• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Community in Economic Development - Brent D. Hales
 

Community in Economic Development - Brent D. Hales

on

  • 591 views

This presentation was my presidential address at the joint annual meeting of the Community Development Society and Rural Sociological Association held in Boise, ID, July, 2011.

This presentation was my presidential address at the joint annual meeting of the Community Development Society and Rural Sociological Association held in Boise, ID, July, 2011.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
591
Views on SlideShare
502
Embed Views
89

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

1 Embed 89

https://usm.blackboard.com 89

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Purpose Grew up in Aurora, UT Truly rural community, population of 950. Son of a farmer/miner and store keeper I consider myself a rural community and economic development entrepreneurial sociologist Been a member of RSS since 1996 and CDS since 1998 Home in both societies They taught me to do development through critical development eyes Makes sense to examine my history and perspective of development through the eyes of the developers and sociologists that taught me.
  • Purpose Grew up in Aurora, UT Truly rural community, population of 950. Son of a farmer/miner and store keeper I consider myself a rural community and economic development entrepreneurial sociologist Been a member of RSS since 1996 and CDS since 1998 Home in both societies They taught me to do development through critical development eyes Makes sense to examine my history and perspective of development through the eyes of the developers and sociologists that taught me.
  • Doing Development Teach rural economic and community development and entrepreneurship Work with communities to conduct strategic plans Take communities from Point A to Point B Their vision Road map Developing the map
  • Doing Development Teach rural economic and community development and entrepreneurship Work with communities to conduct strategic plans Take communities from Point A to Point B Their vision Road map Developing the map
  • Doing Development Teach rural economic and community development and entrepreneurship Work with communities to conduct strategic plans Take communities from Point A to Point B Their vision Road map Developing the map
  • Necessity of doing development with or from rather than for or to the community. Must bring the community back into the process of doing economic development
  • How Use of focus groups
  • How Use of focus groups Secondary Data analysis
  • How Use of focus groups Secondary Data analysis Key informant surveys
  • How Use of focus groups Secondary Data analysis Key informant surveys Assessing the community network
  • How Use of focus groups Secondary Data analysis Key informant surveys Assessing the community network Development of viable case studies
  • Getting community buy in by coordinating with other organizations Community visioning efforts
  • Getting community buy in by coordinating with other organizations Community visioning efforts Community Narratives
  • Getting community buy in by coordinating with other organizations Community visioning efforts Community Narratives Large Group Interventions
  • Getting community buy in by coordinating with other organizations Community visioning efforts Community Narratives Large Group Interventions Creation of representative community boards
  • Developing the plan – the roadmap for success Came up with the acronym PRAISE Proactive – preparing for and planning for the development rather than being completely responsive
  • Representative Absolutely critical for developing a core group Government – provides legitimacy Business provides capital Civil society provides human capital and in many instances is the sustainability factor of an initiative.
  • Utilization of diverse approaches All of the tools necessary in a tool bag
  • Asset based
  • Use of existing resources/capital
  • Inclusive of economic and sociocultural sectors of a community/region
  • Sustainable
  • Equity as a mechanism for spreading the costs and benefits of an initiative.

Community in Economic Development - Brent D. Hales Community in Economic Development - Brent D. Hales Presentation Transcript

  • Pathways to Successful and Sustainable Economic Development The Role of Community in Economic Development
  • Taking the Journey
    • Going to Zoobieland
      • AKA Brigham Young University
  • Taking the Journey
    • Going to Zoobieland
      • AKA Brigham Young University
    • Driving across America to embark on an adventure called graduate school at Middle Tennessee State University.
      • Making of a professional sociological colleague
  • Taking the Journey
    • Going to Zoobieland
      • AKA Brigham Young University
    • Driving across America to embark on an adventure called graduate school at Middle Tennessee State University.
      • Making of a professional sociological colleague
    • Iowa State University
      • Making of a practitioner
  • Taking the Journey
    • Going to Zoobieland
      • AKA Brigham Young University
    • Driving across America to embark on an adventure called graduate school at Middle Tennessee State University.
      • Making of a professional sociological colleague
    • Iowa State University
      • Making of a practitioner
    • Delta State University
  • Teaching Community and Economic Development
    • Challenge of making the reality of doing development match the theory.
  • Teaching Community and Economic Development
    • Challenge of making the reality of doing development match the theory.
    • Impact of academic research and the past journeys of academicians and practitioners are critical.
  • Teaching Community and Economic Development
    • Challenge of making the reality of doing development match the theory.
    • Impact of academic research and the past journeys of academicians and practitioners are critical.
    • Learning by doing.
  • Purpose
    • Examine the impact of community in economic development through the eyes of the two journals, Rural Sociology and Journal of the Community Development Society .
  • Purpose
    • Examine the impact of community in economic development through the eyes of the two journals, Rural Sociology and Journal of the Community Development Society .
    • Largely taken from the journals from 2000-2011.
  • Doing Development
    • Taking a community from point A to point B.
  • Doing Development
    • Taking a community from point A to point B.
    • Working to assist them in accomplishing their vision.
  • Doing Development
    • Taking a community from point A to point B.
    • Working to assist them in accomplishing their vision.
    • “ Some of what I do every day is to keep an eye on the road from a 30,000 perspective while simultaneously trying to fix the engine in the car.”
  • Doing Development
    • Community Economic Development Plan
  • Doing Development
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Creating a map for success
  • Doing Development
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Creating a map for success
      • Preparation for the journey
  • Doing Development
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Creating a map for success
      • Preparation for the journey
      • Tells us if we are on course
  • Doing Development
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Creating a map for success
      • Preparation for the journey
      • Tells us if we are on course
      • Provides a vision of where we are going to be and when
  • Community Input
    • Numerous studies have demonstrated the need for community involvement for economic development to be both effective and sustainable.
      • Pittman, et al., 2009
      • Green, et al., 2005
      • Richards & Brod, 2004
      • Sullivan, 2004
      • Korsching and Allen, 2004
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Community-based research to determine the most effective means
      • Focus groups (Flora, 1998; Pavey, et al., 2007)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Community-based research to determine the most effective means
      • Focus groups (Flora, 1998; Pavey, et al., 2007)
      • Secondary data analysis (Parisi, et al., 2002)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Community-based research to determine the most effective means
      • Focus groups (Flora, 1998; Pavey, et al., 2007)
      • Secondary data analysis (Parisi, et al., 2002)
      • Key informant surveys (Flora, 1998; Chazdon & Lott, 2010)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Community-based research to determine the most effective means
      • Focus groups (Flora, 1998; Pavey, et al., 2007)
      • Secondary data analysis (Parisi, et al., 2002)
      • Key informant surveys (Flora, 1998; Chazdon & Lott, 2010)
      • Understanding the community network (Sharp, 2001)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Community-based research to determine the most effective means
      • Focus groups (Flora, 1998; Pavey, et al., 2007)
      • Secondary data analysis (Parisi, et al., 2002)
      • Key informant surveys (Flora, 1998; Chazdon & Lott, 2010)
      • Understanding the community network (Sharp, 2001)
      • Case studies (Zeuli, et al., 2004)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Coordination with other organizations
      • Community visioning (Moss & Grunkemeyer, 2010; Lachapelle, et al., 2010)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Coordination with other organizations
      • Community visioning (Moss & Grunkemeyer, 2010; Lachapelle, et al., 2010)
      • Community narratives (Steffensmeier, 2010)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Coordination with other organizations
      • Community visioning (Moss & Grunkemeyer, 2010; Lachapelle, et al., 2010)
      • Community narratives (Steffensmeier, 2010)
      • Large group interventions (Hammer, 2010)
  • Pathways to Community Involvement
    • Coordination with other organizations
      • Community visioning (Moss & Grunkemeyer, 2010; Lachapelle, et al., 2010)
      • Community narratives (Steffensmeier, 2010)
      • Large group interventions (Hammer, 2010)
      • Creation of representative community boards (Robinson and Hales, 2007)
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Proactive (Blakely and Leigh, 2012) –
          • Focuses on planning for rather than reacting to events that occur in a community region.
          • Establishes a forward thinking model.
          • Builds a local economy on the basis of local needs.
          • Helps communities adopt a long-range view of development.
            • Simple fact that most developers last 3-4 years in a position.
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Representative –
          • Encourages collaboration with community/regional entities (Aigner, et al. 2002)
            • Government
            • Business
            • Civil society
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Representative –
          • Utilizes diverse approaches (Robinson & Green, 2011)
            • Technical assistance approach
            • Self-help approach
            • Interactional approach
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Asset-based (Kretzmann & McKnight, 2003) –
          • Focuses on asset verses deficit model of development
          • Focuses on promoting development using existing assets as the base for development efforts (Crowe, 2006)
          • Treats external assets as ancillary assets that assist in the development process rather than drive it (Albrecht, 2004)
          • Works to build the collective and individual assets in a community (Grinstein-Weiss, et al., 2007)
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Asset-based (Green & Haines, 2012)
          • Based on the notion of nested development where each development effort builds on the efforts and outcomes of the past.
          • Assessment based on a nested logic model (Robinson & Hales, 2007).
            • Immediate outputs
            • Intermediate outcomes
            • End outcomes
  • Identification of Existing Community Resources
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Forms of Resources/Capital (Flora and Flora, 2008)
          • Natural capital
          • Cultural capital
          • Human capital
          • Social capital
          • Political capital
          • Financial capital
          • Built capital
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Inclusive (Beer, 2009)
          • Industry
          • Retail
          • Entrepreneurs
          • All sectors of the community
            • Diverse voices - Age, sex, race/ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Sustainable (Anglin, 2011; Hembd & Silberstein, 2011)
          • “ Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43.)
          • Focuses on development that emerges from or with the community rather than to or for the community.
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Holistic – PRAISEworthy
        • Equitable (Richardson and London, 2007)
          • The U.S. has a history of promoting uneven development in both policy and practice.
          • Equitable development engages efforts to address social justice (Salkin and Lavine, 2008).
          • Works to insure that the costs and benefits of development efforts are spread across the community/region (Blakely and Leigh, 2010).
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • FIVE “tions”
        • Promotion
          • Community buzz
          • Community buy-in
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • FIVE “tions”
        • Implementation
          • The best laid plans….
          • Starting with a bang
          • Following through
          • Changing on the fly
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • FIVE “tions”
        • Documentation
          • Gas stations, restaurants, and restrooms
          • Potholes and pitfalls
          • Orange barrels and hard hats
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • FIVE “tions”
        • Evaluation
          • Checking the oils
          • Kicking the tires
          • Refueling
          • Checking the map
  • Creating a Plan for Success
    • Community Economic Development Plan
      • Five “tions”
        • Celebration
          • Looking at slide shows
          • Sharing with friends
          • Planning the next trip
  • Six Development Questions
    • What?
    • When?
    • Where?
    • Who?
    • How?
    • WHY?????
  • Six Development Questions
    • What? (The principle of low hanging fruit)
      • What is it you are proposing to do?
      • What will the project do to promote where you want to go?
      • What needs to happen to be successful at this project?
  • Six Development Questions
    • When
      • When will the project take place?
      • When must critical decisions be made regarding specifics of the plan?
        • Deadlines
        • Funding
      • When will you know if you have arrived?
  • Six Development Questions
    • Where
      • Where will the project take place?
  • Six Development Questions
    • Who?
      • Who needs to be involved in the project for it to succeed?
      • Who are the starters?
      • Who are the stoppers?
      • Who will take the lead?
  • Six Development Questions
    • How?
      • How will the event come together?
      • How will the project affect the residents?
      • Will the effects be equitable?
  • Six Development Questions
    • Why?
      • Why do this project over another project?
      • Is there another project that may be more effective to take on first?
      • Will this project increase our community and economic viability?
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Largely abandoned downtown
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Largely abandoned downtown
      • University located a business incubator
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Largely abandoned downtown
      • University located a business incubator
      • Established a Historic Downtown District with accompanying board and director
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Largely abandoned downtown
      • University located a business incubator
      • Established a Historic Downtown District with accompanying board and director
      • Focused on promoting downtown redevelopment
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
      • Conducted resource analyses
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
      • Conducted resource analyses
      • Developed an asset-based nested 7-year strategic plan
  • Case Study #1
    • Historic Downtown Hattiesburg, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
      • Conducted resource analyses
      • Developed an asset-based nested 7-year strategic plan
      • Currently ahead of schedule in development initiatives
  • Downtown Before
  • Downtown After
  • Downtown After
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Historically impoverished, rural, lumber dominated county
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Historically impoverished, rural, lumber dominated county
      • Dramatically affected by Hurricane Katrina
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Historically impoverished, rural, lumber dominated county
      • Dramatically affected by Hurricane Katrina
      • Significant grant monies identified
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Historically impoverished, rural, lumber dominated county
      • Dramatically affected by Hurricane Katrina
      • Significant grant monies identified
      • University asked to assist in strategic planning process
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Historically impoverished, rural, lumber dominated county
      • Dramatically affected by Hurricane Katrina
      • Significant grant monies identified
      • University asked to assist in strategic planning process
      • Determined that there were already 15 existing strategic plans
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Rather than do yet another strategic plan, examined existing plans
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Rather than do yet another strategic plan, examined existing plans
      • Neither PRAISEworthy nor focused on specific outcomes
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Rather than do yet another strategic plan, examined existing plans
      • Neither PRAISEworthy nor focused on specific outcomes
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Rather than do yet another strategic plan, examined existing plans
      • Neither PRAISEworthy nor focused on specific outcomes
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
      • Conducted resource analyses
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Created a 5-year action plan to capitalize on the existing strategic plans and focus on the 5 “tions”
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Created a 5-year action plan to capitalize on the existing strategic plans and focus on the 5 “tions”
      • Lacked community buy-in/ownership
  • Case Study #2
    • Southern County
      • Created a 5-year action plan to capitalize on the existing strategic plans and focus on the 5 “tions”
      • Lacked community buy-in/ownership
      • Few measureable outcomes resulted in part due to the foundational issues of the county and the lack of ownership in the development process
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Historically impoverished, undereducated, racially segregated
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Historically impoverished, undereducated, racially segregated
      • Few perceived resources or alternatives
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Historically impoverished, undereducated, racially segregated
      • Few perceived resources or alternatives
      • Grant funding identified
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Historically impoverished, undereducated, racially segregated
      • Few perceived resources or alternatives
      • Grant funding identified
      • Funding used to conduct strategic planning session and establish bi-community board
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
      • Conducted resource analyses
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
      • Conducted resource analyses
      • Developed an asset-based nested 5-year strategic plan
  • Case Study #3
    • Drew, MS
      • Conducted preliminary secondary data analysis, focus groups, key informant surveys, and later community meetings
      • Conducted resource analyses
      • Developed an asset-based nested 5-year strategic plan
      • Results on-going 7 years later
  • Downtown Before
  • Downtown
  • Downtown After
  • Analysis of Case Studies
    • When conducted effectively, strategic planning can have meaningful, long-lasting results
  • Analysis of Case Studies
    • When conducted effectively, strategic planning can have meaningful, long-lasting results
    • Community buy-in is critical in the process
  • Analysis of Case Studies
    • When conducted effectively, strategic planning can have meaningful, long-lasting results
    • Community buy-in is critical in the process
    • When based on existing assets, much more sustainable
  • Analysis of Case Studies
    • When conducted effectively, strategic planning can have meaningful, long-lasting results
    • Community buy-in is critical in the process
    • When based on existing assets, much more sustainable
    • Synergistic nature
  • Implications for Research
    • Community-based research in economic development remains a viable body of research.
  • Implications for Research
    • Community-based research in economic development remains a viable body of research.
    • Must examine the impact of community in economic development with measureable outcome variables.
  • Implications for Practice
    • Utilization of community groups in economic development will increase
  • Implications for Practice
    • Utilization of community groups in economic development will increase
      • Proactive stance to doing development work
  • Implications for Practice
    • Utilization of community groups in economic development will increase
      • Proactive stance to doing development work
      • Representative body and tactics
  • Implications for Practice
    • Utilization of community groups in economic development will increase
      • Proactive stance to doing development work
      • Representative body and tactics
      • Asset-based development
  • Implications for Practice
    • Utilization of community groups in economic development will increase
      • Proactive stance to doing development work
      • Representative body and tactics
      • Asset-based development
      • Inclusivity of ideas and groups
  • Implications for Practice
    • Utilization of community groups in economic development will increase
      • Proactive stance to doing development work
      • Representative body and tactics
      • Asset-based development
      • Inclusivity of ideas and groups
      • Sustainability of the initiatives
  • Implications for Practice
    • Utilization of community groups in economic development will increase
      • Proactive stance to doing development work
      • Representative body and tactics
      • Asset-based development
      • Inclusivity of ideas and groups
      • Sustainability of the initiatives
      • Equitable distribution of costs and benefits
  • References
    • Aigner, S. M., V. J. Raymond, and L. J. Smidt. 2002. “Whole community organizing for the 21 st century.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 33(1).
    • Albrecht, D. E. 2004. “Amenities, natural resources, economic restructuring, and socioeconomic outcomes in nonmetropolitan America.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 35(2), 36-52.
    • Anglin, R. V. 2011. Promoting Sustainable Local and Community Economic Development , Cleveland, OH: CRC Press.
    • Beer, A. 2009. “The theory and practice of developing locally.” In J. E. Rowe’s (Ed.) Theories of Local Economic Development. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 63-92.
    • Blakely. E. J. and N. G. Leigh. 2012. Planning Local Economic Development: Theory and Practice (4 th Ed.) . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishers.
    • Chazdon, S. A. and S. Lott. 2010. “Ready for engagement: Using key informant interviews to measure community social capacity.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 41(2), 156-175.
    • Crowe, J. A. 2006. “Community economic development strategies in rural Washington: Toward a synthesis of natural and social capital.” Rural Sociology, 71(4), 573-596.
    • Flora, C. B. and J. L. Flora. 2008. Rural Communities: Legacy and Change (3 rd Ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    • Flora, J. 1998. “Social capital and communities of place.” Rural Sociology , 63(4), 481-506 .
  • References (Cont.)
    • Green, G. P., S. C. Deller, and D. W. Marcouiller. 2005. Amenities and Rural Development: Theory, Methods, and Public Policy . Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • Green, G. P. and A. Haines. 2012. Asset Building and Community Development . Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishers.
    • Grinstein-Weiss, M, J. Curley, and P. Charles. 2007. “Asset building and rural communities: The experience of individual development accounts.” Rural Sociology, 72(1), 25-46.
    • Hammer, J. M. 2010. “Large group interventions as a tool for community visioning and planning.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 41(2), 209-222.
    • Hembd, J. and Silberstein. 2011. “Globalization and community development: Synergy or disintegration.” In J. W. Robinson and G. P. Green’s (Eds.) Introduction to Community Development: Theory, Practice, and Service Learning. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishers.
    • Korsching, P. K. and J. C. Allen. 2004. “Local entrepreneurship: A development model based on community interaction field theory.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 35(1), 25-43.
    • Kretzmann, J. P. and J. L. McKnight. 2003. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets , Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.
  • References (Cont.)
    • Lachapelle, P., M. Emery, and R. L. Hays. 2010. “The pedagogy and the practice of community visioning: Evaluating effective community strategic planning in rural Montana.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 41(2), 176-191.
    • Moss, M. L. and W. T. Grunkemeyer. 2010. “Building a shared vision for sustainable communities.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 41(2), 240-254.
    • Parisi, D., S. M. Grice, M. Taquino, and D. A. Gill. 2002. “Building capacity for community efficacy for economic development in Mississippi.” Rural Sociology , 33(2), 19-38.
    • Pavey, J. L., A. B. Muth, D. Ostemeier, and M. L.E. Steiner Davis. 2007. “Building capacity for local governance: An application of interactional theory to developing a community of interest.” Rural Sociology 72(1), 90-110.
    • Pittman, R., E. Pittman, R. Phillips, and J Cangelosi. “The community and economic development chain: Validating the links between processes and outcomes.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 40(1), 80-93.
    • Richards, R.T. and R.L. Brod. 2004. “Community support for a gold cyanide process mine: Resident and leader differences in rural Montana.” Rural Sociology 16(4), 552-575.
    • Richardson, J. A., Jr. and J. K. London. 2007. “Strategies and lessons for reducing persistent poverty: A social justice approach to funding rural community transformation.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 38(1), 92-107.
  • References (Cont.)
    • Robinson, J. W, Jr. B. D. Hales. 2007. “Models and methods for creating sustainable community-based development organizations in diverse communities.” Community Development , 38(2), 33-51.
    • Robinson, J. W., Jr. and G. P. Green. 2011. Introduction to Community Development: Theory, Practice, and Service Learning. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishers.
    • Salkin, P. and A. Lavine. 2008. “Understanding community benefits agreements: Equitable development, social justice and other considerations for developers, municipalities and community organizations.” UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy , 26 .
    • Sharp, J. 2001. “Locating the community field: A study of interorganizational network structure and capacity for community action.” Rural Sociology, 66(3), 403-424.
    • Steffensmeier, T. 2010. “Building a public square: An analysis of community narratives.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 41(2), 255-268.
    • Sullivan, D. M. 2004. “Citizen participation in nonprofit economic development organizations.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 34(2), 58-72.
    • World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. From One Earth to One World: An Overview . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 43.
    • Zeuli, K., D. Freshwater, D. Markley, and D. Barkley. 2004. “Cooperatives in rural community development: A new framework for analysis.” Journal of the Community Development Society , 35(2).
  • Thank You
    • Brent D. Hales, Ph.D.
    • Department of Economic and Workforce Development
    • University of Southern Mississippi
    • 118 College Drive, #5022
    • Hattiesburg, MS 39406
    • 601-266-6519
    • [email_address]