EAST CLEVELAND PERCEPTIONS AND CONNECTIONS BASELINE SURVEY CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

Transcription

1 EAST CLEVELAND PERCEPTIONS AND CONNECTIONS BASELINE SURVEY CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY A PROJECT TO SUPPORT COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN EAST CLEVELAND AND CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY DECEMBER 2013

2 Case Western Reserve University is committed to supporting the revitalization of the neighboring city of. Across many levels and units of the University there are efforts to strengthen the relationship between CWRU and the community. This baseline survey was developed to support the ongoing partnership efforts. The survey project had two objectives: 1) To create a baseline that can be used to assess change in CWRU perceptions of and connections with over time 2) To collect information that can inform ongoing collaborative projects This is the second phase of surveys administered for the current study. This phase was conducted in May 2013 at Case Western Reserve University with an online survey of the students, staff and faculty community on their perceptions of the community of. The first phase was conducted with residents in East Cleveland in October of 2012 and a separate report is available at on the results of that survey. Input on this project has been provided through two primary ongoing partnership efforts that have been instrumental in promoting a stronger relationship between the University and : The Partnership and the Social Justice Institute. This report is intended to serve as a resource to any individual or organization in the community or at the university that is working to promote positive change and strengthen relationships between CWRU and or other neighborhoods. We hope the data presented here provides useful information and serves as basis for measuring progress over time. This report offers a summary of the most pertinent findings; the complete survey results are available upon request and will be made available at the above website. We would like to thank the Office of the Provost, which provided support for the design, implementation and analysis of this survey. We thank April Hirsh, research assistant at the Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development and Alex Epstein and Brenda Mathias, social work master s students at the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, for their work on the survey analysis and writing of this report. Questions and suggestions about the survey are welcome: please contact Prof. Mark Chupp, mark.chupp@case.edu, (216) or Prof. Mark Joseph, mark.joseph@case.edu, (216) Survey Methodology An invitation to participate in the online survey was ed to all students, staff, faculty and other affiliated personnel with a CWRU address. A total of 2,152 valid responses were received. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 1

3 Although the survey relied on convenience sampling, responses were successfully received from a broad distribution of students, faculty and staff that represents many elements of the Case Western Reserve community. Table 1.1 compares the sample distribution to the actual university population. In the survey, Caucasians and staff are overrepresented and men, Asians, and students are underrepresented, particularly graduate students. Table 1: CWRU and Perception Survey Demographic Comparison CWRU Frequency CWRU percent ECP Survey ECP Survey percent Frequency Gender Female 7, Male 7, Missing Total 14, , Ethnicity African- 1, American Asian 1, Caucasian 7, , Other 3, Missing Total 14, , Role at CWRU Staff 3, Undergraduate 4, student Graduate 5, Student Faculty 1, Other** Missing Total 14, , **This category represents people who had multiple roles (for example, were both staff and student), alumni, post-doctoral scholars, faculty emeritus, and members of the Board of Trustees. Residential Background To get a sense of how familiar respondents might be with the Cleveland area in general and in particular, we collected information about residential history and location. Most respondents were not originally from the area but a substantial number have lived in the region for many years. Originally from Cleveland area? Over two-thirds of survey respondents (68%) reported not originally being from the Cleveland area Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 2

4 How long in area? While 37% reported having lived in northeast Ohio for more than 20 years, 43% of all respondents have only resided in the area for less than 5 years. Live in County? The majority of survey participants indicated that they lived within Cuyahoga County with only 14% of the sample residing outside of the county limits. Live in City? 43% live in the City of Cleveland and 43% live within Cuyahoga County but outside of the City of Cleveland proper. Which neighborhood? Among those respondents that reported living in the City of Cleveland or Cuyahoga County: 22% of all respondents report living on the CWRU campus 11% of all respondents report living in University Circle 7% of all respondents report living in Little Italy 4% of all respondents report living in Buckeye-Shaker 2% of all respondents report living in Less than 2% of all respondents report living in Glenville, Fairfax, Hough, or Central Perceptions of A primary goal of this survey was to get a baseline sense of current perceptions among the CWRU community about. A number of CWRU partnerships are in place with to build relationships, share information, and promote positive and valuable activities. Over time, those working on those partnerships expect that these efforts will help increase knowledge and promote more informed and balanced perceptions among the CWRU community about. At this point, as expected, we found that knowledge about is quite mixed. A substantial number of respondents don t know enough to comment on the inner workings of the community. On topics on which respondents felt more able to give their outsider opinion, such as neighborhood improvements and safety, there are a wide range of opinions. We found some interesting variations in opinions among subgroups of respondents, most strikingly among those with a greater familiarity with. How much do respondents know about? While 42% of respondents said they knew a great deal or some about, 41% knew very little or nothing. Information source? Most respondents primarily relied on information from other sources to form their perceptions of. Only a fifth of Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 3

5 respondents reported that their knowledge about is primarily based on direct personal experience. o 27% learned about primarily through news stories and published information o 24% got their knowledge primarily from hearsay or word of mouth o 10% got their knowledge primarily through others who are actively involved o 21% got their knowledge primarily through personal experience progress. When asked their level of agreement with a variety of perceptions of the community, the perspective that respondents agreed with most is that is making progress on overcoming its challenges. Over 20% agreed with this statement. 1 However, another 20% disagreed, and 17% neither agreed nor disagreed. Community assets. Respondents generally showed little knowledge of the many important assets in the community: over 46% disagreed that has a number of assets that would appeal to outsiders. Resident relationships. Regarding whether there are positive relationships among residents (e.g. a close-knit community, neighbors help each other, get along with each other, share values), about half of respondents did not know enough to answer the questions, and the remainder of respondents were split with slightly more neither agreeing nor disagreeing (39%), and disagreeing (38%) than agreeing (24%). Safety. Respondents were most able to share perceptions regarding safety and, not surprisingly, there was an overwhelmingly negative perception: 70% of respondents did not agree that is a safe community and only 3% agreed with this statement. Subgroup differences. Through crosstabulation analysis we identified several interesting differences among various subgroups of respondents. o Gender. Female respondents had slightly more positive perceptions of than males, but, surprisingly, there were no substantial differences on perceptions of safety. o Race. African-American respondents had much more positive perceptions of and were, for example, twice as likely to agree that East Cleveland is a close-knit community than white and asian respondents two and a half times as likely to agree that neighbors help other neighbors in than white respondents. 1 Throughout this report, we combine strongly agree and agree, and we combine disagree and strongly disagree. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 4

6 o Age. We found that younger respondents, ages 18 to30, tended to have more negative perceptions of than older respondents, particularly on issues of neighbor support, trustworthiness and community assets. This perhaps reflects that older respondents have had more time to develop a more balanced perspective and perhaps have knowledge of s better days. o University role. On several of the perception topics, faculty had fewer negative perceptions than staff or students, except on the question of whether was making improvements. With this item, undergraduate students had the most positive perceptions of any subgroup. o School affiliation. Respondents from the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences (MSASS) had the most positive perceptions on most of the topics and respondents from the Law School and Weatherhead School of Management had the least positive perceptions. For example, on the question of whether has assets that would appeal to outsiders, 40% of MSASS respondents agreed with this statement compared to 11 to 22% of respondents from other schools. o Familiarity with. Perhaps the most striking subgroup finding is that across several topics, respondents with more familiarity with, either who said they knew more or that they had direct personal experience or connections, often had more positive perceptions of that those who had less direct connections to. Sometimes, though to a lesser extent, those in this group also had higher rates of negative perceptions. For the most part, it appears that the more directly familiar you are with, the better your perceptions of the community. For example, those who gained information about from personal experience are almost twice as likely to perceive that neighbors are closeknit and over twice as likely to perceive that neighbors help each other. For those respondents who know at least one person from, the ratios of agreement increase to over three to one, for example 30% believe that has assets versus 8%. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 5

7 Figure 1: Community Perceptions 100% 90% 10.2% 12.3% 11.4% 12.4% 10.7% 14.6% 7.5% 3.0% 8.5% 22.0% Strongly agree or agree 80% 16.5% 16.6% 16.0% 18.0% 21.8% 10.9% 16.1% 70% 60% 16.1% 14.6% 21.4% 15.7% 17.1% Neither agree nor disagree 50% 40% 28.6% 46.2% 43.9% 70.4% 20.2% Disagree or strongly disagree 30% 20% 10% 0% 48.7% 47.8% 42.1% 45.0% 29.9% 19.6% 23.6% 8.6% 8.7% 9.0% 8.6% 9.0% 8.7% 8.9% 8.8% 8.5% is a close-knit community People in East Cleveland are willing to help thier neighbors People in East Cleveland generally get along with eachother People in East Cleveland share the same values People in East Cleveland can be trusted has a number of assests that would appeal to outsiders is welcoming of visitors and outsiders 9.3% is a safe community 32.1% is making progress on overcomming its challenges Don't know enough to say Missing Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 6

8 Institutional Relationships We asked about current perceptions of the overall relationship between Case Western Reserve University and the community of. As the institutional partnerships with progress over time, those working on these partnerships hope that members of the CWRU community will have a sense of a more connected, welcoming and mutually beneficial relationship. The current status of the institutional relationship is characterized by a sense of disconnection and weaker connections and benefits than with some other surrounding neighborhoods, though a substantial proportion of respondents do think that benefits from being close to CWRU. However, the majority of respondents do not believe that CWRU is welcoming to people from surrounding neighborhoods and especially. Physical connection? Over 45% of respondents felt that is physically disconnected from CWRU. Benefits from proximity. While over 40% of respondents agreed that CWRU benefits from being close to the surrounding neighborhoods, less than 20% felt that CWRU benefits from being close to. However, nearly 50% of respondents felt that benefits from being close to CWRU. This suggests that respondents perceive an imbalanced relationship with, where CWRU has little to gain but where benefits from the proximity. CWRU neighborhood relationships. Respondents felt that CWRU has stronger relationships with other surrounding neighborhoods than with : almost 30% agreed that relationships are generally strong with other neighborhoods while less than one-tenth agreed that relationships with East Cleveland are strong. Welcoming environments? Only about 20% of respondents felt that CWRU is a welcoming campus to people from and about 10% of respondents feel welcome in. Subgroup differences: o Race. African-American respondents were four times as likely as whites to agree that they felt welcome in, two and a half times as likely as asians and twice as likely as those who described themselves as multiracial. o University role. Staff respondents had the most positive perceptions of CWRU s relationship with surrounding neighborhoods while faculty and undergraduate students had the least positive perceptions. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 7

9 o School affiliation. MSASS respondents were the most critical of CWRU s environment, only 3% agreed that CWRU is welcoming to people from East Cleveland. However 67% of MSASS respondents agreed that MSASS is welcoming. By comparison, 29% of respondents from the Nursing School agreed that CWRU is welcoming and 52% of them agreed that the Nursing School is welcoming. o Familiarity with. We found a similar striking pattern among respondents with more direct engagement and connections to East Cleveland: three times as likely to feel welcome and at least three times as likely to feel that they benefit personally from CWRU being in proximity to. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 8

10 Figure 2: Institutional Relationships 100% 90% 80% 29.1% 9.4% 8.2% 16.5% 19.9% 19.6% 26.8% 43.4% Strongly agree or agree 70% 20.1% Neither agree nor disagree 60% 18.9% 21.1% 37.5% 33.1% 50% 40% 30% 20% 29.6% 10.9% 24.7% 26.7% 29.2% 19.1% 16.1% 23.9% 18.8% 7.3% 18.5% Disagree or strongly disagree Don t know enough to say 10% 0% 11.9% 11.9% 12.1% 12.0% 12.0% 11.9% In general, CWRU has a CWRU has a strong strong relationship with institutional relationship its surrounding with neighborhoods People from Case Western generally get along with people in Case Western Reserve University is a welcoming campus to people from East Cleveland My department/ school/division is welcoming to people from My department/ school/division is welcoming to people from other nearby Cleveland neighborhoods Missing Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 9

11 Figure 2: Institutional Relationships (continued) 100% 90% 18.5% 10.9% 8.5% Strongly agree or agree 80% 70% 44.3% 20.8% 49.9% 17.2% 16.8% 47.0% Neither agree nor disagree 60% 50% 40% 20.0% 39.9% 16.0% 50.3% 52.9% 15.8% Disagree or strongly disagree 30% 20% 10% 0% 16.8% 6.9% 8.8% 10.8% 15.4% 11.2% 9.6% 9.3% 9.5% 12.1% 12.0% 12.1% 12.1% 12.4% 12.3% I feel that Case Western benefits from being close to the surrounding neighborhoods I feel that Case Western benefits from being close to I feel that the community of East Cleveland benefits from being close to the Case Western Reserve University I feel welcome in I benefit personally from being close to is physically disconnected from Case Western Don t know enough to say Missing Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 10

12 Personal Connections to Over time, as community partnerships and joint activities increase, those working on partnerships with hope that there will more involvement by CWRU community members in and broader and stronger relationships between CWRU community members and residents. At this point, involvement and relationships are relatively low. But it was very interesting and promising to learn about the connections that do exist and the range of ways that some in the CWRU community are connected with. Personal relationships. Over 60% of respondents reported knowing no one in, another 20% know 1 or 2 people. But 5% reported knowing 11 or more people from. Personal connections. A small but significant proportion of respondents reported direct personal connections to (not mutually exclusive): o 7% have lived in o 9% have family or relatives that have lived in o 5% went to school in o 9% have worked in o 13% report having another type of personal connection to o 15% have worked on community improvements with people in East Cleveland Visiting. While 25% of respondents have never been to East Cleveland, almost 25% report having visited in the last month and a total of 52% have visited within the last 6 months. Subgroup differences: o University role. Staff were much more likely to have family members who had lived in, 82 out of 504 staff (16%), this is twice as likely as graduate students and over 3 times as likely as faculty. o School affiliation. MSASS respondents were most likely to know someone in, only 35% did not know anyone, compared to the Engineering School where 73% of respondents reported not knowing anyone from East Cleveland. Engagement in activities. A substantial proportion, over 20% of respondents (well over 400 people), reported having ever attended activities in East Cleveland (this number is based on our analysis of which reported activities actually were in ). Many of these activities happened years ago, which underscores the long history of involvement in. Given that the question covered any kind of activity, responses ranged from one time personal Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 11

13 outings to living in and working at the old CWRU Observatory, Huron Hospital, GE NELA Park, and the City Schools.. The responses point toward active involvement in the community through informal social gatherings, participation in CWRU sponsored projects, volunteering with other organizations, civic engagement, and participation in church life. Comparison with other neighborhoods. 70% of respondents have engaged in neighborhoods surrounding the CWRU campus. The chart below shows the neighborhoods with the highest level of involvement. About 25% have been involved in, less than University Circle, Little Italy and Buckeye- Shaker, but more than Fairfax, Central, Glenville and Hough. Figure 3: Personal Engagement by Neighborhood Neighborhoods Hough Glenville Central Fairfax Buckeye-Shaker Little Italy University Circle Percentage of Respondents Service, field research or volunteer involvement. The CWRU community is actively engaged in the broader community. In terms of specific forms of involvement, respondents have been more involved in Cleveland and other surrounding neighborhoods than in, but a substantial number have been involved in and provided specific examples of forms of involvement. o 41% of all respondents (nearly 900 individuals) have been involved in some way (doing volunteer work, other service, or field research) in the Cleveland area in the past year. o Among those who volunteered in the Cleveland the past year, 80% of all respondents have been involved in the neighborhoods surrounding CWRU. o 14% of all respondents have been involved in specifically. o As a point of information, regarding volunteering specifically, 11% of respondents report volunteering anywhere about once a week, about 25% Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 12

14 once a month, about 25% once this past year, and about 25% have never volunteered at all. Of those who have volunteered or been involved in : o Almost 7% (139 people) have participated in Case for Community Day in o 6% have tutored or mentored students o Over 2% (almost 50 people) report involvement with through a Social Justice Institute event or activity o 4 % report other forms of involvement activity Of the 85 respondents (5%) that reported other forms of involvement, there were three major categories that cover a broad spectrum of activities (some sponsored activities appear in the list provided in the survey as well as in the open-ended responses). The remainder of activities were personal in nature, such as attending a party or helping someone move. CWRU Sponsored Activities (36 respondents) Student Free Clinic/Free Clinic CCEL Saturday of Service, tutoring Dental Sealant Program Law School clinics Case for Community Day Provost Scholars Nursing Community Clinic Social Justice Institute Field research and surveys Performances/education in EC Schools On campus tours, activities Participation in Activities Sponsored by Other Organizations (27) Church Medwish The Free Clinic Community gardens Volunteer in schools Coit Road Farmers Market Big Brothers/Big Sisters Boy Scouts Stephanie Tubbs Jones Health Clinic NEON Health Clinic Board of a nonprofit EC Cemetery EC Theater Homeless services STEM School at GE NELA Park Forest Hill Park Civic Engagement Activities (7) Town Hall Meetings Block Parties Election 2012 Faith-based organizing NOAH Charter Review Commission Planning efforts 20% of respondents said that they would be interested in learning more about how to get involved in and a total of 53% said that they would or might be interested in learning more. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 13

15 Community Engagement Effectiveness Over time, those working on partnerships with hope that not only will there be more connections and involvement in between the CWRU and communities, but that these connections are constructive and mutually beneficial and that members of each community can effectively engage with each other to promote positive changes at the University and in. Survey responses indicate a lot of room for growth and improvement in CWRU commitment, responsiveness and ability to make a difference. On a personal level, a small but significant proportion of respondents felt that they have the ability to promote programs and influence change with the community. We did not find many substantial differences among subgroups regarding responsiveness and influence. Offer help on campus? Contrary to the sense that CWRU is not generally welcoming to surrounding neighborhoods, 69% felt that members of the CWRU community would help out an resident on campus who needed help or directions Support an activity request? 55% felt that CWRU community members would do something if an community member requested support for a community-led activity. Intervene with disrespectful behavior. Only 34% of respondents thought that members of the Case community would intervene if a resident of East Cleveland or other surrounding neighborhood was being shown disrespect by someone on campus. CWRU commitment to surrounding neighborhoods. 38% of respondents feel that people at Case Western are committed to working together to benefit the surrounding neighborhoods. CWRU ability to make a positive difference in. 55% believe that if there is an opportunity for Case Western to make a positive difference in, the campus community can come together to take advantage of the opportunity. Personal ability to promote a program with. Almost 30% of respondents agree than if they had an idea for planning a program that involved residents, they could make that happen. Personal influence over CWRU- relationship. Only 20% of respondents felt that they personally have some influence over what the relationship between the University and is like. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 14

16 Conclusion The main goal of this survey was to get a sense of current Case Western campus community perceptions of and connections with in order to establish a baseline that can be compared with future measures to determine the progress that the partnerships between the University and community are making on these areas. Findings suggest that the campus is quite split in terms of knowledge about East Cleveland with some reporting some or considerable knowledge and others reporting very little or none. Perceptions about are also split: while almost half of respondents did not yet know enough to give an opinion, those that did have a perspective were divided among positive, neutral and negative perceptions. The most positive perceptions were about the sense of some improvements in the community. There was low awareness about the assets of the community. The most negative perceptions were about levels of safety. Overall there is a sense that the University is quite disconnected from the East Cleveland, especially relative to other surrounding neighborhoods, with low mutual benefits from the existing relationship and environments that aren t welcoming to each other. While most respondents do not have personal connections to, a significant proportion do have a direct connection such as having lived, worked or gone to school there. Almost half of the respondents have visited within the last year. Quite interesting was what we learned about the 20% of respondents who had been engaged in and the 14% who had done formal activities such as volunteering. Those respondents shared a rich variety of activities that have drawn them into in ways that build relationships and contribute to the wellbeing of the community. Our most compelling finding was the differences in perceptions among those with a direct connection or experience in. Across several topics, those who are more familiar with had more positive perceptions of the community and its residents. In some cases, these respondents were also less positive about the University s level of engagement of the community and about the extent to which things are improving in. But this finding makes a strong case that continued and broadened partnerships between and CWRU could help promote more positive perceptions and relationships over time. Overall, even though the baseline survey demonstrates considerable room for strengthening the University relationship with, there is also evidence of meaningful existing connections that perhaps be better utilized as a platform for future collaborations and mutual benefit. Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 15

17 Appendix Table A1: How would you describe the neighborhood where you currently live? None of the Above 1, Case Western Campus University Circle Little Italy Buckeye-Shaker Glenville 8.4 Fairfax 7.3 Hough 7.3 Central 6.3 Missing 4.2 Total 2, Table A2: How many total years have you lived in Northeast Ohio? Less than 1 year More than 1 and up to 5 years More than 5 and up to 10 years More than 10 and up to 20 years More than 20 years Do not live in Northeast Ohio Missing 1.0 Total 2, Table A3: How many residents of for you know well enough to ask for information about the community? None 1, or to to or more Missing Total 2, Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 16

18 Table A4: How much do you know about? I know some things about I know very little about I do not know anything about I know a great deal about Missing Total 2, Table A5: Length of time at CWRU Less than 1 year More than 1 year up to 2 years More than 2 years up to 3 years More than 3 years up to 4 years More than 5 years up to 10 years More than 10 years Missing Total 2, Table A6: What is your age? and over Missing Total 2, Table A7: What is your gender? Female Male Missing Total 2, Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 17

19 Table A8: Are you of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity? No 1, Yes Missing Total 2, Table A9: What is your race? Please check all that apply. White 1, Asian Black/African American Other Missing Total 2, Table A10: How many total years have you lived in Northeast Ohio? Less than 1 year More than 1 and up to 5 years More than 5 and up to 10 years More than 10 and up to 20 years More than 20 years Do not live in Northeast Ohio Missing 1.0 Total 2, Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences 18