Writng Sample - Community Relations and the United States Army

COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND THE U.S. ARMY
By
Paul R. Hayes
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in
Public Relations
Iona College
New Rochelle, NY
December 2007
APPROVED:
______________________________________
Project Advisor
______________________________________
Program Director
DATE :________________________________

Community Relations 2
Table of Contents:
Part I – Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..….Page 4
-Background
-Purpose
-Key Terms
Part II – Literature Review……………………………………………………………………….………8
Part III – Research Methodology……………………………………………………………….………11
-Research Questions
-Methods
Part IV – Findings and Analysis
-Army Community Relations Organization…………………………………………………...17
-What Army PAOs Have to Say – Survey Results…………………………………………….22
-What Installation Media Have to Say – Survey Results…………………………………..…49
-Interviews with John Deere and Toyota……………………………………………………....54
Part V – Summary and Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………..57
References……………………………………………………………………………………………...…59
Appendices:
A – PAO Survey……………………………………………………………………………………….....62
B – Media Survey………………………………………………………………………………………...67
C – Installation Demographics…………………………………………………………………………..73
D – Installation PAO Contacts…………………………………………………………………………..74
E – PAO Survey Invite…………………………………………………………………………………...75
F – Media Survey Invite…………………………………………………………………………………76
G – Corporate Interview Request…………………………………………………………………….…77
H – Army Community Relations Policy – CH 8, AR 360-1……………………………………………79

I - Sample Installation Community Relations Program……………………………………………...81

Part I - Introduction
Background
“Environmentalists fight Army expansion. The U.S. Army is at odds with environmentalists and
ranchers over a plan to more than double its Pinon Canyon, Colo., site to 635,000 acres (UPI, 2007).”
“Fort Meade Expansion
Ignites Fears. 5400 new
workers will clog roads and
crowd schools residents say
(Washington Post, 2006).
These headlines could be a
nightmare for any Army public affairs officer. When communities unite against their local installations,
media coverage such as the above and public protests may soon follow. How does the Army, PAOs, and
installation commanders not only accomplish their goals, but maintain a strong positive relationship with
surrounding communities? The answer, in short, is successful community relations practices.
In the recent past, the Army has had numerous communications challenges with communities
neighboring their installations. Some of the more contentious issues were:
2006: Fort Carson announces plan to expand its Pinion Canyon Maneuver Area by some 635,000
acres. The plan would impact some 40,000 persons and over 500 farms and ranches. Community
opposition is strong and has spawned websites (www.pinoncanyon.com), physical and online protest
videos, and numerous unflattering articles accusing the post of neglecting its neighbors, “strong-arming”
land-owners, and “gobbling-up” un-needed land (PCEOC, 2007).
2005: Army announces in Base Realignment and Closure Commission report that it plans to
relocate over 20,000 workers to Fort Belvoir in Fairfax County Virginia. Community leaders and
neighbors of Fort Belvoir clamor that county roads and infrastructure cannot support the influx of new
Colorado Springs Action Allicance protests Pinion Canyon expansion. Photo from CSA
website - http://www.csaction.org/.

commuters. As a result, the Army is required to negotiate with the county to reduce the number of
personnel to be transferred (McCouch 2007).
2006: Environmentalists use Federal Court ruling to block entry
of “Stryker Brigade” into the state of Hawaii. Community and
environmental activists claim the Brigade’s vehicles will cause
unnecessary environmental impact on the islands’ ecosystem and should be
stationed somewhere else. The Army is forced to re-submit environmental
impact statement and the issue is still unresolved (Hoover, 2007).
2007: Protesters sue in federal court to obtain entry onto the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point. The Democratic Alliance of Orange
County sought permission to protest the graduation address of Vice
President Cheney. Although denied their request, some 500 protestors and
counter-protestors picketed outside the posts gates during graduation
exercises (Doherty, 2007).
Despite such public demonstrations, objections, and protests, Army
Public Affairs Officers do their best to rapidly get out the facts and tell the
Army’s side of the story. This project will attempt to identify best practices from industry and the Army
that will assist Public Affairs professionals in countering the effects of such events.
Purpose of the Study
From 1947 to 1977, the General Electric Company (GE) discharged as much as 1.3 million
pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from its Hudson Falls and Fort Edward facilities into the
Hudson River. Since 1976, high levels of PCBs in fish have led New York State to close various
recreational and commercial fisheries and to issue advisories restricting the consumption of fish caught in
the Hudson River (EPA, 2007). The communities of the upper Hudson River to this day continue to view
GE and its representatives as an “enemy.” According to one GE executive, this community relations
Protesters and police meet outside
the gates of West Point. Times
Herald Record, 27 May 2007 –
Michele Haskell
Stryker Protest, Honolulu Star
Bulletin, Craig Kojima Photo

problem is still being “cleaned up” today among the
communities that neighbor the Hudson River (Sharon, 2007).
More and more companies are recognizing the
importance of community relations. Major corporations such
as John Deere and Toyota spend millions in donations, salaries,
and programs to maintain their reputations in their local
communities (Dillon and Salley, 2007). Subtracting the
monetary spending, does this effort translate to the government sector? In particular, what efforts does
the U.S. Army take towards building and maintaining community relations with the cities and towns that
border its installations?
The purpose of this study is to (a) examine how the U.S. Army as a whole conducts community
relations, (b) identify organizational structures and personnel at Department of Army level in place to
conduct community relations, (c) identify how Army installation Public Affairs Officers conduct
community relations at a lower level and how they utilize the press and other programs to communicate
with their local communities, (d) identify how the Army’s community relations practices stack up against
industry leaders in community relations, and (e) identify what lessons can be learned from industry
leaders and can they be applied by Army Public Affairs practitioners.
Key Terms
CONUS: Continental United States.
CRD: U.S. Army Community Relations Division. This division falls under the Chief, Office of the
Chief of Public Affairs. This division plan and conducts marketing for the Army, community relations
and outreach activities with key audiences, and specialized executive communications programs.
Doctrine: Doctrine are the approved set of texts, rules, regulations, and training manuals that dictate how
the Army “does business” in a given area. Army Public Affairs doctrine specifies how PAOs are trained
and should conduct public affairs activities.
The GE Hudson Falls Plant discharged PCBs into
the Hudson River (Photo from EPA)

Embedding: A program by which a reporter is placed with a unit for the purpose of covering their
activities. The reporter eats, sleeps, works, and travels with the unit wherever it goes. A journalist
embedded with a unit is called an “embed.”
Installation: An installation is an U.S. Army fixed and self-contained community. These are comprised
of camps, forts, barracks, depots, arsenals, and proving grounds. Multiple units (division, brigade) or
activities (finance center, safety center) may reside on the post as well as personnel housing.
Installation Public Affairs Officer: This person (may be either Department of Army civilian or officer)
is responsible for planning, executing, and assessing public affairs for the entire installation.
OPSEC: Operational Security. Information, briefings, documents are classified based on OPSEC.
Secret documents or briefings may only be accessed by those with a secret clearance.
PAG: Public Affairs Guidance. Official Army position on a given subject. Usually, the Army publishes
PAG when it expects a query on that subject (treatment of patients at Walter Reed Hospital etc.).
PAO: Public Affairs Officer. U.S. Army term for officer assigned to perform functions of command
information (internal communications), media relations, and community relations.
Satellite Installation: An installation geographically separated from corporate headquarters. In the case
of the U.S. Army, all installations located away from the Pentagon would be satellite installations. For
Deere and Company, a satellite installation would be any factory or corporate function located outside
Moline, Illinois.
SME: Subject matter expert. For example, if media have a question about environmental compliance on
an installation, a PAO will likely contact the post environmental compliance officer to answer questions
as the SME.

Part II - Literature Review
Like any research project inside or outside of the Army, it is essential to peruse important
literature on the subject. In this project, academic journals, professional journals, and textbooks were
reviewed prior to conducting interviews or writing surveys to add scope and background to the problem.
While not a comprehensive list of all community relations literature, the following list of helpful articles
went the farthest to put the entire project into perspective. These articles not only assisted in this project,
but could also become recommended reading for Army Public Relations professionals seeking a deeper
understanding of community relations.
The first group of literature pertained to handling activist organizations within local communities.
Strategic Use of the Media in Successful Community Activism: Case of Concerned Neighbors in Action is
an example which stresses the importance of utilizing the media in creative and strategic methods when
you don’t have a huge public relations staff available for community relations. This work is of critical
relevance to Army Public Affairs Officers who usually have one person to assign to community relations
projects. Additionally, the article provides the perspective of the community activist – the group usually
opposing Army installations and their policies (Simmons, 2003). Another example of dealing with local
activists is found in Succeeding When Environmental Groups Oppose You (Bodensteiner, 2003). This
article serves as an important primer for Army Public Affairs officers on how activists – environmental or
otherwise – operate. The author argues it is of benefit to engage activists in an ongoing manner and
“bring them to the table” as opposed to ignoring them out of hand.
The second grouping of literature deals with measuring feedback within local communities.
Public affairs officers have limited resources with regards to measuring opinion within their local
communities. These works provide insight on how this might be accomplished. Feedback in Community
and Government Relations highlights the importance of soliciting and measuring feedback within
communities to accurately adjust community relations programs. The author provides numerous
examples of how to accomplish this and ways to improve positive sentiment without simply “throwing

money at the community (Braman, 1980).” The next work of use to Army PAOs is Corporate
Philanthropy and Corporate Community Relations: Measuring Relationship-Building Results (Hall,
2006). This study investigates the impact of corporate philanthropy and community relations programs
on the relationship between a company and its customers. Most importantly it demonstrates how this
relationship can be measured. For the Army, this study is important evidence that the more its neighbors
know about its interest and activities within the community, the stronger the relationship with its
neighbors will be.
The final grouping of literature includes several detailed case studies. One of the advantages of
case studies is the amount of detail provided on a given subject. These community relations case studies
provide important lessons for the Army’s PAOs on community relations. Community Relations: How an
Entire Industry Can Change its Image Through Proactive Local Communications (Smith, 2003) examines
how an intrusive industry (construction firm) changed its behaviors to nurture good relations with its
neighboring communities. The paper also outlines a number of best practices or “tools” that are essential
for good community relations. Another detailed case study is What Policy Makers Can Learn from
Public Relations Practitioners: The Siting of a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility in Cortland County,
New York (Coleman, 1989). Army installation commanders often find themselves within a firestorm of
public criticism over a number of issues. This case study is an excellent example of how to improperly
address community concerns and the ramifications of distancing corporate policy makers from trained
public relations professionals. Community Relations and Risk Communication: A Longitudinal Study of
the Impact of Emergency Response Messages is another study which proposes that there is significant
benefit for corporations to inform neighboring communities of what to do in case of a disaster at their
neighboring manufacturing plant (Heath and Palenchar, 2000). This study is of relevance to Army
installations as they too have serious risk communications concerns (terror, hazardous waste) which
should be shared with local communities. The final community relations case study is Defining Publics
in Public Relations: The Case of a Suburban Hospital. This work by one of the most respected Public

Relations scholars defines in detail the process by which publics are defined (Grunig, 1978). The author
uses research to argue that focused research is the best method to determine a corporation’s key publics –
not common sense. This study is also a valuable source of research techniques which may be used by
Army Public Affairs professionals.

Part III - Research Methodology
Research Questions
Prior to initiating research, several research questions were developed to help define the scope of
this project. The primary research questions to be answered were:
1. How do successful corporations conduct community and media relations at “satellite”
installations?
2. How successful is the Army in conducting media / community relations?
Other supporting research questions were:
1. What are the demographics of Army installations within the Continental United States
(CONUS)?
2. What scholarly literature has been written on building and sustaining a successful community
relations program?
3. How is the Army organized to execute community relations programs?
4. How do local media covering army installations characterize their relationships with their
installation public affairs office?
5. How do installation PAOs view their neighboring media?
6. What is the tone of media coverage for selected army installations?
7. How do media and PAOs routinely communicate with each other?
8. How often do media and their PAOs communicate with each other?
9. How do communities view their neighboring installation?
10. What do major corporations view as best practices in community relations?
Research Methods
To answer the research questions, various methods of research were used. Research consisted of
both qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (survey) methods. Additionally, review of demographic

data from the U.S. Census was undertaken. Finally, secondary research of books, articles, and scholarly
journals was used throughout the project.
Demographic Research:
Prior to answering any research questions, the project required identifying a sample of Army
installations. A consolidated list of Army installations within the U.S. was compiled (Appendix C). This
list was expanded to include the installation’s demographic data, neighboring communities, and local
media.
Once the demographics for all Army installations were compiled, the sample needed to be
narrowed. Some towns or cities had multiple installations (ie Washington D.C.). For these locations,
only one installation was selected for research to eliminate redundancy. Installations that were so small
as to not have a public affairs office were also eliminated. In the end, 47 installations and their
surrounding communities were selected for research.
Continuing with the research of Army installations, further anecdotal evidence was compiled
using census data, installation websites, and community websites. For each installation, the following data
was found:
1. Nearest three towns or communities
2. Population of these communities
3. Total possible audience adjacent to installation
4. Installation population to include military, families, civilian employees, reserves, and
contractors
After identifying all demographic data, information was needed about the installation public
affairs staff. Utilizing the Army’s Global Public Affairs Directory and verifying with the installation
PAO’s website, the following information was collected:
1. Installation PAO name, e-mail, phone number

2. Installation community relations representative (if available or named), e-mail, and phone
number.
As a result, a population of 81 public affairs officers was identified for use in surveys at a later
time.
The final step in initial research was to identify the weekly and daily newspapers that covered the
Army installations. Using the internet search engine News Voyager and Cision (formerly Bacons), a list
of papers for each community neighboring the installations was developed. Next, reporters who routinely
covered the installation were identified. To accomplish this task, an archival search for each newspaper
was performed. Searches were conducted on each paper’s website to identify articles written about the
installation and who had written them. In some cases, multiple writers covered the installations. In other
cases, the articles were “unattributed.” In a few cases, there was a dedicated installation “beat reporter.”
As result, if a reporter had written an article in the past year about the installation he was included in the
master database. A final population of 90 reporters was identified for use in later surveys.
Surveys:
Once the installation database was organized and e-mal addresses for the sample population were
obtained, the process of surveying began. The two surveys undertaken for this project were descriptive in
nature. According to Wimmer and Dominick in Mass Media Research, descriptive surveys, “attempt to
describe or document current conditions or attitudes – that is, to explain what exists at the moment (179).”
For this project, the descriptive purpose of the survey was to identify how the Army interacts with its
neighbors and local communities. To answer this question, a survey was designed to provide answers to
the following research questions:
4. What is the relationship between PAOs and their local media?

6. What do Army installation PAO’s view as “best practices” in community and media relations?
With the assistance of two former installation PAOs and current Army Public Affairs doctrine (all
field manuals, regulations, and government texts pertaining to public affairs), a 14-question survey was
designed and refined. (Appendix A.) The survey was broken into two parts. The first section asked
questions that attempted to identify the PAOs relationship with local media and the type of coverage the
installation received. The second section asked the PAO to gauge the installation’s relationship with its
surrounding communities. Both sections utilized multiple choice, open ended, and ranking type questions.
Of these 81 “invitees,” 45 invitees completed the survey (56% response rate). All surveys were
taken and compiled using Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com)
The second survey created was also descriptive. The media survey (Appendix B) was created
with the assistance of a local beat reporter who covered an Army Installation. This survey attempted to
identify media views of their neighboring installations. How well did the media “get along” with their
local PAO? What was the media’s view of the installation’s relationship with the local communities?
The media population was initially sent an e-mail invitation (Appendix F) to participate in the survey over
a two-week period. Based on a low initial response rate (3 of 90), a reminder e-mail was sent to all
invitees asking them to complete the survey. After only two additional responses, a final reminder was
sent asking for participation. Respondents were also asked to provide a reason if they could not
participate. In the end, only 5 of 90 (5.5%) media invitees completed the survey.
Interviews:
One of the advantages of an intensive interview is that it can provide a wealth of detailed
information that allow the respondent to elaborate on their opinions, values, motivations, recollections,
experiences, and feelings (Wimmer and Dominick, 135). As a result, intensive interviews were selected
as the method for helping to answer the following research questions:

1. How do successful corporations conduct community and media relations at “satellite”
installations?
2. What do major corporations view as best practices in community relations?
Three corporations were identified as industry leaders in community relations. All three
companies selected had recently received awards or recognition for their corporate philanthropy, public
relations, or community relations efforts. The companies were:
 Deere and Company:
 Toyota Motors Manufacturing of Indiana (TMMI)
 General Electric, Schenectady
In addition to being industry leaders, the companies also resided in communities that were very
similar to Army installations. Deere and Company Headquarters, located in Moline, IL (Quad Cities), is
comparable in size and demographics to Fort Carson and its surrounding communities. TMMI and its
nearby town of Princeton, Indiana resembles Army posts such as Fort Knox and Fort Sill with very small
neighboring communities. Finally, GE of Schenectady (NY Capital Region) is comparable to Fort Drum
with its neighboring community of Watertown.
The directors of community relations for each one of these companies were contacted and
negotiations began on time, date, and locations for interviews. Letters (Appendix G) were sent with
specific questions and suggested topics for the interviews. The main topics addressed during the
interview were:
1. What would you say is your philosophy of community engagement?
2. Can you describe for me some examples of your company’s guiding philosophies in action?
3. What would you say are some examples of your most successful projects within the
community?
4. What have you found are the best quantitative measures to determine local public attitudes?
5. Do you have some favorite practices in media engagement?

6. Of the media outlets available in your local community (broadcast, web, print), which do you
feel are the most valuable in communicating with key local audiences?
Of the three companies contacted, interviews were confirmed and conducted with Toyota and
Deere and Company. Coordination with GE required 14 phone calls and 9 e-mails between 30 March and
11 June 2007. After all coordination, and a verbal promise of an interview, my request was finally
handled by GE’s New York director of military recruiting. In the end, GE refused to honor the interview
request as they believed the study was an attempt at a job interview – not legitimate research (Sharon,
2007). Interviews were conducted at the Moline, IL headquarters for Deere and Company and the TMMI
plant in Princeton, Indiana for Toyota. Traveling to the company headquarters was preferable as
additional supporting interviews could be conducted with local directors of chambers of commerce and
media if available. Questions for these individuals would hope to answer the following questions:
1. What makes (insert company name) a good neighbor in your community?
2. What would you say (company) stands for?
3. What types of things does (company) do within the community that you wish other
companies would emulate?
In addition to the interviews of corporate communications professionals, select interviews were
also conducted with critical Army personnel serving in community relations positions. Interviews were
conducted in New York City with the Army’s New York Outreach office and its staff. Additionally, an
interview was conduct with the head of Army Community Relations at the Pentagon.

Executive Communications Team
- Media training for GOs and SES
- Holiday and special event speech
writing
- Worldwide Public Affairs Symposium
- GO speakers bureau
Community Relations Team
- Joint Civilian Orientation
Conference
- Joint Service Open House
- Public Service Recognition Week
- Interservice ComRel Liaison
- Aerial Requests
- Non-aerial Requests
Marketing Team
- Outreach Council
- Golden Knights Liaison
- The U.S. Army Field Band
- Commemorations
- The U.S. Army All-American Bowl
OCPA Liaison
- USO Liaison
- CFSC and Army Entertainment
Liaison
- Sports Outreach
- Outreach Web site/ Calendar
- Soldier of the Year/NCO of the
Year
- Accessions Command Liaison
Community Relations Division 22 personnel
Pentagon
OCPA-NY
- Outreach in NYC metro area
- Outreach in Northeast
- Book and publications lead
OCPA-LA
- Outreach in Los Angeles
- Movie industry lead
OCPA-SE
- Outreach in FL, GA and PR
- Based in Tampa
OCPA-MW
- Outreach in ND,
SD, NE, KS, MN, IA,
MO, IL, WI, MI, IN,
OH
- Based in Chicago
None available or published
Mission
Authority and Communications
functional and project
project only
distributed communications
(e-mail, telephone, VTC)
Core Functions
Installation PAOs (x 61)
-1 – 5 persons
-Responsible for Community relations,
Command information, media relations at each
installation
--Reports directly to Installation Commander
Part IV - Findings and Analysis
How is Army Community Relations Organized?
One of the most critical research questions of this project was to determine how the Army
currently is organized to conduct community relations. Using interviews and the U.S. Army Community
Relations (COMREL) Division’s own documents, it was determined that community relations within the
Army is challenged by both the scope of its mission and its own organizational structure.
The mission and core functions of the Community Relations Division (CRD) are not officially
stated on any of their websites or communications. From reviewing their contact list and lessons gained
in interviewing one of their subordinate divisions, a proposed mission that covers their activities is:
Community Relations Division plans and conducts marketing for the Army,
community relations and outreach activities with key audiences, and specialized
executive communications programs.
To accomplish these activities,
CRD is organized into seven teams
consisting of 22 personnel stationed
across the United States. As
opposed to the project oriented
organizations of Army’s Media
Relations and Plans Divisions, CRD
is functionally organized. The
Marketing Team handles
appearances by high-profile Army
units (Golden Knights, Old Guard
Drill Team) at sporting events and coordinates annual all-Army outreach events such as Army Birthday
and Soldier of the Year. Additionally, each of the Army’s 61 forts, arsenals, and barracks nationwide has
public affairs offices (3-5 Army civilian employees) which handle community relations for its respective
OPCA Community Relations Division

Executive Communications Team
- Media training for GOs and SES
- Holiday and special event speech
writing
- Worldwide Public Affairs Symposium
- GO speakers bureau
Community Relations Team
- Joint Civilian Orientation
Conference
- Joint Service Open House
- Public Service Recognition Week
- Interservice ComRel Liaison
- Aerial Requests
- Non-aerial Requests
Marketing Team
- Outreach Council
- Golden Knights Liaison
- The U.S. Army Field Band
- Commemorations
- The U.S. Army All-American Bowl
OCPA Liaison
- USO Liaison
- CFSC and Army Entertainment
Liaison
- Sports Outreach
- Outreach Web site/ Calendar
- Soldier of the Year/NCO of the
Year
- Accessions Command Liaison
Community Relations Division 22 personnel
Pentagon
OCPA-NY
- Outreach in NYC metro area
- Outreach in Northeast
- Book and publications lead
OCPA-LA
- Outreach in Los Angeles
- Movie industry lead
OCPA-SE
- Outreach in FL, GA and PR
- Based in Tampa
OCPA-MW
- Outreach in ND,
SD, NE, KS, MN, IA,
MO, IL, WI, MI, IN,
OH
- Based in Chicago
Mission
Authority and Communications
functional and project
project only
distributed communications
(e-mail, telephone, VTC)
Core Functions
Installation PAOs (x 61)
-1 – 5 persons
-Responsible for Community relations,
Command information, media relations at each
installation
--Reports directly to Installation Commander
installation. Missions and community relations activities at these installations are determined by the local
installation commander – not the director of the Army’s CRD.
CRD is challenged by this organization. The first challenge is that it is scattered across the
country. It has offices in the Pentagon (marketing, community relations, and executive communications),
New York (OCPA – NY), Chicago (OCPA – MW), Los Angeles (OCPA – LA), and Tampa (OCPA –
SE). These satellite offices are manned with two to three personnel and rely on electronic mail, phone,
and annual meetings for
communications with the chief of
the CRD. Specific missions of
these satellite offices vary, but
generally their mission is to
“identify high-profile targets of
opportunity and engage organizers
and planners in events that
showcase today’s Army and its
Soldiers (Misurelli, Buczkowski,
2007).” Additionally, each of the Army’s 61 forts, arsenals, and barracks’ PAO offices further disperse
the organization. Missions and community relations priorities at these installations are determined by the
local installation commander – not the director of the Army’s CRD (McCouch, 2007).
The Army’s community relations programs are also challenged by the division of labor within
CRD. CRD’s division of labor is organized around functions (marketing, outreach) rather than around
projects (Army birthday celebration, 4th
of July events). When looking at the overall organization chart
for CRD it resembles a “flat” organization. The Chief of CRD, COL McCouch, retains span of control
over four functional areas. These few layers between the chief and the functions, in theory, should reduce
waste and “enable people to make better decisions (Greenberg, 2005).” In some cases, however, CDR

Communications Within OCPA
“Push vs Pull”
PushPush PullPull
•Daily “Stand-to”
•Annual World Wide Public Affairs
Seminar
•Messages to the force via e-mail
•Weekly “balcony brief”
•Daily “Stand-to”
•Annual World Wide Public Affairs
Seminar
•Messages to the force via e-mail
•Weekly “balcony brief”
•Earlybird
•AKO resources:
•“Data depot”
•“Notes from the Blogosphere”
•PA homepage
•PAG
•Division AKO pages
•“Editorial Roundup”
•File sharing directories
•Individual unit PAO pages
•Requests for information to each
division
•Earlybird
•AKO resources:
•“Data depot”
•“Notes from the Blogosphere”
•PA homepage
•PAG
•Division AKO pages
•“Editorial Roundup”
•File sharing directories
•Individual unit PAO pages
•Requests for information to each
division
can be a tall organization. Working directly for the director is a deputy. This deputy normally reviews
initiatives from each team prior to the director making a decision. Additionally, each of the Division’s
teams is organized in a similar manner. Further lengthening the organization are the installation
commanders and their staffs who can serve as buffers between a CRD initiative and the installation public
affairs officer. As a result, CRD is really an example of a “tall” organization.
The impact of this structure is seen in several examples. The first example is the issuing of
community relations or public affairs guidance (PAG). The function of PAG is to create standard
messages, talking points, and clarify official positions of the Army on a given issue. One example might
be guidance on setting up media days in local communities. Once a staffer in the division has created the
PAG for the issue, it must be approved by his division chief, passed higher through the Office Chief
Public Affairs (OCPA) deputy chiefs and usually returned for changes. Once changes are complete, it is
forwarded again to the OCPA where it is eventually approved and signed by the general in charge of
Army Public affairs. Only then can it be distributed to the force via electronic means. This process is not
timely and can result in delays in providing “official Army positions” on critical community relations
issues. Both the Community Relations Division and OCPA have developed methods to help speed this
process using websites and discussion boards.
Communications within the organization – variety of methods
Communications within CRD and its subordinates
is accomplished by multiple methods. The easiest
way to describe these methods is by using the terms
“push” and “pull.” Pushing information to the force
occurs when guidance is sent unprompted to
members of the Public Affairs Community. One
example of “pushed” communication would be the

daily “Stand-to.” Stand-to subscribers receive a one page update on communication themes and messages
focus for the day. Additionally, the update includes key articles and links to communications relating to
the Army. Another method of pushing information to the force is the use of e-mails from COL McCouch.
This occurs only when the issue is of such great importance that it warrants mass distribution. This
method was used prior to the launch of the “Army Strong” campaign. The Annual Public Affairs
Conference is also used to push community relations information to the force, but is usually sparsely
attended by those outside the Washington D.C. area. The final method of pushing information to the
force is the weekly “balcony brief.” The balcony brief is chaired by General Cucolo and attended by all
the division chiefs within OCPA. This meeting is used to synchronize messaging, coordinate projects
across all divisions, and publish weekly guidance. Members of the Community Relations Division such
as OCPA – NY receive the minutes from these meetings electronically.
The other way of distributing
information to the force is
through “pull” methods.
These methods work much
like a grocery store. Any
public affairs officer working
on a community relations
project can access the CRD’s
website. This website
provides access to CRD
products event information,
community relations guidance, and contact information. Another “pull” method is the community
relations file sharing directory. Located within the AKO (Army Knowledge Online) community pages,
this directory allows PAOs to access presentations and information packets created by other community
Community Relations Division’s Website

relations officers. The final method of “pulling” information would be to contact the person directly who
created the community relations project or activity. An example of this was when I created my directory
of installation community relations officers. Names and contact information were found in the
“Worldwide PAO Directory” which allowed me to contact each PAO directly.
In all, The Army’s Community Relations Division is organized mostly around functions. While
this organization is helpful when it comes to designing and completing projects, it is not manned or
organized to ensure they are accomplished at the lowest level (installations). For an Army community
relations initiative to be successful, it falls mostly on the shoulders of the individual installation Public
Affairs Officer to pull the correct information and ensure it is accomplished to standard.

What Army PAOs Have to Say – Survey Results
For this project, the descriptive purpose of the PAO survey was to identify how the Army
interacts with its neighbors and local communities. To answer this question, the PAO survey was
designed to provide answers to the following research questions:
4. What is the relationship between PAOs and their local media?
6. What do Army installation PAO’s view as “best practices” in community and media relations?
Survey Summary
The installation PAO survey provided a variety of insights into how they conduct media and
community relations. They survey overall indicates a number of conclusions in these two areas.
 Media Relations: Most PAOs utilize a wide variety of methods to engage local media in
their surrounding communities. The results also suggest that relations between the PAOs
and their local media are good with nearly all stating their coverage as “objective” or
“overly supportive.” Perhaps this quality relationship is due in part to 88% of PAOs
indicating they engage each of their local media on a weekly or daily basis. Finally,
PAOs utilize a number of current media relations practices that are also recommended by
industry practitioners and public relations texts.
 Community Relations: Overall, PAOs characterize the relations between installations
and their surrounding communities as good with nearly all (96%) describing the
relationship as “excellent” or “satisfactory.” In addition to this positive relationship with
their local communities, PAOs expressed that maintaining and promoting this
relationship is absolutely critical to the Army’s success. The PAOs recommend utilizing

Method of Contact
Phone, 59.52%E-mail, 23.81%
Personal visit,
4.76%
Other , 11.90%
Phone
E-mail
Personal visit
Other
a number of programs suggested by Army doctrine and regulations. In addition to these
programs, however, PAOs are creating and executing imaginative engagement activities
that suggest a proactive approach to community engagement.
In all, installation PAOs across the Army feel they have met with success in media and
community relations. These PA professionals indicate that hard work, personal interaction, and quality
programs are critical to these successes.
Individual Question Analysis
Question 1 – What is the primary method of contact between yourself and your local media?
This question was utilized to gauge how PAOs communicate with their local media. Current
Army public affairs doctrine recognizes the importance of utilizing many forms of communication with
local media. But with the recent explosion in electronic media, what is the installation PAO’s preferred
method?
Of the PAOs surveyed, the majority
prefer to contact local media by phone.
E-mail remained the second preference
while making a personal visit to the
media was the least favored option.
The “Other” that made up 11 percent
of the responses collectively agreed that the primary method should include a combination of two of the
choices. One respondent highlighted this belief by stating, “Phone and email weigh the same. We always
follow up with one or the other.”
Question 2. How often do you talk to your local media?
Current Army Public Affairs doctrine does not address the frequency by which PAOs should
conduct routine media calls. Additionally, Army doctrine does not discuss the importance of building

Inteaction With Media
Daily
49%
Weekly
39%
Annually
0%
Never
0%
Other
5%
Monthly
7% Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Annually
Never
Other
strong relationships with the press. In their book Guide to Media Relations, Irv Schenker and Tony
Herrling suggest routine calls are critical to establishing relationships with local reporters. These
relationships, they state, are absolutely necessary and an investment.
“Once you have made the introductions, you need to keep in touch with this
audience. Create occasions for interaction. But keep these kinds of events low-
key, non-pitch events. Laying a solid foundation with the press corps that covers
your organization ideally allows you to build trust and goodwill among reporters
with whom you interact (Schenkler and Herrling, 2004).”
While the Army doesn’t highlight
the importance of routine
communication with the media, most
PAOs acknowledge (88%) that they
communicate with their local media
on a regular (daily or weekly) basis.
Those selecting “other” did so to
point out they talk to the media “twice a week.”
Question 3. How would you describe the access you normally grant local media to units,
commanders, or subject matter experts (SME) on your installation?
This question was selected to help answer how much access to the installation and its units is
given to the local media. The Army has long recognized the importance of providing access to media to
accomplish the following “information objectives”:
 Ensuring an understanding of the role of America's Armed Forces in American society.
 Ensuring an accurate perception of the particular military situation or mission.

Access Granted to Local Media
Controlled
76%
Other
7%
Unrestricted
0%
Closed
0%Restricted
17%
Unrestricted
Controlled
Restricted
Closed
Other
 Ensuring an understanding of individual and unit roles in mission accomplishment.
 Establishing confidence in America's Army to accomplish the assigned mission in accordance
with our national values.
 Establishing confidence in and support for American soldiers (U.S. Army, 2000).
But how much access should be given and how is it measured? Should media be allowed to
wander unaccompanied on an installation? Should reporters have minders at their side when interviewing
troops? The survey presented this question to installation PAOs by asking what type of access they
granted local media. Their choices were:
 Unrestricted – local media are cleared by phone or e-mail and allowed un-escorted access to the
commander, unit, or SME to whom they’d like to speak.
 Controlled – Local media request a meeting with a specific unit or commander, and the PAO sets
up the meeting and escorts the media during the process.
 Restricted – Local media requests a meeting with a specific unit or commander, the PAO selects
an appropriate unit for the media to speak to, and he escorts them to the meeting.
 Closed – Access to units, commanders, training, and SMEs are normally denied due to security,
OPSEC, or other reasons.
Results of the survey revealed that a large majority of PAOs practice “controlled” access for press.
Restricting access of the local
media ranked second with no
PAOs using either closed or
unrestricted practices. Those that
selected “other” stated their
approaches fell equally in the
controlled and restricted categories.

Finally, of note was one respondent who felt a combination of methods and flexibility was required to
accomplish the Army’s goals of media access.
“There is no ‘cookie cutter’ approach that works in each situation. Depending
on the news angle/story line, any, all or a combination of the approaches may be
used to achieve the desired effect.”
Question 4. What methods of disseminating information to the local media are most useful when
getting a story out about an event or topic on your installation?
When Army public affairs professionals set out to accomplish strategic communications for their
commanders, they do so in a complex environment. The Army recognizes that a “proliferation of
personal computers, the World Wide Web, the Internet, online services, fax machines, E-mail, cable
television, direct broadcast, satellites, copy machines, cellular and wireless communication and many
other information technologies have created an endless stream of data and information that flow into a
world filled with images, symbols, words, and sounds (Army, 4-2).” How do installation PAOs manage
these channels to ensure their messages get out? Are methods such as press releases viable? Or do
installations need to monitor and disseminate information on blogs and specialized websites? PAOs were
asked to judge the usefulness of the following seven information distribution methods:
 Direct phone calls or meeting with local media
 Press release to local media
 Setting up interviews with unit personnel, commanders, subject matter experts
 Post newspaper
 Official installation or unit website
 Unit or soldier blog
 Leaks

Ranking Information Dissemenation Techniques
1 2 3 4 5
Leaks
Unit or soldier blogs
Official installation / unit w ebsites
Post new spaper
Setting up interview s w ith unit personnel,
commanders, subject matter experts
Press Release to local media
Direct phone calls or meetings w ith local media
Usefulness
Of those that responded, PAOs seemed to favor harnessing direct contact (either by phone or meeting), a
press release, and an interview with a subject matter expert to publicize an upcoming event or story. All
three of these
methods
received ratings
of over 4.0.
Of interest in
these results,
however, is the
use of blogs.
Installation
PAO’s gave use of blogs an average usefulness rating of 1.84. In fact, several respondents offered that
their installations did not utilize a website nor allow blogs on the installation. This rating is surprising
given the US military’s recent recognition of blogs as an important tool to both connect with the public
and monitor audience attitudes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) even created a blogging task force
which conducted an in-depth study and concluded:
“Today, CENTCOM Public Affairs actively engages more than 400 blogs
operated by a variety of core and non-core audiences. It’s important to
understand this medium. We must have in place proactive processes to rapidly
counter misinformation about our operations, policies and processes that occur
within the blogosphere. By doing this, we can better inform and educate the
audiences that operate in this growing medium (USCENTCOM, 2006)”
In addition to rating the given methods of disseminating information, the respondents were also asked to
provide any other methods that they thought were of value. These ideas included:
 Press Conferences. These can be very useful in dealing with high profile cases.
1=Useless / never used 5= Most useful

 Board of Visitors meetings. These periodic briefings by installation leadership to
local leaders are open to the public and media. However, specifically inviting the media
is useful and demonstrates trust and encourages a working relationship.
 Media Advisories. These are much more efficient in getting coverage of post
messages and/or stories. Advisories are brief, giving just enough information to entice
media to do their own story.
 Periodic media operations. These can include meetings with incoming and
outgoing commanders, media tours, morale calls, media leader luncheons which all
promote and enhance personal relationships.
 Build a customer base for the PAO website. Once local media realize the PAO
website is an accurate and timely source of information, they get accurate facts more
quickly.
Question 5. What is your perception of the coverage your installation receives from local media?
Within their communities, PAOs recognize the importance of monitoring local press for coverage
of their installation. Part of the mission of PAOs is to recognize that, “the vast majority of both civilian
and military media representatives are committed to providing responsible, accurate, balanced coverage,”
of military operations. Regardless of this mission, do PAOs feel their installations are being covered
fairly? Are media outlets providing credible presentation, or are they overly negative/positive?
Installation PAOs were asked to gauge the coverage of their installation by local media by labeling the
coverage as:
 Objective – local media provide coverage that is fair. They report equally on good and
bad events and can be counted on to research their stories prior to going to print.
 Overly supportive - Local media are more “cheerleaders” than objective reporters. They
cover the installation in a positive light only and could be more critical at times.

Type of Coverage
Overly supportive
16%
Overly critical
5%
Tabloid
7%
Other
2%
Objective
70%
Objective
Overly supportive
Overly critical
Tabloid
Other
 Overly critical - Local media report only on the bad events that happen on post. While
these stories are usually well researched and investigated, they paint a picture that only
negative things happen here.
 Tabloid - The local media rarely research the stories they print. They rush to print stories
they view as “scandalous” that serve to build an “us versus them” mentality in the local
community.
Seventy percent of the respondents
noted that the coverage of their
installation was objective. Add to this
another 16% who deemed their
coverage as “overly supportive” and
some 86% of all installations are
getting positive coverage in their local papers. Worth noting, however, 13% of those surveyed believed
their local papers covered the installation in a tabloid or overly critical manner. When asked to clarify
this negative coverage, some respondents noted coverage that was, “Regrettable, sensational, semi-factual
or less than fair.”
Of all responses, however, one PAO distinguished between the coverage of weeklies and major
daily publications. Their premise highlights a growing concern among public relations professionals of
the difficulty in managing media who, “..are increasingly and uncritically publishing and broadcasting
information from individuals who fail to have credentials, who are self-anointed or self-appointed, and
who have done virtually nothing to authenticate the information they convey(Lukaszewski, 2007).” The
PAO lamented,
“The dailies (Washington Post, Examinar (sic) Times) are objective and seek to
provide balanced coverage. The weeklies routinely serve as a mouth piece for
county supervisors who have an agenda to promote without regard to the facts.

Weekly papers often run items regarding the installation without seeking comment
from the installation.”
Question 6. What are the ethical practices of the local media covering your installation?
This question also attempts to identify the level of credibility between the PAO and their local
media. Do they trust their servicing media? When the PAO gives a quote or responds to query, are their
responses accurately represented in the media outlet?
The Army and industry both agree that mutual trust and credibility between media and public
relations professionals are essential. One media relations specialist stated, “credibility is your ultimate
product…should your reputation for credibility ever be damaged, should you be caught in a lie, you’ll be
a long time repairing the damage (Schenkler and Herrling).” Similarly, if a PAO believes his / her local
media is not trustworthy, they might be less inclined to get accurate coverage of stories and messages.
In this survey, PAOs were given four choices to explain how they viewed their local media.
Their choices were:
Has your local media ever:
 Lied to you. Told you something that was not true
 Withheld information they eventually printed in a story that painted the installation or a unit in a
negative light?
 Deceived you. Did not lie, but did not provide full information that eventually led to a crisis.
 None of the above apply. All my dealings with the local media have been honest and truthful.

Has the Media Ever….
Lied to you?
11%
Withheld
information?
32%
Deceived you?
25%
Been completely
honest and
straightforward?
32%
It is discouraging to see that 68% of all PAOs surveyed felt that their local media had been less than
completely honest and
straightforward in their dealings.
This percentage is also confusing.
How can 86% of PAOs believe they
receive objective or overly
supportive coverage when only 32%
of them believe their local media are completely honest and straightforward? This discrepancy could be
the basis of future research on the subject.
Question 7. Personally, how are you treated by the local media?
This question also attempts to describe the relationship between PAOs and their local media.
Once again, the credibility of a PAO is critical. Army public affairs recognizes that there are multiple
benefits to getting information out in a timely and accurate manner. It goes without saying that PAOs
who are respected amongst their local press should have an easier time communicating key messages and
themes rapidly and accurately than those who cannot get their calls returned. PAOs were asked to
represent their treatment by selecting from the choices below.
 Respected – I’m treated as a professional public relations specialist and public servant
 Feared / avoided – Some event (or dealings with a predecessor) has caused the local media to
avoid talking to me, and when they do, I am treated very skeptically.
 Ignored - I’m treated as if my installation is not newsworthy or too insignificant to be taken
seriously.
 Other

How Are You Treated By the Local Media?
Respected
90%
Other
10%
Feared /
avoided
0%
Ignored
0%
By far, the vast majority of those
responding noted they believed they
were respected by the local press.
None of those responding felt they
were ignored or feared / avoided by the
local media. However, 10% of those
responding noted “other” as their
treatment. Those who responded with other noted a variation in treatment which included:
 “Respected if they understand our position and mission but reporters who do not work with us on
a continuous basis get frustrated with us because they do not have unrestricted access.”
 “Missing category: gatekeeper. Every gate entering post says that the post PAO is the person a
journalist must come through to conduct newsgathering on post. That role is established in AR
360-1. The local media understood that role and followed our ground rules, because they knew
we could limit the access they needed to do their jobs. We returned that respect for their
adherence our guidelines by not being jerks about it and granting frequent access to post in almost
all circumstances.”
 “Almost impossible to answer. Our local print media is a sensationalist tabliod. Our local TV
and radio stations, however, are very fair. National and international media have great
professional relationships with our office.”
 “Depends on the reporter. Some treat me respectably, some ignore me, and some act as though
I'm bothering them or hampering them.”
Question 8. Describe the type of working relationship you have with the local media covering your
installation.

This question relates to research question five which questions the nature of the PAO / local
media relationship. How do the PAO and his local reporters work together? Are they friendly to each
other? Are all dealings formal and rigid? Or do they informally meet for a cup of coffee to discuss
stories or background information?
Army doctrine is somewhat structured when it comes to defining the PAOs relationship with
media. There are a wealth of Army publications that dictate “media ground rules.” These ground rules
revolve around what can and cannot be said, what information can and cannot be released, and what
locations a reporter can and cannot access. No time is spent discussing the relationship between the PAO
and reporter. Is it ok to have a casual cup of coffee with your local media? What are the advantages of
nurturing relationships with your local media? Community relations specialists recognize that when
spokespersons practice openness, accessibility, truthfulness, empathy and engagement, they have a better
opportunity to manage coverage and opposition within their communities (Lukaszewski, 10). For this
survey, PAOs were asked the following:
“Which description best characterizes your relationship with the local media covering your installation?”
 Formal – Strictly professional and “by the book” – All information and quotes “on the
record.”
 Informal – routinely meet with the media in informal settings such as lunch or coffee to share
story ideas, background information, and “off the record” opinions.
 Informal / formal mix – a mix of the two above.
 Hostile – Don’t speak with the local media.
 Other – please explain.
Of those responding, 78% described their relationship with local media as a mix of formal and
informal techniques. A formal relationship ranked second at 10% among respondents followed by
7% who favored a strictly informal method. No respondents admitted to a hostile relationship
although 5% stated they had a relationship that fell outside the presented options.

Characterize Your Working Relationship With the Media
Informal / formal
mix
78%
Other
5%
Hostile
0%
Formal
10%
Informal
7%
Those who delineated “other” explained
relationships that more than likely fit the
“informal/formal” mix category. One
respondent highlighted the concern of
what to do with an “untrustworthy”
reporter. How do you treat someone you
know you have to talk to, but don’t trust?
“Totally depended on the individual reporter. Some reporters you could
engage informally with and not worry. Others had to be handled with a long set
of steel tongs and asbestos gloves. Reporters who merited the latter treatment
were the ones who created quotes from me or misrepresented what was
happening on our installations. If I didn't trust the reporter to do their job
according to basic standards of the journalistic 'profession,' then I was going to
approach them very carefully. Having completed graduate school in journalism,
I often understood those standards better than they did.”
In the end, some who have examined the problem of the media vs. PAO relationship suggest that
a strong professional relationship built on mutual respect and understanding is key to creating, “a trust
and confidence between the two that will result in fairer media coverage of the military and greater media
access.” (Willey, 1998)
Question 9. How do PAOs engage local media?
This question once again attempts to answer research question six. What do PAOs view as best
practices in media and community relations? Media and public relations experts agree that to maintain a
quality relationship with local media; a spokesperson should utilize multiple channels to engage the media
(Schenkler and Herrling, 19). These channels should include a mixture of three main types 1) releases, 2)
individually targeted channels, and 3) broadly targeted channels. The offering of engagement

opportunities falls largely in the second
and third main group. Offering these
activities is especially important for
community relations on military
installations as it is often the only window
some locals have into the post.
In this survey, PAOs were asked the
following:
Which of the following engagement
opportunities does your installation offer
and at what frequency?
 Media days (visit training,
installation tour)
 Attendance at installation town
hall meetings
 Editorial boards
 Interviews with installation
leadership (post commander or
garrison commander)
 Story pitches
 Unaccompanied access to select events
 Interviews with subject matter experts (SME)
 Embedding with units
 Other
Schenkler and Herrling’s Channels

Of those PAOs surveyed, all
responded they offered
interviews with SMEs and
installation leadership. Close
to 80% of those surveyed
offered some variety of story
pitches (90%) and media
visitation days (78%).
Embedding of reporters was the next most frequent technique of media engagement with 59% of PAOs
offering that option. However, less than half of all respondents offered editorial boards (39%),
unaccompanied access to events (37%) and attendance at town hall meetings (37%). Once the preferred
techniques were identified, at what frequency were these opportunities offered?
Since interviews with SMEs and installation leadership were offered by all those responding to
the survey, how often were these engagement activities offered? Most PAOs stated they gave local press
greater access to SMEs than they did to leadership. This is seen in that interviews were usually granted
with SMEs on a monthly (44%) and weekly (44%) basis. This is contrasted with leadership interviews
which were more often given semi-annually (49%) and monthly (31%). Of those surveyed, very few
granted daily access to either SMEs or installation leadership.
How Frequently Is The Press Offered Interviews
With Subject Matter Experts?
Semi-Annually
3%
Monthly
44%
Weekly
44%
Daily
6%
Annually
3%
How Frequently Is The Press Offered Interviews
With Installation Leadership?
Annually
11%
Daily
3% Weekly
6%
Monthly
31%
Semi-Annually
49%
Do You Offer the Media.....
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100
%
Town hall meetings
Unaccompanied access to select events
Editorial boards
Embedding
Media days
Story pitches
Leadership Interviews
Subject Matter Expert Interviews
Percentage Responding Yes

How Frequently Is The Press
Offered Story Pitches?
Annually
0%
Daily
21%
Weekly
47%
Monthly
29%
Semi-Annually
3%
How Frequently Is The Press Offered Attendance at
Media Days (visit training, installation junket)?
Semi-Annually
34%
Monthly
13%
Weekly
9%
Daily
6%
Annually
38%
How Often do you Offer Local Media the
Opportunity to Embed with Units?
Semi-Annually
20%
Monthly
25%
Weekly
0%
Daily
20%Annually
35%
The next most popular engagement activity was utilizing story pitches. Of those PAOs that
pitched stories, almost half (47%) offered
these pitches weekly while 29% pitched
monthly. Surprisingly, 21% of PAOs
pitched stories daily to their local media
outlets. Very few (3%) offered pitches
twice a year.
The next most popular engagement activity
for PAOs was the use of media facilitation
days. These events usually include a
combination of briefings, training visits, and
access to soldiers. Of those offering media
days, most did so on an annual (38%) or semi-
annual (34%) basis. The remainder of those
surveyed offered them on a monthly (13%),
weekly (9%) and daily (6%) basis.
The next method of engagement for PAOs is
the embedding of media. Embedding usually
occurs over an extended time period and
normally requires the media representative to
travel with the unit into a combat theater.
While this was not the most popular method of
engagement among PAOs (only 59% offered),
those who did offer the opportunity did so

How Often Do You Invite Local Media to Installation
Town Hall Meetings?
Annually
7%
Daily
0%
Weekly
0%
Monthly
21%
Semi-Annually
72%
How Frequently Does the Installation Conduct
Editorial Board Meetings?
Annually
60%
Daily
0%
Weekly
0%
Monthly
0%
Semi-Annually
40%
How Frequently Is The Press Given
Unaccompanied Access to Installaiton Events?
Semi-Annually
29%
Monthly
29%
Weekly
14%
Daily
7%
Annually
21%
with somewhat varied frequency. Some offered the opportunity monthly while others offered it only
twice a year. Some (20%) offered to embed reporters daily. The data did not support a preferred
frequency of how often to offer a local reporter
the chance to embed.
The three remaining media engagement
activities (editorial boards, unaccompanied
access, and town hall meetings) were also
favored by relatively the same percentage of
PAOs (39%). Those that extended invitations to
installation town hall meetings for local media did so most often on a semi-annual basis. The next most
popular frequency was monthly (21%) and annually (7%). No PAOs offered attendance at town hall
meetings on a weekly or daily basis.
Editorial boards were also utilized by 39%
of the respondents. Of those using editorial
boards, a majority utilized them annually (60%)
while all others offered them on a semi-annual
basis. No respondents offered the engagement
activity on a daily, monthly or weekly basis.
The final engagement activity consisted of
unaccompanied access to events on post. Of those
responding that this activity was offered, there was
no clear majority. Respondents offered the activity

Engagement Preferences
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Combination
Interviews
Media Days / Visits
Meetings With Local Officials
Pitches
Unaccompanied Access
monthly (29%), semi-annually (29%), and annually (21%). A minority of respondents offered
unaccompanied access on a less frequent weekly (14%) and daily (7%) basis.
Question 10 – Which engagement activities do PAOs view as most beneficial?
Based on the results of question nine, PAOs utilize a number of community and media
engagement activities. Which of these, however, do they view as most effective? With only 1-3 public
affairs personnel available in their offices to plan and coordinate these activities, which engagement
initiative provides the most, “bang for the buck.?” PAOs were asked in this question, “Which of the
above (those listed in question 9) media engagement activities do you view as most successful in
developing a good working relationship with you local media? Why?”
The most poplar
options for PAOs were
utilizing media days and
visits (37%) and
offering interviews with
SMEs and unit
leadership (34%) After
these options, 14% of
respondents stated that it was best to utilize a combination of engagement techniques. The remaining
respondents stated that building relationships with local officials (9%), utilizing story pitches (3%) and
granting unaccompanied access to events (3%) were the most effective ways to engage local media and
communities.
Not surprisingly, the PAOs had numerous reasons for selecting their most effective engagement
activities. Some reasons included:

Media Days:
 “Media days, especially those where we take a new reporter to the beat and let them peek behind
the curtain to better understand who we are, what we do, and how they can cover us, and story
pitches (usually held informally)”
 “Media Days with hometown newspapers of deploying units result in some of the best
presentations of the mobilization and deployment process we have seen. These are best when
usually put in the words of junior Soldiers.”
 “With media days we were able to focus on a particular facet of life on the installation and allow
the reporters to ‘live it’ for a day.”
Interviews with SMEs and Leadership:
 “One on one interviews are the best - they are the most personal and show trust for the
reporter.”
 “Setting up interviews with SMEs works best. Anticipating their intent and staffing the proper
SMEs and visuals for stills/b-roll makes their job easier and thus builds a better relationship.”
 “Interviews with SMEs work the best. These strengthen the credibility of the individual, the
organization and public affairs; provides opportunity to pitch other story ideas before and after
the interview; good barometer for journalist's style and trust for future engagements”
Combination of Methods:
 “None works well alone. A PA professional, with command support and involvement, has to use
them all in order to be successful”.
 “A combination of all with a mix of interviews with command leaders and story pitches. In our
medium sized market, local media appreciate us streamlining important issues that appeals to
our various publics. They also like to have direct and personal access to our command group.”
 “The bottom line is all. It must be a mix to ensure the complete Army story is told.”

 “All. Feeding the media story ideas and opportunities not only tells the Army story, but it also
improves relationships with the media. I always say, ‘You don't want to meet your local media
the first time when there is a crisis.’”
Personal Meetings with Local Officials and Media:
 “Our periodic meetings with local officials offer a great opportunity to show our commitment to
forthright communications. By allowing them in to see what we are doing, media are much more
receptive to our releases and advisories.”
 “Developing a good working relationship with media is an ongoing process which crosses all
the above activities. To me the most critical ingredient is the personal integrity of the PAO
professional. The media has to believe the PAO will not lie to them and will provide ‘maximum
disclosure with minimum delay’.”
Unaccompanied Access and Story Pitches:
While these two engagement activities were selected, respondents did not expand upon their
selection. Of interest, however, were the comments of one respondent on the use of unaccompanied
access:
“If a journalist isn't working under embedded media ground rules, unaccompanied
access is a violation of AR 360-1. All media should be escorted, even to on-post
football and basketball games by the school staff/information officer. It's a
reminder to the reporter that military installations, while like a city, are special
because of their activities in support of national security.”
This statement, however, is not true. AR 360-1 does not prohibit unaccompanied access
to public events on installations. In fact, the regulation states:
“News media representatives may visit those areas of an installation normally
open to the public when the subject matter is of local interest or deals with news
events that happen without prior planning or knowledge and the information is

releasable under existing regulations. The news media and the public are
restricted from areas where access must be controlled for criminal justice purposes
(U.S. Army 2000).”
Question 11. Does your installation “get along” with its surrounding communities?
As mentioned in the opening of this project, some installations suffer through protests and
challenges from a variety of activist organizations. But do all Army installations share these problems?
More importantly, how do PAOs rate their installation’s relationship with the local community?
Specifically, respondents were asked, “How would you characterize the current relationship
between your installation and its neighboring communities?” PAOs were then given the following
choices:
 Excellent – The post is involved with numerous community events (festivals, parades) and
supports local charities, non-profits, and benevolent organizations. The post hosts the
community and attempts to create a lasting “partnership.”
 Satisfactory – The post is involved with the community, but could do much more. The
community is hesitant to engage and slow to react to our concerns. There is a mutual respect
between the community and the installation.
 Poor – Relations are not good. We do not engage the community unless a crisis arises there.
There are very few engagement activities and these are not resourced by the community to be
successful. There is not a mutual respect between the installation and the community.
 Hostile – Relations could not be any worse. Community and installation goals oppose each other.
The prevailing attitude of the community and its leaders is that things would be better off without
the installation here.
 Other (Please describe the relationship your installation has with its local community)

Those responding to the survey
overwhelmingly chose to characterize their
relationship with their surrounding
communities as excellent. A remaining 17%
of respondents characterized their
relationship as satisfactory. No PAOs stated
their relationships as poor or hostile. Of
those that selected other, one provided insight that might mirror the concerns of other installations.
The respondent noted that even though the relationship between the community and installation was
satisfactory or excellent, there was no way the installation could provide all the community thought it
needed. This comment highlights the community’s frustrations:
“Overall our relationship is satisfactory to excellent. The issue is not the
amount of support we provide, which is considerable in the community events
realm, but the unceasing amounts of support they request that we cannot legally
provide. The community is unwilling to accept this fact.”
Question 12. What are some tactics you utilize?
Army guidance and regulations concerning community relations are sparse at best. In
AR 360-1, The Army Public Affairs Program, only allocates 3 pages of 107 to the topic of
community relations. (see Appendix H) Within these pages, the Army suggest some tactics of
community engagement to include:
 An active speakers bureau program.
 Ongoing liaison with organizations (including those at local, State, and regional events).
 Participatory membership in civic, business, and professional organizations.
 Using exhibits, bands, color guards, and other ceremonial units in the public domain.
Characterize the Relationship Between Your
Installation and the Local Community
Poor, 0%
Hostile, 0%
Other, 5%
Satisfactory,
17%
Excellent, 79%

 Periodic open houses and an active installation tour program (see para 7–5).
 Participating in national holiday observances.
 Supporting overseas host nation activities (American youth, holiday, and traditional
programs).
But do installation PAOs actually use these recommended programs and activities? In the
words of one PAO:
“Rather than the passive “respond to request” for support by the Army envisioned in AR
360-1(e.g., bands, color guards, marching units for parades, equipment displays), the
installation establishes an aggressive, proactive community outreach program to support
the local community and foster understanding and support of Army programs and
activities through active, personal, hands-on participation in all aspects of community
life.”
From the survey results, most PAOs share this active approach. Below are samplings of
some of the respondent’s top three tactics of community engagement. (see next page)

School / Youth Engagement Activities:
Adopt a school
program
JROTC Tours Area schools mentoring
program
Participation in local
school events
Local State University /
Installation day: Host
competitions, information
briefing for nearby
university students and
leaders
Soldier reading programs in
local schools
Host adventure camps for
community youth
Arrange donation of computers
to local youth groups
Local Opinion Leaders Engagement Activities:
Getting community leaders
to key events on post
Scheduled visits
to installation by
opinion leaders.
Conduct historical tour for
local opinion leaders
Conduct periodic meetings
with military affairs committee
/ Chamber of Commerce
Annual visit of Leadership
Oklahoma (a year-long class
of state leaders of business,
industry, education and
government.) They visit to
learn about the military's
impact on the state.
Establish board of advisors
from local elected officials
Establish volunteer
participation in local groups
to include: neighborhood
boards, city, county and state
advisory committees, land
use commissions, State
Department of Land and
Natural Resources, U.S.
Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Community
service and volunteer
groups, AUSA, MOAA
(former TROA), Scouts, and
school partnership groups
Liaisons on local boards (city
council, school, etc.)
Media Roundtable with
Installation Commander
BRAC Board of Advisors
(quarterly; sort of a
COMREL Council)
Attend county fiscal court /
zoning meetings
Army Visibility Activities:
All installation concerts
open to local community
Ceremonial mounted color
guard sent to nearly all
local communities for their
festivals / parades
Demonstrations by
installation teams /
units to include
static displays of
equipment.
Armed Forces Day celebration.
Soldiers and units provide
participation.
Cultural, environmental,
and hunting access to
installations and training
areas.
Installation provides guided
tours on special days or
events
Torchlight Tattoo and
Armed Forces Day
Establish special events
[Largest July 4th activity;
dinner theater offerings, Cinco
de Mayo, etc.] to which the
community are invited to.
Other Engagement Activities:
Participation in community
economic development
events
Promote
attendance at
local job fairs
Community/Business
Appreciation Night
Host community update
breakfast (annual)
Create installation-
community council
And meet quarterly
Develop partnership
between installation and
local library
Interface among emergency
response organizations on
and off-post
“Adopt a site”
programs. IE:
memorial, cemetery,
park
Develop
installation
speaker’s bureau
Create installation civilian
employee appreciation
events
Develop Co-Op programs
between units and local
businesses

Question 13. How do PAOs conduct research?
In addition to providing guidance on community relations activities, AR 360-1 also provides
recommendations for research of local opinion and attitudes. The Army recognizes that, “Community
surveys and analyses are helpful in developing a sound community relations program (U.S. Army,
2000).” It does not, however, provide any suggestions, examples, or doctrine to help PAOs conduct this
analysis. The only help the Army provides is an outdated regulation, AR 600-46 “Attitude and Opinion
Survey Program” which was published in 1979.
Respondents, therefore were asked specifically, “Which of the following qualitative and
quantitative measures do you find helpful in determining community attitudes towards your
installation? (check all that apply)” The PAOs were given the following choices:
 Phone surveys
 Content analysis of local media
coverage
 Interviews with opinion leaders
 Attendance at community meetings
 Informal surveys conducted by
attending local events
 Hosting installation town hall meetings
 Call-in-line (CG’s hotline)
 Focus groups
 Web surveys
 Mail surveys
 Analysis of local blogs
 Phone surveys
 Other - please specify
Based on the survey results, content analysis of local media coverage was the most frequently
used method with 68% of respondents utilizing it as a research practice. Interviews with
opinion leaders and attendance of community meetings were also popular as they were utilized
by over 50% of respondents. The more labor intensive research methods, surveys and meetings
were utilized less frequently. Of these methods, only hosting installation town hall meetings
were utilized by PAOs over 40% of the time. Phone, mail and web surveys as well as analysis
of local blogs were utilized by PAOs less than 10% of the time.

Those who selected
“other” as their choice
provided insightful
comments. Most of
those selecting other
suggested “personal
contact,” “daily
interactions with locals
and constant
engagement with
community leaders, as
their preferred method of research. Additionally, three respondents noted that they did not
conduct research, did it poorly, or were not organized to conduct analysis of any kind.
Question 14. What is your philosophy of community relations?
Even though the Army spends very little time in manuals and regulations addressing
community relations, it does define its objectives for installation community relations programs.
These objectives are:
 increase public awareness of the Army’s mission ,policies and programs
 inspire patriotism
 foster good relations with the various publics with which the Army comes into contact at
home and abroad
 maintain the Army’s reputation as a respected professional organization responsible for
national security
 support the Army’s recruiting and personnel procurement mission (U.S. Army 1997)
How Do PAOs Conduct Research?
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
phone surveys
analysis of local blogs
mail surveys
web surveys
focus groups
call-in line (CG's hotline)
Other (please specify)
installation town hall meetings
informal surveys conducted by
attending local events
community meetings (zoning
boards, city council, etc.)
interviews with opinion leaders
content analysis of local media
coverage

How do PAOs meet these objectives? What philosophies guide them in their daily operations
that help them meet a myriad of challenges? Respondents were asked the following hypothetical
question:
“Hypothetically, you have been asked to teach a class to a group of new public affairs
officers on community relations. Based on your professional experience, how would
you describe to them your philosophy of community relations and engagement?”
While it is impossible to list each response, there appeared to be similar themes among all.
 Engagement. Installations and their leaders need to be engaged in the community.
PAOs should ensure this engagement is proactive – not passive. “More often than not,
your engagement activities are the face of your installation in the community’s eyes.”
 Participation. Community relations is a PAO planned and leader executed program.
The installation commander and their subordinate leaders must show an interest in the
community. Getting leaders to participate is difficult and some will not be willing to
give up their time. But when they do participate, “they are perceived as a genuine
community partner, willing to roll up their sleeves and assist in programs that may not
be seen as directly benefiting the military.”
 Personal contact leads to credibility. Personal contact with community leaders and
citizens in general builds a mutual respect and builds the perception that you care.
Sometimes personal contact means telling the bad with the good. Ideally, this contact is
in person and by phone – not e-mail. When leaders and soldiers are up front and active
in their communications, it builds, “mutual respect leading to truthful, productive
relationships.”
 You are not alone! Often PAO offices are staffed with 2-3 people. Successful
community relations cannot happen if it is just the PAO participating in the program.

PAOs suggest using the talent within the installation to help. Enlist volunteers,
empower subordinate units and encourage others to participate.
 Support the local community. As much as possible, support the local community’s
requests for personnel, equipment, participation, and other forms of support.
Realistically, the community must understand you cannot support every request, but
should be willing to listen to every request. As one PAO stated, “Not all installations
have assets they can throw at the community – which is not necessarily a bad thing as
you quickly see the community turn when the assets are not available.”
 Don’t be afraid. PAOs stress knowing all applicable regulations and doctrine. Beyond
that, however, they suggest imagination is the only limit to communications with the
local community. Utilizing breakfasts, meetings, speakers bureaus all help when getting
the word out on installation activities and news. Installations should strive to remain
transparent within the limits of regulations. Opening the post for dinner theater,
concerts and youth sporting events are all creative ways to help the community
understand what happens behind, “those guarded gates.”
What Installation Media Have to Say – Survey Results
As discussed in Part IV – research methods, a parallel survey was developed to gauge the
effectiveness of Army media and community relations by engaging the media that cover Army
installations. Initially, over 100 survey invites were sent to local print media. Only 6 invitees
completed the survey by the required completion dates. The low response count to the survey
prevents utilizing data for conclusions. The lack of responses and reasons given for not
completing the survey, however, provide some insights in and of themselves.
 Lack of a dedicated beat reporter. In some cases, reporters responded to the survey
invite that they no longer covered the installation or did not feel writing one article

about an installation qualified them to complete the survey. Additionally, the military
beat appears to be one of the least popular beats. For instance, one paper utilized five
reporters for five articles covering an installation over a period of a year. This “beat
coverage by committee” was seen in at least one other installation where a former
military beat reporter left six months ago and still has not been replaced.
 Military reporter participation in beat coverage. Some installation Public Affairs offices
retain their own specialists that serve as reporters for the installation newspaper.
Installation Public Affairs offices often partner with small local print publications for
assistance in printing, typesetting and other technical aspects of publishing a weekly
newspaper. As a result of these agreements, some Army installation public affairs
specialists may serve as reporters for these small local dailies. This is especially
prevalent when covering “on-post” stories. In several cases, invites to these reporters
were returned with the reason of not being “allowed” to complete surveys.
Regardless of the low response count, those that did participate provided feedback on
their relationships with the local installation that could prove helpful to installation PAOs. These
insights focus in two main areas.
 Communications with local media. Those responding to the survey noted a high
frequency (daily and weekly) communication with their local PAO. Additionally, all
responded that requested information was provided in a timely manner in order to meet
their deadlines. One respondent noted, however, that the process of information
gathering sometimes becomes cumbersome.
“PAOs haven't actively withheld info, but have required me to file FOIA
requests for info they were directed not to freely distribute. Also, by
serving as go-betweens w/ subject matter experts in answering questions,
they have slowed info-gathering, to the point that stories on deadline
sometimes cannot get all questions answered in time”.

While another PAO added that while they get information – it might not
always be what they need.
“We get lots of stuff we don't need from PAO pitching ‘feel good’ stories.
Response to important stories varies from good to avoidance in most
cases, but we do have situations where they call us, tell us there is a big
problem going on we'll find out about eventually, and give us their
perspective in advance. In other words, we sometimes get treated
properly, depending mostly on which one of several people is in charge.”
 Mutual respect. In the PAO survey, respondents agreed that mutual respect was an
important part of successful relations with local media. Those responding to the survey
noted that they felt respected by their local PAO. Only one respondent countered this
attitude noting:
“Historically our installation has not respected the local media at all.
We now have two reporters with backgrounds in Army Public Affairs
who have worked for much larger media outlets in the civilian sector,
understand what PAO should be doing, and are not hesitant to demand
that we be treated according to Army regulations. That has solved most
of the problems”.
 Building a good working relationship with the PAO. All reporters noted they were
provided with engagement opportunities consisting of story pitches, interviews, and media
days. In general, these opportunities to interact with the installation population and PAO
helped build a good working relationship. Once again mirroring the PAO survey, interviews
were favored by most of the respondents. Contrary to the PAO survey, however, one
reporter felt greater access was the answer to building strong relationships noting:
“Any event that allows unfettered access to NCOs and soldiers--
without a PAO listening in--is best, whether it's a town hall-style
meeting, a training activity or deployment ceremony.”

While both Army doctrine and industry practices recommend building strong
relationships between PAOs and local media, one reporter felt it wasn’t that important.
“Two of our reporters, including me, are former Army Public
Affairs personnel who have spent many years in the civilian
media as well. We don't need to develop a good relationship --
we demand that the regulations be followed since we know the
way thing are supposed to be done and do not tolerate
garbage.”
 Building strong relationships with the community. All of the respondents felt the
installation retained an excellent relationship with the surrounding communities. Some
reasoned this was due to healthy variety of engagement programs such as media /
community leaders breakfasts, hosting youth events, leadership attendance at local
events, and inviting media and community leaders to training events on post. One
respondent , however, hinted that land issues – much like those seen at Fort Belvior and
Fort Carson could possibly damage this relationship.
“Biggest issue is potential purchase of private land to expand
the post's training area. Army doesn't want to talk about which
lands it may want to buy and that creates great distrust with
surrounding landowners. No real solution though.”
 Advice for fellow “installation beat” reporters. The final portion of the media survey
offered the respondents the opportunity to provide advice to reporters covering an
installation beat. How best does a reporter interact with the PAO and the installation
leadership?
 Read military newspapers to see what issues are cropping up at
other installations.

 When you interview troops, try to develop sources for longer-
term use, even if it’s for nothing more detailed than confirmation
purposes.
 Remember that the military are also public servants and what
they do, how they do it, and what it costs are all information the
public has an interest in knowing.
 Establish a professional and eventually a private relationship
with the PAO, to include asking for a post briefing and
windshield tour of the fort.
 Go to events, no matter how mundane they seem, to build a
relationship with the fort's people. The more they see you the
more they will trust you.
 Treat those in uniform and the civilian workforce with respect.
 Engage early and often. Try to convince them you're serious
about covering them thoroughly and accurately, and that even if
they try to brush you off you aren't going away.
 The best advice would be to learn as much as possible about the
Army. Almost anyone we would hire would be a former soldier
or a spouse, but if we hired a true civilian with no military
experience, we'd urge them to spend as much time as possible
trying to learn about military life. For former soldiers with no
PAO background, we would tell them to learn the regulations
and demand that they be followed -- nicely at first, other-than-
nicely if needed.
Having more reporters respond to the media survey would have been ideal. The comments
and anecdotal data the few respondents provided were useful and beneficial to the overall project.
Of most value in their comments were their recommendations for their fellow installation beat
reporters. Throughout all their comments, it is evident that these reporters not only value a
healthy relationship with their installation PAOs but respect the work they and the installation’s
soldiers do.

What Can Be Learned From Industry – Interviews With John Deere and Toyota
Major corporations conduct community relations much like the Army. As a result, two
major corporations’ community relations practices were examined to determine if the Army could
apply any lessons from these industry leaders. The following are the key lessons learned from
interviews of community relations managers at both Toyota and Deere and Co.
Use volunteers within your organization. Much like the Army, public and community
relations divisions within corporations are not heavily staffed. Both Deere and Toyota
Manufacturing Indiana (TMMI) consisted of only two people. With such little manpower, it is
essential for the community relations manager to enlist the support of volunteers within the
company. In the case of TMMI, it would be ideal for someone from the company to attend each
chamber of commerce breakfast, school board meeting, city council hearing, and zoning board
session. Attendances at these events help the company understand all the issues facing the local
community, thus making them a better neighbor. Since this would be impossible for the
community relations personnel to accomplish on their own, TMMI enlists volunteers from their
workforce to attend. One employee may already be a member of the school board. Another
employee may be a city council member. Periodic reports and suggestions from these volunteers
help the community relations manager, “cover more ground” and gather feedback from a greater
audience. The TMMI community relations manager even recommends building a contact and
tracking list for all these volunteers in order to recognize and coordinate their efforts.
How to be the “300-pound gorilla” in the room without anyone noticing. Both TMMI
and Deere and Co. are the largest employers in their respective communities. In addition to this
they are also the wealthiest corporations in their local communities. In the words of one Deere
employee, “We could out-spend any of our fellow local employers for public relations – but why
would we want to do that?” Both TMMI and Deere and Co. agree that using money is not the
best answer to solving community relations issues. In some cases they agree that “throwing

money” at the community does more harm than good. Instead, these corporations try to lower
their profile when it comes to spending money. They want to be good community citizens, but
don’t want to be obtrusive. Both corporations recommend very strict guidelines to contributing
money, time, and assets to local community events and causes. In the case of TMMI, they will
not sponsor youth soccer or baseball teams. They see these sponsorships as establishing a
precedent that they could not sustain over time. Instead, they helped to build a local youth soccer
complex for all youth soccer team to utilize. Deere and Co. approach money and donations in the
same manner. The company led an effort to revitalize downtown Moline by purchasing land and
donating it to the city for use as a convention center. Both companies believe that they can be
better community partners by partnering with the community – not forcing money or projects on
them.
Maintenance of political and community relationships is personal. Another area in
which both Deere and Co. and TMMI agree is in maintaining relationships within your local
community. Both community relations directors suggested the Army promote strong personal
relationships with the local community and its leaders. Personal, in their minds, equates to
visiting and phoning local officials as opposed to e-mails and text-messaging. One community
relations manager stated, “When they see you at the little events, not just the big one, they know
they have a partner in the community.” TMMI echoes this sentiment by stressing attendance at
small local events that mean a great deal to residents. One example is 4-H. In a small rural
community, 4-H and fairs are very important. TMMI stresses participation and support of these
events with the community relations director spending large amounts of time there. Attendance
not only means showing up, but also talking to residents in attendance and soliciting feedback on
TMMI’s efforts within the community. Both TMMI and Deere stress that sending press releases
and moving on to the next issue is not a good approach. Personal calls, notes, and follow-up on
issues are required to advance relationships within the community.

Research is difficult – but required. Research and soliciting feedback is difficult for any
public relations professional. TMMI and Deere and Co. have limited staff and small budgets to
conduct research within their local communities. Both companies, however, stress that research
is essential. For TMMI, research includes charting the amount of participation in local events,
numbers of volunteers within the community, and maintaining detailed notes from community
meetings. While this research will unlikely find itself in a chart or quantifiable diagram, it is
valuable for providing feedback and recommendations to superiors. Deere and Co. conducts
research in many of the same ways. Many times, the director of community relations returns
from local meetings and events and writes a quick synopsis for her superiors. Again, while this
information is not quantifiable, it may contain a valuable piece of information that will assist a
superior in making an upcoming decision. Finally, both corporations religiously track press
coverage for

Writng Sample - Community Relations and the United States Army

Writng Sample - Community Relations and the United States Army

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Writng Sample - Community Relations and the United States Army

Similar to Writng Sample - Community Relations and the United States Army (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Writng Sample - Community Relations and the United States Army