Community Psychology Fourth Edition PDF

Copyright American Psychological Association W hat I s C ommunity P sychology ? 3 What Is Community Psychology? community Community psychologists work in a multitude of fields, including child devel- psychology...

Copyright American Psychological Association W hat I s C ommunity P sychology ? 3 What Is Community Psychology? community Community psychologists work in a multitude of fields, including child devel- psychology opment, mental health, criminal justice, education, community health, home- concerns the relationships of lessness, substance abuse, and organizational psychology. What unites us is individuals with not the area in which we choose to work but rather the perspective we bring communities to that work. Community psychologists seek to understand people within the and societies. By integrating research social contexts of their lives in order to promote a better quality of life for all with action, it seeks people. Community psychologists believe that often the best way to alleviate to understand and human suffering and advance social justice is through a focus not on chang- enhance quality of life for individuals, ing individuals but rather on changing the relationship between those people communities, and and the settings, organizations, and structures in which they live. This view- societies. point may be best illustrated by the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., when he addressed the American Psychological Association in 1967. His address was titled “The Role of the Behavioral Scientist in the Civil Rights Movement.” I am sure that we will recognize that there are some things in our society, some things in our world, to which we should never be adjusted. There are some things concerning which we must always be maladjusted if we are to be people of good will. We must never adjust ourselves to racial discrimination and racial segregation. We must never adjust ourselves to religious bigotry. We must never adjust ourselves to economic conditions that take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few. We must never adjust ourselves to the madness of militarism, and the self-defeating effects of physical violence. In that address, Rev. Dr. King called for the creation of a new organi- zation, the International Association for the Advancement of Creative Maladjustment. The field of community psychology arose around the same time as his address, and as a field we embrace the concept of creative malad- justment, not only in relation to the social justice issues he listed but in re- sponse to any structural context that impedes optimal human health and well- being. Keeping in mind the diversity of community psychologists’ interests and personal views, we offer this definition of the field: Community psychology concerns the relationships of individuals with communities and societies. By integrating research with action, it seeks to understand and enhance quality of life for individuals, communities, and societies. Let us unpack this definition. Community psychology concerns the mul- tiple relationships between individuals, communities, and societies. We de- fine “community” broadly. An individual lives within many communities and at multiple levels: family, networks of friends, workplace, school, voluntary association, neighborhood, and wider locality—even cultures. All these exist within larger societies and, ultimately, within a global context. The individual must be understood in terms of these relationships, not in isolation.  Copyright American Psychological Association 4 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y Community psychology’s focus is not on the individual or on the com- munity alone but also on their linkages. The field also studies the influences of social structures on each other (e.g., how citizen organizations influence the wider community). But unlike sociology, community psychology places a greater emphasis on individuals and their complex interactions with the social structure. Community psychology is also committed to engaging in research and developing valid psychological knowledge in the interest of improving com- munity life. In the community psychology perspective, knowledge is con- structed through research and action. The community psychologist’s role has often been described as that of a participant–conceptualizer (Bennett et al., 1966, pp. 7–8), actively involved in community processes while also attempt- ing to understand and explain them, as aptly summarized in these statements: If we are afraid of testing our ideas about society by intervening in it, and if we are always detached observers of society and rarely if ever participants in it, we can only give our students ideas about society, not our experiences in it. We can tell our students about how society ought to be, but not what it is like to try to change the way things are. (Sarason, 1974, p. 266) Community psychology research is intertwined with efforts to change a community and social action. Findings from research are used to build theory and to guide action. For example, a program developed in a high school set- ting to prevent youth violence (i.e., action) can generate greater knowledge of the problem, adolescent development, the local school and community, and Box 1.1 Changing Perspectives: Homelessness Bessie Mae is 97 years old and homeless. She has her two boys, and that is about all. She and sons Larry, 60, and Charlie, 62, live in a 1973 Chevrolet Suburban they park each night on a busy Venice street. Bessie worked as a packer for the National Biscuit Co. until she was in her 60s. Charlie worked in construction and as a painter before becoming disabled by degenerative arthritis. Larry was a cook before compressed discs in his back and a damaged neck nerve put an end to it. He began working 26 years ago as a full-time caregiver for his mother through the California’s In-Home Supportive Services program. That ended about 4 years ago, when the owner of a Palm Springs home where they lived had to sell the place. At the same time, the state dropped Larry and his mother from the support program, he said. The three have tried at various times since to get government-subsidized housing. But they failed, in part because they insist on living together (Pool, 2009). It was not until the publication of Pool’s article in the Los Angeles Times that Bessie Mae and her sons were able to obtain housing from a nonprofit organization: the Integrated Recovery Network. Bessie Mae and her sons are not alone. On one specific night in January 2019, an estimated 568,000 people were homeless in the United States (Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020). Nearly one fifth of those people were children. Only 63% of those who were homeless were staying in shelters or other types of transitional housing. The remaining 37% were living on the street, in their cars, or in other places where people are not meant to live.  Copyright American Psychological Association W hat I s C ommunity P sychology ? 5 What Do You Think? 1. Consider the news stories you have heard about the problem of homelessness or perhaps the homeless people you have encountered yourself. Why do you think these people are homeless? 2. Take a minute to list what you think are the top three contributing causes to homelessness. how to design future prevention programs (i.e., research). Moreover, commu- nity psychology research and action are collaborative, based on partnerships with the persons or communities involved. Community psychology is different from other fields of psychology in two ways. First, community psychology offers a different way of understand- ing human behavior and how to support individual, family, and community wellness. We focus on the community contexts of behavior. That shift in per- spective (which is the first thing we discuss in this chapter) leads to the second difference: an expansion of the definition of appropriate topics for psycholog- ical study and intervention. Community psychologists are interested in effec- tive ways to prevent problems rather than treat them after they arise. The field emphasizes promoting healthy functioning for all members of a community rather than intervening when problems develop for a few of those members. And we focus our research on factors at the neighborhood, community, and societal level that support or impede healthy development. If you are like many people, you listed such things as substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence—problems affecting the lives of the people who become homeless. These are indeed contributing factors. But they are not the primary factors. All these variables are more common among per- sons who do not become homeless than among those who do (Shinn, 2009; Shinn et al., 2001). The most important factor contributing to the problem of homelessness in the United States has nothing to do with the character or personal circumstances of the individuals who become homeless. It is a lack of affordable housing in our communities. The best predictor of the extent of homelessness in a community is the ratio of available affordable housing units to the number of persons and families seeking them (Shinn, 2016; Shinn et al., 2001). Structural factors are often more influential than individualistic factors when solving societal problems like homelessness. We must address these problems from multiple structural levels, while being respectful of individual differences and empowering those directly affected by these issues. Empirical grounding is also essential because studying and solving these problems, strengthening communities, and achieving social justice for all members of those communities is nearly impossible without a sound scientific basis. These are some of the fundamental values of community psychology, which we explore later in this chapter.  Copyright American Psychological Association 6 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y Individualistic Versus Structural Perspectives individualistic As mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, many people tend to focus only perspective on individuals’ behaviors or life choices instead of considering structural fac- focuses on the life choices and behaviors tors when thinking about the roots of societal problems like homelessness. of individuals when Listing factors such as substance abuse, mental illness, and domestic violence addressing societal as the main causes of homelessness represents an individualistic perspective, problems. focused on how homeless persons and families are different from those with structural housing. While this viewpoint is an important one, as individual factors do perspective also referred to as an matter, we are going to ask you to consciously make a perceptual shift and to ecological perspective, analyze problems in living through a structural perspective as well. Using it examines how this perspective requires you to think about how organizations, neighbor- systemic factors at various levels impact hoods, communities, and societies are structured as systems and how those the lives of individuals, systems affect the lives of individuals and families. In community psychology, families, and other this is generally presented as taking an ecological perspective, and that is how groups within a community. it will be discussed in this book. This shift in perspective can be made clear by viewing homelessness as a game of musical chairs (McChesney, 1990). In any community, there is a finite number of affordable housing units—just as there is a finite number of chairs in a game of musical chairs. And in both situations, there are more people than there are available chairs (or housing units). While individual variables do influence who becomes chairless (or homeless), these are not the defining factors in the game. These factors determine who gets the available seats and who is left standing but not how many chairs are available. The game is struc- tured from the beginning to ensure that someone is left without a chair. A study of solely individual-level variables in homelessness misses this larger reality. A social program for homelessness that focuses only on such factors as treating individual mental disorders or promoting job-interviewing skills may reshuffle which people become homeless and which do not, but it does nothing to increase the availability of housing. Addressing community or societal problems such as homelessness requires a shift in perspective— from an individualistic perspective to a structural/ecological one. Within this broader perspective, community psychologists have much to contribute (e.g., M. A. Bond et al., 2017). We revisit the issue of homelessness and what can be done about it in Chapter 13. The shift from an individualistic to a structural/ecological perspective is related to another issue we would like you to consider in this class: problem definition. As we are sure you have learned in other psychology courses, hu- man beings are rarely content to just observe something. We want to under- stand it, and we will, almost automatically, construct some sort of explanation. These personal explanations then become the basis for how we define social problems. If you view an issue through an individualistic perspective, your definition of the problem will center on individual-level variables. The issue of Copyright American Psychological Association I ndi v idualistic Ve r sus S t r uctu r al P e r specti v es 7 Philip Pilosian/Shutterstock.com Community psychology examines societal issues like homelessness through an ecological lens, addressing systemic causes rather than just individual factors. problem definition is not an incidental one. How we define a problem shapes the questions we ask, the methods we use to answer those questions, and the way we interpret those answers. And all those things affect the types of in- terventions we will consider. How we define a problem has such far-reaching effects that social scientists have declared problem definition to be an ethical issue (O’Neill, 2005). Assumptions we make about a problem determine how we define the problem, which in turn determines the ways we approach and try to solve it. This may be particularly true when we are not consciously aware of the assumptions we are making. Our cultural background, personal experiences, education, and biases (and sometimes the biases that came with our educa- tion) help shape those assumptions, which may actually prevent effective re- sponses to the problem. Our assumptions can thus become the real problem. If we ignore how problems are framed—the viewpoint through which we derive our definitions—we will be imprisoned by those frames (E. Seidman & Rappaport, 1986). In this book, we hope to broaden your thinking about framing problems and the process of problem definition. We will encourage you to become participant–conceptualizers for how problems are defined and addressed in your communities. Community psychologists strive to think outside the traditional boxes of psychology to define problems and generate interventions at many levels. Actually, there are no truly individual problems or interventions. Every­ thing that humans do takes place in social contexts: in a culture, a locality,  Copyright American Psychological Association 8 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y a setting (e.g., workplace, school, playground, home), and a set of personal relationships. For example, a child matures within many social contexts that shape their development. When a client arrives for a psychotherapy session, they bring a personal set of life experiences (in social contexts), as does the therapist. The two form a relationship that is rooted not only in who they are as persons but also in cultural, gender, social, economic (e.g., who pays for treatment, and how does that affect it?), and other contexts. Even the atmo- sphere of the waiting room, interpreted in cultural terms, makes a difference. In this chapter, we first expand our discussion of how community psy- chology involves a shift of perspective from the viewpoint of most of psy- chology. We then elaborate on the community psychology perspective by de- scribing some of its basic assumptions about persons, contexts, and two types of change. Next, we discuss two conceptual frameworks central to the field: ecological levels of analysis (multiple layers of social contexts) and eight core values of the field. This chapter is the first of two that introduce and define community psychology in Part I of this book. In Chapter 2, we trace how community psychology developed a different way of “doing” psychology and provide examples of its current practice. Community Psychology: A Shift in Perspective In the previous section, we presented homelessness as an example of how a shift from an individualistic perspective to a structural/ecological perspective changes how we define a problem and what types of interventions we consid- er. In this book, we discuss a number of approaches to addressing problems from a structural perspective. Here is an overview: Prevention/promotion programs reduce the future likelihood of prob- lems—for example, by strengthening protective factors and reducing risk factors in individuals, families, schools, organizations, and communities (see Chapters 10 and 11). Consultation focuses on roles, decision making, communication, and conflict in organizations to promote employee job satisfaction or effec- tiveness of human services, social change organizations, or schools (see Chapters 12 and 13). Alternative settings arise when traditional services do not meet the needs of some populations (e.g., women’s centers, rape crisis cen- ters, self-help organizations for persons with specific problems—see Chapters 9 and 13). Community organizing at grassroots levels helps citizens organize to identify local issues and decide how to address them. Community  Copyright American Psychological Association P e r sons , C onte x ts , and C hange 9 coalitions bring together citizens and community institutions (e.g., religious congregations, schools, police, business, human services, government) to address a community problem together instead of with separate, uncoordinated efforts (see Chapter 13). Participatory research, in which community researchers and citizens collaborate, provides useful information for action on community issues. Program evaluation helps determine whether community programs ef- fectively attain their goals and how they can be improved (see Chapters 3 and 4). Policy research and advocacy includes research on community and social issues, efforts to inform decision makers (e.g., government offi- cials, private sector leaders, mass media, the public) about courses for action, and evaluation of the effects of social policies (see Chapter 13). Community psychologists are engaged in advocacy regarding homeless- ness, peace, drug abuse, positive child and family development, and oth- er issues. One goal of this book is to introduce you to tools for advocacy, as a citizen or professional, at levels from local to international. Any reader of this book is quite likely to participate in community initia- tives such as these in the future, whether as a community psychologist, clinical counseling psychologist, or another health professional, educator, researcher, parent, or citizen. One goal of this book is to give you tools for doing so. Understanding diverse cultures, including your own, may also require another shift of perspective. Cultural traditions of individuals, families, and communities provide personal strengths and resources for effective action. Community psychology emphasizes understanding each culture’s distinctive- ness while not losing sight of that culture’s core values and shared human experiences. A further goal of this book is to provide you with some tools for learning about and working in diverse cultures (see Chapter 7). Persons, Contexts, and Change The shifts of perspectives that we have described involve underlying assump- tions about two questions: How do problems arise? How can change occur? Every day, each of us acts on our own assumed answers to these questions. Next, we describe some assumptions among community psychologists about these questions. Persons and Contexts Some of our most important assumptions about problems concern the im- portance of persons and contexts. Shinn and Toohey (2003) coined the term  Copyright American Psychological Association 10 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y context context minimization error to denote ignoring or discounting the importance encapsulates all the of contexts in an individual’s life. Context (a term we use throughout this structural forces that influence an book) refers to the encapsulating environments within which an individual individual’s life, lives (e.g., family, friendship network, peer group, neighborhood, workplace, including family and school, religious or community organization, locality, cultural heritage and social relationships, neighborhood, norms, gender roles, social and economic forces). Together, these make up school, religious the structural forces that shape the lives of individuals. Context minimization and community errors, where people focus primarily on an individual’s behavior and overlook organizations, cultural norms, gender roles, or discount structural factors, lead to psychological theories and research and socioeconomic findings that are flawed or that hold true only in limited circumstances. These status. Not adequately errors can also lead to therapy interventions or social programs that fail be- accounting for these structural forces leads cause they attempt to reform individuals without understanding or altering to flawed research the contexts within which those individuals live. and practice, which A key concept of social psychology is the fundamental attribution error is called context (Ross, 1977)—the tendency of observers watching an actor to overestimate minimization error. the importance of the actor’s individual characteristics and underestimate the importance of situational factors. When we see someone trip on a sidewalk, we often think “how awkward” or wonder if the person has been drinking. We seldom look to see if the sidewalk is flawed. Context minimization is similar but refers to contexts and forces that include those beyond the immediate sit- uation. Cultural norms, economic necessities, neighborhood characteristics, and the psychological climate of a workplace are examples. Contexts influence our lives at least as much as individual characteristics do. Consider the multiple contexts that influence a child in a first-grade pub- lic school classroom. The personalities of teacher and students certainly influ- ence the classroom context; the curriculum and routine ways that the teacher engages with students are also important. But also consider the relationships of the school principal, faculty, and staff with the child and their family. The class occurs in a physical room and school in a wider neighborhood and com- munity, which can support or interfere with learning. Relationships between administrators, school board members, and citizens (and taxpayers) certainly influence the classroom environment, as do community, state, and national attitudes and policies about education. These contexts have important influ- ences beyond simple effects of the individuals involved. Actions to improve learning for students in that first-grade classroom will need to change multi- ple contexts (Weinstein, 2002a). Persons and contexts influence each other. Community psychology is about the relationships of persons and contexts. These are not one-way streets. Contexts affect personal life, while persons, especially when acting together with others, influence and change contexts. Stephanie Riger (2001) called for community psychology to appreciate how persons respond to contexts and how they can exercise power to change those contexts. Copyright American Psychological Association P e r sons , C onte x ts , and C hange 11 Persons influence context when, for example, citizen efforts in a neigh- borhood lead to improved safety, neighboring connections among residents, assistance for people affected by domestic violence, affordable housing, or re- duced pollution from a neighboring factory. Persons who share a problem or illness can influence contexts of human services or health care when they form a mutual help group to support each other. Community psychology seeks to understand and to improve individual, community, and societal quality of life. One of our goals for this book is to whet your appetite for involvement in community and social action in ways that draw on your personal strengths and community resources. Reading this book “in context.” In reading this book, we expect that, at times, you will disagree with or recognize limitations to what we write. Respectful disagreement is important in community psychology. Community psychologist Julian Rappaport (1981) playfully yet seriously proposed Rappaport’s rule: “When everyone agrees with you, worry” (p. 3). Diversity of views is a valuable resource for understanding multiple sides of community and social questions. As you read this book, identify your specific life experiences that lead you to agree or disagree, and identify the social contexts of those experiences. If possible, discuss these with your instructor, with a classmate, or in class as a group. In our experience, many disagreements in communities and societies are based on differing life experiences in different contexts. It is important to discuss those experiences with respect and to understand them. That discus- sion can deepen your own and others’ learning. Sharing your perspectives can help others be better participant–conceptualizers in their communities. Structural Perspectives and First-Order and Second-Order Change Developing a comprehensive understanding of the problem of homeless- ness introduced earlier in this chapter requires a conceptual shift from an individual-level only perspective to a person-in-context, structural perspec- tive. This perceptual shift may be particularly difficult for those of us who were raised in the American cultural tradition of individualism. This tradi- tion holds that America, from its founding, has offered equal opportunities for all, so what we make of our lives solely depends on individual talent and effort. While we do not discount the importance of individual knowledge, skills, and effort (in fact, community psychologists actively work to devel- op programs to increase these attributes in individuals, as you will see in Chapters 10 and 11), we believe that the role of structural forces in human behavior has been undervalued in psychology as a whole. One of the major skills we want you to take away from your reading of this book is the ability  Copyright American Psychological Association 12 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y first-order change to look at a problem and ask yourself, “What structural factors influence this altering, rearranging, problem or behavior? How could those be modified to improve the lives of or replacing the individual members individuals and families?” of a group without One of the first major studies demonstrating the importance of struc- addressing the tural forces was a study of crime and juvenile delinquency in Chicago in structural issues that are the root cause of the first half of the 20th century. Two sociologists, Clifford Shaw and Henry the problem. McKay (1969), looked at official sources of juvenile delinquency rates (e.g., second-order arrests, adjudications) in Chicago neighborhoods during three time periods: change 1900–1906, 1917–1923, and 1927–1933. These were periods of rapid change resolving a problem by in Chicago: successive waves of immigration by different ethnic groups, in- changing relationships within a community, creased industrialization, sharp increases in population density, and high which includes shared levels of mobility. What they found was that, over time, rates of juvenile de- goals, roles, rules, and linquency remained high in certain neighborhoods, even though almost the power dynamics. This approach requires entire population of those neighborhoods had changed! Even when the eth- more extensive and nic makeup of a neighborhood completely changed (as existing immigrant dynamic efforts but groups moved to more desirable neighborhoods and new immigrant groups is more likely to result in positive, long-term moved in), the high rates of juvenile delinquency persisted. Shaw and McKay change. concluded that it was structural factors in the neighborhoods (poverty, over- crowding, and the social disorganization that accompanies rapid change) that were causing the high crime rates, not the characteristics of the indi- viduals who lived there. The theory they developed, social disorganization theory, is still an influential theory in the field of criminology, but the general point about the importance of structural forces has important implications well beyond that field. Their research also illustrates the difference between first-order and second-order change. Writing of the family as a social system, Watzlawick et al. (1974) distin- guished between two kinds of change. First-order change alters, rearranges, or replaces the individual members of a group (the neighborhood in C. Shaw and McKay’s, 1969, research). This may resolve some aspects of the prob- lem. However, in the long run, the same problems often recur with the new cast of characters, leading to the conclusion that the more things change, the more they remain the same. Attempting to resolve homelessness by counsel- ing homeless individuals without addressing the supply of affordable hous- ing represents first-order change. You may help that individual, but the so- cial problem will persist because you have not addressed all the reasons that homelessness exists. A group is not just a collection of individuals; it is also a set of relationships among them. Changing those relationships, especially changing shared goals, roles, rules, and power relationships, is second-order change (Linney, 1990; E. Seidman, 1988). For example, instead of preserving rigid lines between bosses who make decisions and workers who carry them out, second-order change may involve collaborative decision making, giving workers power to make decisions. Instead of rigid lines of expertise between mental health Copyright American Psychological Association P e r sons , C onte x ts , and C hange 13 professionals and patients, it could involve finding ways that persons with dis- orders may help each other in self-help groups. The point is not that specific interventions need to be used but rather that the analysis of the problem takes into account these sets of relationships, power, and contexts as possible con- tributing sources of the problems. Second-order change can help transform individuals’ lives and the communities where they live. Try a thought experiment suggested by community psychologist Seymour Sarason (1972) to analyze the educational system. Criticisms of schools, at least in the United States, often focus blame on individuals or collections of individuals: incompetent teachers, unmotivated or unprepared students, or uncaring parents or administrators. Imagine changing every individual in the school—firing all teachers and staff and hiring replacements, obtaining a new student population, and changing every other individual from the school board to the classroom—yet leaving intact the structure of roles, expectations, and policies about how the school is to be run. How long do you think it will be before the same issues and criticisms return? Why? If you answer “not long,” you are seeing the limits of first-order change. It is sometimes enough, but often, it is not. Next, we present two detailed examples of second-order change, one in relation to substance abuse recovery and the other in relation to the role of youth in their communities. Oxford House: Second-order change in recovery from substance abuse. Traditional professional treatments for substance abuse have high recidivism rates. Methods that rely more on persons in recovery helping each other offer promising alternatives. One example is twelve-step groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous. Another is Oxford House, a network of residential settings (Jason, Olson, & Harvey, 2015). Many recovery homes (halfway houses) are located in areas of higher crime and drug use, have crowded and time-limited accommodations, and impose rules that limit resident initiative and responsibility. Some of these limitations reflect the reluctance of the larger society to support or have day-to-day contact with persons in recovery. In contrast, Oxford Houses offer more spacious dwellings in lower-crime residential neighborhoods. Residents are required to be employed, pay rent, perform chores, and remain drug-free. The resident may choose whether to be involved in professional treatment, mutual help (e.g., twelve-step) groups, or both. Separate Oxford Houses ex- ist for women and men. Each house is governed democratically, with leaders chosen by residents but without professional staff. Current residents vote on applications of prospective residents to join the house; a resident who returns to drug use or who is disruptive can be dismissed by a similar vote. The new resident joins a community in which there is support, shared responsibility, and shared decision making.  Copyright American Psychological Association 14 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y Oxford Houses represent second-order change because they alter the usual roles of patient and staff, making persons in recovery more account- able for their own behavior and for each other, in a context of equality, sup- port, and shared community. Evaluations indicate positive outcomes and re- duced recidivism. In many cases, achieving second-order change requires not only a shift in how we think about a problem but also a change in the methods we use to understand and address the problem. Youth inquiry approaches are an exam- ple of this. Youth inquiry approaches: Creating second-order change in the en- vironments of children and adolescents. Children and adolescents have been studied intensively in social science research, including in a whole field of study—child development—devoted exclusively to them. But in all that research, youth have been the objects of study, not the creators of research. That distinction illustrates a specific structural understanding of the role of children and adolescents in the research process. Their role is to be studied by adults. Their voices have been silent in deciding what questions should be asked, what methods should be used, what data should be collected, how those data should be understood, and what should be done with the results. Over the past 2 decades, that structural understanding of the role of youth in the research process has been challenged through the use of youth inquiry approaches (Kennedy et al., 2019; Langhout & Thomas, 2010a). Youth inquiry approaches are research and social change methods that center youth, rather than adults, as the primary knowledge generators and change agents. Adults are involved as collaborators and support providers, not as directors. All these changes in role relationships represent second-order change. Instituting that second-order change in our structural approach to under- standing and improving the environments in which youth live has resulted in measurable changes in those environments. A majority of studies of proj- ects using youth inquiry approaches demonstrate significant environmental outcomes (Kennedy et al., 2019; Langhout & Thomas, 2010a). These include changes in the way youth are perceived and valued by the adults in their schools and communities, changes in peer norms, the development of new programs and improvement of existing ones, and the adoption of new policies. For example, youth participatory action projects in two urban high schools resulted in more diversity-related discussions between adults and students and in structural changes within the schools through which stu- dents could inform and influence hiring decisions, teaching practices, and other policies at the schools (Ozer & Wright, 2012). A youth participatory action program in Minneapolis involved youth investigating and mapping youth-friendly opportunities in their neighborhoods. They then developed innovative ways to bring those opportunities to the attention of other youth Copyright American Psychological Association P e r sons , C onte x ts , and C hange 15 and their families. Finally, they worked to educate their communities about unmet needs of youth and barriers to participation in existing opportuni- ties. Safe and reliable transportation to youth programs was identified as one such barrier, and youth in one neighborhood were able to create two new bus routes specifically to transport youth to parks, libraries, and other youth pro- grams (Walker & Saito, 2011). Limits of Change in Social Contexts. Even second-order change does not “solve” community and social problems. Attempts to resolve community and social issues represent a problem-resolution process rather than problem solving. A series of changes is likely needed to transform the lives of individ- uals and their communities. Every problem resolution creates new challenges and perhaps new problems: unintended consequences, altered alignments of human or material resources, or new conflicts involving human needs and values. This is not a reason to give up. The change process leads to real im- provements if communities and societies carefully study both history and likely future consequences (Sarason, 1978). Ecological Levels of Analysis in Community Psychology As individuals, we live within webs of social relationships. Urie Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed a levels of analysis framework (describing levels of social contexts) that is influential in developmental psychology and community psy- chology. Our discussion of ecological levels is partly based on Bronfenbrenner’s approach, but our frame of reference is the community, not just the develop- ing individual. Thus, we differ in some details from his approach. Historically, community psychology has used ecological levels as a way of clarifying the different values, goals, and strategies for intervention associated with each level of analysis (Rappaport, 1977a, 1977b; E. Seidman & Rappaport, 1974). In addition, this approach helps us focus on the interactions between systems (see also different concepts of ecological levels in Maton, 2000; Moane, 2003; G. Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010). Thinking in terms of ecological levels of analysis helps clarify how a single event or problem has multiple causes. For example, factors that contribute to a child’s problems in school may include forces at multiple levels. Powerful adults at school, in the local community, and at national and global levels make policy decisions that affect the resources that determine the quality of education the child receives. Family members, friends, and teachers have a great impact, but even their thinking and values are influenced by the school system; the local community; and cultural, societal, and even global levels. Thinking in terms of ecological levels of analysis also helps illustrate mul- tiple ways to address an important question for community psychology: What is a community? While originally tied to place or a locality, “community” has come to refer to sets of relationships among persons at many levels—whether  Copyright American Psychological Association 16 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y tied to place or not (see Chapter 6). Thus, a classroom, sorority, religious con- gregation, online community, or cultural group (e.g., the Mexican American community) may be considered a community. Figure 1.1 illustrates our typology of ecological levels of analysis for com- munity psychology. The most proximal systems, closest to the individual and involving the most face-to-face contact, are closer to the center of the dia- gram. The more distal systems, less immediate to the person yet having broad effects, are toward the outside of the diagram. As you can see in the diagram, some of these systems overlap; for exam- ple, some organizations, such as small businesses or community groups, are so small that they have many of the psychosocial qualities of microsystems. The examples in italics in Figure 1.1 are illustrative and do not represent all groups at each level. Figure 1.1 Ecological Levels of Analysis for Community Psychology MACROSYSTEMS Cultures Societies Governments Corporations Mass media Social movements Belief systems LOCALITIES Neighborhoods Cities Towns Rural areas MICROSYSTEMS ORGANIZATIONS Schools Families INDIVIDUALS Labor groups Friends Local businesses Classrooms Community coalitions Work groups Religious congregations  Copyright American Psychological Association P e r sons , C onte x ts , and C hange 17 individual Individuals, societies, and the levels between them are interdependent, the smallest ecological and their contributions to behavior and social problems may overlap in dif- level, it involves total consideration of a ferent ways. Indeed, community psychology is based on that interdependence person’s experiences, of persons in contexts. It is at the point where these systems link that commu- memories, thoughts, nity psychology interventions can often have their greatest impact: the point feelings, relationships, culture, and other where community members have identified an issue and where multiple peo- defining factors. ple, groups, and community resources must be brought together in an inten- microsystems tional way to address it. It is for this reason that community psychology is smaller environments referred to as a linking science (see Chapter 2). or groups within an ecological framework where the individual Individuals often communicates or The concept of the individual in this model encompasses all of a person’s interacts directly with others (e.g., families, experiences, relationships, thoughts, and feelings. Consider the individual classrooms, musical person, nested within the other levels. The person chooses their relationships groups, sports teams). or environments to some extent and influences them in many ways; likewise, these influence the person. Each person is involved in systems at multiple ecological levels (e.g., family and friends, workplace, neighborhood). Much research in community psychology concerns how individuals are interrelated with social contexts in their lives. Community psychologists and others in related fields have developed in- dividually oriented preventive interventions to increase personal capacities to address problems in communities. These interventions have been docu- mented to be effective in reducing such problems as difficulties in the social and academic development of children, adolescent behavior problems and juvenile delinquency, adult physical health and depression, HIV/AIDS, dif- ficulties during family transitions such as parenting and divorce, and family violence (we discuss these in detail in Chapters 10 and 11). Many preventive approaches promote social-emotional competence and skills for adapting to challenging contexts or ecological transitions from one context to another, such as entering school or becoming a parent (Weissberg et al., 2003). Microsystems Microsystems are environments in which a person repeatedly engages in direct, personal interaction with others (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). They include families, classrooms, friendship networks, athletic teams, musical groups, neighborhoods, residence hall wings, and self-help groups. In mi- crosystems, individuals form interpersonal relationships, assume social roles, and share activities (Maton & Salem, 1995). Microsystems are more than simply the sum of their individual members; they are social units with their own dynamics. For example, family therapists have long focused on how families function as systems beyond their individu- al members (Watzlawick et al., 1974). Members have roles, differential power in making decisions, reactions to the actions of other members, and so on.  Copyright American Psychological Association 18 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y setting Microsystems can be important sources of support for their members but also an important concept sources of conflict and burdens. in community psychology that The concept of a setting is important in community psychology (see encompasses physical Chapter 5). In this psychological usage of the term, setting is not simply a surroundings and physical place but an enduring set of relationships among individuals that relationships among individuals. It can may be associated with one or several places. A chapter of a self-help group span multiple places is a setting, even if its meeting place changes. Physical settings such as play- and can apply to grounds, local parks, bars, or coffee shops may provide meeting places for microsystems and larger organizations. microsystems. The term “setting” is applied to microsystems and to larg- er organizations. organizations large ecological systems with solid, Organizations clearly defined structures, including Organizations are larger than microsystems and have a formal structure: a titles, missions, title, a mission, bylaws or policies, meeting or work times, supervisory rela- rules and policies, tionships, and so on. Organizations studied by community psychologists in- schedules, and clude human service and health care settings, treatment programs, schools, hierarchies, among other things (e.g., workplaces, neighborhood associations, cooperative housing units, religious workplaces, religious congregations, and community coalitions. These important forms of commu- congregations, nity affect whom people associate with, what resources are available to them, neighborhood associations, schools). and how they define and identify themselves. Employed persons often intro- They often consist of duce themselves by where they work. multiple microsystems Organizations often consist of sets of smaller microsystems. Classes, ac- and can be part of larger social units tivities, departments, staff, administrators, and boards make up a school or (e.g., a neighborhood college. Departments, shifts, or work teams make up a factory or restaurant. association operates Religious congregations have choirs, religious classes, and prayer groups. within a city). Large community organizations usually work through committees. However, localities organizations are not simply the sum of their parts; the dynamics of the whole geographic settings within an ecological organization, such as its organizational hierarchy and its informal culture, framework—such are important. as counties, towns, In turn, organizations can be parts of larger social units. A local congre- neighborhoods, or even entire cities— gation may be part of a wider religious body, or a retail store part of a chain. that often contain A neighborhood association offers a way for citizens to influence city govern- multiple organizations ment. The largest organizations (e.g., international corporations, political par- or microsystems, including ties, religious denominations) are macrosystems, which are discussed later. governments, economies, media Localities outlets, and educational and health Although the term “community” has meanings at many levels of analysis, one systems. prominent meaning refers to geographic localities, including rural counties, small towns, urban neighborhoods, or entire cities. Localities usually have governments; local economies; media; systems of social, educational, and health services; and other institutions that influence individual quality of life. Localities may be understood as sets of organizations or microsystems. Individuals participate in the life of their shared locality mainly through  Copyright American Psychological Association P e r sons , C onte x ts , and C hange 19 community smaller groups. Even in small towns, individuals seldom influence the wider coalitions community unless they work alongside other citizens in an organization or representatives of multiple community microsystem. An association of neighborhood residents is an organization, groups and while the entire neighborhood is a locality. That neighborhood may also host organizations that microsystems of teen friends, adults who meet for coffee, and parents and come together to address broad children who gather at a playground. However, a locality is not simply the sum community issues, of its citizens, microsystems, or community organizations. Its history, cultural such as public health traditions, and qualities as a whole community surround each of those levels. concerns. They are effective means of An example of the linkage between organizations and localities is the de- mobilizing community velopment of community coalitions, composed of representatives of various resources to address community groups and organizations and formed to address wider commu- shared goals. nity issues such as drug abuse or health concerns. While community coali- macrosystems tions may be a new concept for many of you, they are important elements the largest systems within an ecological of community psychology practice and have been shown to be effective in framework that increasing and mobilizing community resources to achieve community goals form contexts that (Bess, 2015; C. Harper et al., 2014; Oesterle et al., 2018; V. Shapiro et al., 2015). influence individuals, microsystems, We discuss community coalitions in detail in Chapters 10, 11, and 13. organizations, and localities. These other Macrosystems ecological systems can in turn influence Macrosystems are the largest level of analysis in our system. While Figure 1.1 macrosystems through portrays only one macrosystem, in fact individuals, microsystems, organiza- social advocacy or widespread tions, and localities are all continually influenced by multiple macrosystems. action. Example Macrosystems include societies, cultures, political parties, social movements, macrosystems include corporations, international labor unions, multiple levels of government, in- cultures, political parties, corporations, ternational institutions, broad economic and social forces, and belief systems. religions, and Community psychology’s perspective ultimately needs to be global. governments. Macrosystems exercise influence through policies and specific decisions, populations such as legislation and court decisions, and through promoting ideologies and a broadly shared social norms. Ideals of individual autonomy greatly influence U.S. culture and characteristic that links people together within the discipline of psychology. Mass media communicate subtle forms of ra- a macrosystem. They cial stereotyping and cultural expectations for thinness, especially for women. can form the basis of Macrosystems also form contexts within which the other levels function, such a community (e.g., the Deaf community), as how the economic climate affects businesses. But systems at other levels can influence macrosystems through social advocacy or through actions such as buying locally grown foods. An important level of analysis that we include under macrosystems is the population. A population is defined by a broadly shared characteristic (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, income, religion, sexual orientation, ability or disability status). Populations can be the basis of a broad form of commu- nity (e.g., the Jewish community, the gay community). However, not all indi- viduals within a population will identify with it as a community. Many studies in community psychology concern more than one level of analysis. For instance, a study of children in Head Start programs investigated  Copyright American Psychological Association 20 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y mediating neighborhood-, family-, and individual-level factors related to educational structures success. The researchers found that neighborhood-level factors (including the institutions that link individuals to public number of families of low or high socioeconomic status and the number of life, including formal homes in which English was a second language) had significant direct effects organizations and on the cognition and behavior of children in Head Start (Vanden-Kiernan et settings (e.g., schools, churches) and less al., 2010). These direct neighborhood-level effects were not mediated by such formal ones (e.g., self- family-level factors as family structure, income, ethnicity, or family processes help groups, clubs, (e.g., amount of social support available to parents, parents’ involvement in organized supporters groups for a favorite their children’s education). What this means, for example, is that living in sports team). They a neighborhood marked by concentrated poverty had a significant negative can act as a buffer in effect on the cognitive and behavioral development of children, even if those dealing with stressors from larger institutions children lived in a two-parent home with high income and parents who were (e.g., unemployment, highly involved in their education. The negative neighborhood-level effects discrimination) and were strong enough to overwhelm any positive effects the children received can be important from their parents. We discuss the strong effects of neighborhood context on intervention points when helping child development in Chapter 5. communities. What Do You Think? 1. What are the most important microsystems, organizations, localities, and macrosystems in your life? How are those settings related to each other? 2. Think about one specific setting in your life. What resources does it provide for you? What challenges or obligations does it present? What are its strengths and weaknesses? 3. Name something that you would like to change about that setting. Why? 4. At what level does that setting exist (microsystem, organization, locality, or macrosystem)? How would changing that setting affect settings at the other levels? How would changes at the other levels affect that setting? Levels of Intervention Ecological levels of analysis are helpful tools in shifting perspective about where to look to improve social outcomes. Systematically examining an issue across levels of analysis can uncover multiple contributing factors to that is- sue. However, examining social issues across levels of analyses is not sufficient to promote change; that is, understanding where to look is only the first step of the community psychology shift in perspective. One way in which levels of analysis can help suggest appropriate points of intervention is through the concept of mediating structures, “those institu- tions standing between the individual and his private life and the large insti- tutions of public life” (Berger & Neuhaus, 1977, p. 2). Peter Berger and John Copyright American Psychological Association P e r sons , C onte x ts , and C hange 21 Neuhaus were sociologists who developed a strategy to promote well-being for individuals and communities by developing mediating structures. Central to this theory is that society can exert stressful conditions on individuals, some of whom have difficulty coping with these stressors. However, a strate- gy of promoting the development of mediating structures focuses on settings that can assist individuals in coping with society’s stressors. In our ecological levels of analysis framework, these might be organizations (e.g., schools, mu- tual help groups, churches) or less formal settings. Community psychologists have been interested in the potential of settings that can serve as mediating structures—many of which are underutilized resources in communities al- ready. In some cases, community psychologists focus on creating new alter- native settings that better meet the needs of the individuals affected by the focal concern. What to change and how to change it are crucial components of any change strategy. In the coming chapters, we elaborate on how and what to change. For this introduction of the community psychology perspective, we emphasize two related points that need to be paired with any consideration of ecological levels of analysis: problem definition and selection of interventions that are linked to ecological levels of analysis. The focus of any change effort requires a problem definition to organize resources and action. It is critical to examine how a problem is framed and how this dictates interventions. In the example of homelessness presented earlier, if homelessness is defined as a problem with the person only (e.g., addiction, mental health, lack of job skills) or problem of the environment only (e.g., lack of affordable housing), the selected interventions will be quite different (e.g., a treatment for an individual deficit vs. the creation of a program to increase access to affordable housing). By focusing on a sin- gle level of analysis (e.g., individual problems), the intervention strategy is constrained to individual change efforts and will be ineffective in addressing homelessness if aspects of the problem at higher levels of analysis are not addressed (e.g., access to safe, affordable housing). Too often, the change strategy ignores or does not match the level of analysis. In North America, many communities have programs to help homeless individuals change but do little to address the lack of affordable housing. From a community psy- chology perspective, addressing such issues as homelessness or joblessness will require multiple interventions at more than one level of analysis. If in- terventions are not implemented at multiple levels of analysis, they will like- ly fail to effectively address the issue. Furthermore, there are three ways that we may fall short of addressing issues even if we examine multiple levels of analyses. First, it may be that action is necessary but not taken (e.g., additional resources for treatment of homeless persons or affordable housing are not committed). Second, it may be that action is taken where it should not be (e.g., arresting homeless  Copyright American Psychological Association 22 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y errors of logical typing persons for sleeping on the street; how does this prevent homelessness?). taking action at the Third, and perhaps more common, action is taken at the wrong level of wrong ecological level (e.g., city analysis (e.g., the only action taken is passing city ordinances to limit ordinances that limit panhandling or loitering—observable individual-level behaviors of some panhandling, which homeless persons that are troubling to many community members). In targets individual behaviors resulting community psychology terms, this is referred to as an error of logical typ- from homelessness, ing (Rappaport, 1977b; Watzlawick et al., 1974). While panhandling and not the root causes loitering can be problematic, focusing change efforts on this individual lev- of homelessness within localities and el of analysis likely will not reduce homelessness. These efforts may also not macrosystems). reduce behaviors perceived to be problematic; rather, these behaviors will likely be moved to different locations as the root causes for homelessness have not been addressed. How do community psychologists decide how to frame problem defini- tions? How can you choose which levels of analysis need to be included in an intervention strategy? In the next section, we present core values of commu- nity psychology that help guide these decisions. Eight Core Values in Community Psychology values Our personal values about relationships, accountability, social change priorities, deeply held ideals and our personal political world view all shape our priorities and agenda for in individuals and community work. communities about —M. A. Bond, 1989, p. 356 what is considered moral, right, or good. Our work always promotes the ends of some interest group, even if we do not recognize They can influence that explicitly. goals, the means to —Riger, 1989, p. 382 achieve those goals, or both. Community psychology is guided Values play a central role in both research and social action. The decisions by eight core values, about what issues to investigate, how to research them or intervene, and who as shown in Exhibit 1.1. should be involved in those activities are all formed by the values of the peo- ple involved. This is true for all research and action, but for much of history the central role played by values in those activities has been largely ignored. Many of you are likely aware of the Tuskegee syphilis study conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972 (CDC, n.d.). A research pro- gram that was intended to provide data supporting more resources for the treatment of syphilis in poor Black communities resulted in hundreds of men being denied effective treatment, even when it became available. There were many systemic failures responsible for this ethical catastrophe, but at the heart of them all were the values of the people designing and running the study. They valued the data they received from the men recruited for the study more than they valued the men themselves. But what exactly do we mean by “values”? Values are deeply held ideals about what is moral, right, or good. They have emotional intensity; they are Copyright American Psychological Association E ight C o r e Values in C ommunity P sychology 23 honored, not lightly held. Values may concern ends (goals), means (how to attain goals), or both. They are social; we develop values through experiences with others. Individuals hold values, but so do families, communities, and cultures. Values may be rooted in spiritual beliefs or practices but can also be secular. Many ethical conflicts involve choices about which of two worthy values is more important in a given situation (R. Campbell & Morris, 2017b; G. Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010; O’Neill, 2005). In community psychology, discussions of values are useful for sever- al purposes. First, values help clarify choices for research and action. Even defining a problem is a value-laden choice, strongly influencing subsequent action (E. Seidman & Rappaport, 1986). Public definitions of community and social problems often reflect the worldviews of the powerful and thus help maintain the status quo. Attending to values can lead to questioning those dominant views. Second, the discussion of values helps identify when actions and espoused values do not match (Rappaport, 1977a). Consider a community leader who helps found a neighborhood social center to empower teens who are gay, les- bian, bisexual, or questioning their sexuality. The leader decides how to reno- vate the space and plans all the programs, allowing the youth themselves little say. Despite the leader’s intent, this actually disempowers the youth (Stanley, 2003). The leader talks the talk but does not walk the walk. Or consider an alternative high school that seeks to empower students, their families, and teachers (Gruber & Trickett, 1987). But when decisions are to be made, the teachers have sources of day-to-day information and in- fluence that students and parents lack; teachers thus dominate the discussion. Despite the espoused values of all involved, the organizational practices do not empower students and families. The problem is not individual hypocrisy but an organizational discrepancy between ideals and outcomes. Third, understanding a culture or community involves understanding its distinctive values. For instance, Potts (2003) discussed the importance of Africanist values in a program for middle school African American youth. Native Hawaiian cultural conceptions of health are closely tied to values of ‘ohana and lokahi (family and community unity) and of interdependence of the land, water, and human communities. A health promotion program in Native Hawaiian communities needs to be interwoven with these values (Helm, 2003). Fourth, community psychology has a distinctive spirit (J. G. Kelly, 2002)—a shared sense of purpose and meaning. That spirit is the basis of our commitment and what keeps us going when obstacles arise (J. G. Kelly, 2010). It is thoughtful but also passionate and pragmatic, embodied in research and action. In our experience, the spirit of community psychology is based on eight core values, listed in Exhibit 1.1. Our discussion of these eight values is influenced  Copyright American Psychological Association 24 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y Exhibit 1.1 Eight Core Values in Community Psychology 1. Social justice is the fair and equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, obligations, and power across communities within a society. All members in a socially just society have the same rights and are subject to the same processes, which are developed collaboratively with input from all members of that society. 2. Respect for human diversity acknowledges and honors the variety of communities and social identities based on gender, ethnic or racial identity, nationality, sexual orientation, ability or disability, socioeconomic status, age, religious and spiritual beliefs, and other characteristics. Communities are understood on their own terms, and research, interventions, and other psychological work are tailored based on those terms. 3. Sense of community is a feeling of belongingness, interdependence, and mutual commitment that links individuals as a collective. It is integral to community and social action and is a resource for social support and clinical work. 4. Collective wellness is an overall sense of contentment within a community that balances the objective and subjective needs of all individuals and groups within that community and resolves conflicting needs for the general good. 5. Empowerment and citizen participation are essential components to all work in community psychology, ensuring that community involvement exists at all ecological levels in making decisions and that community members can exert control. 6. Collaboration entails an equal relationship between community psychologists and community members. Psychologists lend their expertise but do not assume a position of hierarchical superiority, giving citizens the opportunity to contribute their own knowledge, resources, and strengths. 7. Empirical grounding is using empirical research to make community action more effective and using the lessons from that work to make research more valid for understanding communities. Community psychologists also acknowledge that no research is unbiased, so they are open about values and the impact of context in their work. 8. Multilevel, strengths-based perspective avoids focusing only on the individual level and addresses all ecological levels of analysis, recognizing and integrating community strengths at these levels in the work of community psychology. by, yet different from, the discussions of values by Isaac Prilleltensky and Geoffrey Nelson (2002; G. Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010; Prilleltensky, 1997, 2001, 2012). These eight values are just one way of summarizing the field’s val- ues. In addition to these common values, each individual and working group within the field must decide what values will be central to their work. Our discussion here is intended to promote the discussion of these values and the issues they raise for community life. As M. A. Bond (1989) and Riger (1989) asserted in quotations at the beginning of this section, community psycholo- gy will be guided by some set of values and serve someone’s interests, whether we realize it or not. It is better to discuss and choose our values and how to put them into action.  Copyright American Psychological Association E ight C o r e Values in C ommunity P sychology 25 distributive justice Social Justice an aspect of social justice that involves Social justice can be defined as the fair, equitable allocation of resources, op- the fair and equitable portunities, obligations, and power in society as a whole (Prilleltensky, 2001, allocation of resources (e.g., money, access to p. 754). Social justice has two aspects especially important here. Distributive quality education and justice concerns the fair and equitable allocation of resources (e.g., money, healthcare) among access to good quality health services or education) among members of a so- community members. cial group. Procedural justice ensures that everyone has the same rights and procedural justice is subject to the same procedures. Procedural justice is often understood in an aspect of social justice ensuring that terms of due process in the legal system, but Prilleltensky (2012) argued for an everyone within a expansion of that concept to include all settings and all relationships. So if two setting has the same children commit the same transgression, they both receive the same treat- rights and is subject to the same rules and ment from their parents, and they both understand the basis of that treatment procedures. In law, it and consider it (reasonably) fair. Or if an organization has a pool of money to is understood as due use for staff raises, everyone in the organization understands how the raises process, but it applies to other settings as are distributed and considers that process fair. From a community psychology well. perspective of social justice, in order for processes to be just, everyone should be involved in their development. Following these definitions, a just setting is one in which every member receives an equitable share of the resources, everyone is involved in the development of the processes that govern the set- tings, and those processes are applied fairly. Psychology’s record of support for social justice in the United States has been mixed. It has sometimes been at the forefront of social justice struggles, as in the involvement of psychologists Mamie and Kenneth Clark and oth- ers in research cited in the 1954 school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education. However, psychological research and practice has also had the effect of supporting sexism, racism, and other injustices, for instance in the area of intelligence testing (Gould, 1981; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). The tradition of liberation psychology, rooted in Latin America, and the related fields of critical psychology and feminist psychology exempli- fy psychological pursuit of social justice (M. A. Bond et al., 2000a, 2000b; Martin-Baro, 1994; Montero, 1996; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002; Watts & Serrano-García, 2003). Respect for Human Diversity This value recognizes and honors the variety of communities and social iden- tities based on gender, ethnic or racial identity, nationality, sexual orientation, ability or disability, socioeconomic status and income, age, religious and spir- itual beliefs, or other characteristics. Understanding individuals-in-commu- nities requires understanding human diversity (Gomez & Yoshikawa, 2017; Trickett, 1996). Persons and communities are diverse, defying easy general- izations and demanding that they be understood in their own terms.  Copyright American Psychological Association 26 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y This is not a vague respect for diversity as a politically correct attitude. To be effective in community work, community psychologists must under- stand the traditions and folkways of any culture or distinctive community with whom they work (Gomez & Yoshikawa, 2017; O’Donnell, 2005). That includes appreciating how the culture provides distinctive strengths and re- sources for living. Researchers also need to adapt research methods and ques- tions to be appropriate to a culture. This is more than simply translating ques- tionnaires; it involves a thorough reexamination of the aims, methods, and expected products of research in terms of the culture to be studied. Respect for diversity must be balanced with the values of social justice and sense of community—understanding diverse groups and persons while promoting fairness, seeking common ground, and avoiding social fragmenta- tion (Prilleltensky, 2001). To do that, the first step is usually to study diversi- ties in order to understand them. A related step is to respect others as fellow persons, even when you disagree. We explore the value of human diversity in relation to community psychology throughout the book and provide addi- tional conceptual frameworks for understanding diversity in Chapter 7. Sense of Community Sense of community is the center of some definitions of community psychol- ogy (Sarason, 1974). It refers to a perception of belongingness, interdepen- dence, and mutual commitment that links individuals in a collective unity (D. McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Sarason, 1974). For example, community psy- chologists have studied sense of community in neighborhoods, schools and classrooms, mutual help groups, faith communities, workplaces, and internet virtual environments (e.g., Buckingham et al., 2018; Fisher, Sonn, & Bishop, 2002; Newbrough, 1996). Sense of community is a basis for community and social action as well as a resource for social support and clinical work. We discuss psychological sense of community in detail in Chapter 6. Collective Wellness Community psychologist Isaac Prilleltensky (2012) defined wellness as “a positive state of affairs, brought about by the simultaneous and balanced satis- faction of diverse objective and subjective needs of individuals, relationships, organizations, and communities” (p. 2). This definition differs from others in its focus on multiple ecological levels. Prilleltensky believes that the con- cept of wellness extends beyond the individual. Organizations can experience varying degrees of wellness, as can communities and societies. This definition also reflects the diversity embodied in those settings. The needs of individuals, families, communities, and societies are multiple, com- plex, and sometimes in conflict. It is in recognition of these points that we have chosen the term “collective wellness” to describe this value in community Copyright American Psychological Association E ight C o r e Values in C ommunity P sychology 27 psychology. This value as it is reflected in the field of community psychology is further discussed in Chapters 7, 10, 11, and 13. Empowerment and Citizen Participation You are probably familiar with the concept of empowerment viewed through an individualistic perspective—a feeling people experience of being able to ex- ert power over their own lives. Community psychology views empowerment through ecological, collaborative, and structural perspectives; at multiple lev- els; and as a process rather than a feeling (Christens, 2019). Empowerment is the process of enhancing the possibilities for people to control their own lives (Rappaport, 1987). From this perspective, empowerment is an empir- ical construct. Tangible changes are made in settings that increase the op- portunities for members to come together to exert control over how those settings function. Citizen participation can be defined as “a process in which individuals take part in decision making in the institutions, programs and environments that affect them” (Wandersman et al., 1984, p. 339). Increased citizen partic- ipation both results from and contributes to increased empowerment. These values will be explored further in Chapter 8. Collaboration Perhaps the most distinctive value of community psychology, long empha- sized in the field, involves relationships between community psychologists and citizens and the process of their work (Case, 2017). Psychologists traditionally assume an “expert” role, which creates a hierarchical, unequal relationship of expert and client—useful in some contexts but often inappropriate for com- munity work. Psychologists also traditionally address deficits in individuals (e.g., diagnosing a mental disorder), while community psychologists search for personal and community strengths that promote change. Community psy- chologists do have expertise to share with communities. However, they also need to honor the life experiences, wisdom, passionate zeal, social networks, organizations, cultural traditions, and other resources (in short, the commu- nity strengths) that already exist in a community. Building on these strengths is often the best pathway to overcoming problems (D. D. Perkins et al., 2004). Furthermore, community psychologists seek to create a collaborative re- lationship with citizens so community strengths are available for use. In that relationship, both psychologist and citizens contribute knowledge and re- sources, and both participate in making decisions (Javdani et al., 2017; Kelly, 1986). For example, community researchers may design a study to meet the needs of citizens, share research findings with citizens in a form that they can use, and help use the findings to advocate for changes by decision makers. Developers of a community program would fully involve citizens in planning and implementing it.  Copyright American Psychological Association 28 CHAPTER 1 T H E F U N D A M E N TA L S O F C O M M U N I T Y P S YC H O L O G Y Empirical Grounding This value refers to integrating research with community action, basing (grounding) action in empirical research findings whenever possible (Rappaport, 1977a; Tebes, 2017). This uses research to make community ac- tion more effective and makes research more valid for understanding com- munities. Community psychologists are impatient with theory or action that lacks empirical evidence and with research that ignores the context and inter- ests of the community in which it occurred. Community psychologists believe no research is value-free; it is always influenced by researchers’ values and preconceptions and by the context in which the research is conducted. Drawing conclusions from research thus re- quires attention to values and context, not simply to the data (Tebes, 2017). This does not mean that researchers abandon rigorous research but that val- ues and community issues that affect the research are discussed openly to promote better understanding of findings. We explore how the field of com- munity psychology approaches this integration of research and values in Chapters 3 and 4. Multilevel, Strengths-Based Perspective Earlier in this chapter we introduced the concept of ecological levels of analy- sis, each of which offers a unique perspective for understanding and defining areas of concern and identifying potential points of intervention. That empha- sis on moving beyond an individual level of analysis, and the shift in perspec- tive that requires, is a defining aspect of the field of community psychology. Along with that focus on context and an imperative to recognize and work in the multiple settings that structure our lives, community psychology shares with other disciplines a strengths-based perspective (Maton, Humphreys, Jason, & Shinn, 2017; Rappaport, 1977a). This is the understanding that all individuals, families, organizations, and societies have significant strengths and that those strengths must be acknowledged, celebrated, and utilized in efforts to enhance collective wellness. The community psychology value of a multilevel, strengths-based per- spective is reflected throughout the field and is specifically addressed in Chapters 5, 10, 11, and 13. The Interrelationship of Community Psychology Values Of course, none of the eight values we have presented can exist in isolation. For example, in Chapters 7, 10, and 11 we discuss how evidence-based prevention and promotion programs (which are empirically grounded) should embody a multilevel, strengths-based perspective; be designed and implemented based on a collaborative, empowering relationship with the community; be adapted  Copyright American Psychological Association T he I nte r r elationship of C ommunity P sychology Values 29 Box 1.2 Community Psychology in Action: Tom Wolff and Community Coalitions Community psychologist Tom Wolff was engaged by a community health coalition to work with local citizens to plan health initiatives. He held an evening meeting open to all citizens. At such a meeting, one might expect to discuss a lack of affordable health care in the community, a need for health promotion and prevention programs, or mutual help groups. Instead, the most important need identified by many citizens was for street signs! Wolff barely contained his amazement. Yet recently in this community, emergency medical care had been delayed several times, with serious consequences, because ambulances could not locate residences. Wolff duly noted this concern, then sought to turn the conversation to matters fitting his preconceptions. However, the loc