Maintaining product-process balance in community antipoverty initiatives

Social Work

Volumn 51, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 9-17

  Hannah, Gordon ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Capacity building; Community building; Governance; Poverty; Product process tension

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMMUNITY CARE; HUMAN; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POVERTY; SOCIAL WORK; UNITED STATES;

COMMUNITY NETWORKS; HUMANS; POVERTY; SOCIAL WORK; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33645736267     PISSN: 00378046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/sw/51.1.9     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Brown, P., Butler, B.,& Hamilton, R. (2001). The Sandtown- Winchester Neighborhood Transformation Initiative: Lessons learned about community building and implementation. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation and Enterprise Foundation, Inc.
2. Chaskin, R.J. (2000). Lessons learned from the implementation of the Neighborhood and Family Initiative: A summary of findings. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.
3. Chaskin, R. J., Chipenda-Dansokho, S., & Joseph, M. L. (1997). The Ford Foundation's Neighborhood and Family Initiative: The challenge of sustainability, An interim report. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.
4. Chaskin, R. J., Chipenda-Dansokho, S., & Richards, C. J. (1999). The Neighborhood and Family Initiative: Entering the final phase. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.
5. Conservation Company. (1995). Sandtoum-Winchester Community Building in Partnership: 990-1994: Interim evaluation report. Baltimore: Enterprise Foundation.
6. Gittell, M., Newman, K., & Pierre-Louis, F. (2001). Empowerment Zones: An opportunity missed, A six-city comparative study. New York: City University of New York, Howard Samuels State Management and Policy Center.
7. Halpern, R. (1995). Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press.
8. Herbert, S.,Vidal,A., Mills, G.,James, F., & Gruenstein, D. (2001). Interim assessment of the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Program:A progress report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
9. Mayer, N. S. (1984). Neighborhood organizations and community development: Making revitalization work. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
10. Miller, A., & Skloot, E. (1991). Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program:A demonstration program in the South Bronx. New York: Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program, Inc.
11. Milligan, S., Coulton, C. J.,York, P., & Register, R. (1998). Implementing a theory of change evaluation in the Cleveland community-building initiative: A case study. In K. Fullbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Vol. 2. Theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 45-85).Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
12. Milligan, S., Nario-Redmond, M., & Coulton, C. J. (1997). The 1995-1996 Cleveland CommunityBuilding Initiative baseline progress report. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, Center on Urban Poverty and Social Change.
13. Naparstek.A.J., & Dooley, D. (1997). Countering urban disinvestment through community-building initiatives. Social Work, 42, 506-514.
14. Nathan, R. P., & Wright, D. J. (1996). Empowerment Zone Initiative: Building a community plan for strategic change, Findings from the first round of assessment. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
15. Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. (1997). Voices from the field: Learning from the early work of comprehensive community initiatives.Washington, DC:Aspen Institute.
16. Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families. (2001). Voices from the field II: Reflections on recent comprehensive communitybuilding efforts and directions for the future. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
17. Spilka, G., & Burns,T. (1998). Final assessment report: Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program. Philadelphia: OMG Center for Collaborative Learning.
18. Sullivan, M. L. (1993). More than housing: How community development corporations go about changing lives and neighborhoods. New York: New School for Social Research, Graduate School of Management, and Urban Policy, Community Development Research Center.
19. Sviridoff, M., & Ryan.W. (1996). Investing in community: Lessons and implications of the Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program. New York: Comprehensive Community Revitalization Program, Inc.
20. Vidai, A. C. (1992). Rebuilding communities:A national study of urban community development corporations. New York: New School for Social Research.
21. Wilson,W.J. (1995). Jobless ghettos and the social outcome of youngsters. In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, Jr., & K. Lüscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on the ecology of human development (pp. 527-543).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.