Teaching the Importance of
Community Betterment to Public
Managers: Community Development
in NASPAA Member Programs
William Hatcher
Eastern Kentucky University
ABSTRACT
Community development is an important area of public administration, especially at the local
government level. However, instruction in community development has received little attention in
the scholarly literature on public affairs education. This article details how programs that are mem­
bers of the Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration (NASPAA) currently
teach community development. The article describes the curriculum of NASPAA programs with
community development concentrations and courses, discusses various approaches to teaching com­
munity development, and makes a case for the use of multiple teaching methods to help students
connect theory and practice. To illustrate the importance of multiple teaching methods, the author
explains how Master of Public Administration students learn community development in a course
he teaches. The course emphasizes the need to use community development scholarship to help
public managers appreciate economic class and understand the need for community betterment.
KEYWORDS
Community development, pedagogy, NASPAA member programs
INTRODUCTION
Community development is defined, based on
the assets model, as the bettering of social, poli­
tical, and economic institutions in a community
(Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). In one of the
standard textbooks on the topic, Asset Building
& Community Development, Green and Haines
(2012) organize community development instruc­
­tion around the cultivation of local capitals, such
as human capital, political capital, social capital,
environmental capital, built capital, and finan­
cial capital. The U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) (n.d.) describes
community development in a similar manner:
Community development activities build
stronger and more resilient communities
JPAE 21 (2), 165–178
through an ongoing process of identifying
and addressing needs, assets, and priority
investments. Community development
act­i­vities may support infrastructure, eco­nomic development projects, installation
of public facilities, community centers,
housing rehabilitation, public services,
clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assis­tance, code enforcement, homeowner assis­
tance and many other identified needs.
Federal support for community develop­
ment encourages systematic and sustain­
ed action by State, and local governments.
Economic development involves strategies
dealing primarily with economic growth and
often the attraction and retention of industry,
Journal of Public Affairs Education165
W. Hatcher
while community development focuses on im­
proving local institutions. Community devel­
opment is concerned with growing local assets.
Viewing community development through the
lens of the assets model of development can help
public managers construct efficient, effective,
and fair policies to better communities (Green
& Haines, 2012; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
instruc­
tional methods used in one MPA
community development course. Accordingly,
the research is a mixture of em­­pir­ical analysis,
in trying to develop a basic descrip­tion of how
NASPAA programs are teach­ing community
dev­elopment, and norm­ative recommendations,
in discussing how I myself teach community
development to MPA students.
In the United States, community development,
as HUD’s definition shows, is a significant func­
tion of state and local governments. For instance,
in 2011 state and local governments spent approx­
imately $56 billion on housing and community
development, with local government spending
being close to $45 billion of that total (Barnett
& Vidal, 2013). Accordingly, a large number
of government employees work in community
de­vel­opment occupations—for example, in
2012, approximately 101,736 local government
em­ploy­ees worked in housing and community
development (U.S. Census, 2012). Given the
mag­nitude of public spending and employment
in community development, classrooms in Mas­
ter of Public Administration (MPA)1 programs
should be a place for discussion of community
development theories and practices. Public
man­agers, especially those who work in local
government, will benefit from having an appre­
ciation of how community development seeks
community betterment by cultivating social,
political, and economic assets in communities.
A REVIEw OF THE LITERATURE ON
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUCTION
However, instruction in community devel­op­
ment has received little attention in the
scholarly literature on public affairs education.
Basic descriptive questions about community
de­velopment instruction have not been answer­
ed, including, How many public administration
programs are teaching community develop­ment?
How is community development being taught
in these programs? What methods will help
instructors of public administration teach an
appreciation for community betterment? This
article seeks to answer these research questions
by examining the extent to which community
development is a part of the curriculum in
programs that are members of the Network of
Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Ad­min­
istration (NASPAA) and by detailing the
166
Journal of Public Affairs Education
Community development research, practice,
and instruction occur in multiple scholarly
disciplines, including, but not limited to,
sociology, economics, political science, busi­
ness, and public administration. If the goal of
community development is the betterment of
communities through cultivation of local assets,
then public administration has a significant role
in helping teach public managers the admin­
istrative aspects of development and the assets
model. However, public administration litera­
ture, as mentioned, has devoted little attention
to the practice and instruction of community
development. Public administration literature
has mostly focused on rural development and
international development (Conyers, 1984;
Korten, 1980) in the context of nations with
emerging economies. For instance, the journal
Public Administration and Development focuses
on the administration of international devel­
opment programs in nations with emerging
economies. Community development practice
at the local government level in developed
democracies has received less attention in the
public administration scholarly literature.
A great deal of the field’s existing scholarly
focus at the local level in the United States has
been on administrative questions of economic
development. Pressman and Wildavsky’s (1984)
classic Implementation examined the difficulties
of joint action and implementation in an
economic development program in Oakland,
California. Recent work has focused on apply­
ing administrative theory to functions of eco­
nomic development. For example, Hall and
Howell-Moroney (2012) examined state inno­
vation capacity and economic development
Community Development in NASPAA Member Programs
through the public administration lens. The
distribution of federal economic development
grants in urban and rural communities has also
been a focus of scholars interested in applying
public administration principles to economic
development (Hall, 2010a, 2010b). But as
noted, community development differs from
economic development in that it approaches
community betterment in a holistic manner,
including not just issues of economic growth
but also the improvement of social and political
institutions through strengthening local assets.
Community development has not been a con­
cern for most public administration researchers.
A notable exception is an article by Stout
(2013). Writing in the Journal of Public Affairs
Education, Stout discussed an MPA program
with a concentration in local governance and
community development. The concentration
contains four courses that expose students to
both the theory and the practice of local gov­
ern­ment and development. The author explained
how each course in the concentration teaches
students an integrated model of outreach, ser­
vice learning, and action research. It is a model
of instruction focused on building community
capacity, “a community’s collective ability to
foster and sustain positive change” (Stout, 2013,
p. 220).
Given the community development goal of
building community capacity, it is important
that public managers in all areas of local gov­
ernment understand community develop­ment
theory and can apply scholarship to practice.
Standard methods of instruction, such as the
lecture, may not help students appreciate the
practice of development and its goal to better
communities. Community development courses
should teach students to appreciate community
betterment. To accomplish this goal, instructors
need to rely on multiple methods of instruction
and assessment that link theory with practice.
Students need to be involved in experiential
learning through interactive simulations and
fieldwork. The following literature discusses
how a multiple methods approach to teaching
community development can help public
managers gain this appreciation.
Traditional methods of instruction include
lectures, in-class discussion, and the use of
multi­media to illustrate material. These types
of methods lead to instructors assessing
knowledge based on exams, essays, and
participation. The use of speakers in the
classroom also fits within traditional methods
of instruction—albeit in an attempt to involve
students more in practice. While traditional
methods are useful tools for demonstrating
theory, they may fail at teaching practice (Silvia,
2012). Therefore, community development
courses using only traditional methods may not
adequately convey the applied aspects of
development and the importance of community
betterment to students.
Instructors need to use nontraditional, inter­
active, and experiential learning tools in their
courses, and construct exercises that assess both
scholarship and practice. However, these types
of learning experiences are difficult to offer due
to the complications of developing community
partnerships, the nature of the material, and the
cost of the experiences for both instructors and
students. Nevertheless, public admini­stra­tion
courses, even in quantitative methods (Wites­
man, 2012), are overcoming these difficulties
and employing experiential learning exercises
in their classes.
Ideally, fieldwork experiences help students learn
scholarship and actually apply it to prac­tice.
Community partnerships help link scholarship
with practice by involving community devel­op­
ment students directly in the workings of public
and nonprofit organizations (Silvia, 2012). For
instance, Jakubowski and Burman (2004) de­
scribe their community development instruc­tion
as “community-based learning.” In their class­
rooms, students participate in a “collaborative”
learning approach, where they have a role in
teaching the material to their fellow students.
Next, students are given a meaningful exper­
ience in the field, through course partnerships
with local organizations. From interviews with
their students, the authors identified two
learn­
ing outcomes from their communitybased approach: students become part of local
devel­op­ment efforts, and students find they can
Journal of Public Affairs Education167
W. Hatcher
adapt to fieldwork that may not be predicted in
the course guidelines. In other words, students
are learning the material and then practicing it
in a critical and adaptive manner. This applied
understanding of development is a key benefit
of community partnerships.
Service-learning exercises are another key com­
ponent of experiential community devel­op­ment
partnerships, and these types of exercises are
often part of a university’s broader strategy of
trying to build community connections. Town
and gown is the phrase used to describe the
relationship between a university and its
surrounding community. In the United States,
many town and gown relationships are sur­
prisingly poor, even given the symbiotic con­
nections between communities and uni­ver­sities
(Kemp, 2013; Martin, Smith, & Phillips, 2005).
Courses in public administration are ideal mech­
anisms to strengthen local relations and provide
a quality experiential opportunity for students.
Courses with well-crafted service-learn­ing exer­
cises offer both experiential learning for students
and meaningful assistance to local public and
nonprofit organizations. In a course on net­­works
and partnerships involving govern­ments, non­­
profits, and private firms, Bryer (2011) con­
structed a meaningful service-learning exercise.
Students in the class worked for 13 weeks with
a community partner, the Orange County
Children’s Cabinet. Throughout the course,
students had to complete individual reflective
journals of their work and as a group write a
final report that was presented to the com­
munity partner. According to the author, the
students gained an appreciation for the course
material and practice, and they also provided
useful assistance to the community partner.
Accordingly, involving students by having them
interact directly with local managers and con­duct
meaningful work in local organizations makes
for effective partnerships. Wheeland and Palus
(2010) described how their MPA program at
Villanova University used part­
nerships with
local government managers to help their stu­
dents connect theory and practice. Their program
offers a course team-taught by three local public
managers, along with a robust internship exper­
168
Journal of Public Affairs Education
iences for students. Wodicka, Swartz, and
Peaslee (2012) detailed a similar partnership
between the Public Policy and Administration
program at James Madison University and the
town manager’s office for the Town of Elkton,
Virginia. Through this part­
ner­
ship, students
were able to lead evaluations of key departments
in the local government. The authors reported
a strong experiential learning opportunity from
the partnership, despite some logistical issues.
In these examples from the literature, students
learned by adding value to the work of their
community partners.
In an era of dwindling resources but more de­
mands on universities, MPA programs have not
remained untouched. MPA courses are under
increasing pressure to provide students with
practical skills that will help them with their
future careers. At the University of Texas at
Dallas, MPA professors are doing this in a
direct manner through an “MPA in City Hall
cohort” program (Aaron & Watson, 2010).
Through partnerships with three Dallas-area
sub­urbs, local employees can complete a Grad­
uate Certificate in Local Government Manage­
ment. MPA instructors come to the local
governments to offer the course in­struction—
flipping the theory and practice dichotomy.
Many MPA programs are helping to build
partnerships with local governments and
service-working public employees by offering
programs that are partially or completely
online. A significant and growing number of
MPA programs accredited by NASPAA are
offering online courses, as part of either
complete or partial online programs that offer
certifications in certain areas of public
administration.2 Research has found no
significant differences between online courses
and traditional courses in student performance
as measured by grades (Ni, 2013). Still, worries
about online quality persist, as found in a
survey of 96 NASPAA-accredited institutions
(Ginn & Hammond, 2012). But according to
the survey, instructors of online courses are
using multiple teaching methods that may
improve the quality of instruction, compared
to traditional classroom courses. In fact, Ni
Community Development in NASPAA Member Programs
(2013) argued that the online format might
help make topics such as research methods less
intimidating and in doing so improve inter­
actions between students and instructors. The
multiple method approach of online instruction
may also allow for more robust partnerships
between MPA programs and local organizations
in the future. Currently, among faculty in
online programs, there is a desire to use the
format to reach in-service MPA students and
form these partnerships. In the area of com­
munity development, online instruction may
allow for more flexibility to form community
partnerships for experiential learning.
When it is difficult for instructors to construct
meaningful field experiences for their students,
they can incorporate practice through guest
lectures and other interactive exercises. In­
structors may form partnerships by inviting
local practitioners to the classroom to discuss
their work. In such situations, students can
reflect on the guest lecture through discussions
and reflective essays. Students of public admin­
istration can learn a great deal from listening to
stories of practice from guest lectures (Zhang &
Wang, 2012). However, this learning experience
occurs inside the classroom—a location that
may not be viewed as true experiential learning.
The following paragraphs examine how
instructors have attempted to bring experiential
learning into the classroom in situations where
fieldwork may not be possible.
To create experiential learning inside the
classroom, instructors often turn to simulations;
however, it is difficult for such exercises to
mimic real-world experience. Figueroa (2014)
deals with this issue by employing what he
terms “mindful classroom simulations” in
teaching leadership theory and practice to
undergraduate students (p. 113). In his simul­
ations, Figueroa uses “mindfulness thinking,”
as expressed by Langer (1989) in Mindfulness,
which calls for students to mediate on the
administrative choices that they face. Figueroa
also has students participate in a number of
classroom simulations on leadership. Looking
at leadership through the mindfulness lens,
according to Figueroa, helps students define
leadership and conduct practical in-class
exercises in a meaningful way.
Most of the literature on interactive simulations
is normative. There is little empirical research
gauging the effectiveness of these exercises. In
one empirical study, Silvia (2012) surveyed
nearly 200 students in four sections of an entrylevel urban policy course. The students parti­
cipated in interactive role-playing simulations
to understand practical applications of the course
material. Based on the results, Silvia claimed,
“role-playing simulations are an effec­tive means
to give students the opportunity to engage in
higher-level learning” (p. 397).
Courses taught in nontraditional formats, such
as intensive semesters or online courses, make
fieldwork and experiential learning difficult. In
such situations, instructors have to be creative
when showing students the practical meaning
of course material. Hu, Johnston, Hemphill,
Krishnamurthy, and Vinze (2012) analyzed how
the use of interactive computer simulations af­
fect­­ed student learning. The authors found that
the computer simulations demonstrated the com­
plexity of the policy process and admin­istration,
but the list of discussion topics was limited by
the issues addressed in the simulations.
In community development and urban plan­
ning, instructors have used the planning and
development simulation program SimCity
(various versions) to construct role-playing
simulations for students to mimic practice.
Instructors, especially ones teaching planningrelated courses, have used SimCity in the
classroom for years. Fields outside of planning
and development have also used the program.
For instance, Bareford (2001) successfully used
the program in an applied nursing course to
have students role-play community assessments
through scenarios with community health
prob­lems from traffic, crime, pollution, flood­
ing, earthquakes, and fires. Instructors still
find Sim­City useful in connecting students to
“decision-based learning objectives” (Gaber, 2007,
p. 113). Planning and development instructors
such as Gaber have found the program
especially useful to help simulate experiential
Journal of Public Affairs Education169
W. Hatcher
learning. Moreover, Gaber’s use of the program
and survey of literature on computer simu­la­
tions led him to argue that the program helps
create “a dynamic decision-making environment
in which students can learn such teaching
objectives as (1) systems thinking, (2) problemsolving skills, and (3) ‘craft’ in the planning
profession” (p. 113).
In the next sections, I examine community devel­
opment courses and concentrations in NASPAA
member programs. Instruction in community
development has a need to link scholarship and
practice. As discussed in this section, instructors
have developed a number of traditional and
non­traditional methods to achieve the goal. Later,
I discuss how my course applies both trad­i­
tional and nontraditional methods of instruction
to help link theory with practice and teach
community betterment.
A SURVEY OF ATTENTION TO COMMUNITY DE­VELOPMENT IN NASPAA MEMBER PROGRAMS
This research examines how NASPAA member
programs are teaching community development
and other development-related courses.3 The
programmatic features of NASPAA programs
were examined through content analysis of
program websites. After excluding international
member programs, universities with discon­tin­
ued MPA programs, and websites that were
unclear about MPA program requirements, the
websites of 270 NASPAA member programs
were examined.
When analyzing the websites, I looked for
NASPAA programs with community develop­
ment courses and concentrations. Community
development courses were defined as courses
that were advertised as being offered by the
NASPAA member program and were either
titled “community development” or had a
description that fit the assets model definition
of community development. Community de­
vel­
op­
ment concentrations were defined as
programs that had a formal concentration,
certification, or specialization in community
development. MPA programs with concentra­
tions focusing on urban sustainability or sus­
tainable development were counted as having
community development concentrations. I also
looked for other development-related course
offerings in NASPAA member MPA programs.
I recorded and examined the programs that had
planning (rural, regional, and urban), economic
development, and international development
concentrations and courses.
As can been seen in Table 1, NASPAA member
programs view community development as an
important component of a public affairs edu­
cation. Twenty-seven of the programs, roughly
10%, offer a community development concen­
tration. Seventy programs, approx­imately 26%,
TABLE 1.
Number of Community Development Courses and Concentrations Among NASPAA Programs
Curriculum offerings in NASPAA member programs
Programs
% of Total
Community development concentrations
27
10%
Community development courses
70
26%
Planning, economic development, or international development concentrations
Planning, economic development, or international development courses
51
19%
137
51%
Notes. The programs surveyed were NASPAA member programs in the United States that offered master’s degrees in public administration, public
affairs, or public policy and included curriculum information on their websites. Total number of programs included for analysis = 270. Percentages
do not add up to 100.
170
Journal of Public Affairs Education
Community Development in NASPAA Member Programs
advertise community development courses on
their websites. Among the programs, there is a
large focus on planning, economic development,
and international development: Close to 20%
of the programs have a concentration in one of
these areas, and 50% of the programs clearly
advertise courses in these areas on their websites.
The website descriptions of programs with
community development concentrations and
courses were analyzed in greater detail to
determine if the curriculum emphasizes the
assets model of development, discusses com­
munity betterment, or contains experiential
instructional methods. Examination of the pro­
grams with community development con­cen­
trations showed a great deal of commonality
in course offerings. Most of the concentrations
give students a certain degree of flexibility in
courses. The concentrations usually comprise
9 or 12 credit hours. The following are some
of the common courses in the community
development concentrations: (a) general com­
munity development theory and practice;
(b) planning (regional, rural, and urban);
(c) economic development theory and prac­tice; (d) sustainable development issues;
(e) urban policy; (f ) geographical information
systems; (g) state and local government; and
(h) nonprofit management.
Based on my analysis of website descriptions,
the following themes emerged for how NAS­
PAA programs are teaching community de­
velopment. First, community development is
being taught using scholarly literature and
prac­tice from multiple disciplines. The com­
munity development concentrations contain a
mix of urban planning, economic development,
and international development course offer­ings.
A number of the concentrations are combined
with another function of admin­istration, such
as nonprofit management. For instance, More­
head State University’s concen­tration is in non­
profit management and community devel­op­
ment. The development and funding of afford­­able housing is a constant topic through­out the
community development concentrations and
courses. Other programs focus primarily on
housing issues. The sample syllabus on the
program website for George Wash­
ington
University’s community develop­
ment course
shows housing to be the main topic. The
readings deal with housing issues, and the
course’s textbook is dedicated completely to
housing policy.
Second, community development appears to be
taught through field exercises and other exper­
iential types of learning. The community de­
velopment concentration at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill contains a course
on learning community development techniques
through practicing in the field. As the course
description reads, “Graduate and professional
students from varied backgrounds will learn
key revitalization techniques and put them into
practice by working directly on community
economic development projects in NC [North
Carolina].” A multi­disciplinary approach em­
pha­
sizing exper­
iential learning is in keeping
with the scholarly literature’s prescriptions for
community devel­opment instruction.
Third, in the community development concen­
trations and courses, there is a focus on sus­tain­
ability. As in the other areas of community de­vel­
opment, the courses on sustainable devel­op­ment
teach the topic through multiple scholarly fields.
For instance, Grand Valley State University
offers courses in sustainable development that
teach community develop­ment through such a
multidisciplinary approach:
PA671 Building Sustainable Communities
(3 credits): Provides an overview of eco­
log­ical, energy, climatic and consump­
tion issues impacting local communities.
Through a multidisciplinary approach,
students study the relationship among
society, organizations, and the natural
en­vironment. Students examine how local
governments and nonprofit organi­zations
develop sustainable built land­scapes, edu­
cate about sustainable best practices, foster
green economic development, and learn
the concepts of community resiliency.
Fourth, reducing poverty is a foundational topic
in the community development concen­trations
Journal of Public Affairs Education171
W. Hatcher
and courses. The NASPAA member program
at Baruch College of the City University of
New York contains a concentration in urban
devel­opment and sustainability. The diversity
in courses, ranging from housing policy to
govern­ment contracting, illustrates how com­
munity development is a multidisciplinary field
of practice. Throughout the course descriptions,
there is a focus on abating poverty. For example,
the program’s introductory community devel­
opment course discusses how development
tries to reduce poverty:
PAF 9141 Community Development:
History, Present, and Future:
Community development is an approach
to addressing poverty and its related social
problems, such as poor-quality housing,
unemployment, lack of education, and
crime. Students will examine the complex
economic, political, and social context
that gave rise to the idea of community
development, and then follow the suc­
cesses and challenges in the field over its
nearly fifty-year history.
Poverty should be a major concern of any
development-related concentration or course,
but the asset model of development calls for
a focus on a community’s assets, not just a
community’s challenges. The final theme for
how NASPAA member programs teach com­
munity development is that among the
community development concentrations, there
is little in the concentration or course descrip­
tions about asset building and the asset model.
In fact, my limited analysis of the course syllabi
available on the programs’ websites found no
instructors using the Green and Haines (2012)
textbook, which is rooted primarily in the
assets model of development.
An EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUCTION­AL
METHODS USED IN ONE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COURSE
In this section, I discuss the techniques I use in
my course on community development to argue
for a multiple methods approach to the topic.
My community development course is a part of
the curriculum of a small MPA program at a
mid-sized regional comprehensive univer­sity in
Central Appalachia. The course is required for
students wishing to include a community
development concentration as part of their
MPA degree. The university’s service region is
one of the poorest in the nation. This makes
the focus on poverty abatement and community
betterment relevant to the students. Given the
nature of its service region, the university also
has a strong focus on community outreach, and
the MPA program places an emphasis on state
and local government in its education and
training. The MPA program is delivered in
both the traditional setting and online. Like
most MPA programs, the students come from
many backgrounds and may hold an
undergraduate degree in any number of fields.
As noted previously, a course in community
development is rooted in a number of fields,
including sociology, economics, political science,
health sciences and administration, environ­
mental sciences, parks and recreation, and so
on. From a curriculum standpoint, an MPA
program attracts students from a wide range of
fields and backgrounds, which makes it ideal
for housing courses and concentrations in com­
munity development. Furthermore, an MPA
program ensures that students interested in
community development will learn the essential
tools and strategies of public management.
The overall goal of my course is to teach these
students how to implement strategies of com­
munity betterment.
Theoretical Framework for the Course
Accordingly, it appears that NASPAA programs
are teaching community development using a
multidisciplinary approach with a focus on
sustainability and poverty, but with more focus
on economic development and challenges than
on cultivating local assets.
172
Journal of Public Affairs Education
The MPA community development course
I teach is designed around the theoretical
frame­work of the assets model of development
(Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). First, the
course uses the Green and Haines (2012)
text­book that is based on the assets model.
Community Development in NASPAA Member Programs
The course is structured around each of the main
assets discussed in the textbook. The assets
model’s focus on community betterment and
strengthening local institutions fits my view of
what community development is and how it
should be taught to MPA students, especially
ones who already work or are likely to work in
communities that have struggling economies.
The asset model also focuses on cultivating
local capitals, instead of focusing solely on what
communities need. A focus on need drives
communities to construct nearsighted policies,
such as tax breaks for company recruitment.
But research has shown that communities with
policies focused on strengthening local forms of
capital, in particular human capital, have more
success than communities with needs-based
policies (Mathur, 1999). Using the assets model
as guide helps students realize this important
feature of development. The assets model of
development fits well with a classroom of
students from many academic backgrounds
because the model views development as
cultivating all areas of capital in a community,
from the economy to health care. Students in
my class contribute to the course because many
of them bring knowledge from undergraduate
majors related to at least one, if not more, of
these forms of capital.
My community development course is based
on the need to practice vision building in our
communities. Community and economic
visions are concise statements of where the
community wants to be in 5, 10, or 20 years in
the future. As a practitioner and scholar, I am
concerned with teaching communities to build
visions and implement them, not with
developing visions for communities. In the
classroom, this sort of vision building can be
done through meaningful partnerships between
the academic program and local communities.
NASPAA Competencies and
Course Learning Outcomes
In my community development course, I seek
to align four course learning outcomes and
assignments with NASPAA’s five required
learning competencies. These five competencies
are what NASPAA considers the basic skills of
a public manager. Table 2 maps how I link
NASPAA’s competencies with my course’s learn­
ing outcomes, and how I use certain assign­
ments to assess those outcomes. At the end of
the class, students need to be able to evaluate
community development theory, especially, as
noted, the assets model and social capital model.
Students also need to be able to evaluate
community development practice history and
modern practices. This evaluation should be
informed by theory. Lastly, to link theory with
practice, the course learning outcomes require
students to analyze and apply the assets model
to development and to be able to construct
public participation plans for vision building
in communities.
Instructional Methods and Assignments
My course blends traditional exercises with com­
munity partnerships outside of the class­room
along with class speakers and role-playing simu­
lations inside the classroom to achieve the course
learning outcomes. Overall, the course contains
little traditional, top-down lecturing and is most­
ly interactive, through seminar-type discussion,
practitioner guest talks, and required fieldwork.
In the next few paragraphs, I discuss the instruc­
tional methods and assignments I use to make
sure students are achieving the course learning
outcomes, are proficient at NASPAA’s required
competencies, and hold an appreciation for
community betterment.
Overall instructional approach. The course is
taught as an applied seminar with weekly topics
organized around the assets model of deve­lop­
ment. For the first few weeks, students examine,
through readings and reflective essays, the theory
and history of community development. Special
emphasis is placed on the role of government
and nonprofits in the development process.
Students also learn the theory and best practices
of vision building and public participation in
communities. The following weekly topics are
based on the areas of capital covered in the
Green and Haines (2012) textbook. For most
of these weeks, a practitioner who works in the
capital area to be covered that week is invited to
the class to talk about their background, work
experience, and current projects. Bringing
Journal of Public Affairs Education173
W. Hatcher
TABLE 2.
Map of Course Alignment with NASPAA Required Competencies
NASPAA required competencies
To lead and manage in public
governance
Course learning outcomes (CO)
(CO 1) Evaluate community development
theory and practice in the United States
(CO 2) Analyze and apply vision
building and the assets model of
community development
(CO 3) Evaluate how public participation is used in community development
(CO 4) Apply methods of
public participation
To participate in and contribute
to the public policy process
(CO 1) Evaluate community development
theory and practice in the United States
(CO 2) Analyze and apply vision
building and the assets model of
community development
(CO 3) Evaluate how public participation is used in community development
(CO 4) Apply methods of
public participation
To analyze, synthesize, think
critically, solve problems, and
make decisions
(CO 1) Evaluate community development
theory and practice in the United States
To articulate and apply a
public service perspective
(CO 1) Evaluate community development
theory and practice in the United States
(CO 2) Analyze and apply vision
building and the assets model of
community development
Assessments
Essay-based exams
(CO 1, CO 2,
CO 3, CO 4)
Participation plan
for a particular
local government
(CO 3, CO 4)
Mapping of a
community’s
assets (CO 2)
Partnerships with
local communities
(CO 1, CO 2,
CO 3, CO 4)
Reflective essays
about practitioners’
guest lectures
(CO 1, CO 2,
CO 3, CO 4)
Vision building
and implement­ation using
SimCity (CO 2)
(CO 4) Apply methods of
publication participation
To communicate and interact
productively with a diverse and
changing workforce and citizenry
(CO 3) Evaluate how public participation is used in community development
(CO 4) Apply methods of
public participation
Note. Information on NASPAA Universal Required Competencies from NASPAA Standards 2009, retrieved from https://naspaaaccreditation.
files.wordpress.com/2014/09/naspaa-standards.pdf.
practitioners into the classroom helps students
hear stories about practice and reflect on those
cases and stories.
Essay-based exams. My teaching of commun­
ity development is largely based on practice,
but there is a robust collection of theory and
scholarship that students need to learn. In my
course, essay-based exams are used to assess stu­
174
Journal of Public Affairs Education
dent learning in the following areas: (a) theories
of community development; (b) the history of
community development in the United States;
(c) the development and participation process;
(d) vision building; and (e) best practices of
development. The essay-based exams are analy­
tical in nature. Students are required not just to
recite material, but to apply their own analysis
in their essay answers. Students are required
Community Development in NASPAA Member Programs
to define, describe, and link key concepts of
community development. Essay-based exams
are used to assess all four of the course’s main
learning outcomes.
Participation plan for vision building. Students,
working in small groups, are given a community
within the university’s service region and asked
to develop a theory-based plan for the com­
munity to involve its citizens in the development
process, in particular in the construction of a
community economic vision. The goal is for
the process to be meaningful and representative.
The students have to develop politically
practical methods to achieve this level of input
in their community’s vision-building process.
Before starting on the project, students parti­ci­pate in two weeks of seminar discussion on
the literature concerning public participation
and development. Through this discussion,
students are taught about the literature and the
findings on participation methods used by
local governments. These methods range from
standard, top-down ones, like the public hear­
ing, to more interactive, bottom-up methods,
like neighborhood forums. Students then write
a short paper that must make a concise and
sound case for at least three methods to be used
in an actual community. The recommendations
must to be based on the political feasibility of
having the methods adopted and the technical
ability of the methods to solicit meaningful
and representative public input in the visionbuilding process. Students are required to give
a short presentation (around 10 to 12 minutes)
on their plan as if they were trying to convince
a room of community leaders to adopt their
strategies. The assignment is used to assess the
course learning outcomes dealing with how to
evaluate and apply methods of public partici­
pation in community development.
Community asset mapping. As noted pre­
viously, at its foundation, the course I teach is
based on the theoretical framework called the
assets model of development. The model argues
for communities to focus more on their assets
or capitals than on their needs. To teach
students the application of the assets model, I
have them select a community and map its
assets in the following areas: human capital,
social capital, physical capital, financial capital,
environmental capital, political capital, and
cultural capital (Green & Haines, 2012). For
instance, a community with social capital as an
asset may have a high level of participation in
civic groups and social trust, while a community
with cultural capital as an asset may have a large
number of artisans as residents. Students map
out assets like these in their selected com­mun­
ities. They do this in a paper of at least four
double-spaced pages. In this paper, they also
have to discuss how the community can culti­vate
its assets. As students map community assets,
they get involved in the practice of development
in an actual community and develop strategies
for improvement.
Community partnerships. When possible, it is
ideal for courses in community development to
offer students a meaningful field experience.
Partnerships can be with local government agen­
cies, nonprofits, or even private firms involved
in some type of community development work.
Recently, my community development course
has been strengthened by the addition of
community partnership projects. For example,
students may partner with a local economic
development agency to help officials and
community leaders develop an economic vision
through data collection, participation forums,
and strategic workgroups. Students may use
findings from their group participation plan
projects to help advise local leaders on the best
methods to involve their citizens in the com­
munity development process. These partner­ships
involve close interaction between the students
in the course and community agencies, includ­
ing classroom visits by community leaders and
on-site visits for the students to do asset map­
ping and be involved in the development process.
At the end, the partnerships should offer students
a meaningful experiential learn­ing experience
and some type of value-added project for the
community partner.
SimCity vision building. SimCity has been used
for decades in a number of academic fields
(Gaber, 2007). In my community development
course, as noted, the focus is on the process of
building visions to identify, cultivate, and
Journal of Public Affairs Education175
W. Hatcher
promote community assets. I use SimCity to
simulate the difficulties that may arise in prac­
tice when a community is trying to implement
a community-wide vision. I have had such a
positive experience with the program that I use
it even when my community development
course includes a large number of applied
experiences for the students, such as guest
lectures and community partnerships.
My goals for using SimCity in the classroom
are similar to the positive outcomes from the
project found by Gaber (2007) in his planning
courses. The goals involve giving the students a
simulated applied learning experience, in which
they take the process of implementing a vision
and do it with a simulated community. The
students have to reflect on their decisionmaking skills to accomplish this goal. As noted
by Gaber (2007), SimCity is an excellent pro­
gram to help students reflect on decision-mak­
ing processes, such as systems thinking and
problem solving. I add another outcome to my
goals for the project by getting students to focus
on how artificial visions often do not work in
communities, even fictitious com­munities in
the SimCity world.
Over years of using SimCity, I have found that
my students have similar reactions to the
program as the students in Gaber’s courses.
First, they gain a better appreciation of the
complexity of communities. Students are often
frustrated by the difficulties of implementing a
community vision when they have to focus on
the day-to-day management of their community
and keep the Sims (simulated citizens) happy
and healthy. In particular, students learn the
complexity of systems such as utilities and the
environment when their Sims end up without
water and suffering from pollution issues. By
learning about these difficulties, students can
reflect on management in complex systems,
and, in the project, can help their Sims achieve
better lives.
Second, I hope students gain an appreciation
for how their decisions affect their simulated
community’s economy and, in turn, the lives of
their Sims. The overall course views community
development as the process of bettering com­
176
Journal of Public Affairs Education
munities and, in doing so, abating issues of
poverty and economic class. Through SimCity,
I hope students learn how their vision for a
community and their decisions implementing
their vision have lasting effects on the economic
lives and well-being of their residents.
CONCLUSION
Community development is a key topic in
NASPAA member programs, with a noticeable
number of programs offering concentrations
(10%) and an even more significant number
offering community development courses
(26%). However, only a few of the community
development programs appear to have curricula
rooted in the assets model of development.
Most of the programs focus on economic
development, planning, and sustainability
issues. The assets model teaches students the
importance of focusing on community assets
rather than needs and challenges. The model
advocates for collective decision making, which
helps teach public managers the importance
of meaningful and representative public
participation. Overall, being knowledgeable
about assets and public participation will aid
public managers in developing solutions for
community betterment that focus on efficiency,
effectiveness, and fairness.
For MPA programs that want to develop com­
munity development concentrations that link
theory with practice and also teach the im­port­
ance of community betterment, the local govern­
ance and community development em­phasis
explained by Stout (2013) provides ex­cel­lent
guid­ance. The concentration described by Stout
includes courses on the following topics: local
governance, public engagement, planning, and
sustainable economic development. In each
course, instructors incorporate action research,
service learning, and overall com­munity out­
reach to teach students the importance and
practice of community development.
For MPA programs that want to deliver more
community development instruction rooted in
the asset model of development, this article has
sketched out the methods used in my com­
munity development course as a guide. The
community development course I teach to
Community Development in NASPAA Member Programs
MPA students is based on the assets model and
seeks to teach students the theory and practice
of community development through multiple
teaching methods that either get students
involved in actual communities or simulate
practice in the classroom setting. The emphasis
on development practice is important for
students to gain an appreciation for how
community development is concerned with
bettering communities and addressing issues of
economic class. Each of the student projects
described in this article has a pedagogical goal
of teaching public managers an appreciation of
economic class and an understanding of com­
munity betterment.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Robert Tyler Justice for
research support in preparing this manuscript.
NOTES
1 Throughout this article, MPA is used to refer to
master’s-level programs in public administration,
public affairs, and public policy.
2 For a list of most of the NASPAA-accredited
online programs, go to www.naspaa.org/students/
clearinghouse/clearinghouse.asp.
3 For a roster of NASPAA member programs, go to
www.naspaa.org/about_naspaa/members/member_
roster.asp.
Bareford, C. G. (2001). Community as client: Environ­
mental issues in the real world: A SimCity computer
simulation. Computers in Nursing, 19(1), 11–16.
Barnett, J. L., & Vidal, P. M. (2013). State and local
government finances summary: 2011. Washington,
DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/g11-alfin.pdf
Baruch College of the City University of New York.
(n.d.). Urban development and sustainability. Retrieved
from http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/spa/academics/
master-of-public-administration/specializations/
urban-dev-and-sustainability.html
Bryer, T. A. (2011). Linking students with community
in collaborative governance: A report on a servicelearning class. Journal of Public Affairs Education,
17(1), 89–114.
Conyers, D. (1984). Decentralization and development:
A review of the literature. Public Administration and
Development, 4(2), 187–197.
Figueroa, C. (2014). Developing practical analytical skills
through mindful classroom simulations for “doing”
leadership. Journal of Public Affairs Edu­
ca­
tion,
20(1), 113–129.
Gaber, I. (2007). Too much of a good thing: The ‘problem’
of political communications in a mass media demo­
cracy. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(3), 219–234.
Ginn, M. H., & Hammond, A. (2012). Online educa­tion
in public affairs: Current state and emerging issues.
Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(2), 247–270.
Grand Valley State University. (n.d.). Sustainability in
public and nonprofit organizations, graduate certi­fi­­cate. Retrieved from http://catalog.gvsu.edu/preview
_program.php?catoid=38&poid=5193
Green, G. P., & Haines, A. (2012). Asset building &
community development. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
REFERENCES
Hall, J. L. (2010a). Giving and taking away: Exploring
federal grants’ differential burden on metropolitan
and non-metropolitan regions. Publius, the Journal
of Federalism, 40(2), 257–274.
Aaron, K. A., & Watson, D. J. (2010). Bringing the
university to city hall: The master of public affairs
in city hall. Journal of Public Affairs Education,
16(3), 475–485.
Hall, J. L. (2010b). The distribution of federal economic
development grant funds: A consideration of need
and the rural/urban divide. Economic Development
Quarterly, 24(4), 311–324.
Journal of Public Affairs Education177
W. Hatcher
Hall, J. L. & Howell-Moroney, M. E. (2012). Poverty, in­
novation capacity and state economic development
in the knowledge economy. Growth and Change,
43(2), 228–251.
Hu, Q., Johnston, E., Hemphill, L., Krishnamurthy,
R., & Vinze, A. (2012). Exploring the role of inter­active computer simulations in public administra­
tion education. Journal of Public Affairs Education,
18(3), 513–530.
Jakubowski, L. M., & Burman, P. (2004). Teaching
community development: A case study in communitybased learning. Teaching Sociology, 32(3), 160–176.
Kemp, R. L. (2013). Town and gown relations: A hand­
book of best practices. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Korten, D. C. (1980). Community organization and
rural development: A learning process approach.
Public Administration Review, 40(5), 480–511.
Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities
from the inside out. Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications.
Langer, E. J. (1989). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Martin, L. L., Smith, H., & Phillips, W. (2005). Bridging “town & gown” through innovative universitycommunity partnerships. The Innovation Journal:
The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 10(2), 1–16.
Mathur, V. K. (1999). Human capital-based strategy for
regional economic development. Economic Develop­
ment Quarterly, 13(3), 203–216.
Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Ad-­
min­istration (NASPAA). (2009). NASPAA Standards
2009. Retrieved from https://naspaaaccreditation.
files.wordpress.com/2014/09/naspaa-standards.pdf.
service learning and action research. Journal of
Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 217–238.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (n.d.).
MPA program course offerings. Retrieved from
http://www.mpa.unc.edu/node/23#771
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Local government
employment and payroll data. Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/
pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(n.d.). Community development. Retrieved from
http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/
program_offices/comm_planning/community
development
Wheeland, C. M., & Palus, C. K. (2010). A profile of
Villanova University’s partnership with local govern­
ment managers. Journal of Public Affairs Education,
16(3), 487–509.
Witesman, E. M. (2012). Faculty research-drive vs.
community-driven experiential learning in quanti­
tative public administration curriculum. Journal of
Public Affairs Education, 18(4), 775–796.
Wodicka, R., Swartz, N., & Peaslee, L. (2012). Taking
the classroom to town hall: Advancing public affairs
education through university-municipal colla­bor­
ations. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(2),
271–294.
Zhang, Y., & Yang, K. (2012). Knowledge and skills for
policy making: Stories for local public managers in
Florida. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(1),
183–208.
Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of classroom
room and online learning: Teaching research methods.
Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199–215.
Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implemen­
tation. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Silvia, C. (2012). The impact of simulations on higherlevel learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education,
18(2), 397–422.
William Hatcher is associate professor of political
SimCity [Computer software]. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.simcity.com/en_US
Stout, M. (2013). Delivering an MPA emphasis in local
governance and community development through
178
Journal of Public Affairs Education
science and public administration in the De­
part­ment of Government at Eastern Kentucky
University, where he teaches courses in the
department’s Master of Public Administration
program. His research agenda focuses on admin­
i­strative issues in community development and
public finance.