his dissertation in 1967, Wallace Cohen noted that the use of college facilities through the Civic Center Act of the Education Code is considered by junior colleges as being an important feature of their programs of community services (58:199). This study supports that statement in that there has been a significant increase since 1967-196 8 in both the number of community organizations using college facilities and in the total numbers of persons attending these events. 9. There has been a significant and steady increase in the number of junior colleges which, through community services, sponsor programs of educational services and recreational and cultural services. 10. The significant increase by junior colleges through community services in community research and development is in the direction 239 of assistance to lower socioeconomic groups, disadvantaged groups, and minority and ethnic groups. 11. Junior college community services programs in California recognize the value of the restric ted tax funds as the principal source of financial support for the program. Implications There are several implications that can be derived from the findings and conclusions of this study. Of the 88 junior colleges which were in operation for the school year 1968-1969, 62 responded to the ques tionnaire and are included in the findings. The 26 colleges which did not respond, under certain circum stances could affect the recommendations of the study since the complete picture of recent developments in all California public junior colleges is not presented. How ever, an examination of the list of colleges not included in the study reveals that for the most part, those colleges not represented are those which have minor pro grams in community services. Of the nine schools in Category I— independent single campus districts— not included in the findings, all could be considered rural in location and only two of them make any significant effort in community services. 240 Of the ten colleges in Type II— independent multi- campus— only two of these colleges, representing one single district, were not in any way included in the findings. The remaining eight colleges were second campuses of a two-, three-, or four-campus district and were all included in portions of the study. In addition, the two colleges not included in any way did report, but their questionnaires arrived too late to be included in the data. This district was the San Mateo District and although the answers to the questions were not part of the findings, an analysis of the responses indicated that there was no conflict between the data reported and the conclusions of the study. The remaining seven colleges not in the data represent colleges which are either small in enrollment, rural in location, or because of the nature of their district organization, have limited funds and involvement in programs of community services. The implication is, therefore, that the findings of the study are fairly conclusive in regard to the complete picture of the recent developments in community services in the public junior colleges in California. In considering the California public junior colleges by dis trict organization, it is evident that junior colleges which are urban or suburban in nature are more active in the field of community services, and this could lead to the implication that those colleges which are centered 241 geographically in concentrations of populations are looked upon as resource centers by the communities which they serve. Furthermore, there is the implication from the data that those districts which are not organized as independent districts do not have the availability of funds to carry out the function of community services. Very often these colleges received only a fraction of the permissive tax resources to conduct programs and almost without exception districts, other than single or multi campus independent districts, do not engage in community services activities which could be described as seeking a solution to a community problem. It is apparent that the effort of the public junior college in California to support programs of com munity services is tied directly to the restricted commu nity services tax. Millions of dollars are collected annually by the districts for the purposes outlined in the Education Code, i.e., community services classes, use of school facilities, recreational services. However, more than one-third of the money collected in 1969-1970 was to be used in some manner other than direct support of these functions of community services. While county counsels vary as to opinion on the expenditure of the permissive override tax, most agree that capital outlay is a legitimate expense charged to the tax, if the charge is in proportion to the use made by the district in 242 fulfilling the purposes of community services as stated in the Education Code. In reviewing the data there is the implication that there are those districts which make use of the restricted tax for capital outlay purposes but do not seem to offer proportionate programs in community services. Some capital outlay projects such as auditoriums, recrea tional facilities, etc., of necessity must precede pro grams , of course, but one would expect to see a subse quent rise in community services activity following con struction. However, the four-year period of this study does not reveal such a sequence in most cases. Districts continue to expend approximately one-third of the community services income for items not directly related to current program activity. The implication is that some districts are not making full use of the restricted tax in support of community services programs. In the analysis of the information derived from the questionnaires, it is apparent that there is a decided trend in California community services in the direction of involving the public junior college in the solution to community problems. This is particularly evident in the number of minority and ethnic advisory committees which have come into existence during the period of the study, as well as in the percentage increase of participation in the problem-solving areas designated as seeking solutions 243 to community problems. The fact that this area of concern is treated very lightly in the accreditation requirements for junior colleges and has little, if any, legal basis in the Education Code sections pertaining to community ser vices gives rise to speculation about the future of this imperative direction of community services. Will the governing bodies of the community colleges in California, both State and local, recognize that the colleges are inexorably being drawn into becoming an agency for some degree of social action? Will these governing bodies sanction such involvement on a wide scale? More impor tant, however, is the question of whether the communities themselves will allow the community college to disengage itself from this activity once it has begun. There is deep and profound implication in this involvement. The land grant colleges and the extension services of the 19th century directed their major effort toward seeking technical solutions to broad technical problems. In so doing, they established techniques for agriculture and influenced curriculum to keep citizens in step with an expanding industrial revolution. Today, however, the problems of American society are of a much more complex nature— they are problems of human relation ships and social revolution. Few can argue with this contention nor can many fail to see the grand sweep of a society which has conquered its frontiers and has marched 244 into an era of self-appraisal and confrontation with its internal problems„ Along with this sweep has come the evolutionary development of the community college and as a natural outgrowth of the local institution for higher education has come the function of community services. There is every likelihood that the citizens of each community college district must thoughtfully decide whether or not this uniquely American educational agency can and must help cope with urgent and relevant problems of society. The information from this study has shown that this process has begun in California and has made signif icant strides over the past four years. What implications exist for the future relationship of the citizens of a community and their higher education resources, made available to them through a viable and energetic community services program, remain to be seen. Finally, there is conclusion in the study that without the support of the restricted tax, most community services programs would be eliminated or partially elimi'- nated from the broad college offerings. In consideration of this conclusion, one must speculate as to whether or not the boards of trustees of the junior colleges would continue to support a program which is based, for the most part, on community participation or whether these services would be withdrawn or curtailed. The implication is that 245 since most community services personnel believe the latter to be the case, these same personnel have a similar under standing of function of the community college and what its task has become. In view of the depth of evident commit ment to the philosophy of community services as a function of the community college, it would appear to be in the best interests of the continuance of the community services ideal if college personnel and college governing boards would reaffirm their commitment to the philosophy of the democratization of higher education expressed, in part, through the college program of community services. Recommendations 1. Community services, as a recognized function of the junior college, should have a chief administrative officer assigned to the task of leadership in community services. 2. As junior college districts in California become independent educational agencies, care should be taken that boards of trustees, administration, faculty, and students under stand the major purposes of the community college in American society. 3. The junior colleges in California should make every effort to support the continuance of the community services permissive override tax as the major means of finance for the programs of community services. However, community ser vices personnel should continue to explore all means by which programs could be main tained in the event that the tax should be discontinued through general education tax reform measures. Colleges should carefully review the use which they are making of the community services tax monies and effort should be made to bring these expenditures into conformity with the California Junior College Association recommended guidelines for the use of the funds. All junior colleges in the State of California should immediately view their offerings in community services in order to bring them into line with the requirements of the Accrediting Commission for Junior Colleges of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Each college should provide for (1) an organization and administration for community services, (2) the use of college facilities and services, (3) educational services through community services, and (4) cultural and recreational services. 247 6. Colleges should investigate the potential of federal funding for projects in community services and particular emphasis should be placed upon programs designed for the disad vantaged as well as upon projects which would lead to better training of personnel who work with disadvantaged persons. 7. Care should be taken so that programs in com munity services do not become so fraction alized that effort to serve the community becomes dissipated through too wide a variety of programming attempts. Likewise, the com munity college should study carefully the .total needs of its clientele so as not to emphasize only one area of interest. Enter tainment programs should be avoided and educational offerings emphasized. 8. Colleges should continue to develop their campuses for use by community groups. The use of the facilities is an important aspect of the total programming of community services. 9. Community colleges should make every effort to develop counseling and consultative services through community services. As involvement in the solutions to community problems develops 248 as a role for community services, there will be a growing need for special, imaginative types of counseling and guidance services required for the disadvantaged and other special interest groups. 10. Colleges should explore the full potential of the mass media of radio and television as a means of extending the resources of the com munity college to all citizens of the commu nity. In particular, community services should be involved in the growing prospects, within the public networks, of the require ment for public services. 11. Community services personnel should thought fully consider the factors involved in a major thrust in community research and development. All segments of the college should be kept informed so that a coordinated effort might be made and to insure the maxi mum use of college resources in the solutions to community problems. 12. All segments of the college and, in particu lar, the board of trustees, should give major attention to the growing involvement of the community college in the solution to community problems. Educators and lay board members 249 need to consider whether or not the philos ophy which presently governs the attitude of society in respect to higher education can justify the posture of the community college as a change agent to social problems. A decision needs to be made on each campus as to the degree of involvement by the college in helping to solve community problems. 13. The California Junior College Association, through its Committee on Community Services, should study the need to revise its definition of community services as stated in its official description of the mission of the junior college in California. 14. In light of the trend to involve the community college in problems facing the communities, the Accrediting Commission for Junior Colleges, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, should modify its standards for accrediting junior colleges to include a more definitive statement on community research and development as part of the requirements for community services. 15. Since the function of community services has come to be recognized as a role of the commu nity colleges in California, and since the 250 financial structure of the State which sup ports the function is tenuous at best, every effort by educators, citizens, and lawmakers should be made to clarify in the California Education Code the part which the community college plays in this function. Additional legislation should be added to the Education Code which would provide strong support and definition for community services as performed by the junior college segment of higher education. 16. Finally, since the community college, in the historical sense, seems to satisfy the tradi tional requirement of an educational institu tion which operates as an immediate response agent, it is important that the institution be supported and maintained to perform this valuable function in our viable society. The expression of this attitude has come to be known as community services in the community college and as such, adds a dimension and a relevancy to our system of public education which is healthy, constructive, and demo cratic in ideal. I BIBLIOGRAPHY I 251 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Books A Master Plan for Higher Education in California. Sacramento, Calif.: State Department of Educa- tion, 1967. American Assembly. The Federal Government and Higher Education. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. Bailyn, Bernard. Education in the Forming of American Society. Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina Press, I960. Beard, Charles A. and Mary R. A Basic History of the United States. New York: The New Home Library, 1944. Bode, Carl. The American Lyceum. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. Bogue, Jesse. The Community College. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1950. Brick, Michael. Forum and Focus for the Junior College Movement. The American Association of Junior Colleges. New York: Columbia University, 1964. Brubaker, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in Transition. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958. Brunner, Henry S. Land Grant Colleges and Univer sities, 1862-1962. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Government Printing Office, 1962. Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1927. 252 253 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Durant, Will. The Life of Greece. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1939. Eddy, Edward Danforth, Jr. Colleges for Our Land and Times. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Education Code. Sacramento, Calif.: State Department of Education, 1967. Eels, Walter. The Junior College. Boston, Mass.: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1931. Fields, Ralph R. The Community College Movement. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. Gleazer, Edmund J. This Is the Community College. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1968. Haskins, Charles Homer. The Rise of the Univer sities . Binghampton, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1960. Henry, Nelson B., ed. The Public Junior College. Fifty-fifth Yearbook, National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Hillway, Tyrus. The American Two Year College. New York: Harper and Bros., 1958. Jaeger, Werner. Paideia, The Ideals of Greek Culture. Translated from the German by Gilbert Highet. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. Ldvdque, Pierre. The Greek Adventure. Translated by Miriam KochanT Cleveland, Ohio: World Publishing Company, 1968. McConnell, T. R., Holy, T.C., and Semans, H. H. A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1956. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960. Monroe, Paul, ed. Cyclopedia of Education, Vol. III. New York: Macmillan Co., 1912. 254 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Nevins, Allan. The State Universities and Democracy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962. President's Commission on Higher Education. Higher Education for American Democracy. Vol. I: Establishing the Goals. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Price, Hugh G. California Public Junior Colleges. Sacramento, Calif.: State Department of Educa- tion, 1958. Reynolds, James W. An Analysis of Community Services Programs of Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1960. Rolle, Andrew F. California: A History. New York: Thomas Y.Crowell, 1969. Ross, Earle D. Democracy's College. Ames: Iowa State College Press, 1942. Sheats, Paul, Jayne, Clarence D., and Spence, Ralph. Adult Education. New York: The Dryden Press, 1953. Thornton, James. The Community Junior College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960. Winter, Carl G. History of the Junior College Movement in California. Sacramento, Calif.: State Department of Education, 1964. Articles in Periodicals American Council on Education. Higher Education and National Affairs, XV (April, 1966), 3. Basler, Roosevelt. "Consistent and Increasing Adaptability of the Junior College," Junior . College Journal (April, 1955), 428. Blocker, C. E. "Comprehensive Community College," NEA Journal, LI (September, 1962), 20. Colvert, C. C. "A Half Century of Junior Colleges," Junior College Journal, February, 1947, 246. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 255 Eells, Walter Crosby. "Junior College Terminal Education," Junior College Journal, January, 19 40, p. 245. Lange, Alexis F. "The Junior College As an Integral Part of the Public School System," School Review, September, 1917, p. 471. Morrison, D. G. "Place of the Community College," Journal of Higher Education, XXXII (November, 1961) , 463. Noffsinger, H. G. "One Third of a Century of Pro gress," Junior College Journal, V (May, 1945), 396. Riccardi, Nickolas. "Vital Junior College Problems in California," Junior College Journal, October, 1930, p. 24. Snyder, William H. "The Distinctive Status of the Junior College," Junior College Journal, February, 1933, pp. 236-37. "The Role of the California Public Junior College," California Junior College Association News, XI (June, 1965), 1-2. Woods, Thomas E. "Community Development— 3rd Phase of the Junior College Movement," Junior College Journal, XXVII (September, 1956), 47. Ziegler, Jerome M. "Continuing Education in the University," Daedalus, XCIII (Fall, 1964), 1166-70. Bulletins, Pamphlets, and Reports Council. National Council on Community Services for Community and Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: Special Issue, May, 1969. Eells, Walter Crosby. American Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940. Harlacher, Ervin L. The Community Dimension of the Community College; Report to the American Asso ciation of Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.; American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967. 256 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. McDowell, F. M. The Junior College. U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 35. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1919. Messersmith, Lloyd. Membership Directory 196 8-69. Sacramento, Calif.: California Junior College . Association, 1968. Shaw, Nathan C., ed. Forum. Vol. I, No. 1, Commu nity Services Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Ameri can Association of Junior Colleges, January, 1969. This Is the California Junior College Association. Sacramento: California Junior College Association, 1968. (Brochure.) Unpublished Materials "An Analysis of AB 2270." A report prepared by the Research Office, CTA-Southern Section, Los Angeles, California, April, 1965. (Mimeographed.) American Association of Junior Colleges, Washington, D.C. Minutes from Community Services Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, March 4, 1969. (In the files of the Association.) Brown, Edmund G., Governor of the State of Cali fornia. Letter to Dr. Francis Kappel, Commis sioner of Education. Sacramento, California, October 29, 1965. Cohen, Wallace F. "Community Service Programs in California Public Junior Colleges." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern Cali fornia, Los Angeles, 1967. Committee on Community Services. "Questions and Answers Relative to the Continuance of Restricted Community Services Tax." Unpublished report of the California Junior College Association, March, 1966. Coordinating Council for Higher Education. "State Plan for Community Services and Continuing Educa tion Programs under Title I of the Higher Educa tion Act of 1965." San Francisco, California, 1967. (Mimeographed report.) 257 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. Coordinating Council for Higher Education, Committee on Educational Programs, Sacramento, California, March 19, 1968. (Mimeographed report.) Cummiskey, J. Kenneth, Director of Community Ser vices Project, American Association of Junior Colleges. Letter to American Association of Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C., September 6, 1968. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr., Executive Director, American Association of Junior Colleges. Letter to member institution presidents, American Association of Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C., September 6, 1968. Harlacher, Ervin L., Director of Community Services, Foothill College, Los Altos, California. Letter to Dr. Robert Swenson, President of the Cali fornia Junior College Association. Los Altos, California, September 22, 1964. ________. "Annual Report 1964-65." Committee on Community Services, California Junior College Association, Sacramento, California, September 24, 1965. (Mimeographed.) . "Critical Requirements for the Estab- lishment of Effective Junior College Programs of Community Services." Unpublished Ed.D. disserta tion, University of California at Los Angeles, 1965. "Junior College Guidelines for the Expenditure of Restricted Community Services Tax Funds." Com mittee on Community Services, California Junior College Association, May, 1965. (Mimeographed; in the files of the Committee, Cerritos College, Norwalk, California.) Kaplan, Abbott, Chairman, California Arts Commission. "Resolution of the California Arts Commission." Sacramento, California, September 28, 1965. (Mimeographed.) Manley, Michael A., Consultant to the Assembly Com mittee on Education. Letter to Ervin Harlacher, Director of Community Services, Foothill College, Los Altos, California. Sacramento, California, March 17, 1966. 258 70. Menci, Tanya, Executive Director, CAPES. "Annual Report to Executive Committee of CAPES," San Francisco, California, April 24, 1969. (Mimeo graphed .) 71. Sexton, Keith, Associate Director, Coordinating Council for Higher Education, Sacramento, California, March 13, 1969. (Mimeographed report.) 72. Tyler, Henry T., Executive Secretary, California Junior College Association. Letter to Presidents and Superintendents of member colleges of the California Junior College Association. Sacramento, California, January, 1966. 73. Unruh, The Honorable Jesse M., Speaker of the Assembly, California Legislature. Letter to William A. Keim and Ervin L. Harlacher. Sacra mento, California, March 31, 1966. 74. Western Association of Schools and Colleges. "Kit of Accreditation Materials for Junior Colleges.1 1 Modesto, California, 1966. (Mimeographed.) A P P E N D I C E S 259 APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE 260 SURVEY OF COMMUNITY SERVICES IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES NOTE: The basic question is, "What changes are taking place in Community Services?" In answering the questions please show change by indicating the year in which it occurred. Your estimate for 1969-70 is also very important and should be based on the assumption of the continuation of the restricted tax base for Community Services. DISTRICT AND COLLEGE INFORMATION College District _______________________ College ____________________________ . ________ District Total Enrollment ' ______■ College Total Enrollment_____________________ (Fall 1968) (Fall 1968) What is the estimated population of the community served by your District? ______________ Many of the following questions were answered by your College in a Community Services survey made by the CJCA Committee on Community Services in 1966-67. Your responses to this earlier survey are indicated in the 1966-67 spaces. The purpose of this is to help trace a pattern of response over a 4-year period. A. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICES 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969r-70 Remarks 1. Is there a Chief Administrative Officer for your Community Services program? 2. Total number of people assigned to the administrative task of Community Services who are paid out of Coiranunity Services funds. (Include all full-time personnel— / /// secretarial, clerical, etc.) Do not include part-time personnel (hourly Civic Center, student recreational personnel. Do not in clude part-time coordinators or hourlv facultv). 261 Page 2 B. FINANCES - DISTRICT DATA ONLY Estimate _________________ 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70__________ Remarks 1. Does your District presently levy the Recreation-Community Services Tax as provided for in Ed. Code Sec. #20801? 2. If so, what is the amount of the restricted tax rate per $100 which your District levies? 3. What is your Community Services income from this tax rate for 1968-69. (Estimate if necessarvl 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 9. In your budget, approximately what percentage of vour Comminitv Services restricted tax income was appropriated for: (a) Civic Center Expenditures (b) Educational Services (c) Recreational Services (d) Other (such items as capital outlavl 5. Did you have additional Community Services revenue from the following sources? (a) Fees for classes (b) Fees for forums, seminars, etc. (c) Fees for recreation services 6. Did your District receive any federal funds for projects which were administered through Comnunitv Services? (Do not include student work studv programs, e.g. EOA, VEA1 262 Page 3 Estimate 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70__________ Remarks (a) Were they: fll MDTA in nature? Describe briefly (2) Specifically designed for one particular interest group (dis advantaged, elderly, handicapped. etc.?1 (3) Was the primary purpose of the project the solution to a community-wide problem? (9) Was the project designed and initiated bv Community Services! 7. Are you in the process of applying for Federal Funds for a project through Community Services? Yes No Describe 8. Did your District receive any funds for Community Services projects from • any other sources than those men tioned above? (Question #5,6) e.g., grants, joint community sponsored events - such as music festivals, gifts from advisory or other community groups? // Describe 9. Was this money used to defray ex penses of a particular program? C. USE OF COLLEGE FACILITIES AND SERVICES A junior college should become a center of community life by encouraging the use of college facilities by eormiunity groups when such use does not interfere with the instructional and co-curricular programs of the college. - Statement in WASC Accreditation Kit 1966-69 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Remarks 1. What is the estimated number of com munity organizations that use your facilities? 2. Estimated number of persons who attended these events? 263 Page 4 D. COMMUNITY SERVICES EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Junior colleges should provide educational services which utilize the special skills and knowledge of the college staff and other experts. These should be designed to meet the needs of groups in the college district community at large and to assist them in long-range planning. - Statement in WASC Accreditation Kit 1966-69 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 ' 1969-70__________ Remarks 1. In your Community Services program, do you sponsor: (a) Non-credit short courses, seminars, workshops, conferences, institutes, etc. (b) Community Counseling and Consulta- tative Services (through Community Servicesl (c) Radio-TV Stations for conmunitv use (d) Faculty and students programs for communitv erouos *(e) Leadership in community research and develooment E. CULTURAL AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES Every junior college should contribute to the cultural and recreational life of the college community and the development of skills for the profitable use of leisure time. - Statement in WASC Accreditation Kit 1966-69 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70__________ Remarks How many of the following individual pro grams have been sponsored through Community Services? 1. Community forums and lecture series Future Indications 2. Fine-Arts Series, Ar.t Gallery, films or exhibits * Although this service was identified in tile 1966 questionnaire as an educational service, it has been expanded in this questionnaire (Section F) and is identified as a separate function. 264 Page 5 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70__________ Remarks 3. Community Performing Groups (Musical & Theatre, etc.) 9. Arts Festivals 5. Planetariums, Museums 6. Does your College offer a Recreation program through Community Services? (a) Is it a cooperative program with other recreational agencies? F. Every Junior College has an obligation to provide the community with the leadership and coordination capabilities of the College, assist the community in long-range planning, and join with individuals and groups in attacking unsolved problems. - Report to the American Association of Junior Colleges - 1967 1. Community Research and Development__________________ ; _______ 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Remarks (a) College’s attack on unsolved community problems (1) Has your College, through Community Services, sponsored any program which could be described as "seeking a solu tion to community problems?" / / Identify (2) Have you been involved dir ectly with the community by: (a) Helping to identify community needs, interest and resources through: /// Future Indications (1) Community surveys (College Sponsored) (2) Advisory Committees whose purpose is at tacking unsolved problems. 265 Page 6 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 ■ Remarks (3) Special minority or ethnic advisory committees Future Indications (3) Do you offer any "off campus" Community Services programs? (b) Have you assisted the community in long-range planning? (Master Plan, city beautification, transit studies, etc.") 1 1 j i 2. Please rank the four major identified functions of Comnunity Services in order of the effort which each receives in your program (Rank #1 = receives the most effort") fSee Remarks") / / / / / / / Effort means your estimate of budeet, time and eeneral emphasis which each function receives. (aj Use of facilities f b " ) Educational services i (cj Community involvement ' I I (dj Cultural and recreational i l 3. In your judgment is the future of the Yes entirely _______ ! Community Services programs in your College Yes, partially _____ I dependent upon the continuance of the No _______ ! restricted tax source?___________________________Undecided | ________________________ 4. Please add comments on developments in Community Services over the past 4 years and what you see as major developments in the future. Name of Administrator completing this survey Title 266 APPENDIX B LETTER OF REQUEST 267 Cerritos College 11110 EAST ALONDRA BOULEVARD ■ NORWALK, CALIFORNIA 90650 ■ TELEPHONE (213) 860-2451 I am completing a doctoral study at the University of Southern California under the direction of Dr. Leslie Wilbur, Associate Professor of Education. The topic for the dissertation is Community Services Programs of California Community Colleges: An Analysis of Recent Developments. It is our belief that such a study, coming at this time, will be of benefit to the community services movement in the junior colleges of California- As an administrator responsible for a program of community services, you know that current legislative issues such as Education Code revision, education tax reform and pending federal statutes will all have significant impact on the future and direction of the community services development in the State, it is our hope that this analysis of community services activities covering the past four years might help to direct such legislative considerations. Both the CJCA Committee on Community Services and the Director of the American Association of Junior Colleges project on community, services have expressed interest in the results of this study. Every effort has been made to simplify the questionnaire, the basic organization follows the accreditation outline and most questions can be answered with a yes or no response. Any additional comments will be appreciated, of course. As a fellow Community Services Director, would you please take the necessary time to complete the enclosed instrument? A stamped, self-addressed envelope has been provided for your convenience in returning the questionnaire and I will be pleased to send you a summary of the results. Board of Trustees: Mr. John Nordbak, President; Mr. Harold T. Tredway. Vice P r e s id e n t ; Mr. Leslie S. Nottingham. Secretary; Mr. Arthur Kulzer, Dr. Curtis R. Paxman. Dr. Leon Richards. Mr. A. B. Sommer. April 14-, 1969 Sincerely yours William A. Keim Administrative Dean of Community Services Chairman, Committee on Community Services, CJCA WAK:es Ends. 2 SERVING ARTESIA, BELLFLOWER, CERRITOS, DOWNEY, HAWAIIAN GARDENS, LAKEWOOD, LA MIRADA, NORWALK

Asset Metadata

Creator Keim, William Alan (author)

Core Title Community Service Programs Of California Community Colleges: An Analysis Of Recent Developments

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Wilbur, Leslie (committee chair), Dawson, Dan T. (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-411269

Unique identifier UC11360895

Identifier 7016870.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-411269 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7016870.pdf

Dmrecord 411269

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Keim, William Alan

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