What does it mean to rate community goals?
Rating community goals is a way to understand how people view their importance and feasibility. Invite perspectives from people within and outside your group, especially those directly affected by the issue. Ask which goals matter most, what makes them achievable, and what barriers need attention. Goals describe desired changes; proposed actions explain how the group might pursue them. Both can be rated, but make clear which you are asking people to assess.
Why rate community goals?
Rating goals creates an opportunity to listen, compare priorities, and refine a plan. Community members can identify missing goals, question assumptions, and suggest different approaches. After revising the proposals, share them again so people can see how their input was used. Ratings can reveal areas of agreement and disagreement, but they do not establish that everyone in the community supports the same priorities.
For example, suppose residents organize an initiative to expand opportunities for physical activity. Some propose an accessible walking trail, while others favor affordable group classes or improvements to existing recreation spaces. People may have different experiences with earlier efforts, transportation, safety, scheduling, and disability access. The group gathers these perspectives and reviews available resources before turning the suggestions into clear proposals.
Residents then rate each proposal's importance and feasibility and explain their reasoning. The group uses the findings to develop a phased action plan, balancing immediate opportunities with important changes that need more preparation. Rather than trying to include every suggestion, it explains its choices, addresses concerns, and identifies when priorities will be reviewed.
Your group can use a similar process to learn from members and the wider community. Include people who have not participated in earlier planning, and ask what would make involvement easier for them.
Appraising community goals can help the community and your group:
- Identify shared priorities and understand differences in perspective
- Set and revisit priorities as conditions and resources change
- Assess whether proposed goals reflect community priorities and revise them when needed
When should you rate community goals?
Rate proposed goals before finalizing the action plan and making major commitments. This gives the group time to respond to feedback and address missing perspectives. Revisit ratings when circumstances change, new information becomes available, or the initiative reaches an agreed review point. A plan should provide direction while allowing reasoned adjustments.
How do you rate community goals?
A survey can help you gather views about proposed goals and actions. Begin by deciding whose perspectives you need, how people can participate, and how the results will inform decisions. Use the survey alongside discussion and relevant evidence rather than treating the ratings as a prediction of success.
Before developing questions, clarify what you hope to learn about importance and feasibility. The survey may help you:
- Understand how respondents judge the importance of proposed goals
- Compare priorities and identify practical requirements for action
- Revise proposals and identify goals or perspectives that are missing
Develop a survey that clearly describes the proposals
Work with community members and evaluation partners to prepare a manageable list of proposals. Use plain language and provide enough detail for respondents to assess each one, including its intended purpose, scope, and timeline. If the initiative has many proposals, organize them into shorter sets or stages rather than asking everyone to rate an overwhelming list. Test the wording with a few intended respondents before distributing the survey.
For example, an initiative supporting adolescent sexual health might propose: "Share accessible sexual health information and local service resources through schools and community organizations." This is a proposed action supporting a broader goal, not an outcome by itself.
Ask respondents to rate its importance to the initiative's purpose and its feasibility within a stated period, such as the next year. Also invite comments about relevance, accessibility, staffing, partnerships, and other conditions that could affect implementation.
Importance concerns how strongly a proposal responds to community priorities and contributes to the initiative's mission. Respondents may consider the number of people affected, urgency, fairness, and the value of the expected change. Their ratings express judgments, not proof of effectiveness. Review relevant evidence separately when assessing whether a proposed action is likely to achieve its intended outcome.
Feasibility concerns whether the proposal can be carried out within the stated time and conditions. Relevant factors include funding, staff capacity, partnerships, access, community support, and any approvals needed. A low feasibility rating may identify barriers that can be addressed rather than a reason to abandon an important goal.
For example, offering a workshop in an existing community space may require fewer new resources than establishing a year-round program. The year-round program could still be a higher priority. Ask respondents what staffing, funding, or partnerships would make it feasible rather than assuming that the easiest option is the most valuable.
People responsible for evaluation can help design the survey with community partners. Together, choose accessible formats, relevant languages, clear instructions, and ways for respondents to raise concerns or suggest alternatives.
A simple approach is to use separate five-point scales for importance and feasibility:
For importance, use 1 = Not important, 2 = Slightly important, 3 = Moderately important, 4 = Very important, and 5 = Extremely important. For feasibility within the stated timeframe, use 1 = Not feasible, 2 = Slightly feasible, 3 = Moderately feasible, 4 = Very feasible, and 5 = Highly feasible. Allow respondents to mark "Not sure" for either rating and explain their answers. Treat "Not sure" and unanswered items separately from numerical scores.
The table below illustrates a survey of proposed actions for a school-community initiative supporting adolescent sexual health. These examples are hypothetical and should be adapted with young people's input.
Survey of proposed actions for a school-community initiative supporting adolescent sexual health
| Proposed Action (Rate feasibility within the next year) |
Importance | Feasibility |
| Not Important Extremely Important | Not Feasible Highly Feasible | |
| 1. Share accessible sexual health information and local service resources through schools and community organizations. |
1 2 3 4 5 | 1 2 3 4 5 |
| 2. Train youth and adult facilitators to lead supportive discussion groups. | 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 2 3 4 5 |
| 3. Partner with the school district to offer forums for students, caregivers, and educators about adolescent sexual health priorities. |
1 2 3 4 5 | 1 2 3 4 5 |
| 4. Support students and educators in drama, journalism, and other clubs to develop youth-led presentations and discussions about sexual health and healthy relationships. |
1 2 3 4 5 | 1 2 3 4 5 |
Adapt the survey to your initiative. Include the full scale definitions, instructions for marking "Not sure," and space for comments or additional proposals. Check that people understand the questions and can use the chosen format.
Conduct a survey of community members and partners
Invite participation from people with different relationships to the issue, including:
- Members, staff, and volunteers of your group
- People with relevant technical or professional knowledge
- Funders and resource partners
- People directly affected by the issue, including those facing barriers to participation
- Other interested community members, including people outside your existing networks
These participants can contribute different experiences and forms of knowledge. Pay particular attention to people affected by the decisions and avoid assuming that a few representatives speak for everyone. A varied group of respondents can broaden understanding, but diversity alone does not make a survey statistically representative of the community.
Offer several ways to participate, such as paper or online surveys, telephone responses, or supported completion at community events. Explain the purpose, how responses will be used, and that participation is voluntary. Provide appropriate language and accessibility support and a clear deadline. For mailed surveys, include return instructions and, when resources allow, prepaid return envelopes. Follow up in ways that reach people missing from the initial responses without pressuring anyone to participate.
Review the ratings from the returned surveys
Examine importance and feasibility separately:
- How important do respondents consider each proposal to the initiative's mission and community priorities?
- How feasible do respondents consider each proposal within the stated timeframe and conditions?
Assign responsibility for checking and summarizing responses. You can calculate the average importance and feasibility rating for each proposal by adding its numerical ratings and dividing by the number of valid ratings received. Report that number alongside the result, and do not score blank or "Not sure" responses as zero. Also review the distribution of ratings and written comments: an average can conceal strong disagreement or important differences in experience.
In the hypothetical example below, 10 people provided numerical ratings for both dimensions of all four proposals. The table shows their average ratings. These numbers illustrate how to organize responses; they do not establish the importance or effectiveness of the proposed actions in a real community.
Sample Average Importance and Feasibility Ratings
| Proposed Action | Average Importance Rating | Average Feasibility Rating |
| 1. Share accessible sexual health information and local service resources through schools and community organizations. | 1.5 | 1.7 |
| 2. Train youth and adult facilitators to lead supportive discussion groups. | 4.5 | 4.1 |
| 3. Partner with the school district to offer forums for students, caregivers, and educators about adolescent sexual health priorities. |
1.8 | 3.9 |
| 4. Support students and educators in drama, journalism, and other clubs to develop youth-led presentations and discussions about sexual health and healthy relationships. |
3.7 | 1.6 |
The ratings summarize these respondents' views. They do not necessarily represent the whole community. Ranking proposals can help organize discussion, but no score automatically determines whether a proposal belongs in the action plan. Review comments, missing perspectives, supporting evidence, and the needs of people most affected before deciding.
Use the survey results to refine and finalize the plan
Share the findings with participants and explain how they will inform decisions. Discuss proposals that received mixed or unexpected ratings, clarify misunderstandings, and revise wording or scope where appropriate. Document the reasons for selecting, adapting, deferring, or setting aside each proposal.
The following categories can help organize discussion:
- Prioritize for Action: Proposals rated high in importance and feasibility may be strong candidates for near-term work. Confirm resources, responsibilities, expected benefits, and any concerns before proceeding.
- Build Capacity and Plan: Proposals rated high in importance but low in feasibility may need funding, partnerships, preparation, or a phased approach. Identify what would make progress possible.
- Consider Selectively: Proposals rated lower in importance but high in feasibility may be worth pursuing if they support a more important goal and use few resources. Ease alone is not a reason to prioritize them.
- Reconsider or Defer: Proposals rated low in both dimensions may need revision or may not fit current priorities. Before setting them aside, check whether the ratings reflect missing information or the exclusion of people who consider them important.
Matrix for Prioritizing Goals and Proposed Actions
| High Importance | Low Importance | |
| High Feasibility | Prioritize for Action | Consider Selectively |
| Low Feasibility | Build Capacity and Plan | Reconsider or Defer |
How do you decide which importance and feasibility ratings are high or low?
Agree on and explain any thresholds before using them to classify proposals. For illustration, the examples below treat averages of 3.5 or higher as high and averages below 3.5 as low. This is a discussion tool, not a validated decision rule. Scores near the threshold, wide disagreement, and "Not sure" responses deserve closer review rather than a rigid classification.
The first proposal, "Share accessible sexual health information and local service resources through schools and community organizations," received an average importance rating of 1.5 and a feasibility rating of 1.7. Under the illustrative thresholds, it falls in the Reconsider or Defer category. Review the comments to learn whether respondents question its relevance, anticipate implementation barriers, or need more detail. Revise or defer it based on that discussion rather than assuming the ratings prove it would have little value.
The second proposal, "Train youth and adult facilitators to lead supportive discussion groups," received an average importance rating of 4.5 and a feasibility rating of 4.1. It falls in the Prioritize for Action category. The group could explore an implementation plan, including training needs, facilitation support, resources, and ways to assess participants' experiences. High ratings indicate perceived priority and feasibility, not guaranteed success.
The third proposal, "Partner with the school district to offer forums for students, caregivers, and educators about adolescent sexual health priorities," received an importance rating of 1.8 and a feasibility rating of 3.9. It falls in the Consider Selectively category. Before proceeding, ask whether it contributes to a higher-priority goal or could be redesigned to become more useful. Avoid choosing it simply because it appears easy to complete.
The fourth proposal, "Support students and educators in drama, journalism, and other clubs to develop youth-led presentations and discussions about sexual health and healthy relationships," received an importance rating of 3.7 and a feasibility rating of 1.6. It falls in the Build Capacity and Plan category. Discuss the barriers with young people and potential partners. A smaller pilot, additional support, or a longer timeline might make the proposal more achievable while preserving its purpose.
In Summary
Rating community goals and proposed actions can clarify priorities, reveal barriers, and support shared planning. The results describe respondents' views and should be interpreted alongside community discussion, relevant evidence, and attention to whose perspectives are represented.
Plan enough time for survey development, testing, accessible distribution, analysis, and follow-up. The workload will depend on the number of proposals, the people you need to reach, and the support required for meaningful participation. Share what you learned, explain how decisions were made, and set a time to revisit the plan as conditions change.