1 / 18

Putting democracy into practice: a study of community projects

Putting democracy into practice: a study of community projects. 6 th Annual CHSR meeting San Diego, CA June 5, 2004. Shirley Girouard, RN, PhD, FAAN Associate Professor SCSU Department of Nursing. THE DEMOCRACY FRAMEWORK. An informed & active citizenry

fifi
Télécharger la présentation

Putting democracy into practice: a study of community projects

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Putting democracy into practice: a study of community projects 6th Annual CHSR meeting San Diego, CA June 5, 2004. Shirley Girouard, RN, PhD, FAAN Associate Professor SCSU Department of Nursing

  2. THE DEMOCRACY FRAMEWORK • An informed & active citizenry Benchmark 1: knowledge and interest Benchmark 2: participation & commitment • Political order based on social equality & protection of individual rights Benchmark 3: social & economic equality & opportunity Benchmark 4: tolerance & diversity • Political order based on community & individual values & needs Benchmark 5: our “commonweal”

  3. STUDY PURPOSE To assess community projects in relation to the democracy benchmarks This is one component of a larger evaluation of PLTI.

  4. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS • Descriptive study • Content analysis of 333 written reports of community projects

  5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • · Did the community projects use knowledge about democracy?(Benchmark #1) • · Was interest in communities reflected in the projects?(Benchmark #1) • · Were projects focused on participation and commitment to public life or sense of community?(Benchmark #2) • · Did projects foster social equality and opportunity?(Benchmark #3) • · Were tolerance and diversity issues addressed?(Benchmark # 4) • · What shared values or public good was addressed by the projects?(Benchmark #5)

  6. FINDINGS: PROJECT FOCI

  7. Sample Projects: early child care & education Parent support & involvement in education(n=37) New educational programs (n=15) Language & culture (n=12) School reform & funding (n=12) Early childhood education (n=9) Promoting reading (n=9) Tutoring & mentoring (n=8) After school programs (n=6) Citizenship & workforce preparation (n=6)

  8. Sample Projects: Health • Preventive health care initiatives (n=17) • Mental and emotional health (n=10) • Substance abuse prevention (n=8) • Children w/special health care needs (n=8) • Environmental health (n=4)

  9. Sample Projects: Safety • Roads and transportation (n=15) • Neighborhoods & parks (n=12) • Violence prevention & victim support (n=10) • School health and safety (n=5)

  10. Benchmark 1: knowledge & interest • 100% of projects reflected knowledge re gov’t. • 100% of projects were citizen participation • 23% of projects used media

  11. Benchmark 2: participation & commitment • All illustrated participation in & commitment to community • 49% involved grass roots advocacy • 23% specific to voter participation or gov’t service • 14% specific to youth civic engagement • 4% other

  12. Percent grass roots advocacy projects for benchmark # 2 indicators

  13. Benchmark 3: social & economic equality & opportunity • 17% of projects specific to this benchmark through education, support & policy development • Other related projects: literacy; language skills; parenting; & life skills

  14. Benchmark 4: tolerance & diversity • 19% of projects specific to this benchmark (increasing involvement, new programs, awareness activities) • Diversity of participants as direct effect

  15. Benchmark 5:“our commonweal” • All can be regarded as promoting shared values & public good • 14% specifically formed groups to bring parents and others together to improve outcomes for children

  16. Exhibit 3-12 M. Solloway, PhD, Principal Investigator

  17. DISCUSSION/IMPLICATIONS • Parents can become effective participants in democracy • Civic knowledge and skills can be learned & applied • Structures, processes & outcomes can be changed through parent involvement • Program holds great promise for improving child outcomes

  18. For additional information about the PLTI: The Connecticut Commission on Children www.cga.state.ct.us/coc/plti.htm This study is part of a larger evaluation by M. Solloway, PhD, Principal Investigator

More Related