1999 SURVEY RESULTS

The Council of Program Directors in Community Research and Action (CPDCRA) is happy to present the results of the 1999 survey of graduate training in community psychology. The text of the report is found below. You may download a copy of (1) the survey report, (2) the survey template (Appendix A), (3) Tables 1 to 12 (Appendix B), or (4) Program Contact Information (Appendix C) by following these instructions:

Download a copy of the survey report and/or its appendices

1.  Click on a document link.

  • 1999 Survey Report ['Report99.doc' - MS Word 97 format]
  • Appendix A - Survey 1999 ['Survey99.doc' - MS Word 97]
  • Appendix B - Tables 1 to 12 ['Tables99.xls' - MS Excel 97]
  • Appendix C - Program contact information ['Contact99.doc' - MS Word 97 format]
    • 2.  After the download window has closed, open the file in MS Word or Excel or in other compatible software.

    All correspondence should be sent to David W. Lounsbury, Michigan State University, Department of Psychology, 129 Psychology Research Building, East Lansing, MI 48823-1117.

    Note: The following text plus the contents of Appendix A, selected tables from Appendix B, and Appendix C was published in the Fall 1999 edition of The Community Psychologist.

    1999 Survey of Graduate Training Programs in Community Psychology

    David Lounsbury, Stephanie Skourtes, and Daniel Cantillon
    Michigan State University

    [The authors thank Cliff O'Donnell, James Emshoff, Allan Tompkins, Patricia O'Connor, Cathy Stein, Alison Martin, Ruth Fluery, Leah Gensheimer, Greg Meissen, and Cary Cherniss for their various contributions toward the completion of this report.]

    The Council of Program Directors in Community Research and Action (CPDCRA) is happy to present the results of the 1999 survey of graduate training in community psychology. It is the fourth such survey to be conducted since 1987 (Elias, Godin, & Dalton, 1987; Maton, Meissen, & O’Connor, 1991; Meissen, Colgate, Slavich, Dorr, & Petersan, 1995). Community psychology, like clinical and counseling psychology, is concerned with individual well-being and healthy psychosocial development. Its hallmark, however, is an expansion of this traditional, individualistic framework to include the following: (1) Application of an ecological perspective on social problems, which calls attention to ‘person/ environment fit’ and the effect of multiple, interacting social contexts; (2) a focus on preventing problems from developing within the individual or the community rather than waiting to ‘treat’ or react to their manifestations; (3) the design and implementation of interventions that foster collaboration among researchers and community members that strive to empower individuals to reach desired goals; and (4) concern with broad-scale systemic change that values the diversity of all communities.

    The current report provides information about faculty, students, research, and curricula in community psychology and about issues of human diversity related to these topics. It is intended to be a resource for anyone who is interested in the field, particularly: (1) potential students of community psychology, current graduate students, and academic advisors; (2) faculty who are interested in modifying an existing community psychology program or who are interested in starting a new community psychology program; and (3) representatives of non-academic organizations who may like to build collaborative working relationships with community psychology programs.

    Information is this report is arranged according to the four CPDCRA classifications of community psychology programs, namely:

    METHOD

    The sample of community psychology programs used in the current study was identified from two sources. First, programs were selected from the American Psychological Association Guide to Graduate Programs (1998) if they were listed under a community-related classification. This list was combined with those programs that responded to the most recent Meissen et al. (1995) survey, resulting in an initial mailing list of 74 programs. Surveys were mailed to program directors along with a letter inviting their participation. Twenty programs (27%) were disqualified because they did offer training in community psychology. Eleven programs (15%) did not respond. Forty-three programs from the sample offer graduate training in community psychology and completed our survey. Excluding disqualified programs, an 80% response rate was achieved.

    The 1999 survey was comprised of twenty-two items that measured a variety of characteristics of graduate training programs in community psychology (see Appendix A). It is an adaptation of previous surveys developed by CPDCRA (Elias et al., 1987; Maton et al., 1991; Meissen et al., 1995). Information obtained through the survey included the following: contact information, general program characteristics, faculty and student characteristics, admission information, training objectives, student field placements, research projects, career paths among recent graduates, curriculum content, and issues of diversity.

    RESULTS

    Free-standing community psychology programs represent 26% of the sample, (N=11), community/clinical psychology programs are 26% (N=11), community psychology/interdisciplinary are 23% (N=10). Note that these three classifications are comprised only of doctoral programs (Ph.D or Psy.D.). The remaining 26% of the sample are community psychology masters programs (M.A.) (N=11). Results are presented in a series of 12 tables (see Appendix B). Each table is divided into four sections corresponding to the CPDCRA classifications of community psychology programs.

    Table 1 shows whether or not a program considers community psychology a primary or a secondary training emphasis. Forty-nine percent (N=21) of all programs indicated a primary emphasis in community psychology relative to either clinical psychology or some other interdisciplinary focus. Fifty-one percent (N=22) indicated a secondary emphasis in community psychology and 2% (N=1) indicated an equal emphasis on both community psychology and clinical psychology.

    Tables 2, 3 and 4 provide information about community psychology faculty members. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the number of faculty by gender and academic position (tenure-stream core vs. affiliated). Tenure-stream core faculty are persons who have primary research and teaching responsibilities within a given program. Affiliated faculty include research appointed faculty, post docs, and other faculty within a given university who have close working relationships (e.g., teaching core courses, serving on dissertation or thesis committees, joint research projects) with core faculty or students. On average across all program classifications, there were more men than women in tenure-stream core faculty positions. Although a similar pattern was found when affiliated faculty were considered, the gender gap, or difference, was much less pronounced.

    Table 3 presents a breakdown of the number of tenure-stream core faculty by ethnic heritage. Six categories describe ethnic heritage. They are: non-Hispanic White, African-American, Latino(a)/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific American, Native American, and other. The ethnicities comprising the other category are Maori (indigenous persons of New Zealand), Paheta (New Zealanders of British/European descent), Arab-American, Jamaican-American, and Pakistani/Indian. Table 4 presents the same information but for the number of affiliated faculty by ethnic heritage. In general, faculty members, whether tenure-stream core or affiliated, are most likely to identify as non-Hispanic White.

    Tables 5, 6, and 7 provide information about students in the community psychology programs. Table 5 shows student applications and admissions for four academic years (1995-1998). On average, free-standing community programs and community/clinical programs admit 4 to 5 students per year. Community psychology/interdisciplinary programs admit 15 to 16 students per year, and community masters programs admit 11 to 12 students per year. Table 6 presents the average number of students admitted to a program by gender for four academic years. Women outnumber men by a ratio of approximately 4 to 1 among free-standing and community/clinical programs and by a ratio of 3 to 1 among interdisciplinary and masters programs.

    Table 7 presents a breakdown of currently enrolled students by ethnic heritage using the same six categories that were used for the faculty breakdown. Similar to results for faculty, students tend are most likely to identify as non-Hispanic White. African American students comprise the next largest proportion of persons. There are relatively few Latino(a)/Hispanic, Asian/Pacific, and Native American students found among any program classification.

    Table 8 presents information about criteria used when evaluating prospective students. A principle components analysis was conducted on 15 survey items that were intended to measure this construct. Each item was measured on a Likert-type scale from 1 (very low importance) to 6 (very high importance). Five components were extracted and labeled as follows: Students’ (1) research experience, (2) academic performance, (3) interest in clinical work, (4) interest in social change, and (5) fit with faculty research interest. Reliability (?) for these measures ranged from 0.75-0.90. Among free-standing programs, previous student research experience and interest in social change were the most important criteria used when evaluating students. Student interest in clinical work was rated least important. Note, however, that free-standing programs do not offer clinical training. Excluding ratings of student interest in clinical training, academic performance is rated least important among the remaining criteria.

    Among community/clinical programs, fit with faculty interest was rated as most important and student interest in clinical work was rated as least important, although comparatively stronger when community/clinical and free-standing programs are considered (Mcomm/clin=3.6; Mfree=1.6) Among interdisciplinary programs, fit with faculty interest was also rated as most important, and similar to free-standing programs, student interest in clinical work was rated least important. Note also that interdisciplinary programs, like free-standing programs, do not offer clinical training. Excluding ratings of student interest in clinical training, interest in social change is rated least important among the remaining criteria. Among masters programs, academic performance and interest in social change were rated as most important, and again, student interest in clinical work was rated least important.

    Table 9 presents information about training objectives emphasized within programs. A principle components analysis was conducted on 11 survey items that were intended to measure this construct. Each item was measured on a Likert-type scale from 1 (very low emphasis) to 6 (very high emphasis). Four components were extracted and labeled as follows: (1) community work, (2) clinical work, (3) academic career, and (4) action research. Reliability (?) for these measures ranged from 0.79-0.92. Among free-standing programs, training for action research was rated as most emphasized and clinical work was rated as least emphasized. Among community/clinical programs, clinical work was rated as most emphasized and training for an academic career was rated as least emphasized. Interdisciplinary programs emphasized preparation for an academic career the most and preparation for clinical work the least. Community masters programs emphasized community work the most and preparation for an academic career the least. Across all program classifications, training for community work was also strongly emphasized.

    Table 10 presents information about student field placements. Student field placements were settings in the community where students were able to carry out participatory research and/or applied research with the community. Examples of settings included community mental health centers, schools, criminal justice facilities, women’s centers, and psychiatric hospitals. A principle components analysis was conducted on 15 survey items that were intended to measure this construct. Each item was measured on a Likert-type scale from 0 (0% of students placed here) to 6 (84%-100% of students placed here). Six components were extracted and labeled as follows: (1) community settings, (2) institutional settings, (3) clinical settings, (4) professional settings, (5) mental health settings, and (6) self-help settings. Reliability (?) for these measures ranged from 0.73-0.88. Among free-standing programs, students were mostly likely to gain experience in community settings (3.5 = approximately 50% of students), such as women’s centers and community-based organizations. Among community/clinical programs, students were most likely to gain experience in mental health settings (3.9 = approximately 43% of students), such as community mental health clinics and public health centers. Interdisciplinary programs appear to provide greatest access to institutional settings (1.9 = approximately 25% of students), such as research institutes and schools. Community masters programs indicated that students were likely to work in either mental health or community settings (approximately 35% of students).

    Table 11 presents qualitative information about career paths of recent graduates from community psychology programs. Program directors who responded to the survey were asked to rank order the three most common career paths of their recent graduates. Responses were grouped into four broad categories: (1) professional research, (2) academic, (3) clinical, and (4) community work. Professional research positions were defined as applied research positions, consultation, evaluation, public policy, and work for any non-university research organizations. Academic positions were defined as work for universities and colleges. Clinical positions were defined as individual or group therapy and counseling services. Community work positions were comprised of positions  at community based organizations, advocacy organizations, community development groups, government agencies, mental health agencies, public health agencies, and schools. Results show that graduates of free-standing programs most often took academic and professional research positions while graduates of masters programs took community work positions. In comparison, graduates of community/clinical programs most often took clinical or community work positions and graduates of interdisciplinary programs most often took professional research positions.

    Lastly, Table 12 presents a list of programs offering joint degrees. A total of 10 programs (23%) offer this option. All but The Sage College and University of La Verne were doctoral programs. The most common discipline offered jointly with community psychology was urban affairs/planning. Other joint programs included management, information science, public policy, law, public health, gerontology, demography, and counseling.

    DISCUSSION

    This report provides important information about a representative sample of community psychology graduate programs. It is the fourth such survey to be carried out since community psychology’s inception. Although similar to previous versions, it is different from previous surveys in at least one fundamental way: a new program classification has been added. The need for the community psychology/interdisciplinary classification reflects an expanded definition of what community psychology research and practice embodies. Ten programs currently comprise this classification and more may be expected to join as awareness of community psychology continues to grow.

    It is important to bare in mind that this report serves as a general guide to graduate training programs in community psychology. Although every effort was made to make the report as comprehensive as possible, the programs featured here do not constitute a complete list of community-related psychology programs. One additional source of information about programs is O’Donnell and Ferrari’s (1997) book entitled Education in Community Psychology: Models for Graduate and Undergraduate Programs, which further discusses community training programs and which includes some student reports. Also note that this report is not intended to provide more in-depth analysis of important issues and themes such as the influence of diversity, models of curricula, and the professional direction of current students in these programs. However, these matters will be further addressed using the 1999 survey data in a series of forthcoming reports to be included in future issues of The Community Psychologist.
     Lastly, contact information and a brief program description is found in Appendix C for each program included in the sample used for our analyses as well as for those programs that did not return our survey. Note that this information may also be found on the CPDCRA web site at http://www.msu.edu/user/lounsbu1/cpdcra.html.

    References

        American Psychological Association (1998). American Psychological Association Guide to Graduate Programs. Washington, DC: APA.

        Elias, M., Godin, S., & Dalton, J. (1987). 1987 Survey of graduate education in community psychology. The Community Psychologist.

        Maton, K., Meissen, G., & O’Connor, P. (1991). 1991 Survey of graduate education in community psychology. The Community Psychologist.

        Meissen, G., Colgate, J., Slavich, S., Dorr, D., & Petersan, P. (1995). 1995 Survey of graduate education in community psychology. The Community Psychologist.

        O’Donnell, C. R. & Ferrari, J. R. (Eds.) (1997). Education in community psychology: Models for graduate and undergraduate programs. New York: Haworth Press.