REPOR T RESUMES.ED 013 235 SF 001 257THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A "NEW CAREERS" PROGRAM IN A PUBLICSCHOOL.BY- FRUGER, ROBERTCONTRA COSTA COUNCIL OF COMMUNITY SERVICESREPORT NUMBER PUB-107 PUB DATE MAR 66EDRS PRICE MF-$0.25 HC-$2.32 56P.

DESCRIPTORS- *CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, CASE STUDIES (EDUCATION),ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, *LOW INCOME GROUPS, PROGRAM EVALUATION,*QUALIFICATIONS, KF.CRUITMENT, *SCHOOL AIDES, SCHOOL COMMUNITYRELATIONSHIP, *TRAINING: TEACHER AIDES,

UNDER THE NEW CAREERS PROGRAM 16 LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALSSELECTED FROM 175 APPLICANTS, WERE TRAINED ASSCHOOL-COMMUNITY WORKERS (SCW) AND ASSIGNED TO VARIOUSELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA. THE JOBREQUIREMENTS WERE--(1) HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR EXPERIENCE IN ADIRECT, PERSON -TO- PERSON RELATIONSHIP IN SCHOOL OR IN SOCIALSERVICE RELATED WORK, (2) THE CAPABILITY OF BEING TRAINED FORTHE JOB, (3) THE MATURITY, MOTIVATION AND ABILITY TO RELATETO SCHOOL PERSONNEL, STUDENTS AND PARENTS, (4) THE ABILITY TOCONDUCT AND RECORD HOME INTERVIEWS, (5) THE CAPABILITY OFLEADING PARENT DISCUSSION GROUPS, AND (6) THE ABILITY TOREPRESENT THE SCHOOL AND DISCUSS ITS PROGRAMS WITH COMMUNITYGROUPS. THE GROUP PARTICIPATED IN A 9-WEEK ORIENTATION ANDTRAINING PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDED WORK. WITH YOUTH, COMMUNITY,JOB CORPS, AND EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES. DURING THE SUMMER THESCWS ALSO PARTICIPATED IN A SEPARATE PROGRAM SPECIFICALLYORIENTED TO THEIR JOSS IN THE SCHOOLS. THE SCW'S ACTUAL TASKSENCOMPASSED (A) INDIVIDUAL CASE WORK IN WHICH THE SCWCONDUCTS A CONTINUED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STUDENT, HISPARENTS AND HIS TEACHER (A MANAGEABLE CASE LOAD IS 6), (B)

DIRECT REFERRALS OF STUDENTS WHOSE CLASSROOM BEHAVIOR HASREQUIRED IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, (C) COMMUNITY CONTACTS IN WHICHSCHOOL PROGRAMS ARE INTERPRETED TO THE PARENTS AND SUPPORTFOR THE SCHOOL PTA IS DEVELOPED. PRINCIPALS AND SUPERVISORSAGREED THAT THESE AND OTHER TASKS PERFORMED WITH CHILDREN ANDPARENTS BY SCWS WERE OF GREAT HELP. (LC)

N 1

I

1

t

01257SEP e 5 t961

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE 01 EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

The Establishment ofA "New Careers" Program

In A Public School

t

by

ROBERT PRUGER

.P.iblicadon No. 107

NUMBER SEVEN OF A SERIES

contra costa council of community services2717 north main street, suite 9walnut creek, california 94596

march 1966

price: one dollar

o_t -v :,t " ,^ " n t °ISA

The Establishment ofA **New Careers" Program

In A Public School

by

ROBERT PRUGERConsultant

Community Action Training CenterSchool of Criminology.

University of CaliforniaBerkeley

vc*

ri TrilTD A INArlo T A r` TiVrITT1.A111 I It& l.AILJO 11. u V Ulll.A.11.1J

OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Egbert AdamsMrs. Robert T. AdamsMrs. Arnold 0. AndersonJudge Richard ArnasonHenrik L. Blum, M.D.Mrs. Wallace C. BonnerNapoleon BrittCharles E. BrownMrs. Evelyn ButnerRev. Ricardo A. ChavezMrs. Sue ClarkClarence CunninghamJames W. DentBen GoldbergerMrs. K. C. HailstoneE. George Harlow

Richard M. SaxExecutive Director

Harry Specht, Ph.D.Ass't ExecutiveDirector

- - -

Ralph P. HillRobert E. JornlinNorman KestnerFrederick C. KrackeAlfred B. LaytonKarl L. MahlerWilliam MilanoOwen MooreJohn A. NejedlyJohn H. PollenCraig Z. RandallJerome Ritter, M.D.Roger SpauldingE. F. WanakaCharles WeidnerMrs. Alan Young

Project Directors:

Calvin E. DavisAnatole ShafferMrs. Doris SmithMrs. Rosalind Wofsy

ABOUT THE AUTHOR . .

INTRODUCTION . .

THE BEGINNINGS .

CONTENTS

NEGOTIATING THE PROGRAM

Program Approval . . . . . 17

Program Continuance . . . . 22

SCHOOL NEW CAREERIST

Recruitment and Selection

a ientation and Training . .

THE IN-SCHOOL EXPERIENCE .

. . . 29

. 32

. . . 37

THE CITIZENS' REVIEW COMMITTEE . . 43

45

49

55

59

63

CONCLUDING REMARKS .

ILLUSTRATION A . .

ILLUSTRATION B . .

ILLUSTRATION C .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .

Sd...41,4,,,,,... .,. .1.9. AlOAN.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert Pruger was born in New York City,

January 10, 1933. He received his B. A. (cum

laude) degree in 1955 from the City College of

New York and his M.S.W., degree in 1957 from the

University of Pennsylvania, School. of Social

Work. He is a Phi Beta Kappa.Mr. Pruger's work experience has been varied;

Senior High Supervisor et Mr. Vernon YM-YWHA,

Mt. Vernon, New York from 1957 to 1960; and Pro-

gram Director at the Vacation Camp for the Blind

in New York from 1960 to 1961. Ho served in the

United States Army for a period of one year from

1961 to 1962. He was coordinator of In-Service

Training for the Mobilization for Youth in New

York from 1962 to 1964. Since 1964 he has beenAssistant Chief to the State Department of Pub-

lic Health, Berkeley, California.Mr. Pruger is a member of the National Asso-

ciation of Social Workers and the National Con-

ference on Social Welfare.Mr. Pruger plans to begin Full-time study to-

ward his doctorate degree in the fall of 1966 at

the University of California, School of Social

Welfare in Berkeley.

9

LNTRODUCTION

Periodically events make it necessary toreach into the inventory of questions long-brewing in the intellectual community and makepublic policy issues of them. In this decade ofanti-poverty, it has happened in wholesale fash-ion. Enduring dilemmas of our social order,well articulated in social science and popularlyaccepted as the sorry but unavoidable price ofprogress, have suddenly, willy-nilly and ready-or-not become relevant to men of practical af-fairs. It may be some time before we know ifthese men prescribe correctly from what the so-cial scientist has described conceptually, butthere seems to be little argument that they fi-nally are working in appropriate spheres andwith timely isPJes.

Through demonstration and pilot programs ofmany kinds the first generation of projects bornof the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is cur-rently exploring promising prescriptive pathsthrough some of these societal dilemmas. How-ever skillful these agencies may be, they arebound to show their lack of experience; howeverinept they may be, they are bound to contributeto social progress by attracting and holding at-tention to the societal issues of this decade.In either case, they are responsible for inform-ing the second generation of projects born ofEconomic Opportunity Acts yet-to-come and willdo this to the extent that they ere describedand the descriptions made generally available.This document is one such description and takes

11

for its subject the New Careers Program of theRichmond (California) Community Development Dem-onstration Project, with specific reference tothat program as it was Joined to the RichmondUnified School District.

All the material used in this document wasgathered through interviews with personnel asso-ciated with the program and from documents thatare part of the program record.

12

\

THE BEGINNINGS

The first formal description of the New Careers Program appears in the application forfunding prepared by the Contra Costa Council ofCommunity Services and submitted by it to theOffice of Economic Opportunity. The proposaldated December 4, 1964 was quickly approved.Upon approval, the Richmond Community Development Demonstration Project (hereafter referredto as the "Project"), encompassing two majorprogram units, came into being. The first unit,the Indigenous Organizations Program, providesfor "different kinds of support to indigenousorganizations in fulfilling caretaking effortsfor their constituents" and is described in aseparate Project publicatiori.(1) The secondunit, described in detail below, is the New Careers Program (hereafter referred to as the"Program").

These two separate programs issue from a single assumptive base understood in the followingterms: a reciprocally problematic stalemateexists between th,:s lowincome community and theestablished service bureaucracies of that community. By this arrangement accommodating andcompelling forces have pushed 1-he twc along inverse and distant paths. Thus, the poverty population has enhanced its social survival capacity at the price of its social mobility potential; the service bureaucracies in turn, at

13

-.

least vis-a-vis that population, have immunizedthemselves against the strains and inconvenien-ces arising out of their socialaccountabilityat the price of their incrlasing social irrele-vance.

To break this stalemate both partners to theinteraction are seen as the logical and necessa-ry targets ofintervention. The Project, there-fore, set out to influence both. The IndigenousOrganizations Program is primarily directed to

the low-income community seeking to unsettle itsapathy or motivatedinaction by enhancing itsinstrumental capabilities. The New Careers Pro-gram is primarily directed to the establishedcommunity service systems seeking to help themposition themselves to better "hear" the low-income community so that the continuing need tochange with that community cruld be negotiatedthrough continuing, orderly and

constructiveprocesses.In contrast to the rationale supporting the

New Careers Program, its operational details arequite simple. Twelve persons, "new

careerists",from Richmond's low-income community ',3re to berecruited to fill specially and newiy createdpositions in the RiChmond Police

Department,(2)the Survey Research Center of the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, and the Richmond UnifiedSchool District; eight other new careerists wereto serve as "community workers" in the Indige-nous

Organizations Program. Job assignmentswere to include some type of service work withthe client population of the agency as well asthe opportunity to come into contact with commu-nity groups and

organizations. The Project andthe various host agencies were to share certainfunctions (traini -And supervision) and finallyeach host agency wds to

demonstrate support forthe program by providing some of the requiredresources (e.g., office space, supervisory stafftime to assist Project staff in developing theprogram, etc.).

14

it

With one emerging exception all of the above

considerations identified in the proposal as be-

ing essential are now established features of

the program as it has developed within the Rich-

mond Unified School District. To whatever de-

gree the simplicity of these considerations may

have contributed to their acceptance, in and of

themselves they could not insure a simple inter-

actional process between the Project and the 1

School District. Among other reasons, simplici-

ty of interaction was disallowed by the presence

of several unusually strong-willed Project and

School personnel; real and imagined, and perhaps

unavoidable, violations of protocol and other

manifestations of unwritten inter-organizational

expectation; significantly fixed, limited and

often unsympathetic perceptions of each agency

by each agency; and the lack of specific consen-

sus, even with1H each agency, about program ob-

jectives. It is striking however, that the con-

tent of the essential program conditions defined

in the Project proposal was itself rarely a lo-

cus of complication or controversy.

15

NEGOTIATING THE PROGRAM

Program Approval

The firstinter-organizational contacts rele-vant to the Program took place in January andFebruary of 1965. They occurred in the form ofdiscussions between the Girector of the RichmondCommunity Development

Demonstration Project andthe

Superintendent of the Richmond UnifiedSchool District, the highest ranking administra-tive officers of their respective agencies.From these meetings with little apparent parti-cipation from other staff members of eitheragency (more easily explained in the Project'scase, since as a newly funded agency it was yetto hire its complement of key

personnel), emerg-ed the effective decision to move ahead with theprogram.

Though it is quite obvious that this decisionwas made, it is not entirely clear if it wasmade explicitly and at some specific moment intime or whether it merely evolved implicitly outof the process of discussing problems anticipat-ed in these early

conversations between the twoPdministrators. (Nor is it known whether eithermethod for coming to a decision represented theconscious strategic choice of either or both ne-gotiators.) This vagueness is somewhat reflect-ed in the fact that the formal contract betweenthe Project and the School District (see Illus-

17

1

tration A) was not signed until December, sever-al months after staff members from both agenciesbegan carrying official program responsibili-ties. (The contract between the Project and theRichmond Police Department on the other hand andfor whatever reasons, had attracted more speci-fic attention ano was worked out much morequickly.)

Nothing said so far ought condition or obfus-cate the fact that the Program would and couldnot have been joined to the Richmond UnifiedSchool District without the Superintendent's ap-proval. And not only were other relevant schoolpersonnel not effectively involved in coming tothis decision, but at least in one sense it ap-pears that they did not expect to be.

A distinctive characteristic of complex bu-reaucratic organizations, however, would suggestthat the Superintendent's approval, though anecessary condition of action, was not a suffi-cient one. In this instance, lower ranking ad-ministrative personnel, particularly schoolprincipals, assumed their prerogatives to actnot from the Superintendent's general approvalof the Program but from his specific delegationsof authority to operate in it. Whether intendedor not, the slow or unclear delegation of au-thority that occurred did substantially reducethe efficacy of the Superintendent's approval,especially as it encumbered efforts to beginprogram operations in the selected publicschools.

The apparent contradiction in the Superinten-dent's actions may be traced to some of the com-peting influences operant on the Richmond Uni-fied School District and to which a chief ad-ministrative officer might be especially sensi-tive. On one hand, and in explanation of thedecision to approve the Program, the followingpartial list of influences unordered and of var-ious magnitudes might be offered:

18

i

1. The School District had long recogniz-ed the need for community contacts,

i

texpressing this concern through its

support of Parent-Teacher Associa-

tions, "Back-to-School" nights, tea-

cher-parent conferences, and open

house programs. These mechanisms as

dramatized by protest activities a-

cross the country were not adequate tomaintain effective communications withthe low-income community. Public

school teachers and officials ac-knowledged the need for help in reach-ing this community to explain what

the schools were trying to do. The

Program offered a new resource to ap-ply to this problem.

2. Sixteen years had elapsed since the

last local tax increase. Funds for

compensatory education were consis-

tently unavailable. The Program of-

fered $5,000 (the same amount offered

to the Police Department) toward the

School District's administrative costsrelevant to the Program, as well asthe full salary of the new careerists.

3. A member of the Special Projects Com-mittee of the Contra Costa Council of

Community Services (the Committee re-sponsible for the Project) was also a

member of the School Board of the

Richmond Unified School District.

4. Refusing the offer of the Council ofCommunity Services to provide funds toenable the School District to employ

low-income persons might have beenproblematic for the School District.

5. The Project, though preferring to

place new careerists in the schools,

19

I

was prepared to place them in other

interested public agencies if the

School District decided not to parti-

cipate.

In explanation of weakening the decision to

participate in the Program by delaying the nec-

essary delegation of authority, the following

partial list of influences, unordered and of

various magnitudes might be offered:

1. At the time negotiations with the Pro-

ject began the Richmond Unified School

District was itself in the midst of

being organized. (It came into offi-

cial existence on July 1, 1965.) In-

volved with the problems of bringing

coherence to a school district of

43,000 pupils, 2,500 employees, 47

elementary schools, etc., little pri-

oxittj could be given to the proposal

of an outside agency whose essential

offer to the District was the mere ad-

dition of five non-professional per-

sonnel.

2. The Contra Costa Council of Community

Services and its Richmond Community

Development Demonstration Project, if

not suspect, were at least perceived

as being oriented to a different con-

stituency than that of the School Dis-

trict. While the former might have

more substantial contacts in isolated

locations and neighborhoods encompass-

ed by the School District, the latter

had to stay responsive to a much lar-

ger community including carrying an

active concern for maintaining those

conditions necessary to hold the white

tax-paying middle-class in urban ar-

eas.

20

3. Even if not clearly or dominantly so,the Project staff and the as yet un-hired new careerists were suspect onideological grounds. They, at leastin part, were perceived as representa-tive of that group or tradition that"acted as if they held a copyright onthe Negro", "don't understand thequestions and don't care about the an-swers", "was interested in trying toprove the schools are bad", "didn'tsupport the schools and generated les-ser community confidence that the

schools wanted to help, with the re-sult that many did less well and thenexplained it by blaming the schools","used the superintendent and the prin-cipals as whipping boys", etc.

4. The activity proposed by the Projectwas simply one of many proposals com-peting for a place in the School Dis-trict, most of which were said to havebeen conceived and previously tried byschool personnel. And this competi-tion is continuous in an agency aslarge and as visible as the SchoolDistrict. Moreover, the Projectils

proposal was not perceived to be as

important as other measures, suchas those directed at reducing classsize.

5. Whatever problem might arise from a

refusal to participate in the Program,it could not represent a major threatto the School District. "We're very

difficult to assault. Our ponderousqualities make us easy to defend",said one high ranking school official.

The reluctance of the Superintendent to havethe School District become involved was also re-flected in his anticipation of practical pro-

21

blems, any one of which might be decisive andwhich he saw as related to considerations beyondhis immediate control. These included the lackul t.icat It unw L.Aiuulb uu liuUbU the new career-ists, the lack of the required supervisory time,and the probable unwillingness of the principalsto accept this additional administrative burden.With the Superintendent's approval Project staffvisited the schools likely to be involved andfound that while such limitations were presentin varying degrees, they were perceived more asobstacles than deadelds. In part, this attitudeof the principals may have reflected their un-derstanding that the Program carried the Super-intendent's approval.

The end of February could be said to coincidewith the end of the initial phase of negotia-tions. Even if the results of this two monthseffort were perceived differently by the indi-viduals involved and even if issues some con-sidered decided were seen as open questions byothers, the one really necessary decision hadbeen made and was clear to all: the RichmondUnified School District would be one of the hostagencies for the New Careers Program.

Program Continuance

Beginning in March the continuing School Dis=trict Program dialogue was necessarily complica-ted by the gradual inclusion of other personnelfrom both agencies. During this planning phaseproblems of a more specific nature evolved,floating on the undercurrent of other continuingpoints of difference that had never been resol-ved, if indeed they were at all resolvable. Butresolvable or not, acknowledged or not, thesedifferences were always present subtly shapingthe varying perceptions of program objectives,strategic choices, explanations of why thingswent "right" or "wrong", etc.

An inverted parallelism, for example, existedin relation to each agency's definition of means

22

and ends. From the Pmject's point of view, thepromise of better school service was means to beused to achieve the end of creating new careersfor low-income persons. From the School Dis-trict's point of view, creating new careers forlow-income persons was a means and not an espe-cially preferred one, that had to prove itselfin competition with other potential means forachieving the end of improved service levels.

Whatever the impact of this difference mighthave been under even the most congenial circum-stances, it was exacerbated by some, particular-ly some on the Project staff who felt restivewith the Program's limited means and still morelimited objectives. Thus, if as mentioned ear-lier, School District personnel were at firsttempted to see the Project staff as hostile, thelatter at first could be faulted neither forover-identifying with the school system nor fortoo rigorously limiting their concerns to theexpeditious and tactful accomplishment of pro-gram objectives.

Irritation with or frustration about theschool system sometimes encouraged costly short-cuts: "The staff was not focussed on gettinginvolvement from the schoolL in decision mak-ing," said one key Project staff member. This,in part and in turn, was rationalized by theproblematic nature of the schools' orientationto decision making, characterized by this samemember as being, "You tell us what you want todo, and we'll tell you if you can do it". Inany case, and to whatever degree the characteri-zation was accurate, it does seem clear that theProject staff was not at this time wholly oruniformly convinced that a relationship existedbetween their meaningful sharing of decisionswith the schools and their successful attainmentof Project objectives for the Program.

In spite of all else however, the School Dis-trict-Project meetings that took place in March,April and May did significantly advance theneeded specification of programmatic detail.Indeed, and with only minor exceptions, these

23

specifications continue to describe the programtoday, one full year later and five months afterthe new careerists actually began their regularschool assignments. Some of the decisions madeor problems discussed are listed as follows:

1. It was agreed that the five new ca-reerists slated for assignments in theSchool District would be divided be-tween two elementary schools locatedin predominantly Negro neighborhoods.Questioning that there was enough workfor more than one new careerist in anyone school (the two schools selectedhad student populations of 600 to1,000), the School District personneloriginally argued for separate place-ments in each of five schools. Pro-ject staff successfully resisted thisview out of its own belief that ahigher concentration of new careeristswould produce more noticeable results.They were also concerned about theisolating effects upon the aides ofseparate work sites.

One principal, several months afterplacements began, indicated that whilehe initially would have preferred onlyone new careerist, he now felt quitecomfortable having three on his staff.On the other hand he thought that twosuch aides, "if they weren't off tomeetings so much", could adequatelyhandle the work load.

2. New careerists were to be regarded asmembers of the school staff with allrights and responsibilities attendantupon that status. The need for thisdecision arose in response to concernsexpressed by a school principal that

24

the aides might misuse material aris-ing out of informal discussions in

teachers' lounges and inappropriatelyrelate to their own children .while atschool. Project staff, in this in-RtRnnp, was able to offer sufficientassurances. (New careerists would beoriented to respect confidentiality,to refer their own children's problemsto the proper school resource and tounderstand the function of criticismamong school personnel as an informalmechanism for managing organizationaltensions.)

A second principal, based on his ownprevious experience, was uunue,n.dthat low-income persons raised to

staff positions tended to be officiouswith other parents and children. A-gain, acceptable assurances were of-fered. (New careerists would not ini-tiate contacts except at the directionof the principal and supervisor, andeven then only to carry out courses ofaction specified by them. If problemsof officiousness developed, correctiveefforts could be initiated by schoolpersonnel.

3. A structure was developed within boththe Project and the School District toimplement the agreement to jointly su-pervise the new careerists. And ofall decisions made, this is the onemost uniformly regretted. While thisregret was heavily conditioned by acontinuously unsettled relationshipbetween the two direct supervisors ofthe aides, there is also wide agree-ment that less idiosyncratic but moredecisive flaws were operant. Amongthese were the following: the inevi-

25

tability of conflicting evaluations;competing pressures on the new career-ists that would strain workers evenfar more sophisticEted in the use ofqupPrvision; and in,......00011,41y Lull fusedchannels through which supervisors ofaides Eiould themselves turn for direc-tion. More generally and in additionto increasing the range and quantityof non-productive upset that would a-rise in a program of this kind, thejoint supervisory arrangement probablymade all conflicts and communicationsa more taxing, time-consuming manage-ment problem.

It is difficult to be sure what moti-vated the decision to share the super-visory responsibilities; it is .stillmore difficult to know the degree towhich either agency weighed thestrains likely to arise against theadvantages that might accrue from thisarrangement. In either case, only theProject had a real choice to make.The School District, legally and pub-licly responsible for everything thathappened in the schools, could not de-legate that responsibility to an out-side agency.

The Project's choice, however, was nota simple one to make, even if thestaff well anticipated the problems.As an outside agency ideologically o-riented to social change, sure of itscommitment to the low-income communi-ty, and convinced the skills of itsstaff were relevant to the program asit would develop in the schools, ajoint supervisory arrangement couldappear to be a tempting strategic ob-jective to pursue.

26

Informed by the results of that strat-egy and much clearer about its primaryconcern for creating career positionsfor low-income persons, the Projectwould today follow a course aimed at

phasing itself out of the operation asquickly as possible. Indeed, whateverthe degree of confidence Project staffmay now feel about School District su-pervisory personnel, it is almost 1.r-relevant to its current belief that

the employing agency needs to exercisethe supervisory controls. By thisview, the continuing concern of theProject would be best and appropriate-ly restricted to a.suring compliancewith the conditions specified in thecontract that joins the two agenciesand upon which the program rests.

4. A miscellany of simple, but necessary,assignments of responsibility weremade covering such items as the re-quired fingerprinting of aides, theirsigning of loyalty oaths and insurancecoverage for each agency and new ca-reerist. Attentive handling of thesematters on the part of both agenciesprevented the substantively simplefrom beaming procedLirally complex.

5. The supervisor proviued by the SchoolDistrict was located in its admini-stratively separate guidance program,though each principal was nominallyresponsible for the work done by thenew careerists. This arrangement wasselected out of the belief that therewould be a need for close supervisionrooted in the perspectives of schoolguidance. A secondary, but reinfor-cing, consideration was the beliefthat the group of untrained aideswould require more attention than anyprincipal could give.

27

28

At least one principal has come toview this as an arrangement of onlylimited value. He aoreed that the a-vailability of the guidance supervisorenabled her to serve as an initiallyneeded buffer between the School Dis-trict and the Project and between eachhost school and its complement of newcareerists. He disagreed, however,that this ought be a continuing fea-ture of program structure. Once theaides had achieved a useful routine,"We could make better use of them ifthey were directly accountable to us(each specific school). They would dojust what they are doing without needfor a middleman".

Other decisions, of course, were madeduring this three month period and asthe next section will detail, othermajor program developments occurred.The above is merely suggestive of someof the detail and hazards that markedthe attempt to implement this smalland seemingly simple program.

I

SCHOOL NEW CAREERIST

Recruitment and Selection

On March 20, 1965, Project staff distribu-ted relevant materials (job description, salaryscale, job applications, etc.) to a number oflocal agencies and organizations (including sev-eral with which it was working through its Indi-genous Organizations Program) by way of announc-ing to the community that recrii.tment for thenew careerist positions had begun. Within amonth, 175 completed job applications had beensubmitted, 68 interviews had been held corre-sponding with the number of applications filedbefore the applications closing date) and 16 newcareerists had been hired, five of whom were tobe assigned to the Richmond Un:'ied School Dis-trict.

The two documents used by Project staff toguide themselves in negotiating the interviewingand selection process are drawn along differentlines of emphasis. The first of these, the gen-erally distributed school new careerist job de-scription, (see Illustration 8) seems to specifycriteria consistent with the Project's primaryprogram objective (i.e., hiring those "experi-mental" new careerists most likely to becomepermanent employees of the School District); thesecond, prepared primarily for staff use and en-titled IrgMaousWorker Timetable and Proce-dures, seems to specify criteria consistent with

29

the Project's more general orientation to socialchange (i.e., hiring new careerists most likelyto be representative of the low-income communityand most able to maintain and negotiate thatdifference through a variety of organizationalnnntpxtq). Extracts frnm tenth dr-1.111entS illus-trate that difference:

Job Description

Job Requirements: high school diploma orexperience in a direct person to personrelationLhip in school or social servicerelated work such as the PTA, scouts,church work, neighborhood councils, etc.;capable of being trained for the job to bedone; mature, motivated and able to relateto school personnel, students and parents;able to conduct home interviews and writerecords; capable of leading parent discus-sion groups and an ability to representthe school and d:Lscuss their programs andplans with community groups.

Timetable and Procedures

First priority to persons not presentlyor only marginally employed. Personsworking as domestics, housekeepers, etc.,will be considered unemployed...Prioritygiven to persons classified as poor; andpersons with income of $3,000 preferredover one with $5,000...Workers have to besufficiently literate to write the requir-ed reports and verbal enough to communi-cate with other personnel with whom theywork. Primary language skills should bein the language of low-income community...APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO COMPLETE APPLICA-TION FORM SHOULD NOT BE THE CRITICAL DE-TERMINANT OF THEIR LITERACY LEVEL, (em-phasis theirs) This should be estimated

30

i

in the interview...It would probably be

most desirable if we could recruit those

who are the informal leaders of the low-

income nommunity Those persons who have

been invnlvRd in self-help oriented social

action would most likely be the persons we

want to hire Whereas, high school grad-

uation is desirable, it is not required.

Rather, we want people who may have been

active in PTA, labor, neighborhood coun-

cils, scouts, civil rights groups, etc.

Familiarity with organized citizen effort

is highly desirable.

Receiving as many as 175 applications for the

16 available positions, a not uncommon result in

those anti-poverty programs offering jobs to

low-income persons, created an unanticipated

problem for the Project. Many of those rejected

reacted vigorously and sought redress of their

grievance through civil rights organizations,

the local press, elected officials and friends

and relatives. Though made easier by the clari-

ty of the job qualifications and hiring proced-

ures, Project staff was still dealing with the

fallout from this issue well after the selection

of new careerists had been completed. (The five

persons working in the School District, inci-

dentally, said that the Project had no choice

but to broadly announco the availability of po-

sitions, that the large response showed that the

low - income community wanted to be put to work

and that they knew that they had been competing

for a limited number of positions and thus would

have accepted rejection more calmly.)

Job applicants were permitted to specify the

organizational assignment they preferred. Pro-

ject staff reported, however, that the vast ma-

jority of applicants were interested in any job.

Where choices were expressed they seemed to re-

flect the applicant's understanding of just

which positions were most likely to be permanent

ones.

31

1

The following, taken from the Project's pro-gress report to the Office of Economic Opportu-nity, describes the complement of new careeristsselected:

All are Negro (only one Caucasian applied,but did not qualify);Ten females - six males;Nine were receiving some type of PublicWelfare Aid;Thirteen married; one single; two divorcedor separated;All are over age 21 median age is 33;Number of children ranges from 0 towith an average of 4;Thirteen finished high school.Six had not worked for three years or more.Previous work experiences were as domes-tics, janitors, busboys and practicalnurses. One worker is a minister of asmall church.Based on education and work

experience, 11were hired at $4,300 per year; the fiveothers were hired at salaries between$3,700 and $4,150 per year. (It is theProject's current view, however, thatprevious job experience was unrelated tonew careerist jobperformance.)

While school personnel expected to be involv-ed in the interviewing and selection of new ca-reerists, Project staff carried the process al-most entirely by itself.

Operationally, it leftto the District only the power to veto personsbeing considered for assignment to the District.In retrospect, however, both the School Districtand the Project have come to view this as one ofthe larger

errors committed in planning and im-plementing the Program.

Orientation and Training

On April 19, 1965 the new careeristsreportedfor work to the Project office, thus launching

32

what it was hoped would indeed become their newcareers. The group, including the three womenand two men who would be joining the staff ofthe Richmond Unified School District, immediate-ly entered into an orientation and training pro-gram that would continue for approximately nineweeks.

A detailed description of the initial orien-tation and continuing training program for thetotal group of new careerists is available in aseparate Project publiration.(3) For presentpurposes the following, excerpted from the Pro-ject progress report, may be sufficient:

"The orientation included introduction to theproject staff and programs, visits to local a-gencies and organizations (particularly thosewith services related to their particular jobs),attendance at community meetings, review of theprograms of the agencies at which they would beworking and visits to different neighborhoods inthe community Short-term assignments includedbeing trained and doing interviewing for theSurvey Research Center; recruiting teenagers fora Youth-Police Relations program; recruiting forthe Job Corps and for study halls; recruitingparents for Operation Head-Ste:1A and nurseryschool programs; and serving as teacher-aides inpre-kindergarten classes. These assignments,which lasted anywhere between one and twentydays gave the new careerists a chance to testout some of the things they were learning indiscussions and visits.

These brief assignments gave the staff an op-portunity to assess the careerists as individ-uals and as a group before they moved into theirpermanent jobs. Thus, for example, it becameevident that a few of the workers had great dif-fidulty in reading and writing reports and theyneeded special help with this. Others werefearful of the jobs they were undertaking andthe short-term assignments gave them an oppor-tunity to see and evaluate some of their own

33

problems and strengths....Interestingly, the newcareerists themselves recently instituted thepractice at each of their weekly meetings ofhaving one of their number give an oral presen-tation of his work in order to become more pro-ficient at speaking before a group.

Throughout the orientation period, stress wasgiven to several techniques: staff attempted toinvolve the new careerists in as many doing andacting out activities as possible; material, al-ways stressed the practical and the specific;all training took place in a group; training wasrelated to specific assignments. For example,in the orientation to welfare agencies the staffarranged for new careerists to "go through themill", i.e., to see how clients made appoint-ments, filled out applications and what an "in-take" appointment was like. These visits werefollowed up with group discussions. Careeristswere asked to write up their experience and theywould then review and criticize some of thesereports.

The changes in role which the new careeristexperiences create many strains for him. An or-ientation period which allows him an opportunityto ease into his new job relieves that strain tosome extent. For example, new careerists facedproblems in arranging their family life (childcare, housework, etc.); in explaining their newposition to their family and friends; in dealingwith unpaid debts and changing their status withthe Department of Welfare; in clarifying theirfeelings about being publicly identified as a"poverty" group and an "experimental" group; andin their feelings about one another's behavior."

Generally speaking, the on-going training ofall the new careerists has taken the form ofgroup conferences held once a week at the Pro-ject offices, in addition to whatever formal andinformal training occurs under the sponsorsh dof each host agency. During the summer monthsthe school new careerists also participated in a

I 34

1

separate program specifically oriented to theirjobs in the schools. This was made possiblewhen the Project temporarily hir2d the SchoolDistrict counselor who would supurvise their in-school work during the cominrj academic year.

The content of these session, included the newcareerists' perceptions of the schools, the

structure of the newly created Richmond UnifiedSchool District, school discipline policies andpractices, various problems as seen by the

schools, recording and interviewing, and by

then, the expanded school new careerist job de-scription.

The nation-wide launching of Operation Head-Start provided a fortuitous work and trainingopportunity for the aides. Through it they be-came involved In a new School District program,and one very much tied to the anti-poverty ef-fort, well before the start of the regular aca-demic year, in September. In addition to servingas assistants in Head-Start groups, they alsocontributed to the extensive recruitment effortrequired to fill the 1,200 places provided in

the program. To accomplish the latter, new ca-reerists distributed applications on a door-to-door basis and spoke at churches attended by thepopulation being sought for the program.

Toward the end of the summer program the

school new careerists, through their supervi-sors, entered their own evaluation of the opera-tion, including some specific criticisms of theregular teachers employed in it. Whatever thesubstantive merit of these criticisms, the act

of putting them forth was the first test of

their capacity to criticize school slperations,methods and personnel within the limitations oftheir emerging role as members of the school

staff. In this experience there seems to have

been little to document the fear of several

school officials that the new careerists mightundermine the schools.

Interviewed as a group several months afterassuming their regular job duties, the school

35

new careerists put a positive, albeit global,evaluation on the orientation and training pro-gram that had been arranged for them. The onlychange recommended by the actual requirements oftheir to they indicated, would be for mnroUattention to report writing and community organ-ization techniques.

A final training structure, a series of semi-nars offered by the Social Welfare Extension ofthe University of California at Berkeley, is

currently being developed. These seminars wouldinvolve both the school new careerists and thesupervisory personnel of the Program. (A later

matic experience.)Project publication will detail this program-

THE IN-SCHOOL EXPERIENCE

The school new careerists (now officially de-signated as "school-community workers") reportedto their assigned schools in early September,supported by a newly drafted, relatively speci-fic addendum (see Illustration C) to the job de-scription that had been prepared the previousMarch. Guided by this addendum they have beenworking, at the time of this writing, for fivemonths at their "new careers" in the publicschools.

While some variation exists, there i; a gooddegree of conformance in the tasks performed bythe school-community workers housed in the twoelementary schools that serve as host agenciesfor the Program. The minutes of a meeting heldon December 2, 1965, attended by School Districtand Project staff members, offers cne classifi-cation of such tasks, as reported by the work-ers' school supervisor:

"Individual case work in which the SCW con-ducts a continued relationship with the student,his parents and his teacher...Experience hasshown that eight is a manageable case load.

Direct referrals of students whose classroombehavior has required immediate. attention....Prior to the SCW Program, many of these studentswould have been suspended because there was noother way of handling such eruptions and dis-turbances. (One school) has made much use ofthis type of referral service.

37

I

Community contacts in which school programsare interpreted to the parents and support forthe school PTA is developed. The PTA attendance(at one school) increased from almost completenonattendance to approximately fifty as a re-sult of this service. It has been found thatparents who are brought to such meetings oftenexpress negative feelings about the school pro-gram. The net result, however, is an active in-terest in the school which did not exist priorto the organizational work of the SCW."

In addition to confirming much of the above,a more random listing of tasks was gleaned frominterviews with various Project and School per-sonnel concerned with the Program. This includ-ed organizing noontime softball leagues in theschoolyard; escorting children home who had

fallen ill at school and making arrangements forthem if their parents were not at home to re-ceive them; leading small discussion groupsformed at PTA meetings; participating in schoolstaff meetings; encouraging an individual parentto visit the school to meet with her child'steachers; and interpreting to individual parentsthe school's reasons for making various deci-sions about her child (e.g., recommendation forhome teaching, change of class, etc.).

Judging at least from the one group interviewheld with the school community workers, thereseems to be little doubt as to how they them-sieves view their contribution to the SchoolDistrict. They spoke much about their generalresponsibility to help the community organize toaddress the schools more effectively. But theyseemed much more certain of and specific abouttheir efforts with individual youngsters and

parents. No challenge of these efforts couldweaken their firm belief that they, and in lar-ger numbers, belonged in the schools because,

"We show concern." When, for example, the in-terviewer suggested that the compassion they

showed also typified many new and enthusiasticmiddle-class professionals who often lost this

38

1

quality once they discovered that they couldn'treally change things very much, one of thenew careerists insisted agitatedly, "We won't

change: We live in this community. This is myneighborhood. We won't change because these areour problems". Even more striking to the inter -vi ewer, hnwPvmr, wag the very mndRStly offeredaccount of another new careerist who, withoutsupervisory direction or prompting, taught her-self the manual alphabet so that she could bet-ter communicate with the deaf parent of a childwho was experiencing difficulty at school.

While understandably more cautious and not

nearly so uniform, commendation or recognitionof the school community workers by School Dis-

trict personnel has been freely and frequentlyvoiced, as suggested by the following quotationsnoted in interviews with school personnel or

taken from documents prepared by them:

"Mr. X (a principal) agreed that the work ofthe SCW in his school has generally been excel-lent and the services have contributed positive-ly to the educational program at (his school);

Mr. Y (a principal) described his early con-cerns about the SCW program. Prior to the open-ing of the fall session, he was worried aboutthe possibility that the workers would be agita-tors within the community and might create addi-tional problems for the school. He agreed, how-ever, that so far his concerns have been com-

pletely groundless. Not one single case of pa-rental criticism of the school has resulted froma contact by a worker. On the contrary, he has

seen a great deal of positive value to the edu-cational program (of his school) as a result of

the work by the SCW ...Mr. Y has noted a great

deal of growth on the part of the workers, par-ticularly in their understanding of the kinds ofproblems which face schools and teachers;

Principal Y and his teachers are appreciativeof the aides;

The aides can and are performing a valuable

liaison function. They can and do establishrapport;

39

I

We were considering recommending home teach-ing for one child who is emotionally disturbed.The aide suggested that we First try changingthe child's teacher. We followed that sugges-tion; but it didn't wnrk. Thi s nnnvinnpri theaide, who now served as a successful intermedi-ary for us in helping the family cooperate withthe home teaching arrangement.

The aides have enlightened me on severalthings. They brought to my attention the factthat the children's water fountains weren'tworking properly. They also informed me thatparents saw teachers wearing sneakers in theschoolyard and thought that this was degradingof the community. They identified for me theone teacher in my school who parents thoughtdressed in a way that should serve as a modelfor all teachers."

Problems have, of course, also been noted.One category of these could be identified as de-ficiencies of the new careerists themselves,correctable through further training and/or ex-perience, or avoidable through task specifica-tion less tempting of these deficiencies. Ex-perience and training, for example, could helpovercome what one school supervisor identifiedas, "...insecurity in face-to-face discussionswith parents concerning the in-school behaviorand progress of individual children...differ-ences in their abilities to empathize with chil-dren, in their abilities to organize their workand in maintaining case histories ... a lack inwriting skills... spelling, grammar and structureare particularly weak". The problem aides hadin tutoring individual children incidental totheir counselling involvements with them wasavoided when one school lowered its expectationthat tutoring by the aides be part of such coun-selling situations.

A second category of problem would seem toinvolve the schools and the aides equally. Themajor example under this heading is, obviously,

40

cs

achieving within the schools that variety of ac-ceptance of the aides and their function whichcannot be conferred by administrative edict orany other self-conscious, ephemeral, facile ex-ercise of intra-organizational politeness. Theproud, even defiant, boast of the new careeristsat an interview held in January 1966 that theywere a close unbreakable group may, indeed, re-flect the truth of one Project worker's state-ment of a month earlier that, "The workers areunsure about their relationships With the prin-cipal, the teachers and the custodians".

The third category of problem involved theaides in no direct way; it is the problem of thecontinuing, still evolving relationship betweenthe two organizational sponsors of the Program.Some potentially unsettling issues seem to havebeen neutralized. Though each agency still pur-sues its own ordered version of Program object-ives, the difference is broadly recognized andlargely defined as both understandable and ac-ceptable. Though the schools do not necessarilyvalue community organization activities directedat a community, it feels there is much more ea-gerness to complain about the schools than toapplaud them, school new careerists are permit-ted to stimulate communal approaches; to theschools. Some Project staff, who originallytended to see the aides as agents for changingthe schools, have "agreed that the School Commu-nity Worker is a school representative and assuch has to see himself as clearly identifiedwith the school;" etc.

Other issues are more alive. Though fullycognizant of the difficulties that inhere in ajoint supervisory arrangement, for example, astream of joint meetings and memoranda still di-rect themselves to specify and re-specify who-is-what in the chain of command, in the obvioushope that such clarity will minimize the prob-lem.(4) And if this problem would recede,training might become more of an issue than ithas been to date. Project sponsored training

41

obviously represents an opportunity for the Pro-

ject to influence the in-school behavior of the

aides. From the school's point of view, such

formalized training, though admittedly respon-

sive to the new cdw.rint' natural and demon-

strated desire to advance their knowledge and

skills, is not necessarily functional to the

schools' requirements.

1qt

THE CITIZENS'REVIEW COMMITTEE

The recently signed, but long informally op-erative, contract between the Project and theSchool District lists the following as its finalcondition:

"A citizens' committee will be developedwhich will periodically review the progress ofthe project. The composition of the committeewill be determined by the Council's (i.e., theContra Costa Council of Community Services)Richmond Projects Committee and the Schools."

This provision was first suggested by theProject to contribute to the information availa-ble to the School District when it faced the in-evitable and crucial question that only it coulddecide: Should the employment of low-incomepersons to deliver school services be made acontinuing, and eventually permanent, feature ofRichmond's system of public education?

If the School District were to treat thefindings of the Committee as significant, itwould have to regard its members as significant.To insure this it was later agreed that five ofthe nine Committee members would be appointed bythe School District. (The Project appointedthree housewives and a minister; the School Dis-trict appointed a school principal, a publichealth professional, a mental health profession-

43

al, a professor of education, and teacherhouse-wive well-known amongst civil rights organiza-tions. In addition, the person assigned tostaff the Committee was to be one of the schoolEmployees officially connected to the Program.The Project supported the appropriateness ofthese arrangements.

The Committee meets every two weeks and isexpected to continue to do so until it submitsits report to the Project and the Board of Edu-cation sometime during the summer of 1966. Byway of preparing for that report, interviewshave already been held with new careerists andProject and School District staff members.

44

CONCLUDING REMARKS

To the extent that demonstration projects"succeed" not by achieving their immediate ob-jectives, but rather by encouraging more advan-ced efforts in other places and at other times,the catalogue of resolved and unresolved prob-lems contained herein may be useful. In con-cluding this intendedly descriptive document,however, no attempt will be made to restate thisinventory of problems, errors and solutions; norwill any attempt be made to formulate or recom-mend generalizations beyond the degree to whichthey may have been previously implied OR sug-gested.

This final word, instead, is given over toidentifying those additional considerations thatpresumably influenced the development of the NewCareers Program, but which could not be speci-fied to any particular event. It seems clear,for example, that the process of negotiating andimplementing the Program has had more of an ex-hausting effect on Project staff than on SchoolDistrict personnel; and evon if at a lesserpace, it probably will continue to do so. In-deed, the discrepancy may be unavoidable, for itseems less related to the energy various workersexpend in accomplishing their tasks than it doesto the fact that what was a major activity tothe Project could only be a tangential distrac-tion to the School District. Given the stake

45

the Project had in the outcome of this activityit almost needed to be more effected by the ebband flow of events than did the School Districtwith its many other and more primary rpRpnriihi-lities.

Some energy was undoubtedly conserved whenthe Project, as it entered into negotiationswith the School District, made the deliberatedecision to be vague about many program details.This was done both to encourage the School Dis-trict to participate in making these decisions,as well as to avoid the problem of having to ne-gotiate from "hard" ositions. It also seemsprobable that the Project at the time negotia-tions began was itself unclear about which ofits program notions were important enough to beprescribed, which were promising enough to bepreferred, which were irrelevant enough to bepermitted, and which were threatening enough tobe proscribed. (The joint supervisory struc-ture, for example, probably moved through eachof these definitions during the course of thefirst year of program operations.)

Finally, it should already be clear that theSchool District's ultimate decision about theProgram will be the resultant of many influen-ces, only one of which is the evaluation givento the school-community workers' job performanceor contribution to public education in Richmond.The availability of funds, the variety of otherprojects developed within the School District,and the School District's own definition of whatunderlies school problems are only some of theseinfluences, most of which are well beyond theProject's capacity to address.

Both the Project and the Schnol Districtwill, of course, come to their own evaluation ofthe New Careers Program. If the reader, how-ever, must also judge it, the criterion set byDr. George James, and each is free to apply it,may be the most important:

46

"...the task of leadership for the futuremust emphasize the need to be relevantmore than the responsibility to be right.If we can lead into relevant paths, oureffort, even though wrong, will focus at-tention on the important issues, will at-tract productive controversy, will raisethe priority of the significant problem,and should thereby result in far more hu-man progress. To be right though irrele-vant will confuse and delay and merelypostpone an attack upon the key issues ofour times. (5)

.+;

47

ILLUSTRATION AAGREEMENT WITH

RICHMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Agreement between the Contra Costa Coun-cil of Community Services (Council) and theRichmond School Diutrict (Schools) based uponthe research-demonstration proposal entitled"Richmond Community Development DemonstrationProject" and refers to the parts of the propo-sal which deals with the public schools. Thisagreement describes the commitments and respon-sibilities of the Council and the Schools.

Five "new careerists", low-income people whoreside in the low-income areas to be served bythe project, are to be trained for a new servicejob within the Schools. The new careerists, whoare to be hired and paid by the Council andhoused at the Schools, will be trained by super-visory personnel of the Council and the Schoolsto undertake responsibilities in helping clientsof the Schools to deal with problems they havewhich are related to the School's area of ser-vice. New careerists will be supervised by boththe Council and the Schools in their work.

Payments and Expenses

The Council will provide the School with thesum of $5,000 toward the annual salary of theSchool Supervisor to pay for the School Supervi-sor's responsibilities for the program. Thisamount will be paid to the Schools in semi-annual payments. This payment is intended toprovide the cost of direct supervision of newcareerists by the School. The School will pro-vide the supervisory and administrative timeneeded for planning within the Schools, contacts

49

with School personnel, training of School per-sonnel, and evaluation and review of the pro-gram.

The Council will reimburse the School Super-visor for travel expenses and other personal ex-penses related to the new careers program.

The Council will pay for program materialsand costs related to the training of new career-ists and development of the new careers programsuch as special books and materials, speakersand consultants.

The new careerists shall be housed at theSchools to which they are assigned with appro-priate work space to write reports and to meetwith parents. The present plan calls for threenew careerists to be placed at Nystrom and twoto be placed at Verde.

Dates

The period covered by this agreement is Sep-tember 1, 1965 through June 30, 1966. The pro-gram is to begin on September 1, 1965 at whichtime the first semi-annual payment will be made.Second payment is to be paid on February 28,1966. The program is to continue until June 30,1966. The School will provide a statement de-scribing the use of funds received at the closeof each payment period. The program can be re-newed for the following year if funds are avail-able, in which case this agreement should be re-newed by May 30, 1966. The status of this a-greement can be changed with 30 days written no-tice from either the Council or the Schools.Any payments made to or due from the Council orSchools shall be pro-rated effective to thatdate of notice. The following is the timeschedule that will be used approximately:

50

i

July 1, 1965 to August 31, 1965i

)(Insofar as this period is prior to thecontract period, the Council will arrange i

to pay the School's Supervisor directly

for whatever time is needed from her dur-ing this period.) Supervisors developqualifications, requirements, job descrip-tions for hiring of new careerists and or-ientation and trainino.

September 1, 1965 to September 30, 1965...

Placement of New Careerists in temporaryassignments.

October 1, 1965

Permanent Assignments.

Responsibilities of Supervisors

The qualifications and requirements for newcareerists shall be developed jointly by theCouncil supervisor and the School's supervisorwithin the framework described in the proposal.

The supervisors will develop guides providingthe qualifications of applicants for the posi-tion, recruitment procedures geared to engagingqualified applicants, and procedures and methodsfor orientation and training.

A major concern of the Project is to developmethods and processes by which the functionsperformed by new careerists are evaluated andchanged Lind devising methods by which functionswhich prove to be effective become a part of theSchool's operation.

The Council supervisor will recruit and in-terview new careerists. New careerists will beselected from the grade school attendance areaserved and must be approved by the school prin-cipal.

Job descriptions and specific assignmentswill be made jointly by the Council's andSchool's supervisors.

Supervision of the work of new careeristsshall be the joint responsibility of both super-visors. An administrative staff member of the

51

i3

Council and an administrative staff member ofthe School will be assigned the responsibilityfor reso_Jing questions which supervisors cannotsettle. Thes?, administrative staff membersshould be sufficiently acquainted with the day -tn -day operation of the program to be able toanticipate such questions.

Responsibilities of New Careerists

New Careerists are to be assigned to work incounseling pruyrams of elementary schools inlow-income areas. Their work should consist ofhelping parents of students to deal with some oftheir school-related problems. In addition, newcareerists should be working with groups and or-ganizations in the low-income community to in-terpret the services and functions of the Schooland to help individuals and organizations in ef-forts to deal with problems.

New Careerists are to be trained in using re-porting procedures so that the same informationon their work will be available to both theCouncil supervisor and the School supervisor.

Responsibilities of the Council and the Schools

The Council and Ine School supervisors willdevelop a seminar in which new careerists, su-pervisors and related personnel will partici-pate. The seminar should begin no later thanone month after the new careerists receive theirpermanent assignments and should be held approx-imately once a month. The seminar should dealwith community problems and minority groups aswell as with the kinds of technical and substan-tive problems dealt with by new careerists. Theseminar should be attended by new careerists,the two supervisors and School personnel who areworking with similar problems such as guidancecounselors in the schools with new careeristsand other guidance personnel.

52

The Councjl supervisor will write a quarterlyreport on the program which 1.011 he avo;lokie tothe personnel of the Council and the Schools.

A Citizens' Committee will be developed whichwill periodically review the progress of theproject. The composition of this committee willbe determined by the Council's Richmond ProjectsCommittee and the School.

53

ILLUSTRATION BTOR DRgraTpunix

TITLE: School New Careerist

Job Requirments

A High School diploma and/or paid or volun-teer experience in a direct person to person re-lationship in the schools or social service re-lated work such as the PTA, scouts, church work,neighborhood councils, etc., personal knowledgeof the community where assigned with some under-standing of the concerns and problems of the re-sidents; capable of being trained for the job tobe done; mature, motivated and able to relate toschool personnel, students and parents; able toconduct home interviews and write records andmake reports; capable of leading parent discus-sion groups and an ability to represent theschool and discuss their programs and plans withcommunity groups.

Twenty-one years old and over.

Residence

The School Careerist must have lived in Rich-mond at least one year and must presently be aresident in the low-income area which includesNorth Richmond and Parchester areas and the ele-mentary school districts of Coronado, Cortez,Lincoln, Nystrom, Peres and Stege Schools.

Supervisor

The School Careerist will be located in oneelementary school in the low-income communityand will be supervised by the school supervisor

55

assigned to the project in all matters primarilyrelated to the porformanoc of school responsibi-lities. He will operate within the normal ad-ministrative function of the school in which heis located.

The Project New Careers Supervisor will beprimarily responsible for administrative andcommunity related responsibilities and training.

Job Responsibilities

a) Participate in the training program es-tablished by the Richmond Community De-velopment Demonstration and Youth Pro-jects, as well as appropriate trainingprograms established by the school de-partment.

b) Will be located in a school and will workwith the school counseling staff, tea-chers and other related personnel. As-signment may include participation insuch responsibilities as: conductinghome visits to discuss and interpretschool problems and programs; developmentof parent discussion groups dealing withproblems of discipline, curriculum andeducational planning; participation incompensatory education programs for par-ents and children; and representation andinterpretation of school programs to com-munity groups.

c) Maintain appropriate and required writtenrecords and reports.

d) Participate in gathering, developing, in-terpreting and evaluating appropriate da-ta concerning the school neighborhood.

e) Permanent employment and assignment ofthe School New Careerist will begin inSeptember 1965. On or about April 1965

56

he will be assigned to the research in-terview program; on or about May 15, 1965L_ will be assigned as a recruiter withthe Richmond Youth Project; on or aboutJuly 1, 1965, he may be assigned as tea-cher aide in the pre-kindergarten pro-gram. This assignment may include suchresponsibilities as: interviewing par-ents to explain the program and registerparticipants; meeting with parent groups;assisting a family in securing a specialservice in the larger community; and as-sisting the teacher in the RichmondSchool District's pre-kindergarten summerprogram.

57

"74.77P771Wet,A^^,,,vwrt7,ravrArrges-wrrmrrix.,,7m771.71WEF

ILLUSTRATION CADDENDUM TO JOB

RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION OF

SCHOOL-NEW CAREERISTS JOB DESCRIPTION

1. The School-New Careerists shall be officiallyknown as School-Community Worker.

2. The School-Community Worker (SCW) shall, withthe approval of the School Department Super-visor and the School Administrator, conducthome visits to the students home:

- to determine feelings and attitudes of par-ents toward the school and about problemsthe child is having at school;

- to interpret the events or occurrences a-bout which the School is concerned;

- to offer, end provide whatever assistancethe family may need to have in order to be-come fully involved in attempting to dealwith the problems or conditions affectingtheir child, including social, health andacademic;

- to help the family participate actively inall phases of school life;

- to help the family visit the school andparticipate actively in discussion andplanning with school personnel relative totheir child.

3. The School-Community Worker will seek out andmeet with community groups and leaders in theschool neighborhood (neighborhood council,block clubs, churches, ministers, etc.) andwill interpret and explain school programs,

59

MI Pk AIP l4lS R161, r, ....../va..11144,1-eia... ,,ff ,-,bz era

and policies from the school perspective.They will also attempt to involve thesegroups in thinking through and developingways and means for them to become positivelyrelated to the schools and school programs.The SCW will relate to the appropriate per-sonnel in the schools, the attitudes and con-cerns of these citizens and groups as theyare expressed and have bearing on school pro-grams.

4. The SCW may provide an added resource to theschools in dealing with in-school behaviorproblems. This might be accomplished by tea-chers referring youngsters to the "counselingoffice" with the approval of the school ad-ministrator, as an isolation technique andwhere the youngster may be able to relate tothe SCW as a "friendly adult" who can provideatmosphere for "cooling off" as well as awilling ear.

5. The SCW may take special note of frequentproblem categories for which appropriate ser-vice resources (in the school or community)are either inadequate or non-existent. Suchproblem identification could be used by theschools and other groups and institutions inthe community for planning and expanding ser-vices. This might include absence of facili-ties for emotionally disturbed children ordeveloping effective alternatives to suspen-sion.

6. The SCW, upon assignment by the school super-visor or school administrator will work withother agencies in the community that might beconcerned with e particular family or pro-blem.

7. Assignment of the SCW to all cases will bemade with the approval of the school supervi-sor and the school administrator.

60

8. The SCW will work forty hours per week. Thedaily work schedule will be 8:00 a.m. to 4:00p.m. with adjustments of daily schedule beingmade to meet the requirements of the specificsituation. The SCW will have a sign-in bookat the office of the respective schools andwill keep the school office, the school su-pervisor or the school administrator informedof their whereabouts during the course of theday and of any schedule change. The SCW willbe covered by the provisions of the personnelcode of the Contra Costa Council of CommunityServices.

9. The SCW is in a particularly sensitive posi-tion in the community relative to the receiptof information. It is just such a position,which should enable the attainment of one ofthe primary goals of the program--bridgingcommunication gaps. The SCW will have to besure to clearly identify himself and his re-lationship to the schools in his contactswith clients. He should be sure to informthe client that all information will betreated confidentially but that it is his re-sponsibility to share this information withhis supervisor and school administrator inorder to best provide any help that may beindicated.

The presence of the SCW in this sensitive po-sition should enable the schools to developincreasing use of informal procedures indealing with problems and increasing reliancein intra-school and community referral re-sources.

10. The SCW may be used to provide whatever aids,supports, or help to the family that are in-dicated and planned with the supervisor.Flexible use of the SCW is desirable in thisregard.

61

,

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) Harry Specht, Community Develo ment inLow-Income Areas: Its Relevance to Prob-lems of the Negro Community., Contra CostaCouncil of Community Services, WalnutCreek, California, February, 1966 - #104.

(2) Gordon E. Misner, The Development of "NewCareerist" Positions in the Richmond Po-lice OgPartment, Contra Costa Council ofCommunity Services, Walnut Creek, Cali-fornia, January, 1966 - #103.

(3) Anatole Shaffer and Harry Specht, Train-ing the Poor for New Careers, Contra Cos-ta Council of Community Services, WalnutCreek, California, March, 1966 - #105.

(4) The problem may now be near solution,though it is not yet certain what newproblems may emerge from this solution.At the end of the first year of the Pro-gram, Project sf.7.4ff reached the conclu-sion that joint supervision was unsatis-factory. Even more important than thestrains it created for all staff involv-ed, it continuously threatened to subvertthe major Project objective (incorpora-tion of the Program as a permanent fea-ture of the School District). Conse-quently, in the second year, it was a-greed that school personnel assume thefull responsibility, while a "Project Li-aison Officer" carry ilsponsibility forinsuring Project and Sool District com-pliance with all contractual and othercommitments.

(5) George James, "Emerging Trends in PublicHealth and Possible Reactions", PublicHealth Repo rts, Vol. 80, Number 7, July,1965, pp. 579-586.

63