| Community Tool Box

Building healthier cities and communities involves community members working together to transform the conditions and outcomes that matter to them. That work demands an array of competencies, such as community assessment, planning, mobilization, intervention, advocacy, evaluation, and communicating successful efforts. Supporting this local and global work requires widespread access to skills-building resources. This section describes a free, online resource for building healthier communities called the Community Tool Box.

What is the Community Tool Box?

Background

Our mission is to promote community health and development by connecting people, ideas, and resources.

We began this work in 1994, focused on developing practical information for community building that both professionals and community members could use in everyday practice -- for example, leadership skills, program evaluation, and writing a grant application. The emphasis was on these core competencies of community building, which can be applied across more specific issues and concerns, such as promoting child health, reducing violence, or creating job opportunities.

We developed a broad and evolving Table of Contents and started writing, one section at a time. Today, there are more than 340 sections online and more than 7,000 pages of text -- available across English, Spanish, Arabic, and Farsi, with translation coverage continuing to expand.

Audience

The audiences for this site include:

• People doing the work of community change and improvement (community leaders and members)
• People supporting it (intermediary organizations such as public agencies or university-based centers)
• People funding it (governmental institutions, foundations, and others)

Attributes

Building healthier communities is hard work, requiring frequent adjustments to emerging opportunities and barriers. To be a resource for community work, a "tool box" would exemplify the following attributes:

• Its content needs to be comprehensive. Since effective community members and practitioners need a variety of skills, sections of the Tool Box would have to reflect a broad array of core competencies (e.g., skills in conducting listening sessions, organizing focus groups, leading meetings, group facilitation, and recording).
• The information needs to be easily available on demand, and in particular readable, printable, downloadable, and accessible online from one location.
• The information must be useful, providing step-by-step guidance that the reader can apply directly in practice.
• The tone of the material should be friendly and supportive of users with varying levels of experience who may feel uncertain about what to do.
• Forums or other exchange mechanisms should be available to connect people who have relevant experience that can help facilitate applications and adjustments in diverse contexts and situations.
• An online resource should help reduce inequities, or certainly not increase them. By being widely available and free through the web, our tools may help reduce inequities in local capacity for community change and improvement.
• Since there is such high turnover among people and projects, the tools should help build capacity for continuous learning among current and future generations of those doing the work.

Conceptual framework for the core content

A conceptual framework or model for building healthier communities guides choices for core content in the Community Tool Box. Based on earlier conceptual models, this framework outlines a dynamic and iterative process with six phases, and related competencies, associated with facilitating community change and improvement:

• Understanding Community Context (e.g., assessing community assets and needs)
• Collaborative Planning (e.g., developing a vision, mission, objectives, strategies, and action plans)
• Developing Leadership and Enhancing Participation (e.g., building relationships, engaging participants)
• Community Action and Intervention (e.g., designing interventions, advocacy)
• Evaluating Community Initiatives (e.g., program evaluation, documentation of community and system change)
• Promoting and Sustaining the Initiative (e.g., social marketing, obtaining grants)

Both evidence-informed practice and practice-based and experiential knowledge inform choices for content development for the Community Tool Box. Ongoing research by members of the Tool Box team, and many others throughout the world, suggests key factors or components of successful efforts to bring about community change and improvement (e.g., leadership, having a clear and focused mission, and action planning).

Promising practices from this growing evidence base, and ongoing input from community leaders and practitioners, are used to focus content development on core competencies (e.g., building leadership skills, creating a vision and mission, and developing an action plan). Similarly, research and practice in behavioral instruction helped identify structural elements of the how-to sections or learning modules (i.e., what, why, how-to steps, etc.).

Framework for Building Healthier Communities: A Gateway to Illustrative Tools

Understanding Community Context

• Understanding and Describing the Community
• Developing a Plan for Assessing Local Needs and Resources
• Collecting Information About the Problem
• Analyzing Community Problems
• Analyzing Root Causes of Problems: The "But Why?" Technique

Collaborative Planning

• VMOSA (Vision, Mission, Objectives, Strategies, Action Plans): An Overview
• Proclaiming Your Dream: Developing Vision and Mission Statements
• Creating Objectives
• Developing Successful Strategies: Planning to Win
• Developing an Action Plan
• Identifying Strategies and Tactics for Reducing Risks
• Promoting Coordination, Cooperative Agreements, and Collaborative Agreements Among Agencies
• Developing Multi-sector Collaborations

Developing Leadership and Enhancing Participation

• Developing a Plan for Building Leadership
• Servant Leadership: Accepting and Maintaining the Call of Service
• Developing a Plan for Increasing Participation in Community Action
• Promoting Participation Among Diverse Groups
• Methods of Contacting Potential Participants
• Developing a Plan for Staff Hiring and Training
• Developing a Plan for Involving Volunteers
• Providing Supervision for Staff and Volunteers
• Conducting Effective Meetings

Community Action and Intervention

• Strategies for Community Change and Improvement: An Overview
• Designing Community Interventions
• Adapting Community Interventions for Different Cultures and Communities
• Developing a Plan for Advocacy
• Organizing Study Circles
• Registering Voters
• Organizing Public Demonstrations

Evaluating Community Initiatives

• Our Evaluation Model: Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives
• A Framework for Program Evaluation: A Gateway to Tools
• Developing an Evaluation Plan
• Measuring Success: Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives
• Gathering and Using Community-Level Indicators

Promoting and Sustaining the Initiative

• Understanding Social Marketing: Encouraging Adoption and Use of Valued Products and Practices
• Working with the Media
• Making Community Presentations
• Using Principles of Persuasion
• Creating a Website
• Achieving and Maintaining Quality Performance
• Developing a Plan for Financial Sustainability
• Strategies for Sustaining the Initiative
• Applying for a Grant: The General Approach

How do you get around the Tool Box?

Upon arrival at any desired section, the reader will find several choices:

Main Section -- the text of the section with these components: What (a clear description of the skill), Why (rationales or descriptions of consequences for using or not using the skill), When (the conditions under which the skill should or should not be used), and How (descriptions of the discrete behaviors that constitute desired performance). The Main Section also contains a Resources list that details sources of information, contacts, and related websites.

Examples -- specific real-world illustrations or stories of using the skill that reflect varied issues or concerns (e.g., substance use, child and youth development, urban community development) and places or contexts (e.g., urban, rural, or specific cultural communities).

Tools & Checklists -- Tools provide training and technical assistance materials such as exercises and handouts; Checklists provide prompts or brief phrases to help you remember important considerations and steps.

PowerPoint -- ready-to-use or adaptable summaries of the section that may be useful in providing training and technical assistance.

In addition, we use customized gateways or guided pathways to maximize efficient access to valued tools. One type of gateway uses promising models or frameworks (e.g., Community Health Improvement Process, A Framework for Program Evaluation, or Writing a Grant Proposal) to guide the reader to core competencies related to each phase and operation of the framework (e.g., forming a coalition, identifying stakeholders, documenting the problem). These frameworks help orient the community practitioner to recommended activities -- and related how-to information -- that can help support the local effort.

Another valued gateway is the Troubleshooting Guide. This access point starts with a list of commonly faced problems in the work of community change and improvement.

By selecting a particular problem situation (e.g., "There is not enough action to promote change."), the reader calls up a list of clarifying questions (e.g., "Does the group know the specific changes we want to see made?" or "Do we have enough members to carry out our actions?"). Should the answer to any question be "No," the user may follow links to retrieve related how-to information (e.g., "Developing an Action Plan," "Recruiting Members," "Recognizing Allies"). Since we may be more open to learning new skills when facing a challenge, the Troubleshooting Guide provides valuable user-tailored access to the tools.

Ways to Use the Community Tool Box

The Community Tool Box has been used for several specific purposes:

• For training and technical assistance. For example, many support organizations, including our University of Kansas Center for Community Health and Development, have used the tools in periodic workshops and ongoing consultation. They have been used to support a variety of community-based initiatives, including those addressing specific issues such as adolescent pregnancy or substance use, and broader issues such as child and youth development, public health, or urban community development.
• As readings and learning resources for in-person and online courses. For example, Community Tool Box materials can be used to create distributed learning communities among students, community members, and practitioners in different locations.
• To help build capacity of community-building initiatives. These resources support competency-building among large numbers of community members and practitioners engaged in this work. These tools are being used to support the community work of a wide range of people in diverse contexts throughout the world.

Entries in the Guestbook suggest that users span ages, roles, communities, countries, and continents. They include community members, leaders, and professionals working in such domains and disciplines as public health, child and youth development, environmental justice, education, mental health, social and human services, peer support and mutual aid, international development, policy advocacy, rural development, and urban community development.

Challenges, Strengths, and Future Prospects

Several prominent challenges must be addressed to enhance the utility of the Tool Box:

We need to continue to extend the breadth, depth, and generality of core content.

By partnering with others with technical and experiential knowledge, we hope to enhance the breadth of content topics, the depth of how-to information, examples, stories, and tools, and the generality of application across different issues (e.g., child health, violence), cultures and regions (e.g., Africa, the Middle East), languages (e.g., Portuguese, French), and contexts (e.g., urban, rural, global).

We need to enhance the interactivity of the Community Tool Box.

We seek to make greater use of online and other interactive communication tools to connect people with complementary knowledge and experience.

We seek widespread adoption and use of the tools and competencies in community practice.

Social marketing efforts include links from related sites, brochures and other materials where useful, email and other digital outreach to current and prospective users, and partnerships with state, national, and global initiatives for community health and development.

The Community Tool Box is an extraordinary resource for teaching and learning:

• It offers extensive information for supporting development of core competencies in building healthier communities.
• It allows input from the field about promising practices for community work. By linking with a growing local and global community of community leaders and practitioners, the Community Tool Box can help identify and communicate innovations emerging from the diverse but related work of community change and improvement.
• The Community Tool Box provides a powerful resource for sharing practical information that supports community work. By partnering and linking with state, national, and global networks, we can promote widespread adoption, adaptation, and use of tools for community transformation.

There are several future prospects for using communications technologies to help create a civic ecology -- an environment in which local people routinely work together to affect the conditions and outcomes that matter to them.

• This will demand a support infrastructure for expanding reach -- for making civic work easier and more rewarding for large numbers of people in many different communities. Digital communications and other emerging technologies -- including resources such as the Community Tool Box -- can be used to help build capacity for community change in the many local contexts that might benefit.
• Imagine a connected exchange network that brings together a diverse community of people engaged in transformational work. For example, online and other interactive spaces might connect people addressing different specific issues (e.g., stopping violence, improving childhood outcomes), perhaps helping reveal the underlying social determinants of related concerns. These spaces could connect people with diverse experience -- for example, people newer to and more experienced in the work, or people with different experiences of inequity and institutional influence. They could also help connect those who work in different places (e.g., urban neighborhoods and rural communities) and communities with different racial, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds.
• Digital communications and emerging technologies can help connect people -- both locally (e.g., across neighborhoods and cultural communities in the same city) and globally (e.g., across communities in different states, provinces, or nations).

In summary

Building healthier cities and communities fits with global trends of self-determination and democracy building. The widespread and growing availability of online resources, such as the Community Tool Box, offers flexible and efficient means to support the expression of local concerns and innovations, connect people in common purpose, and share tools for amplifying local work. Such innovations can transcend distance in promoting civic participation and connections across communities of place and interest.

Imagine: broad, affordable access to tools for community building and transformation in homes, local libraries, faith communities, schools, community organizations, and public buildings. In this evolving civic ecology, we join together in common purpose across space and time -- furthering the work of democracy and reducing the inequities that hinder our pursuit of justice.

I understand that the Community Tool Box is:

___an internet-based resource for community change and improvement

I have an understanding that the goal is to:

___promote community health and development by connecting people, ideas, and resources

I understand that the audience consists of:

___people doing work for community change

___people that support

___people that fund it

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

 

Most of us want the same things from our communities. We want them to be safe from violence and illness; we want neighborhoods that are alive and that work well. And we would all like to have people who care for us and whom we trust.

But how do we develop a community like that? Our belief is that communities are built when people work together on things that matter to them. In this section, we'll talk about what we mean by that, and explore our idea of how we can get there from here -- what might be called our "model of change" or "theory of practice."

We'll start this section with some definitions that will help ground the ideas we are trying to get across. Then, we'll look at the advantages of collaborative efforts: why we believe it makes sense for people to work together to solve problems they share.

Next, we'll look at key partners in community efforts, and then, we will describe the model of change that is the focus of this section. We'll supplement that model with principles and values that we believe should influence how community efforts unfold. Finally, we'll close with some broad recommendations for working together to help build healthier communities.

Definitions: Community, health, partnerships, capacity

By community, we mean a group of people who share a common place, experience, or interest. We often use this term for people who live in the same area: the same neighborhood, the same city or town, and even the same state or country.

People may also consider themselves part of a community with others who have had similar experiences. For example, people may see themselves as part of a:

• Racial or ethnic community (for example, the Black community, the Latino or Hispanic community)
• Religious community (for example, the Catholic community, the Hindu community, or the Muslim community)
• Community of people with disabilities (for example, people with visual disabilities, developmental disabilities, or mental health conditions)

Finally, a community may be formed of people interested in the same things. For example, we may talk about the business community, the labor community, or the child advocacy community.

Community health refers to the well-being of everyone in a community. It asks the question, "How healthy are all of the members of our community? Our children and adolescents? Older adults? People experiencing poverty?"

Collaborative partnerships are alliances to improve the health of a community. They encourage people to get together and make a difference. For example, an effort to improve education might involve school officials, youth, parents, teachers, business representatives, and nonprofit staff and volunteers. Because these partnerships bring people together from all parts of the community, their efforts are more likely to be successful.

Community capacity refers to the ability of community members to make a difference over time and across different issues. Capacity isn't a one-time thing; like learning to ride a bike, it's not something that disappears once you've experienced it. And like riding a bike, we get better the more we practice.

For example, if a community that develops a successful collaboration around substance use decides later that rates of childhood immunization aren't high enough in their community, they might also work effectively to improve those rates. By applying what they learned while developing the substance use coalition (for example, ways to recruit members or to work with the media), they should be able to do a good job and effectively improve immunization rates. A community has demonstrated strong community capacity when it can bring about community changes over time and across concerns.

The power of collaborative partnerships

Collaborative partnerships are a powerful way to improve our communities. To improve our communities, we must all work together to solve problems.

One reason for this is that issues that matter to local people, such as child health, academic success, or substance use, don't fit into neat categories. The things that make one issue likely to become a problem usually affect other things as well. Defining our problems as being connected to other issues (and people) helps us to see the many ways in which we are linked together.

For example, take the case of a mother and father who both hold down several low-wage jobs. They don't have much time for their children, and they may smoke cigarettes to cope with all of their stress. Their children are exposed to second-hand smoke and other health hazards, such as cockroaches and lead paint in their substandard housing.

What are the results? For the children, spending less time with their parents may hurt their early development. Exposure to hazards increases their risks for chronic disease such as asthma. As a whole, the situation makes it more difficult for the children to succeed at school. Finally, opportunities for stable, well-paying employment may be reduced for the parents, their children, and their children's children.

Who should be involved?

It's important that the collaboration is as inclusive as possible. This means individuals from different parts of the community -- for example, representatives from schools, businesses, and government. It also means representatives from different levels -- for example, representatives from the neighborhood, the county, the state or province, and even the broader region or nation.

Key partners in a broad collaboration should include:

• People most affected by the issue
• Local members of existing community partnerships
• Support organizations and those who work closely with people affected by the issue
• Local policymakers
• Grantmakers
• Governmental agencies

Let's look at each of these partners more closely.

State and community partnerships

The most obvious member in a collaborative effort will be the community or state partnerships themselves -- the groups of people who are working directly to change their communities. These groups, which are often nonprofit organizations, are found in almost any community. Examples include:

• The Kansas City Partnership for Children
• The Piscataway Substance Abuse Coalition
• The Durham Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project
• The Bronzeville Community Initiative

It's important to realize that while these organizations will be part of a larger collaboration with funders and support organizations, they are also collaborative arrangements in their own right. That's because collaborative partnerships link organizations drawn from different parts of the community. For example, a community partnership to promote child health might include representatives from:

• The media
• The business community
• Area schools
• Civic and community organizations
• Youth organizations
• Local government
• Health organizations
• The faith community
• Financial institutions

People from each of these areas will be able to promote child health in important, unique ways. By working together, a strong partnership will exist in the community.

Support and intermediary organizations

The second partner in a broad collaborative partnership is support and intermediary organizations. Some local, regional, and statewide organizations can provide technical assistance for community partnerships. These intermediary organizations can help community partnerships build on the "core competencies" that are necessary for working on community issues. For example, a university research center might give advice on such topics as community assessment, strategic planning, advocacy, leadership development, and evaluation.

Intermediary organizations can also help assess what the partnerships need and provide them with that support. For example, state and county health departments can assist community groups by developing health data systems that provide county-level data (for example, the percentage of children without recommended immunizations). They and other related support organizations can also offer other information useful for making decisions.

Grantmakers and governmental agencies

Finally, grantmakers and governmental agencies are also important members in these broad collaborative partnerships. That's because foundations and governmental agencies can help create the conditions for community partnerships to be successful. How do they do this? Certainly, by providing the financial resources needed by partnerships and intermediary organizations. This is the most obvious of the ways in which funders contribute. Many groups rely strongly, if not completely, on funding from grantmakers or the government to survive.

However, this important contribution is only one way in which grantmakers and governmental agencies can contribute to a collaborative partnership. They can also foster community work in the following ways:

• By giving a group some funding, funders may make additional funding more likely by adding to the group's credibility.
• Grantmakers can use requests for proposals (RFPs) as a way to bring groups together around a common purpose. And, in doing so, they can forge ties among different people working in the same community.
• Finally, grantmakers and governmental agencies can also help make outcomes matter by awarding additional funding if groups attain their objectives.

With an understanding of all of these parts, let's look at how these partners can work together to improve their communities.

How to build healthier communities: A model for community change

There are five basic parts to this model:

1) Community context and planning
2) Community action and intervention
3) Community and system change
4) Risk and protective factors and widespread behavior change
5) Improving more distant outcomes (the long-term goals)

Here are a couple of general ideas to keep in mind as we go through this model:

• This model is meant to be fluid and interactive. For example, an understanding of the community context and planning should guide community action, which should affect community and system change, and so on.
• This model is meant to be a continuous cycle. For example, improvement in more distant outcomes, such as reduced rates of violence, should lead to a renewed cycle of planning and action for these or other issues that matter to members of the community.

The bottom line? There isn't a day when community work ends. In a healthy community, working together for the good of the community is a constant part of everyone's lives.

With these ideas in mind, let's look at the individual parts of this logic model or theory of action.

The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Assuring the Health of the Public in the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2002.

 

1. Assessing, prioritizing, and planning

The first step is understanding the context, or the community conditions, in which people act. The context is influenced by many things, such as:

• People's hopes and expectations -- for example, the belief that things can change
• Challenges, especially poverty
• Strong and sustained leadership: a diverse team with vision, competence, and persistence
• Adequate financial resources
• Approval (or resistance) from the community or from those in authority when people attempt to change things
• The broader political and social context

Within this context, people may come together to identify issues that matter to them, such as transportation, job opportunities, affordable housing, or substance use prevention, to give just a few examples. They may gather and review community-level indicators to help understand markers for important measures in the community. For example, records of assaults at school are one community-level indicator of violence in the community; nighttime single-vehicle car crashes can be used as an indicator for substance use in a community.

Later in the life of the community group, these can serve as benchmarks for detecting whether or not they are making progress on their goals. For example, they can look at the level of violence and see if it has decreased since implementation of prevention strategies.

With an understanding of the context, the group can move forward with planning. Collaborative planning is a critical and ongoing task that brings together people and organizations with different experiences and resources. Together, they clarify or develop a vision, mission, objectives, strategies, and action steps for bringing about changes in the community.

2. Implementing targeted action

The planning process should be followed by taking action to implement the plan.

How can a community organization overcome any potential opposition? View this Troubleshooting Guide for different responses a group might make, depending on its particular situation.

3. Changing community conditions and systems

The goal of the action plan is to bring about community and system changes. 

By community change, we mean developing a new program (or modifying an existing one), bringing about a change in policy, or adjusting a practice related to the group's mission.

Let's look at the following examples:

• A "safe ride" program giving free rides so people don't need to travel alone in unsafe areas after dark (a new program)
• Policy changes such as stronger penalties for people who commit crimes using a weapon (a change in policy)
• New employment practices that allow workers flexible time to be with children after school (a change in practice)

System changes are similar to community changes, but take place on a broader level. For example, a business might implement its family-supportive employment practices throughout its operations nationally. 

Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors defines systems change as, "a phrase used to explain an approach that targets the root causes of social issues instead of directly tackling the issue itself. It aims to alter or shift underlying structures such as policies, mindsets and power dynamics, which enable the system to function in a particular way." 

4. Achieving widespread change in behavior and risk factors

When these community and system changes occur, they should, taken together, change the environment in which a person behaves. This is sometimes referred to as increasing protective factors and/or decreasing the risk factors of community members.

What are risk and protective factors? They are aspects of a person's environment or personal characteristics that make it more likely (risk factors) or less likely (protective factors) that a person will experience a given problem. Often, risk and protective factors can be considered flip sides of the same coin. For example, if drugs are readily available in your community, then easy accessibility is a risk factor. If they are very difficult to find, then limited availability is a protective factor. The intended effect of environmental change is widespread behavior change among large numbers of people in the community.

5. Improving the population's health

Improvements in more distant outcomes, such as reducing violence or increasing employment rates and family incomes, are the ultimate goals of collaborative partnerships.

As we discussed earlier in this section, data on community-level indicators can help you determine just how much progress you have made toward your goals. Information to see if efforts are working in different areas can be organized together in an annual community "report card." This can let people throughout the community know how things are going, including information on community-level indicators, important community changes, and success stories.

Before we go on, it may be helpful to look again at this process as a whole. Remember, this process is an interactive and continuous cycle.

• The community context affects the organization's planning
• Guided by ongoing planning, the group generates community action and implements interventions
• Community action brings about community and system changes
• These community and system changes, taken together, decrease risk factors and enhance protective factors
• This environmental change should affect the behavior of a large number of people in a positive manner
• This widespread behavior change should affect community-level indicators of improvement

Factors affecting the work of community partnerships

In all the different parts of our lives, some things work, and others don't. Why is that? Think for a moment about a school. Students have the same basic framework to work within; each grade has learning objectives, for example. Still, some students and schools succeed more than others. What causes that difference?

It's probably a combination of things -- support at home, a good teacher, and good (or not so good) materials to use. Quite simply, within a framework that almost all students have, different events often mean the difference between success and failure.

In the last few paragraphs, you have seen what we believe to be a workable model for building healthier communities. But like that school, what you've read is just a framework. And different events that happen within the framework make it more or less likely that a community group will succeed.

For improving the health and development of a community, we have found seven features that seem to be very important in determining whether a community effort is successful. In our research, each of the following "factors" has been related to the rate of community change. We'll look at them one by one.

Targeted mission

Having a targeted mission is one of the most important factors in whether or not a community group is effective.

A mission statement is your organization's statement of purpose; it tells what the organization is going to do and why. 

For example, an organization's mission might be: "Our mission is to decrease pregnancies among adolescents and sexually transmitted infections in Dade County through a community-wide effort which will provide education and support to young people and their families."

Action planning

Action planning means identifying specific changes in the community or broader system, and action steps to bring them about. During action planning, community partnerships identify:

• The community or system changes (new or altered programs, policies, and practices) to be sought
• The actions that will bring about desired community or system changes
• Who will take those actions
• When they will be done
• What resources are needed to get the job done

When partnerships develop a plan of action, they are more successful in bringing about community change and improvement.

Changes in leadership

Involving competent leaders with a clear vision helps change to occur more rapidly. Such leaders see community partnerships as a way to mobilize the community, draw out people's strengths, and celebrate members' accomplishments. These leaders are likely to head effective collaborative partnerships.

The downside of this, of course, is that when such leaders leave an organization, the group's accomplishments often suffer. Finding a way to ease transitions and develop leadership within the group is an important factor in having groups that have long, successful lives.

Resources for community mobilizers

One thing that is clear is the need for people who act as catalysts -- community mobilizers who will really get things going in the community. They are the ones who will start the ball rolling on the actions that the group decides to take. By hiring or recruiting community mobilizers, groups consistently make more changes happen.

Documentation and feedback

To know whether a community group's efforts are making a difference, it is important that the group documents efforts and results. Such information about the group's accomplishments should be used to improve the group's ongoing efforts.

Documentation should occur for intermediate outcomes, such as community and system changes. Tracking these changes, as well as the group's longer-term goals, can help collaborative partnerships understand, celebrate, and improve their overall efforts.

Technical assistance

Good leaders work to attract competent people with skills that complement those of other people in the organization. By doing so, team members grow and become stronger in their work.

Outside help, which may take the form of technical assistance, can be a breath of fresh air for your organization. That's because the core competencies necessary for community organizations often transcend the variety of targeted missions and specialties people work in. For example, action planning will be important to community work on environmental advocacy, child maltreatment prevention, mental health, or almost any other community issue.

The goal of technical assistance should always be the same: to build the community's ability to take care of the things that matter to its members. This website is an example of this kind of assistance. The Community Tool Box contains more than 340 sections that can support technical assistance efforts.

Making outcomes matter

Finally, grantmakers and governmental agencies can help those they support by clearly stating and rewarding desired results. For example, a foundation in Kansas (U.S.A.) announced that continued funding would be based on evidence of progress. The result was that the amount of community change increased dramatically. This same grantmaker now uses bonus grants to encourage progress.

Possibilities for rewarding results include:

• Providing bonus grants for groups that accomplish important objectives
• Awarding outcome dividends -- that is, giving communities funds for reinvestment that they have effectively saved through prevention efforts

Ten recommendations for promoting community health and development

Throughout this section, we have talked about the three groups who are the important players in collaborative partnerships: local members of state and community partnerships, support organizations, and grantmakers and governmental agencies.

Much of the decision-making and work must happen within the communities themselves. However, all of these groups can work together and help create conditions under which it is more likely that community efforts will be successful. Based on the model we discussed above, we propose ten specific recommendations to assist people who are trying to change their communities for the better.

1. Working with community partnerships, grantmakers and governmental agencies should develop a social marketing plan to promote involvement in community work.

• The marketing plan should help encourage community members to see working together to solve public problems as an important part of their daily lives.
• The messages should counter the idea that the community can't solve its own problems.
• The plan should focus on encouraging community involvement.
• Messages for different members of the community should be delivered in different ways. For example, messages to teenagers should be delivered differently than messages to older adults.
• The plan should include a way to communicate the good things going on. Success stories and profiles of people who have done meaningful work should be shared with the community.
• The social marketing campaign should use different methods of communication to reach the greatest number of people. For example, it might use posters, online messages, and editorials in the local newspaper, to give just a few examples.

2. Develop partnerships where people can work together to improve their community.

• Grant funds should be directed toward broad community partnerships. By having a broad partnership, the community will have a structure that is strong enough to make a real impact on different community problems.
• Partnerships should involve both people with decision-making power and those most affected by the issue.
• Many different ways in which people can be a part of the partnership should be provided.
• Grantmakers should try to invest in the same place and permit work across the normal boundaries. For example, it's often the case that one group in the community will receive a grant to prevent substance use, another will receive a grant to improve education, and so on. We suggest grantmakers work together to offer larger grants to community partnerships that can work on several of these interrelated issues at the same time.

3. Provide information to help focus efforts on issues with the greatest effect on community health and development.

• Collaborative partnerships should develop objectives based on two things: the level of community problems (i.e., the statistics) and what members of the community find important.
• Support organizations should develop a model of change (such as the one outlined in this section) to help guide community work.

4. Support action planning to improve the community.

• Planning should begin early and never stop. Annual action planning retreats can renew the group's efforts and be supplemented by regular adjustments.
• When something works, its use should be widely promoted. For example, a "bag it" program that allows young people to call in orders for contraceptives and have them discreetly wrapped in a paper bag might increase contraceptive use substantially among young people at increased risk of unintended pregnancy in a small community. If that proves to be the case, that program should be promoted in newsletters and through word of mouth, so that similar organizations can do the same thing. It's important to remember, though, that programs often need to be adapted to fit local conditions.
• The focus of action planning should be on transforming the environment to make behaviors that promote health and development more likely to occur.
• By gathering pertinent information about risk and protective factors, partners in the collaborative effort can better focus their efforts on new programs, policies, or practices that will cause positive changes in the environment.
• Some of the community changes should try to reach the whole community; others should be targeted toward people who are at greater risk.

5. Provide investments in collaborative partnerships that are large enough and last long enough to make a difference.

• Fund community partnerships long enough to make a difference (for example, for 5 to 10 years).
• Provide resources to hire community mobilizers to act as catalysts in the community.
• Many larger system changes your organization will work for can take a long time to occur. Be sure to develop and celebrate "small wins" -- milestones that will regularly reward everyone's efforts. This will help keep spirits up as you work to reach your goals.
• Promote the sustainability of successful community partnerships. Groups that have demonstrated their value should be supported through continuing efforts by funding partners.

6. Use a variety of methods to build capacity for doing community work.

• Offer many opportunities for people involved in community work to meet and learn from each other.
• Use online and distance education to give people the opportunity to learn with others doing similar work in different places.
• Use the web to distribute "how-to" information for developing the core competencies of community work.
• Link newer community partnerships with those that are more experienced, and connect established leaders with newer generations of leadership.

7. Document the process of community and system change to improve community work.

• Leaders of initiatives should work with representatives from support organizations to develop meaningful ways to present and use data on community and system change.
• Honor organizations and individuals that bring about significant changes in their communities.
• Use data on community and system change to make adjustments in the group's action plan.
• Researchers should examine trends in community and system change to identify the factors that might affect community change.
• Use an annual state-of-the-partnership report to encourage accountability of members of community partnerships.

8. Make outcomes matter.

• Establish and report on intermediate and more distant outcomes -- such as high rates of important community and system changes for community-determined goals.
• Make renewal of community investments (for example, the continuation of a grant) conditional on evidence of progress by the group.
• Award bonus grants to encourage progress and outstanding accomplishments.
• Award outcome dividends to reward improvements in the bottom line. For example, if a community has fewer pregnancies among adolescents because of the efforts of a local coalition, give the coalition some of the money saved by the state through reduced related costs, such as hospital expenses and public assistance for adolescent parents and their children.

9. Develop collaborative partnerships to increase the support for people working to improve their communities.

• Develop broad collaborative partnerships among diverse organizations that broadly represent the community. Members of the partnership should share the risks, resources, and responsibilities for community improvement.
• Employers should modify their structures to support involvement in public problem solving. For example, organizations might have a flextime policy that allows employees to volunteer in their community.
• Community partnerships, intermediary and support organizations, and grantmakers and governmental agencies should act as catalysts for change. They can do this by:
  • Convening people around health and development concerns;
  • Forging relationships among people who can help address community issues; and
  • Helping get resources that few communities could access by themselves.

10. Future research should help understand and improve the factors that affect community health and development.

• Examine whether and how reducing poverty and improving education affect community-level indicators of health and development.
• Examine the conditions under which community and system change are associated with improvements in long-term goals.
• Let people know what works -- what are promising practices for building healthier communities. This can be done through a variety of different media, such as print and broadcast media, professional associations, and the web.

In Summary

A healthy community is a form of living democracy: people working together to address what matters to them. As community members, we have a responsibility to help shape the basic conditions that affect our lives. In transforming communities together, we are guided by shared values and principles that bind us in common purpose.

Building healthier communities blends the local and the universal, the particular and broader contexts. Such efforts are grounded locally: the family, the neighborhood, and other familiar communities. To be effective, however, we must also bring diverse groups of people and organizations together to transform the broader conditions that affect local work. This requires courage, doubt, and faith: the courage to trust those outside our immediate experience, the doubt to question what is, and the faith to believe that together, we will make a difference.

The work of building healthier communities takes time: our time, that of our children, and that of our children's children. A Jewish proverb counsels: "You are not bound to finish the work, but neither are you free to give it up." In our emerging ties across place and time, we join others in an attempt to create environments worthy of all our children.

___You understand what constitutes a community.

___You understand what a collaborative partnership is and how powerful it can be.

___You know what community capacity is.

___You know that the key partners in a broad collaboration should include:

• Local members of community partnerships  
• Support organizations
• Grantmakers and governmental agencies

___You understand the context in which people in the community act.

___You have decided to move forward with collaborative planning in order to bring people and organizations with different experiences and resources together.

___A mission statement that tells what your organization is going to do and why has been established.

___Through action planning, specific changes in the community have been identified and related action steps have been taken to bring them about.

___A strong leader for the organization is in place.

___You have community mobilizers who have started the ball rolling on actions that your group has decided to take.

___The groups efforts and results have been documented to know whether a difference is being made.

___You understand the ten recommendations for promoting community health and development.

Example 1: Healthy Communities: A Parable of Two Paths

In the early 1920's, the people of Prairie Center and Sunflower enjoyed a rich community life. There were strong ties among neighbors. People supported each other in many informal ways; through churches, in conversations at the local cafe, and on front porches. Adults cared for each other's children. When Billy or Maria did something wrong, their parents were sure to hear about it. People trusted each other to look out for them.

Gradually life changed in the two communities. Growth from nearby urban areas added people with limited ties to the community. Local zoning laws and regional planning separated the places where people worked from where they lived. Roads now cut through established neighborhoods, making it necessary to take the car to places people used to walk.

Individuals and families made new choices about how to use their time. Rather than visit neighbors, people stayed at home and watched television. Increasingly, both adults worked outside the home; often at several low-paying jobs to meet family needs. As a result, there were fewer adults to watch what kids were doing. All these individual choices and constraints added up: community folks had less contact with their neighbors, with their children, and with each other's children.

In Prairie Center, things changed gradually -- and so did the way local people addressed their problems. As drug use and violence increased in the 1980's and 1990's, the local media blamed on youth and their parents. Following advice from outside experts, the county jail was expanded at considerable cost. This left less public money for education and health. Those who could afford it sent their children to private schools. Those who could went out of town for health care. Poor people suffered the most; sharp cuts in public assistance could not be made up by local churches and charities.

People still cared deeply about their own children and family, but the sense was that each person and family should take care of themselves. Many people were increasingly distrustful of "them." "Them" was understood to mean everyone outside the family.

The people of Sunflower took a different approach. A tragedy in the late 1980's -- the deaths of two children in a drug-related incident really got people's attention. They began a process of community renewal. They started a dialogue about what really mattered in the community, and about what values they shared. They identified a common purpose: to create a caring place for all of the community's children.

The people of Sunflower began to work together in new ways. They formed action teams that cut across the usual boundaries. They included both the powerful and those people, such as youth and low-income families, who were seen by some as the problem. Now a diverse group of citizens, public officials, clergy, service providers, and business people joined hands. They worked to transform schools, businesses, health and service organizations, the faith community, and other valued assets. They established benchmarks for success:

• All kids succeeding in school
• Less drug and alcohol use
• Fewer teen pregnancies
• Fewer children living in poverty
• Adults employed in decent jobs

They coordinated all of their efforts in what they called the "Sunflower Partnership."

Gradually, people started to notice a difference with the unfolding of community changes, both large and small, in Sunflower. Several major businesses allowed flextime for their employees so they could help children. The school district expanded the hours of neighborhood schools, creating safe places for children after school. The faith community collected donations to care for others. City government officials approved new guidelines for tax abatements that rewarded businesses for creating better paying jobs for the unemployed and working poor.

Taken together, all of these changes improved community life. Gradually, the differences could be seen. They also produced results: kids did better in school, fewer kids got in trouble, the neighborhoods were safer, and children and adults were more successful. There was more to be done, of course, but people could see that they were making progress. 

Tool 1: Principles, assumptions, and values that guide the work of building healthy communities

1. Community health improvement involves the population as a whole, not merely individuals at risk for specific physical, mental, or social conditions.
2. Community health requires changes in both the behaviors of large numbers of individuals and the conditions or social determinants that affect health and development.
3. A healthy community is a local product with priority issues and strategies best determined by those most affected by the concern.
4. Freedom and justice require reducing income disparities to promote optimal health and development for all.
5. Since health and development outcomes are caused by multiple factors, single interventions are likely to be insufficient.
6. The conditions that affect a particular health or development concern are often interconnected with those affecting other concerns.
7. Since the behaviors that affect health and development occur among a variety of people in an array of contexts, community improvement requires engagement of diverse groups through different parts of the community.
8. Statewide and community partnerships, support organizations, and grantmakers are catalysts for change: they attempt to convene important parties, broker relationships, and leverage needed resources.
9. The aim of support organizations is to build capacity to address what matters to people over time and across concerns.
10. Community health and development involves interdependent relationships among multiple parties in which none can function fully without the cooperation of others.

Tool 2: Using this model of change--"Building capacity for community change"

1. Community Context and Planning

The first step in the process is understanding the context in which people act. By the context, we mean people's experiences, their dreams for a better life, and what makes them do what they do.

With an understanding of the context, the group can move forward with planning. Collaborative planning is a critical and ongoing task of a successful organization. It brings together people and organizations with different experiences and resources. Together, they clarify or develop the group's vision, mission, objectives, strategies, and action steps. In doing so, they can bring about changes in the community.

2. Community Action and Intervention

The planning process should be followed by action--going out and doing what was outlined. Sometimes, there is serious resistance to efforts that will need to be overcome.

3. Community and System Change

The goal of planning and action is to bring about community and system changes. Bringing about these changes is an important step towards achieving your organizational goals. By community change, we mean developing a new program (or modifying and existing one), bringing about a change in policy, or adjusting a practice related to the group's mission. system changes are similar to community changes, but take place on a broader level.

4. Risk and Protective Factors and Widespread Behavior Change

Our belief is that when these community and system changes occur, they should, taken together, change the environment in which a person behaves. This is sometimes referred to as increasing protective factors and/or decreasing the risk factors that community members face.

Risk and protective factors are aspects of a person's environment or personal features that make it more likely (risk factors) or less likely (protective factors) that she will develop a given problem. Often, risk and protective factors can be considered flip sides of the same coin. The intended effect of environmental change is widespread behavior change.

5. Improve More Distant Outcomes

Improvements in more distant outcomes, such as reducing violence or increasing employment rates and family incomes, are the ultimate goals of collaborative partnerships. By reducing the risk factors (and enhancing the protective factors) for the issue you are trying to address, you will affect the bottom line. Data on community-level indicators can help you determine just how much progress you have made towards your ultimate goals.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

Throughout the world, people and organizations come together to address issues that matter to them. For example, some community partnerships have formed to reduce substance use disorders, pregnancies among adolescents, or violence. Other community-based efforts attempt to lower risks for HIV, cardiovascular diseases, or injuries. Alliances among community members have also focused on promoting urban economic development, access to decent housing, and quality education.

These initiatives try to improve the quality of life for everyone in a community. Often, they do this in two ways. Initiatives use universal approaches -- that is, they try to reach everyone who could possibly be affected by the concern. They also use targeted approaches, which try to affect conditions for people who are at greater risk for the problem. Through these two approaches, initiatives try to change people's behavior, such as using illicit drugs, being physically active, or caring for children. They also might go deeper and try to change the conditions, such as the availability of drugs or access to childcare, under which these behaviors occur.

Community health promotion is a process that includes many things at many levels. For example, efforts use multiple strategies, such as providing information about the problem or improving people's access to assistance. They also operate at multiple levels, including individuals, families, and organizations, and through a variety of community sectors, such as schools, businesses, and faith-based organizations. All of this works together to make small but widespread changes in the health of the community. The goal is to promote healthy behaviors by making them easier to do and more likely to meet with positive reinforcement.

There are a lot of different models that describe how to best promote community health and development. Some of the more popular models include the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities Model, the PRECEDE/PROCEED model, and the Planned Approach to Community Health [PATCH]. Similarly, our University of Kansas (U.S.A.) Center for Community Health and Development's model of Building Capacity for Community Change is outlined elsewhere. While how things should be done differs in each model, the basic goal of these and other community approaches is the same. They aim to increase opportunities for community members to work together to improve their quality of life.

Evaluating the effectiveness of community-based initiatives presents some special challenges. Community initiatives are often evaluated using research methods borrowed from clinical trials and other researcher-controlled techniques. While these methods work very well in the fields for which they were developed, they're not necessarily a "good fit" for evaluating community work. It's like trying to put a square peg into a round hole -- with a lot of work, you might be able to do it, but it will never be as smooth as you want.

Ideas about community evaluation have their roots in several different models and traditions. These include:

• Action anthropology, which refers to the use of research to support community empowerment and self-determination.
• Qualitative research, which highlights the value of experience and context as important parts of understanding an effort. That is, it looks at more than statistics alone.
• Community-based participatory research (CBPR), which uses dialogue among community and scientific partners to produce knowledge and guide the actions taken by a group or community.
• Empowerment evaluation, which aims to assess the effort's worth while strengthening the community's desire and ability to understand and improve its own work.

These and other types of research actively involve community members in designing and conducting the evaluation. They all have two primary goals: understanding what is going on, and strengthening communities' ability to address their own concerns. What is different between these methods is the various balances they strike between these two ends.

In this section, we'll look at models, methods, and applications of community evaluation in understanding and improving comprehensive community initiatives. We'll start with a look at some of the reasons why community groups should evaluate their efforts. Then, we'll describe some of the major challenges to evaluation. We'll also describe a model of community initiatives as catalysts for change. Then, we'll discuss some principles, assumptions, and values that guide community evaluation and outline a "logic model" for our KU Center for Community Health and Development's system of evaluation. We'll also make some specific recommendations to practitioners and policymakers about how these issues can be addressed. Finally, we'll end with a discussion examining some of the broad issues and opportunities in community evaluation.

Why evaluate?

There are many good reasons for a community group to evaluate its efforts. When done properly, evaluation can improve efforts to promote health and development at any level -- from a small local nonprofit group to a statewide or even national effort. Evaluation offers the following advantages for groups of almost any size:

• Collecting information about how things are done and the results helps us understand how community initiatives develop, offering lessons other groups can benefit from.
• Providing ongoing feedback can improve community work by encouraging continuous adjustments of programs, policies, and other interventions.
• By involving community members, people whose perspectives have been underrepresented may gain greater opportunities to understand and improve local efforts.
• Finally, evaluation can help hold groups accountable to the community and to the grantmakers who provide funding. It can also help hold grantmakers accountable to the communities that they serve.

Challenges to community participatory evaluation

Although there are a lot of advantages to evaluating community efforts, that doesn't mean it's an easy thing to do. There are some serious challenges that make it difficult to do a meaningful evaluation of community work. They are:

• The causes of many community problems, such as substance use or violence, aren't fully understood. Without a better understanding of the causes, it's hard to decide what needs to be done and whether the work has been successful.
• Some of the more important things to evaluate, such as the ability of the group to successfully accomplish its goals or the quality of life of community members, can be very difficult to measure.
• Community initiatives are very complex. They include doing many things at multiple levels with many different people. Because of this, it can be daunting to describe what's been done thoroughly enough for another community to try to do the same thing.
• For some community issues, such as child maltreatment or domestic violence, it can be difficult to develop valid ways to determine whether efforts are working. Because of this, evaluating effectiveness can be challenging.
• For many issues, it takes a long time to move the bottom line. For example, if a group is trying to reduce HIV in the community, they may not know whether they have affected the number of new infections for years. Therefore, it's necessary to identify markers along the path -- measures of intermediate outcomes, such as changes in the community or system, which give community members an idea of whether or not they are going in the right direction.
• It's very hard to estimate how strong a community-driven intervention is -- will it make a large impact, or just a ripple? Evaluators will need to collect precise information on what happened, who it happened to, and for how long the intervention occurred.
• Information collected on individuals can't always be generalized to reach a conclusion about the community as a whole.
• Because there aren't always suitable experimental designs or fitting comparisons -- for example, it's hard to say that two towns are exactly alike -- it is not always possible to say that the results were really because of the community initiative and not because of something else that was going on.
• Because community initiatives change with time and circumstances, what they do gets modified as well. Since they are adaptable and constantly changing, it can be difficult to assess the generality of effects and decide whether a given program works broadly or worked in one particular circumstance.
• People see things differently. Evaluators, especially those in the field of participatory evaluation, must be attentive to differing perspectives when interviewing different people about the same event.
• To evaluate a community initiative fully and well takes a lot of time and work. For an already overburdened organization, it may not be feasible to do all of this properly.
• As we discussed above, there are two primary goals of evaluation: understanding what is going on and strengthening communities' ability to address their own concerns. It can be very difficult to attain both of these goals at the same time. Often, one may seem to take priority over the other.

Despite the challenges that evaluation poses, our belief is that it is a very worthwhile pursuit. In order to minimize these challenges, the KU Center for Community Health and Development has developed a model and some principles that may provide guidance for people trying to evaluate the work done in their community.

A model: Community initiatives as catalysts for change

Although different community groups have different missions, many of them use the same logic model or framework: that of a community initiative as a catalyst for change. This type of community initiative tries to transform specific parts of the community. They change programs, policies, and practices to make healthy behaviors more likely for large numbers of people.

Below, we offer a model of what occurs in a comprehensive community initiative and its results.

• Supporting collaborative planning
• Documenting community implementation, action, and change
• Assessing community adaptation, institutionalization, and capacity
• Evaluating more distal outcomes
• Promoting dissemination

This model is nonlinear -- that is, community partnerships don't just do one thing at a time. Instead, they take part in many interrelated activities that occur simultaneously. A new initiative to reduce the risks for violence involving young people, for example, may be refining its action plan while pursuing relatively easy changes in the community, such as posting billboards that warn people about the consequences of gang-related violence.

The components of the model are also interrelated -- that is, they can't be taken separately. They are all part of the same puzzle. For example, collaborative planning should decide what needs to happen in the community. That, in turn, should guide community action and change. Important community actions may be adapted to fit local conditions, and then kept going through policy changes, public funding, or other means of institutionalization.

Also important in this model is the idea that success breeds success. If a community is able to successfully bring about changes, its capacity to create even more community changes related to the group's mission should improve. This, in turn, may affect more distal outcomes -- the long-term goals the group is working for. Finally, successful comprehensive initiatives or their components (e.g., public awareness efforts, programs, or policies) may be picked up and adapted by other communities addressing similar concerns.

The goals and expectations of community initiatives vary. A community may have a single, narrowly defined mission, such as increasing children's immunizations against disease. It may also have much broader goals that involve several different objectives. For example, members of an initiative may wish to work on two problems, such as reducing child maltreatment and domestic violence, which share common risk and protective factors.

Some communities have a relatively free hand in deciding what to do. Other partnerships may be required by grantmakers to use well-established strategies or interventions. Some initiatives try hybrid approaches that combine the use of these established methods with the role of a catalyst. They do this by implementing core components, such as sexuality education and peer support for preventing pregnancies among adolescents, along with developing new community changes, such as enhancing access to contraceptives, that are related to the group's desired outcomes.

Different initiatives will modify programs to make them work well in their community. For example, different groups might want to develop supervised alternative activities for young people to make their participation in risky behavior, such as unprotected sexual activity or substance use, less likely. However, different communities may start any one of a variety of interventions, such as expanding recreational opportunities, offering summer jobs, or developing community gardens.

Adapting interventions to fit community needs has several advantages. First of all, it creates an approach that "belongs" to community members -- it's something they are proud of, that they feel they created -- it's really theirs. Second, because it has been modified to fit the community's needs, the program or policy is more likely to remain in existence. Finally, through changing interventions to fit local needs, community members improve their ability to address their own concerns.

If a comprehensive community initiative (or a program or policy that is part of it) proves to be successful over a long period, it may be used as an example that other communities can follow. For example, comprehensive interventions for reducing risks for cardiovascular diseases, or specific parts of the intervention such as increasing access to lower-fat foods, might be held up as examples for other groups. Leaders of nonprofit organizations need to know what works, what makes it work, and what doesn't work. That way, local efforts can learn from other community-based projects and demonstrations, and adopt some of what experience and research suggest are the "best practices" in the field.

Principles, assumptions, and values of community evaluation

When we look at the process of supporting and evaluating community initiatives, we need to look at what our ideas are based on. The following principles, assumptions, and values serve as the foundation for these processes. You'll notice that they reflect the challenges of addressing both of the major aims of evaluation: understanding community initiatives while strengthening the community's ability to address its concerns.

Principles, Assumptions, and Values of Community Evaluation

Community initiatives often function as catalysts for change in which community members and organizations work together to improve the quality of life.

Community initiatives are complex and ever-changing, and they must be analyzed on multiple levels.

Community initiatives help launch interventions that are planned and implemented by community members.

Community evaluation must understand and reflect the issue, and the context in which it is happening.

Community evaluation should involve people from throughout the community.

Community evaluation information should be linked to questions of importance to key stakeholders.

Community evaluation should strengthen community members' ability to understand what's going on, improve practices, and increase self-determination.

Community evaluation should begin early and be ongoing.

Community evaluation results, if positive, should be used to help sustain and promote widespread adoption of the community initiative and/or its components.

Community evaluation should be coupled with technical assistance to provide comprehensive support.

Community initiatives engage community members and organizations as catalysts for change: they transform community conditions to improve quality of life. Community evaluation is based on the premise that community initiatives are very complex. To be effective, they need many levels of intervention. Researchers try to understand the issue, the history of the initiative, and the community in which it operates. Ideally, local initiatives are planned and implemented with the involvement of many community members, including those from diverse backgrounds. Because of this, community evaluation is a participatory process involving a lot of collaboration and negotiation among many different people.

Evaluation should take place from the beginning of an initiative. That way, it can offer ongoing information and feedback to better understand and improve the initiative. Evaluation priorities -- that is, what to evaluate -- should be based on what's of most importance to community members, grantmakers, and the field.

If done properly, evaluation results should actually help sustain and renew the community initiative. The information gathered in evaluation can be used to obtain resources such as grant money, show how to improve, and offer an opportunity to celebrate accomplishments. If the initiative seems to be effective, information from community evaluation can be used to promote its widespread adoption. Finally, evaluation should be coupled with technical assistance to provide a complete support system for the initiative. Evaluation without support can actually hurt the initiative. It can be seen as criticism, and leave members of the group frustrated and unsure of what to do next.

Logic model for community evaluation

The figure below describes the logic model for the KU Center for Community Health and Development's Community Evaluation System. A logic model is simply a way of thinking about something in a rational order -- one thought naturally follows another, and you build on ideas as you go. It has its roots in the catalyst model we described above, and tries to show the ideal situation -- what might occur in a fully implemented community evaluation.

 

Initiative phases and evaluation activities

Our ideas about evaluation and support for community initiatives are based on the model of community initiatives as catalysts for change we described earlier. The five parts are:

1. Supporting collaborative planning
2. Documenting community implementation, action, and change
3. Assessing community adaptation, institutionalization, and capacity
4. Evaluating more distal outcomes
5. Promoting dissemination

Supporting collaborative planning

Agenda setting -- that is, deciding what issues and options should be acted upon -- is one of the most important things a community initiative can do. Agendas shape the choice of which issues should be addressed. The topics for the agenda might be decided on by using assessment tools, such as gathering information about community concerns. Media advocacy -- understanding how to use the media to effectively get the word out -- may also assist agenda-building efforts.

Supporting collaborative planning, when done comprehensively, will include all of the following:

• Involving many people in planning efforts, including those from diverse backgrounds
• Clarifying the group's vision, mission, objectives, and strategies
• Developing an action plan that identifies specific community changes to be sought (and later documented) throughout the community
• Identifying local concerns and gathering information about them
• Identifying local resources that can help solve the problem

Documenting community implementation, action, and change

Community evaluation documents what gets done by community initiatives, and lets all of the members of the initiative know about these changes. That way, community members can improve on what they have done. This includes documentation of:

• Local efforts and accomplishments
• Community and system changes: changes in programs, policies, and practices that are related to the mission
• How things got done
• How many changes occurred in the community and where they happened (this is also known as intermediate outcomes)

Assessing community adaptation, institutionalization, and capacity

Community evaluators also look at how the interventions get changed, and whether or not these adjustments to fit the community actually work. They also determine if efforts to sustain the initiative are effective. Finally, evaluators try to measure whether efforts to improve the community's capacity to address current and future issues have been effective.

Evaluating more distal outcomes

Of course, the ultimate goal of most community initiatives is to move the bottom line -- to have fewer people acquire HIV or experience violence, to give two examples. To see if this has happened, community evaluators use quantitative methods. One such method is the use of behavioral surveys. For example, a project to prevent pregnancies among adolescents might survey students about reported abstinence or unprotected sexual activity. Another quantitative method is finding archival records of outcomes. For example, the project above might use estimated rates of pregnancies among adolescents from the health department.

They also use qualitative methods, such as interviews with participants, to better understand the meaning and value of efforts. Used together, quantitative and qualitative information weave a rich tapestry of understanding around the initiative's efforts, and offer a solid understanding of the community-level outcomes. They are much more powerful together than either could be alone.

Unfortunately, it usually takes so long to see if the initiative has really moved the bottom line that this information isn't useful for making the day-to-day improvements initiatives need. This is why we recommend documenting intermediate outcomes such as changes in the community or broader system. Measuring community changes -- new or modified programs, policies, or practices -- assists in detecting patterns to see if the initiative is helping to create a healthier environment.

Promoting dissemination

Finally, evaluators help community initiatives spread the word about effectiveness to important audiences, such as community boards and grantmakers. Evaluators help provide and interpret data about what works, what makes it work, and what doesn't work. Ways to get the word out may include presentations, professional articles, workshops and training, handbooks, media reports, and online communication.

So, how does all of this work together? To give a quick recap:

Identifying local concerns helps communities decide on and develop strategies and tactics. These, in turn, may guide implementation of interventions, actions, and changes. Important parts may be adapted to work better in the local community, and important changes may be sustained. This should improve the community's ability to address current and future issues. It may also help attain the initiative's long-term goals, and at the same time improve researchers' understanding of how to get things done. This may help promote adoption of the entire initiative or its more effective components by other communities. All of these steps may influence each other and help decide what the community will do next.

Recommendations for practitioners and policymakers

Research and experience in the field provide us with recommendations for community evaluation. These 34 specific recommendations are grouped into categories that follow the five phases of the catalyst and logic models:

• Supporting collaborative planning
• Documenting community implementation, action, and change
• Assessing community adaptation, institutionalization, and capacity
• Evaluating more distal outcomes
• Promoting dissemination

These recommendations are directed to a wide audience that includes both practitioners, especially members of community initiatives, and policymakers, including elected and appointed officials and grantmakers.

Recommendations for Supporting Collaborative Planning

• Policymakers should support, and practitioners assist, community members in identifying local concerns and collecting information that documents these problems.
• Policymakers should support, and practitioners assist, community members in strategic planning. This includes identifying a vision and developing a mission, objectives, strategies, and action steps.
• Practitioners should develop and share information regarding factors that put people at risk for, or protect them against, local concerns.
• Practitioners should use community members' knowledge of what's going on and build on this understanding by assisting with the interpretation and analysis of available information.
• Practitioners and policymakers should involve community members in developing an evaluation plan for the initiative.
• Practitioners should develop a "give and take" relationship with members of community initiatives. That is, they can provide technical assistance and resources for the initiative, and in turn ask for information and data.
• Information should be shared among practitioners, community members, and other key stakeholders.

Recommendations for Documenting and Supporting Community Implementation, Action, and Change

• Practitioners and policymakers should help community members choose interventions and prioritize goals using local and expert knowledge of what is important and what is feasible.
• Practitioners and policymakers should encourage community initiatives to be a catalyst for change. They should focus their efforts on transforming the environment (i.e., by changing programs, policies, and practices), rather than focusing only on individual behavior.
• Practitioners should highlight the products of planning, such as forming committees or completing grant applications, rather than focusing only on the process it took to do it (e.g., how much time was spent or the number of meetings that took place).
• Practitioners should provide technical support and constructive feedback to help the initiative understand and do what works in their community.
• Practitioners should evaluate progress made in moving the "bottom line," or indicators of population-level outcomes.
• Practitioners should also evaluate and share information about the process with community members. For example, they might look at and explain the amount of media coverage, number of community members and organizations participating, resources generated, and services provided.
• Policymakers should request, and practitioners provide, a way to measure changes in the community, such as knowing how many new or modified programs, policies, or practices the group has brought about. These data on community and system change will help show how the environment is changing to improve community health and development.

Recommendations for Assessing and Supporting Community Adaptations, Institutionalization, and Capacity

• Policymakers should allow, and practitioners support, the reinvention or adaptation of interventions to be more effective in the local community.
• Practitioners should collect information on what happens and what makes it happen to see if the group's work is effective.
• Policymakers should encourage community groups to look at things over the long haul. This means helping with long-range planning, providing training, and gradually reducing funding over time. For example, a grant may give the most money in the first year, less money in year two, and even less in year three. This might allow the initiative to have the initial support it needs and then prompt the group to look for more sustainable funding. All of this should help to promote the institutionalization of the initiative.
• Practitioners should conduct periodic assessments to see how many of the group's community or system changes have been sustained. This helps determine the level of institutionalization of the initiative.
• Practitioners should collect information on rates of community change over time and across concerns -- that is, changes that occurred in the community for different missions, such as substance use and child maltreatment. High rates of change over time and across different areas of local concern provide an indication of "community capacity."
• Practitioners should collect and share information on community members who become "community champions" -- that is, who do great things for the initiative and the community as a whole.
• Policymakers should request, and practitioners should provide, regular reports on what's happening.
• Practitioners should provide feedback on how and where community changes have occurred to help understand and improve efforts to address community issues.
• Policymakers should provide grant funding that improves the ability of a diverse team of leaders to successfully carry out the initiative. For example, they might provide training on grant writing or leadership development.

Recommendations for Evaluating and Influencing More Distal Outcomes

• Practitioners should record what people report has happened related to risk and protective factors and compare this information with relevant statistical evidence about behavior and population-level outcomes.
• Practitioners should study how "health promoting" the environment is and how it changes over time. This may include studying rates of community or system changes and their relationship to changes in the bottom line.
• Practitioners should develop consistent, practical methods for collecting information on relevant behavior and related outcomes in a comparison community. (A comparison community is one similar to that you are studying, but in which no systematic intervention occurs.) For example, if you are conducting a comprehensive initiative in an urban neighborhood, you might use another nearby urban neighborhood as a comparison.
• Policymakers should encourage, and practitioners support, community members and outside experts to evaluate the importance of the initiative's achievements. This can help increase accountability to community members and other stakeholders.
• Practitioners should use qualitative methods to improve understanding of what gets done and how it happens. These methods might include interviews with participants about barriers, resources, and lessons they have learned about the work.
• Policymakers should provide funding that is based on showing positive results. For example, annual renewal of grants might be based on evidence of high rates of community or system change; bonuses could be given for groups that have done outstanding work; and outcome dividends could be provided for those showing improvement in community-level outcomes.
• Practitioners should share information on what has happened, why and how it happened, and the resulting changes in the community. This should be shared early and regularly with a broad cross section of people, including staff, community members, board members, and grantmakers.
• Practitioners should collaborate with initiative members to develop meaningful ways to present evaluation data to key stakeholders.

Recommendations for Promoting Dissemination

• Practitioners, community members, and staff should present data at local, state, national, and international venues to create a larger audience for their efforts.
• Practitioners and policymakers should share information about effective programs and encourage other communities to adopt or adapt them.
• Policymakers and practitioners should use methods such as newspapers, storytelling, and online communication to get the word out about successful interventions, promising practices, and lessons they have learned.

In Summary

Community evaluation offers two overarching benefits. First, it helps us better understand the community initiative, and second, it improves the community's ability to address issues that matter to local people. This evaluation perspective joins the traditional research purpose of determining worth with ideas of empowerment.

In community evaluation, community members, grantmakers, and evaluators work together to pick the best strategies for the community. The specific mix chosen is determined by several things: the issue to be addressed, the interests and needs of those involved, the resources available for the evaluation, and what the initiative is doing. The evaluation is designed very carefully to answer the following: How well does this help us understand and contribute to our ability to improve our community?

For example, an injury prevention initiative might work with the local clinic to assess risk behavior with surveys and determine how many deaths and injuries occurred that were related to violence, motor vehicle crashes, or other causes. Evaluation might be very different for a child welfare initiative, however, which might find it too expensive to observe parents and children interacting or may not be able to afford a behavioral survey. Instead, it might collect information on the number of children living below the poverty level or other measures of children's well-being.

Ideally, community evaluation is an early and central part of the initiative's support system. At the beginning, it helps the group decide on goals and strategies. Later, the evaluation team can document the community's progress toward its goals.

Communities often have a local support system, which might include things such as financial resources or service networks, that help make it possible for the initiative to make a difference in the community. Community evaluation can help communities recognize their own abilities to bring about change, and then to act on that knowledge. The community is in a partnership with the evaluation team, with both working together to understand and improve the initiative.

Communities identify and mobilize existing resources to bring about changes, and members also help document them. By documenting these community or system changes, community evaluation can prompt community members and leadership to discover where change is, and should be, occurring.

When communities are not making things happen, however, the role of the community evaluation team may shift to making the initiative accountable for its actions. When not much happens over a long period, for example, evaluation information can be used to encourage leaders of the initiative to change what's going on. In extreme cases, community initiatives may be encouraged to change the leadership of the initiative. Finally, renewal of funding -- and bonuses and dividends -- can be based on evidence of progress, with intermediate and longer-term outcomes.

Detecting community capacity -- the community's ability to improve things that matter to local people -- is a particularly important challenge for community evaluation. For example, an initiative trying to prevent substance use that causes many important community changes over a long period, and that then really moves the bottom line, might be said to have greater community capacity than a community whose changes didn't stick. If members of the same initiative later take on a new concern such as preventing violence involving young people and do so effectively, we might be further convinced of improved community capacity.

Successful community partnerships develop, adopt, or adapt interventions and promising practices that will work in their community. How interventions are adapted and implemented becomes almost as important for researchers as what happened as a result of the intervention.

Relationships between researchers and communities seem to be changing. This may reflect a shift in traditional modes of research and practice. In the late 1980s, community-based grantmaking emerged as a new, or rediscovered, way to distribute resources. It awards grants to communities to address their concerns themselves instead of relying only on research scientists to design and implement interventions. Earlier researcher-controlled approaches often did not address all of the goals of community initiatives -- improving understanding, capacity, and self-determination. Concerns about these approaches helped bring about the community-based approaches to evaluation discussed in this section.

The community evaluation system described in this chapter gives a framework and a logic model for examining and improving community initiatives. The methods include providing support, documentation, and feedback. We believe that this approach to evaluation can help local people make a positive difference in their communities.

___You know the difference between universal approaches and targeted approaches to initiatives.

___You have incorporated multiple strategies, multiple levels, and multiple community sectors in your community effort.

___You understand that the goal of community health promotion is to increase opportunities for community members to collaborate to improve their quality of life.

___You have attempted to implement your evaluation at the same time as your initiative.

You know the two goals of an evaluation:

___To understand what is going on.

___To empower communities to take care of their own problems.

___You understand the advantages evaluations offer.

___You have analyzed the challenges your community and your initiative/evaluation may face.

___You have poised your community to function as a catalyst for change.

___You know the five steps of the comprehensive community initiative.

• Collaborative planning
• Community implementation, action, and change
• Community adaptation, institutionalization, and capacity
• More distal outcomes
• Dissemination

You know what to incorporate in each of these steps:

___Supporting collaborative planning-you have set your agenda and included all of the following:

• Ideas from people of diverse backgrounds
• Clarification of your visions, missions, objectives, and strategies
• Development an action plan
• Identification of local resources to help you solve

___Documenting community implementation, action, and change you have documented:

• Local efforts/accomplishments
• Changes in programs/policies/practices
• How things have been accomplished

___Assessing community adaptation, institutionalization, and capacity: you have:

• Looked at how the intervention has been changed
• Analyzed whether or not the efforts to sustain the initiative have been effective
• Measured to see if your efforts to address the issue have been effective

___Evaluating more distal outcomes: you have:

• Used both quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate your successes
• Documented the intermediate outcomes

___Promoting dissemination: you have worked to spread word about the effectiveness of your comprehensive community initiative.

___You have analyzed, understood, and applied the 34 recommendations for practitioners and policy makers.

Evaluating community health initiatives in Kansas (U.S.A.)

This example talks about a composite case study that draws on work with several community health initiatives in Kansas with which our Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas had evaluation and support responsibilities. Their missions included preventing teen pregnancy, preventing teen substance use, reducing risks for cardiovascular diseases and some cancers, and promoting health in rural communities. All of the initiatives had the aim of improving community members' abilities to better their quality of life.

Background and context

A variety of communities participated in these initiatives with grant support from the Kansas Health Foundation. Initiatives were located in urban areas, communities with military bases and prisons, and rural communities.

In each community, the local partnership attempted to be a catalyst for change. The initiatives involved community members in deciding how to change programs, policies, and practices to address local concerns. Task forces and action committees developed the initiatives' action plans.

Who was involved?

Participants in these initiatives included community members, service providers, community leaders, youth, and parents. They involved people affected by the problem and community leaders who had the ability to bring about changes. Members included targets of change, such as youth or elected officials whose actions (or inaction) contributed to the problem, and agents of change, such as religious leaders or peers, who could contribute to the solution. Other players included members of the steering committees and staff of the initiatives; program officers representing the grantmaker; and evaluation and support staff of the Center for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas.

Stakeholder interests for the evaluation included understanding whether the efforts were having an effect and using this information to improve the initiative and its projects. Major stakeholders posed several questions to be addressed by the community evaluation:

1. Is the initiative making a difference?
2. Is the initiative serving as a catalyst for change?
3. How is the initiative distributing its efforts?
4. What makes a difference in how well the initiative functions?

The evaluation system used different measurement tools to address these and other questions.

Implementation of the model

Here, we'll look at how the catalyst and logic models we described in the section played out in these communities in Kansas.

Supporting collaborative planning

In the rural health initiative, our KU Center for Community Health and Development collaborated with rural communities in using concerns surveys, listening sessions or town meetings, and statistical information relevant to local concerns.

First, the concerns survey allowed community members to rate the importance of different health issues, such as teen drug abuse or water quality, and to say how well they thought each of these issues was being addressed in their community. Data were summarized to highlight major strengths and relative problems in the community. The issues chosen by each community varied, and included promoting good health among older adults, preventing substance use, and preventing teen pregnancy.

Second, the KU Center for Community Health and Development helped community members conduct listening sessions. In these informal focus groups, members of the community came together to define issues, identify barriers and resources, and brainstorm solutions. Third, statistical information was obtained by the Center for Community Health and Development to determine if what community members perceived as problems were confirmed by statistical records.

The Center's supported action planning by community members. Staff helped each community initiative to form a vision, create a mission, set objectives, and develop strategies and action steps. It's important to recognize that achieving consensus on what to do in the face of many problems and without always having all of the necessary information (or resources) involves artistry. Conflicts may arise when what people care about isn't supported by available "hard" data. For example, community members may feel strongly about working to end child violence in the community, even if statistics show that many other problems occur more often.

People throughout the community were encouraged to participate so that changes could be brought about throughout the community. The Center developed practical guides to support action planning for teen substance use, teen pregnancy, youth violence, chronic disease, child abuse and neglect, and health promotion for older adults.

Documenting community implementation, action, and change

The KU Center for Community Health and Development worked with members of the initiatives to document the changes in the community that were facilitated by each community partnership. Ratings of importance and feasibility by community members and outside "experts" helped inform members of the initiative about the importance of discrete community changes. Graphs and regular reports of accomplishments were used to inform stakeholders about the progress on intermediate outcomes. The Center also helped develop ways to get the word out about the initiative's accomplishments, and provided information about how to incorporate such information in status reports and future grant applications.

Implementation of initiatives was also documented. For example, with the teen pregnancy prevention initiatives, sexuality education was tracked using teacher reports and records. The Center also worked with the initiatives to determine if particular changes brought about by the initiatives were effective in reducing risks for the problem. For example, researchers and members of one initiative studied whether adjustments in physical education requirements improved the physical fitness of school children.

Assessing community adaptation, institutionalization, and capacity

The KU Center for Community Health and Development helped make necessary adjustments to important parts of the initiative. For example, communities working to prevent teen pregnancy adapted specific elements of an approach first implemented in South Carolina. To provide support and education' communities implemented a variety of different programs, including male-to-male support groups, abstinence clubs, and social events. Institutionalization was examined by looking at whether new programs, policies, and practices were still in place some months after they began. Community capacity was studied by looking at the pattern of community changes over time.

Evaluating more distal outcomes

The KU Center for Community Health and Development obtained information from behavioral surveys and archival records to help determine if changes in the environment were associated with corresponding changes in the bottom line. For example, the initiatives working to prevent teen substance use used school surveys to determine youths' reported use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. The Center also gathered data on outcomes such as the rate of teen pregnancy. Finally, staff examined possible relationships between rates of community change and changes in the bottom line to help determine if the initiative had a real impact on its long-term goals.

Promoting dissemination

Center for Community Health and Development staff used local and national presentations, journal articles, and book chapters to get the word out about what works, what makes things work, and what doesn't appear to work. Staff also prepared handbooks for guiding action planning and community evaluation, and conducted workshops and training sessions. Finally, the Center team helped develop this website -- The Community Tool Box -- to share information about promising practices for improving our communities. 

Tools: Logic Model - Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives

 

1. Supporting Collaborative Planning

Collaborative planning is a critical and ongoing task of a successful organization. It brings together people and organizations with different experiences and resources. Together, they clarify or develop the group's vision, mission, objectives, strategies, and action steps. In doing so, they can bring about changes in the community.

Support activities related to collaborative planning include the following:

A. Assess local concerns and assets

• Conducting Public Forums and Listening Sessions
• Analyzing Community Problems
• Conducting Focus Groups
• Conducting Needs Assessment Surveys
• Identifying Community Assets and Resources
• Conducting Concerns Surveys
• Conducting Interviews
• Rating Community Goals

B. Obtain data on behavior and community-level indicators

• Collecting Information About the Problem
• Developing Baseline Measures of Behavior
• Gathering and Using Community-Level Indicators

C. Facilitate setting vision, mission, objectives, and strategies

• Developing a Strategic Plan
• Deciding Where to Start

D. Help develop the action plan

• Developing a Strategic Plan

2. Documenting Community Implementation, Action, and Change

Community evaluation documents what gets done by community initiatives, and lets all of the members of the initiative know about these changes. That way, community members can improve on what they have done. Community implementation, action, and change include the following related documentation activities. After each activity, relevant Community Tool Box sections are listed.

A. Monitor and provide feedback on community action and change

• Gathering Information: Monitoring your Progress
• Providing Feedback to Improve the Initiative

B. Monitor and provide feedback on implementation of key components

• Monitoring and Gathering Feedback from Your Mentoring Program
• Youth Goal Setting

3. Assessing Community Adaptation, Institutionalization, and Capacity

Community evaluators also look at how the interventions are changed, and whether or not these adjustments fit the community actually work. They also determine if efforts to sustain the initiative are effective. Finally, evaluators try to measure if efforts to improve the community's capacity to address current (and future) issues have been effective. Related Community Tool Box sections include:

• Adapting Community Interventions for Different Cultures and Communities
• Planning for Long-Term Institutionalization
• Our Model of Practice: Building Capacity for Community and System Change

4. Evaluating More Distal Outcomes

Of course, the ultimate goal of most community initiatives is to move the bottom line --to have fewer people contract HIV/AIDS or be victims of violence, to give two examples. To see if this has happened, community evaluators use quantitative methods. One such method is the use of behavioral surveys. For example, a teen pregnancy prevention project might survey students about reported abstinence or unprotected sexual activity. Another quantitative method is finding archival records of community-level indicators of outcomes. For example, the project above might use estimated rates of teen pregnancy for the city or county available from the health department.

They also use qualitative methods, such as interviews with participants, to better understand the meaning and value of efforts. Used together, quantitative and qualitative information weave a rich tapestry of understanding around the initiative's efforts. They are much more powerful together than either could be alone. Evaluating more distal outcomes include the following related activities. After each activity, relevant Community Tool Box sections are listed.

A. Assess community-level outcom

• Reaching your Goals: The Goal Attainment Report
• Behavioral Surveys
• Gathering and Using Community-Level Indicators

B. Collect ongoing qualitative information

• Obtaining Feedback from Constituents: What Changes are Important and Feasible
• Rating Member Satisfaction
• Constituent Survey of Outcomes: Ratings of Importance
• Conducting Interviews with Key Participants to Analyze Critical Events

5. Promoting Dissemination

Finally, evaluators help community initiatives spread the word about effectiveness to important audiences, such as community boards and grantmakers. Evaluators help provide and interpret data about what works, what makes it work, and what doesn't work. Ways to get the word out may include presentations, professional articles, workshops and training, handbooks, media reports and on the Internet.

Information on the active dissemination of the initiative and its components can be found in the following related Community Tool Box sections:

• Communications to Promote Interest
• Providing Feedback to Improve the Initiative
• Communicating Information to Funders for Support and Accountability
• Planning for the Institutionalization of an Initiative
• Promoting Adoption of the Initiative's Mission and Objectives

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What do we mean by values, principles, and assumptions?
• Core values of the Community Tool Box
• Core principles of the Community Tool Box
• Assumptions of the Community Tool Box

The work of community health and development is both science and art. On the one hand, it grows from the lessons of experience learned by community activists and professionals trying to create systems, programs, interventions, and policies that improve the lives and health of everyone in communities. On the other hand, it stems from the passion for social justice, equity, and fairness that leads people to work to create healthy communities where all people, regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances, have what they need.

The commitment to community doesn’t arise out of nowhere. It comes from and is guided by values, principles, and assumptions that spring from our backgrounds and cultures, from our experiences, and from our conscious decisions about what is right. These values, principles, and assumptions shape our vision of the world as it should be, and motivate us to try to make it so.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a framework for the chapters that follow.

What do we mean by values, principles, and assumptions?

The terms values, principles, and assumptions are sometimes used as if they all mean the same thing – the underlying truths on which we base our dealings with the world. In fact, although they are all “truths” to some extent, they are different in meaning and substance. Although we realize how similar they are, we’ll try to consider each of the three. Understanding the difference can help us sort out when we’re operating on facts or well-examined experience, when we’re applying moral or ethical rules or judgments, and when we’re responding to emotion or bias or unexamined “knowledge” that may not be accurate.

All of these – facts and experience, morality, ethics, bias, emotion, “common knowledge” – can be legitimate reasons for action in some circumstances. (It’s hardly logical to be non-violent in the face of racist police armed with clubs and vicious dogs; the moral imperative for those in the Civil Rights Movement was more important than facts and experience in that situation.) The importance of knowing the difference is understanding your own motivation, and acting accordingly.

Values

Values are our guidelines for living and behavior. Each of us has a set of deeply held beliefs about how the world should be. For some people, that set of beliefs is largely shaped by a religion, a culture, a peer group, or society at large. For others, it has been arrived at through careful thought and reflection on experience, and is unique. For most of us, it is probably a combination of the two. Values often concern the core issues of our lives: personal relationships, morality, gender and social roles, race, social class, and the organization of society, to name just a few.

Principles

Principles are the fundamental scientific, logical, or moral/ethical “truths” arising from experience, knowledge, and values on which we base our actions and thinking. In the case of the Community Tool Box team, they are the underpinning of our understanding of community health and development, the truths that shape both our reasons for doing the work and the work itself.

Scientific and logical principles are derived from experience and experiment, from knowledge (which itself comes from experience and experiment on the part of someone else), from logical analysis, and/or from theory. They are as objective – as free of bias, untested assumptions, etc., and as firmly based on provable fact or reasoned analysis – as they can be, and are considered true until proven otherwise. They include the physical and other laws by which the universe operates, and their extensions into the sphere of human action. (If you run into a tree at 70 miles an hour, you’ll probably be seriously injured or killed. If you drive your car when you’re drunk, you don’t have much judgment or control, making it much more likely that you’ll hit that tree at 70 miles an hour. Principle: Don’t drive drunk.)

Scientific and logical principles are typified by such statements as “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” (Newton’s Third Law of Motion). Such principles are either verifiable by observation – a cannonball shooting out of a cannon drives the cannon itself back in the opposite direction, consistent with Newton’s Third Law – or are supported by all the evidence available – thousands of dinosaur fossils, various chemical and geological dating systems – and are “theories” only in the sense that they can’t be fully proven because of the impossibility of traveling back in time or across interstellar space.

Moral and ethical principles are where values come in. These principles grow out of deeply held beliefs and values, and are often the principles upon which community work is founded. Devotion to democratic process, to equity and fair distribution of resources, to a reasonable quality of life for everyone, to the sacredness of life, to the obligation of people to help one another – these all come not from logic or scientific experiment, but from a value system that puts a high priority on human dignity and relationships.

One of the clearest statements of moral/ethical principle is that of the American Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson (with Benjamin Franklin’s help) in 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

This statement is actually a good demonstration of how values and principles form a loop, with principles based on values. Jefferson and Franklin may have held these “truths” to be self-evident (i.e., so obvious that they don’t have to be explained or supported), but the certainty of the American founding fathers had to do with their values, not with any scientific proof that they were right.

At the same time, people may hold the same principles, but interpret them through different value systems. Two individuals may both believe, for instance, that all humans are created equal. For one, this may mean that they have a duty to try to gain equity for all. For the other, it may mean that since everyone starts out equal, anyone who doesn’t achieve or do well is at fault for their failure, and therefore deserves no help or respect.

Even scientific principles are, in some sense, based on values. The use of the scientific method, the adherence to empirical evidence (i.e., evidence actually observed or experienced), the willingness to believe the evidence even when it conflicts with religious or cultural assumptions – these are all characteristics of a value system that puts a high priority on logical and scientific thinking.

Some people subscribe to different values, which place much more importance on religious or cultural traditions than on the work of science.

Assumptions

Assumptions are the next level of truths, the ones we feel we can take for granted, given the principles we have accepted. If we accept, for instance, that life is an “unalienable right” – a right of every human being that cannot be taken away – then we will usually assume that killing another person is wrong, or at least that we don’t have the right to do it.

Assumptions are often unexamined. They are the facts or beliefs that we don’t question, because we “know” they’re accurate, even though they may not be. Most of us have been in situations where we’ve had to face the consequences of our incorrect assumptions.

It is nevertheless true that we all bring assumptions to what we do, and the Community Tool Box team is no exception. We hope our assumptions are based on carefully thought-out principles, however, and try to reevaluate them to make sure we aren’t operating on false premises.

What follows are some of the core values, principles, and assumptions on which the Community Tool Box is based. The lists are not meant to be comprehensive, and are not necessarily in order of priority.

Core values of the Community Tool Box

We’ll start with values, because, as we’ve explained, they’re usually the basis for the work we do. Our values are a reflection of the way each of us sees and addresses the world.

Although values can and do change as people grow and learn, there are some basic values that most people hold: the need to protect and preserve human life, for instance, or the responsibility of adults to care for children. These and a number of other values are held by the majority of people in most societies, and are often the foundation of laws and social norms.

Here are some of the values behind the Community Tool Box:

Everyone has a right to a decent quality of life. This is a core value for most people involved in community health and development. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, a policy statement issued by the World Health Organization-sponsored First International Conference on Health Promotion (Ottawa, Canada, 1986), embodies this value. It states that the prerequisites for health in a community are peace, shelter, enough food, adequate income to support individuals and families, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice, and equity.

Everyone is worthy of respect and equal consideration. Treating people with respect and consideration doesn’t mean you can’t disagree with them, or even fight against what they’re trying to do. Rather, it means that you should approach them as equals who think they’re right, rather than labeling or treating them as evil or stupid.

Any community work or research should have the ultimate aim of being useful in improving people’s lives, particularly the lives of those with the greatest needs and/or least power. There’s no point to research or action in health and community work unless it contributes to the quality of life in the community and/or the world. Knowledge is hugely important, but it doesn’t matter much if you don’t do anything with it.

Due to the inherent biases we all have, some understood and some we may not be aware of, it is essential for us to continually increase awareness of our biases and to ensure they do not contradict the higher-order values previously discussed, such as ensuring all people are respected.

Fairness demands that everyone affected by research or by an issue – all stakeholders – should have the opportunity for either direct participation or representation in planning, implementing, and analyzing the resulting research or intervention. Community work, in whatever field, should be about creating new situations with the people affected, not about doing things for or to them.

This work isn’t about power, but about the public good. Therefore, power and leadership, to the extent that it doesn’t entirely compromise the purpose of the work, should be shared as much as possible.

Core principles of the Community Tool Box

Principles, as we’ve described, are the essential truths on which we base our work. They’re different from values, in that values are a reflection of what we deeply believe and feel: principles are a reflection of what we think. Although the reasoning behind them may – and usually does – grow out of our value system, they are generally practical, and aimed not at guiding our overall thinking and behavior, but at putting them – and our values – to work in the real world.

“Fair” doesn’t mean that everyone gets the same thing; it means that everyone gets what they need. This implies that equity involves making sure that those with less have enough for their needs, and aren’t ignored or exploited by those with more money or power.

Community work is far more likely to be successful if it involves all stakeholders from the very beginning. This is the principle that derives from the value concerning the fairness of involving everyone affected by an issue. It’s stated as a principle because it is a practical statement: planning, intervention, and evaluation all simply go better if there is input and participation by everyone involved. This participatory process results in more ideas, more widespread support, the possibility of avoiding errors because of ignorance of community history or past performance, and ownership of the resulting action by everyone affected.

Leadership from within the community should be encouraged and nurtured. Positive community change is more likely to occur, and more likely to continue, if it is built from within. The leaders for this work should come from the community, because they know the community so well, because they have the credibility that community membership brings, and because they have so much interest in success. It is also a matter of fairness – it is only right that people should have control over their own futures. For outsiders to impose solutions and leadership may be effective in the short term, but it hinders the community’s ability to develop and evolve.

Community work takes careful planning at every stage of the process. Assessment and issue identification, strategic planning, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of effort all have greater chances of success with collaborative planning. This principle is reflected in the large number of sections that discuss planning.

Evaluation is absolutely necessary, and useful in many ways, although probably most useful as a tool for improving your effort. It can show where changes are needed, pinpoint problems and strengths, suggest additional action, and provide accountability. A formative evaluation – one that carefully examines the process and content of your effort, compares it to what was supposed to occur, and analyzes the results of what you did in light of how you could improve on it – can tell you whether parts of the process or the goals need to be changed in order for the effort to become more effective. A summative evaluation – one that simply decides whether you did well or not, essentially focusing only on accountability – is far less helpful. A summative evaluation can often stop an effort in its tracks, when all it needs to become successful is a relatively minor change in execution.

Outcomes matter. While fingerpointing and handwringing over failures to meet goals may not be particularly helpful, it’s important to remember the reason you’re doing this work in the first place. You should be constantly doing your best both to adapt your effort for greater effectiveness and to keep your ultimate goal in sight.

Time is of the essence. Always allow enough time for things to happen, both in your planning and in your implementation. That means factoring in how long it actually takes to get an effort or program started:

• Recruiting a participatory planning team
• Developing a plan
• Getting the people, the space, the equipment and materials, and whatever else is needed in place
• Finding funding or other resources
• Carrying out the actual work
• Designing, implementing, and analyzing an evaluation
• Making the changes suggested by the evaluation, and then doing it all again

Allowing enough time also means allowing time in your effort for the desired results to occur. In some public health programs, for instance, it may take years to know whether a particular method of prevention has been truly successful. Even in many programs that policymakers see as quick fixes, results may not be forthcoming as fast as they’d like. Programming in the time to get the job done can be frustrating, but it’s crucial to success.

Legislators may see an employment training program as a simple matter of people who are unemployed learning a particular skill – similar to taking a course for a set number of weeks. But policymakers often don’t realize that not only do different people learn at different rates, but that some participants may never have held a job, and may not understand the basics of working effectively with supervisors and coworkers, or even of getting to work on time every day. Teaching all the basics in addition to the job skill in question may take a great deal longer than policymakers intend, but will be more effective in the long run.

Don’t bite off more than you can chew. Aim high, but be honest with yourself and others about what you can actually do, and how much time it will take.

Make sure that your funding and other resources are adequate for what you’re trying to do. Trying to carry out a project without the resources you need is a recipe for failure. It makes far more sense to scale back your intentions, or to allow more time to get what you need, than to go into an effort ill-equipped to carry it off.

Community action should take place at the level and time to make it most effective. The level of community action refers to where the action is aimed. You may be planning action to benefit a particular group, but your effort might be more effective if aimed at policymakers, or at some other group or individual whose actions affect the group you’re concerned with.

By the same token, your effort should occur at the best time for it to have the desired effect. This may mean coordinating it with regular legislative procedures (the issuing of a state budget, for instance), with a particular season (timing a fundraising effort for families experiencing homelessness to coincide with the winter holidays), with a similar national or international effort (e.g., National Literacy Day), or with current events as they develop. (You’d want to campaign to save an open space when its possible development first came to light, so as to give your effort enough time to rally public opinion and get the facts out.

If you wait till the bulldozers are already pushing down trees, it’s too late.)

Community intervention should be replicable and sustainable. For an intervention to be “replicable,” it has to be able to be repeated successfully in other places and/or with other participants. The basic elements of the intervention should be effective – perhaps with some adaptation to a different community or population – anywhere, and you should be able to explain exactly how it works, so that someone else can set it up and run it in another situation. That means you have to understand the intervention’s elements clearly, and know what it is that makes it successful. Since the formula often involves a combination of theory, philosophy, interpersonal approaches, politics, and methods, you have to pay careful attention to, document, and evaluate what you’re doing if you want someone else to be able to do it as well.

For an intervention to be sustainable, you have to be able to continue to operate it for the long term. That includes not only carrying on the work effectively, but also finding the financial and other resources necessary to keep it going, building community support, providing ongoing training for both new and continuing staff, and constantly evaluating and trying to improve what you’re doing.

That leads to the next principle:

Community work is never done. Whatever your work involves – whether a community intervention, an advocacy campaign, a one-time community action to accomplish a particular goal, the founding of an organization, or the establishment of a self-sustaining community initiative – your task isn’t done when you’ve reached your initial goal. If you don’t work to maintain what you’ve done, or assure that others are doing so, it will fall apart. To really bring about change in a community, you have to keep at it indefinitely.

Don’t lose sight of your vision, your principles, and your values in the struggle to get things done. It’s often tempting to take any funding that’s available, or to change what you’re doing in order to be eligible for resources. Sometimes, it might seem that altering your purpose will make it more palatable and less controversial, and will make your life easier. When these possibilities arise, it’s crucial to review what your vision, mission, and ultimate goals are. If these need to change because of changes in circumstances or community needs, then they should. But if the motivation for change conflicts with your values or your vision – or the reason you’re doing the work in the first place – it has to be rejected. The integrity of your cause and your organization is worth far more, and will contribute far more to your effort, than any short-term financial or public relations gain.

The real goal of community work is positive social change. The ideal, in most cases, is to improve the quality of life for a particular group, or for everyone, in the community. This often means changing some fundamental aspects of the way the community thinks or functions – its attitude toward domestic violence, for instance, its commitment to education or to environmental preservation, its consumption of alcohol or unhealthy food, or its concept of social justice. If you can help the community change its attitudes and behaviors in positive ways, it will become a better place for everyone to live.

Core assumptions of the Community Tool Box

As we’ve explained, assumptions are the ideas we take for granted. They’re not the same as values, because they often stem from logical – or what we believe is logical – reasoning, rather than from deeply held beliefs. They differ from principles in that they don’t usually form the basis of our thinking and action, but guide how we respond to our principles.

It’s almost impossible to list all our assumptions, simply because we’re not aware of many of them. They’re so deeply ingrained in our thinking, we don’t even realize that they’re assumptions: they seem like truths. With that in mind, we’ll try to list some of the most important assumptions behind the work of the Community Tool Box.

Just about everyone wants what’s best for the community. People may disagree both on the definition of what’s best, and on how to get there, but their goal is usually similar: to live in a community that’s as good as it can be in as many ways as possible. If we start with that assumption, it becomes easier to establish common ground, and to begin to work together. Demonizing those we disagree with is easy and often satisfying, but it leads nowhere. Assuming instead that others want many of the same things we do can lead to cooperation on some issues, and can at least start a dialogue on others. That’s far better, both practically and otherwise, than two factions stuck in opposition, with no chance for movement.

Once people understand others’ circumstances, they’re usually willing to help. In the quest for equity in a community, we often come up against attitudes that seem mean and unfeeling. In many cases, however, these attitudes are the result of people in different circumstances having little contact with one another. If you have little experience with people receiving public assistance, it can be easy to make assumptions about their circumstances or willingness to work. Learning more about the realities people may face -- including limited income, barriers to employment, lack of access to childcare, transportation challenges, or difficulty obtaining affordable health care -- can provide a fuller understanding of their experiences and make it more difficult to view them through stereotypes.

If people are treated with respect, they usually respond the same way. Whether you’re dealing with participants in an intervention, with people who hold differing perspectives, or with allies, treat them as you’d wish to be treated. The Golden Rule is generally a good guideline, not only morally and ethically, but practically.

Coalitions, partnerships, and collaborations are built one relationship at a time. It may be relatively easy to bring a number of people and groups together around an issue, but getting them to stay and work together is another matter. The relationships that they build with one another are the glue that can make that happen.

Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, used to say that all politics was local. What he really meant was that all politics was personal, that alliances are built relationship by relationship. That’s as true for community activists as it is for members of Congress.

People have to believe something is possible before they’ll work to make it happen. This is the reason that a shared vision is so important in community work, but it also holds true on the individual level. Students, for instance, have to believe they can learn before they’ll put in the concentration and effort needed to do so. If they become too discouraged, the task looks impossible, and it’s easier to give up than to risk continual failure.

An individual or community has to be able to imagine the future in order to make it happen. If there’s no belief in the possibility of change, there’s likely to be no change.

People working together are better off and more successful than people working alone. They’ll have more ideas, develop more capacity to get things done, and feed off one another’s energy in order to keep the effort moving. If it’s possible, concerted action is almost always more effective in the long run than one person or organization going it alone.

The world isn’t perfect; this work is necessary to create positive social change and make it a better place for everyone.

In summary

Underlying every section of the Community Tool Box are the values, principles, and assumptions that the Tool Box team uses to guide its work. These have to do largely with the fundamental dignity and worth of all people; the ability of – and necessity for – communities to solve their own problems and produce their own leaders; the ethical and practical necessities of health and community work; and the need for positive social change.

This section is meant to help Tool Box users understand the perspective of the Community Tool Box, and perhaps make clearer some of what’s presented there. It’s also meant to help users think about their own values, principles, and assumptions, to make them conscious, to examine them, and to continue to hold them up to scrutiny as they do this often difficult and incredibly important work.

What do we mean by values, principles, and assumptions?

___Values are the deeply held beliefs about how the world should be that provide our guidelines for living and behavior.

___Principles are the fundamental scientific, logical, or moral/ethical “truths,” arising from experience, knowledge, and (often) values, on which we base our actions and thinking.

___Assumptions are the next level of truths, the ones we feel we can take for granted, given the principles we have accepted.

Core values of the Community Tool Box

___Everyone in a community has a right to a decent quality of life.

___Everyone is worthy of respect and equal consideration.

___Any community work or research should have the ultimate aim of being useful in improving people’s lives, particularly the lives of those most in need and/or least powerful.

___Racism and bias – because of religion, class, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, disability, etc. – have no place in a civil society.

___Fairness demands that everyone affected by research or by an issue – all stakeholders – should have the opportunity for either direct participation or representation in planning, implementing, and analyzing the resulting research or intervention.

___This work isn’t about power or turf, but about the public good.

Core principles of the Community Tool Box

___“Fair” doesn’t mean that everyone gets the same thing; it means that everyone gets what she needs.

___Community work is far more likely to be successful if it involves all stakeholders from the very beginning.

___Leadership from within the community should be encouraged and nurtured.

___Community work takes careful planning at every stage of the process.

___Evaluation is absolutely necessary, and useful in many ways, although probably most useful as a tool for improving your effort.

___Outcomes matter.

___Time is of the essence.

___Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

___Make sure that your funding and other resources are adequate for what you’re trying to do.

___Community action should take place at the level and time to make it most effective.

___Community intervention should be replicable and sustainable.

___Community work is never done.

___Don’t lose sight of your vision, your principles, and your values in the struggle to get things done.

___The real goal of community work is positive social change.

Assumptions of the Community Tool Box

___Just about everyone wants what’s best for the community.

___Once people understand others’ circumstances, they’re usually willing to help.

___If people are treated with respect, they usually respond the same way.

___Coalitions, partnerships, and collaborations are built one relationship at a time.

___People have to believe something is possible before they’ll work to make it happen.

___People working together are better off and more successful than people working alone.

___The world isn’t perfect; this work is necessary to create positive social change and make it a better place for everyone.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

To improve our communities -- to make them places where all people are healthy, safe, and cared for -- takes a lot of work. As community organizers, we know all too well that we can't do it alone. The ability to partner effectively with others is absolutely essential to doing what we like to call "the work" of building healthy communities.

However, these partnerships don't materialize out of thin air. And once they do occur, the players involved aren't always sure of their roles, or how those roles can come together in a manner that meets everyone's needs and interests. In short, there's often a knowledge gap, even when everyone wants to work together for the same outcomes.

In this section, we'll try to address that gap. We outline a modest proposal for how three key groups -- community partnerships, support and intermediary organizations, and grantmakers -- might work together to make the most of everyone's investments in the work.

We'll start with a brief look at why we focus on community (and systems) change and what we believe are seven key elements in effective community work. This understanding, although laid out elsewhere in the Community Tool Box, forms the basis for later ideas in this section. Then, we will explain who the key players in community work are, and follow up with an understanding of how they can best work together to make the most of everyone's efforts.

Our hope is that, when adapted in local dialogue, this model "memorandum of collaboration" will help guide future community investments.

A focus on community (and systems) change

When we talk about building healthier communities, we mean the process of people working together to address what matters to them -- whether that is reducing violence, revitalizing an urban neighborhood, or promoting child health. Civic engagement is promoted among all of the members of the community. By community, we mean people who share a common place, such as a rural community or urban neighborhood, or experience, including being an adolescent or a member of an underrepresented racial or ethnic group.

To address what matters to community members, we need to change the conditions in which we live, with the hope that changing those conditions will change people's behavior and more distant outcomes. For example, a community organization might make it more difficult for adolescents to buy cigarettes, with the hope that those changes will result in fewer adolescents smoking, and fewer related deaths.

We believe that collaborative partnerships should focus on environmental changes -- bringing about those community and systems changes that modify local conditions. That's because we believe these changes are an intermediate outcome in the long process of community health improvement. Community and systems changes fall into one of three categories, all of which should relate back to community-determined goals:

• New or modified programs -- for example, after-school programs or prevention services
• New or modified policies -- for example, higher fines for selling products that cannot legally be sold to minors or family-friendly policies in businesses
• New or modified practices -- for example, improved access to health services or increased opportunities for academic participation in schools

What makes it work: Seven key factors in community change

Our research and experience -- and that of many others -- suggests that there are seven essential ingredients that contribute to community change.

• Clear vision and mission -- those initiatives with a clear and specific focus, such as increasing rates of childhood immunization or lowering the rate of unemployment, bring about much higher rates of change than broad "healthy communities" efforts which lack a targeted mission and objectives. The vision and mission may reflect a continuum of outcomes, including:
  • Specific issues (e.g., pregnancies among adolescents),
  • Broader interrelated concerns (e.g., youth development), and/or
  • More fundamental social determinants of health and development (e.g., children experiencing poverty).
• Action planning -- Identifying specific community changes (that is, new or modified programs, policies, and practices) to be sought may be the single most important practice that can be implemented. The action plan should be quite precise, specifying with whom, by whom, how, and by when each action step should be carried out.
• Leadership -- A change in leadership can dramatically affect the rate of change brought about by a community group. The loss of strong leadership can be particularly difficult for an organization.
• Resources for community mobilizers -- Hiring community mobilizers or organizers can aid in following up on action plans. It can be very difficult to maintain an organization without some paid staff. Paid organizers can help fan the flames and keep the level of excitement about the organization and its goals at a consistently high level.
• Documentation and feedback on the changes brought about by the organization -- It's also very important that people keep a record of what they have done and how they have done it. Having this history can be an invaluable guide for the organization's work. Looking regularly (at least quarterly) at what the group has done, how quickly it has occurred, and outside events that affect the group's work has been shown to spur groups on to even greater heights.
• Technical assistance -- Outside help with specific actions, such as action planning or securing resources, is also a way to support a group's efforts to transform its community.
• Making outcomes matter -- Finally, grantmakers also have the ability to increase rates of community and systems change through offering incentives or disincentives to their grantees. For example, the annual renewal of multi-year awards or the offering of bonus grants could be based on evidence of progress or accomplishment by the community group.

Who is involved?

Transforming the conditions that affect community health and development requires a broad collaborative partnership among key players. Three distinct groups emerge as playing vital, interdependent roles:

• State and community partnerships
• Support and intermediary organizations
• Grantmakers

State and community partnerships -- those doing the work of community and systems change -- link together people and organizations that have the same goals. For example, a community partnership for universal access to health care might bring together representatives from health care with representatives of groups that have historically faced barriers to access. Together, they might work to make changes throughout the community that would affect access for all. Specific changes might be made in local community-based organizations, health organizations, businesses, schools, the government, financial institutions, and the faith community -- all with the overall goal of access to health care for all.

Support and intermediary organizations -- such as university-based research centers and community-based organizations, help community partners develop the skills they need to be effective. Often, these groups concentrate on improving community members' understanding of the core competencies necessary to do this work. Examples of these competencies include community assessment, strategic planning, community action and advocacy, community evaluation, and securing resources to sustain the effort.

Grantmakers -- help create conditions for success by using requests for proposals to bring people together for a common purpose, such as reducing domestic violence or improving arts education for children. They can also broker connections among groups working in the same community or on the same issue. Finally, they can leverage funding and resources through relationships with other grantmakers and help make outcomes matter.

A proposed "Memorandum of Collaboration"

Our question in this section is, how can these three groups work together most effectively? What are the roles and responsibilities of each that, taken together, will help make our communities healthier places to live?

We'll look again at each of the seven key elements for effective community work that we discussed above, offering timelines and specific roles that partners can assume. These roles and responsibilities are summarized in a table under the Tools tab.

Refining and targeting the partnership's vision, mission, and objectives

How long? This step should take approximately four to six months.

• Community partnership: The community partnership is responsible for selecting a workable (i.e., fairly modest) number of broad goals, such as improving nutrition among students, reducing crime and violence, or increasing the rate of immunization. By specifying these goals, the group can better define and focus their work.
• Support organizations: Support organizations can assist the community partnerships in developing a broad-based vision, and then in framing their objectives in a manner that is both specific and workable. For example, if the community group is interested in education but does not have a specific idea about what should be done, a support organization might suggest the following goal statement:

By 20XX, the graduation rate for youth entering local high schools will increase by 40%. Support organizations will also work with the community partnership to identify community-level indicators that are most likely to give an accurate and sensitive picture of how effective the partnership's efforts have been.

• Grantmakers: Grantmakers can help applicants find the funders who are most appropriate for their work. They can also offer longer-term grants (for example, at least several years) so that grantees can have the long-term support they need to really make a difference. Finally, grantmakers can offer investments that look holistically at the community and its situation.

Developing an action plan for bringing about community and systems change related to community-determined goals for health and development

How long? This step takes approximately six to eight months for the original development, and will then be ongoing through the life of the initiative.

• Community partnership: Building on earlier efforts, collaborating partners should identify specific changes to be brought about. These changes in programs, policies, and practices will be sought throughout the community (for example, in schools, government, business, health and human service organizations, the faith community, and so on). Specific action plans that complement one another should be developed for each objective the community partnership has chosen.

It's very important that the planning process is inclusive, involving people who have significant influence in the community (for example, elected officials), as well as the people who are most affected by the concern (such as residents of neighborhoods with limited economic resources). Finally, it is often helpful to organize members in working committees for each specific objective, such as creating a Task Force on Substance Use. This coordinates and focuses efforts so they will have the greatest possible impact.

• Support organizations: Support organizations can assist with action planning by suggesting possible actions, and making members of community partnerships aware of "best practices" (successful actions taken by other community groups) for each objective. They can also be very helpful in supporting the early stages of action planning. For example, they might organize and run planning retreats for the community group.
• Grantmakers: Grantmakers can help community groups get in touch with other organizations with special expertise in specific goal areas. For example, if one of the goals a grantee has is to promote caring relationships for children, the grantmaker might get the group in touch with another of their grantees doing similar work in another community or state. Grantmakers can also assist in bringing about broader changes, such as implementing more effective grantmaking practices; or helping change regional planning policies that concentrate poverty in a few urban neighborhoods. These "systems changes" can work to improve the conditions under which community improvement efforts occur.

Developing and supporting leadership within communities

How long? This is an ongoing task.

• Community partnership: Members of the partnership can enhance and support existing leadership through mechanisms such as meetings and retreats. They will also seek to develop new generations of leaders by creating opportunities for new leadership to develop, through mentoring newer leaders, and by supporting local young people in leadership roles.
• Support organizations: Support organizations can use direct personal assistance, support groups, and print and online resources to support local leadership in their efforts. They can also help to develop formal (e.g. courses) and informal learning communities (e.g., support networks).
• Grantmakers: Grantmakers can support partners in acquiring additional resources for leadership development. Using traditional face-to-face gatherings and communications technologies such as video conferencing and online forums, grantmakers can help community partnerships connect leaders to each other across distance and topic area. They can also connect them to additional resources to support their work.

Documenting the process of community change and improvement, and using feedback to improve and celebrate efforts

How long? This is an ongoing task that should occur on a monthly basis.

• Community partnership: Using a documentation and evaluation system, members of the partnership will gather information on changes facilitated by the partnership. They will also assist in obtaining other information to help understand and be accountable for their work, including success stories and community-level indicators related to their objectives.

Finally, they will review data on intermediate outcomes (community and systems change) at least quarterly, and data on more distant outcomes (community-level indicators) at least annually. This will help guide improvements and promote the celebration of accomplishments.

• Support organizations: Support organizations can facilitate a conversation about what are important markers of success. They will establish and maintain a system for documenting community and systems changes. Finally, they will help local documenters in clarifying and interpreting information, and in communicating important news to funders and the broader community.
• Grantmakers: Grantmakers can request and accept information on progress made by the community group for its grant status reports and grant applications. To maximize efficiency, they should work with other grantmakers and organizations to encourage acceptance of the same data for different reports the community group will be responsible for. If needed, they can help secure access to data on community-level indicators. Grantmakers can also help document their own contributions to local efforts (such as facilitating systems changes or brokering access to resources).

Securing and providing technical assistance for local groups' efforts

How long? This is an ongoing task.

• Community partnership: Members of the partnership should look for help from organizations with specialized knowledge, such as those which specialize in an issue that the partnership is interested in (for example, HIV prevention or child maltreatment). In addition, the partnerships should develop their own capacity to provide technical assistance, such as in action planning or documentation, for other communities working on similar issues.
• Support organizations: Support organizations can provide technical assistance to community partnerships in implementing and documenting their work. This might include providing training materials and/or workshops in skills such as community assessment, action planning, leadership development, and evaluation.
• Grantmakers: Grantmakers can help fund support organizations, and they can also foster relationships between support organizations and the community partnerships that might benefit from their help.

Securing and providing financial resources for work in local communities

How long? We recommend an initial ten-year commitment that is potentially renewable; further, we suggest multi-year grants with their renewal based on evidence of progress.

• Community partnership: As appropriate, partners will hire and support community organizers responsible for helping bring about the community and systems changes identified in the group's action plan. In applications for grant funding, the partners should provide evidence of the need for (and value of) community investment. This includes using quantitative information on community and systems change and improvement through community-level indicators, and qualitative information such as success stories.
• Support organizations: Support organizations can assist local documenters in analyzing, interpreting, and communicating data for use in grant status reports and "progress to date" sections of grant applications. This and related qualitative information such as success stories can be used to help leverage resources as the community's accomplishments are communicated to prospective funders.
• Grantmakers: Grantmakers can facilitate the development of grant proposals that support a long-term, comprehensive community change and improvement effort. Grantmakers can also help the community partnership make necessary connections with other funders to help generate the resources needed for the effort. This is particularly important because often, effective community work takes a substantial amount of money and other resources -- quite possibly, more than a single grantmaker is willing or able to invest.

Making outcomes matter in working with local communities

How long? This is an ongoing task.

• Community partnership: The partnership should agree to submit annual status reports that include information on evidence of community and systems change as well as progress towards affecting the bottom line. To be fully accountable, they should agree to share evidence of accomplishments (and needed changes) with funders and the broader community.
• Support organizations: Support organizations should assist the community partnership in documenting, analyzing, and communicating data on the process of community change and improvement for grant status reports.
• Grantmakers: Grantmakers can require annual grant status reports that include evidence of progress. To maximize accountability to the community and to grantmakers, grantmakers can try to "make outcomes matter" in three ways.

First, annual renewal of multi-year awards can be based on the evidence of progress. Initially, progress should be judged largely on community involvement and on the rate and kind of community and systems change facilitated by the community partnership. In later years, improvement on community-level indicators will serve as additional evidence of success.

Second, bonus grants (up to one-third of the grant award) may be earned for outstanding accomplishments, such as high rates of changes on issues that are important to community members. For example, the community might show a markedly decreased rate of pregnancies among adolescents that can be traced back to the partnership's efforts.

Third, outcome dividends could be made available to enhance accountability for longer-term community-level outcomes, such as a lowered rate of substance use or improved school performance. The "outcome dividend" is a cash bonus that is calculated based on cost-benefit estimates associated with improvements. The outcome dividend will be deposited in a local "Community Trust Account" and reinvested by the community partnership for work on community-determined goals.

In summary

Community health -- the well-being of the people who share a common place or experience -- requires changes in both the behaviors of large numbers of individuals and in the conditions that affect their health. Although community members are best positioned to determine their concerns and strategies, other partners can help with technical support, and in obtaining financial and other needed resources. In this section, we recommend adjusting the related roles and responsibilities of community partnerships, support organizations, and grantmakers. The aim is to build the capacity of community members to address what matters to them. Our hope is that these ideas for a new "social contract" will stimulate dialogue and enhance collaboration among those committed to building healthier communities.

___You know that building healthier communities means the process of people working together to address issues that matter to them.

___You understand the differences between the three types of community change.

___You can list the 7 key components of community change.

1. Clear vision and mission
2. Action planning
3. Leadership
4. Resources for community organizers
5. Documentation and feedback
6. Technical assistance
7. Making outcomes matter

___You can distinguish between state and community partnerships, support and intermediary organizations, and funders using your knowledge of their characteristics and functions.

___You have developed a timeline based on the steps in collaboration.

Tool #1: Working Together - Roles and Responsibilities in Community Work

Roles and Responsibilities in Community Work

Partner Task	Community Parnership	Support Organizations	Funders
Develop the vision, mission and objectives	Develop a vision Select broad purpose and goals	Frame their objectives; identify community-level indicators	Help applicants find appropriate funders Offer long term support Offer less categorical, and most holistic investments
Develop an action plan	Identify specific changes Develop an inclusive planning process Organize committees for each objective	Suggest action steps Make partnerships aware of "promising practices" Support early stages of action planning	Help community groups get in touch with others in the field Assist in bringing about broader changes
Develop and support leadership	Enhance and support leadership Develop new leaders	Skill training using personal assistance, support groups and resources	Acquire resources for leadership development
Document and feedback	Gather information on changes Obtain other information Review data	Establish and maintain a system of documentation focused on tracking intermediate outcomes related to the mission	Request information on progress made Work with other grantmakers to accept the same data Document their own contributions
Secure and provide technical assistance	Look for help from organizations with specialized knowledge Develop their own technical assistance capacity	Provide assistance in implementing and documenting their work Provide training materials and/or workshops	Fund support organizations Foster relationships between support organizations and community partnerships
Secure and provide financial resources	Provide quantitative and qualitative information on community investments	Assist documenters in analyzing, interpreting and communicating the data	Request long-term, comprehensive proposals Broker connections with other funders
Make outcomes matter	Submit to an annual status report	Assist documenters in analyzing, interpreting, and communicating data	Renewal based on evidence of progress Bonus grants Outcome dividends

Tool #2: Strategic Partnership Development

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section (pdf).

 

What is community organization?

Community organization is the process of people coming together to address issues that matter to them. Community members developing plans for how the city can be a place where all its children do well. Neighbors joining in protests to stop drugs and violence in their community. Members of faith communities working together to build affordable housing. These are all examples of community organization efforts.

What are the types of communities that organize?

Community organization can happen in the variety of contexts that define "community."

Shared place

People come together who share a common geographic place such as a neighborhood, city, or town. For example, local residents might come together to address neighborhood concerns such as safety, housing, or basic services. Problem solving through community-based organizations (CBOs), neighborhood associations, and tenants' organizations are common forms of place-based practice.

Shared experience

Community organizing also occurs among people who share an experience, such as a shared workplace or shared experience with disabilities or health disparities. Those who share a common identity may organize around issues, such as discrimination, that are barriers to achieving common goals.

Shared interest

Organizing frequently occurs among those who have concerns about the same issues such as jobs, housing, child well-being, or education.

What are some models of practice in community organization?

Should community organization be about collaboration among people sharing common interests or confrontation with those in power? This is a false dichotomy that ignores the context of the work. Several models of practice emerged in various contexts of community organization work (Rothman, 1995).

Social planning

Social planning uses information and analysis to address substantive community issues such as education, child development, or environmental health. For example, planning councils or task forces engage (usually) professionals in setting goals and objectives, coordinating efforts, and reviewing goal attainment.

Social planning might occur in a context of either consensus or conflict about goals and means. For example, information about high rates of pregnancies among adolescents, and factors that contribute to them, may help communities focus on the goal of preventing pregnancies among adolescents, and even decisions about using controversial means such as sexuality education and enhanced access to contraceptives. Use of social planning helps build agreement on common results.

Social action

Social action involves efforts to increase the power and resources of people experiencing economic barriers or limited access to power. For example, advocacy organizations, such as those for disability rights or tobacco control, often use social action approaches. They might arrange disruptive events -- including lawsuits, sit-ins, or boycotts -- to draw attention and focus to their concerns by those in power.

Organizers create events, such as a protest or strike, that those in positions of power (such as employers) can avoid or stop by coming to an agreement. For example, people with disabilities might stop picketing a business when it modifies policies that discriminate against people with disabilities. Or, a tobacco company might avoid a lawsuit by tobacco control advocates by eliminating advertising directed at minors. Social action tactics are used in lots of situations involving conflicting interests and imbalance in power; they usually take place when conventional negotiations aren't working.

Locality development

Locality development is another way to get people to work together. It is the process of reaching group consensus about common concerns and collaborating in problem solving. For example, local residents in urban neighborhoods or rural communities may cooperate in defining local issues, such as access to job opportunities or better education, and in taking action to address the concerns.

Community partnerships or coalitions

There are many hybrid models that combine elements of the three approaches. For example, community partnerships or coalitions combine elements of social planning and locality development when people who share common concerns, such as child well-being or substance use, come together to address them. The goal of many coalitions is to change community conditions -- specific programs, policies, and practices -- that protect against or reduce risk for these concerns. These models, and their variations, may be implemented at local, state, regional, and even broader levels.

What are some lessons learned about community organization and change?

The following summaries come from lessons learned from various experiences with community organization practice. The lessons are organized by broad topics related to the work of community organization and change.

The lessons come through experience within:

• Understanding (and affecting) community context
• Community planning
• Community action and mobilization
• Understanding (and addressing) opposition and resistance
• Intervention and maintenance of efforts
• Promoting community change
• Influencing systems (or broader) change
• Achieving community-level improvements

Understanding (and affecting) community context

High-profile commissions and reports create conditions for experimentation and optimism about public problem solving.

For example, during the 1960s, the U.S. President's Commission on Juvenile Delinquency helped spawn innovative efforts such as those of Mobilization for Youth in New York City. Similarly, in the early 1990s, a national-level task force on infant mortality helped launch a multi-site demonstration program known as Healthy Start. High-profile studies such as this help set the public agenda by highlighting what should be addressed and how. Prominent reports frame the dominant explanations for societal problems. For example, a report could focus attention on poverty as a "root cause" of many societal problems or infant mortality as a pressing issue. It might also feature a promising alternative solution, such as equal access to health care or legal assistance, as an innovative way to address social problems.

You might need to use more than one model of community organization practice to fit the variety of contexts in which community work is done.

For example, social planning or locality development strategies may fit a context of consensus about common purpose such as working together to reduce violence. By contrast, the strategy of social action, with its disruptive activity and related conflict, may be more appropriate in a context of conflicting interests, such as organizing for decent wages or safe conditions in the workplace.

Cross-cutting issues are good contexts for community organization practice.

Some community issues, for example, neighborhood safety or substance use, affect the majority of people who share a common place. They also offer a solid basis around which a critical mass of local people can work together. When community organization efforts involve people from diverse backgrounds of income and power -- such as educational or public health improvements that affect people across social class -- substantive change is a lot more likely to happen.

Community organization can't always be separated from politics or controversy.

Consider the case of people coming together in a rural community to address issues of toxic waste and environmental pollution. Public debate may focus on both the economic interests of affected businesses, and the health concerns of local residents. It's typical that when two parties are on opposite sides of an issue, neither will get everything they want. Inevitably, a resolution is going to involve politics: the art of reconciling or balancing competing interests.

People experiencing poverty can make substantial gains (or losses) during periods of tumultuous change, and related realignment of political parties.

Would there have been a Civil Rights Act of 1964 without rioting and a realignment of the Democratic Party? Political parties want to avoid mass protest or any unorganized behavior if it's at all possible, by changing (or appearing to change) policies, programs, and practices related to voiced concerns. Since mass protest is something those in power try to avoid, it's an important means by which people experiencing poverty -- with otherwise limited resources -- can achieve power and influence.

Strategies used in community organization should match the times.

In times of turmoil, organizing protests and strikes by the people affected by the issues can yield maximum gains. By contrast, in the long times between periods of disruptive actions, community organization might use less conflict-oriented approaches, such as locality development or collaborative partnerships, to define and pursue common purposes.

Mass protest and grassroots community organization can work together.

When public protests and other forms of disruption increase, so do the grassroots organizations that address prevailing issues. For example, protests regarding pro-life (anti-abortion) interests were associated with increases in local organizations supporting this and other related causes. When public concern declines, so does organizing at the grassroots. Although protest nourishes organization, the reverse does not hold. Organization doesn't produce protest -- it may even retard it (as when agencies may avoid controversy to protect their funding).

Community organizations form when people are ready to be organized.

Although organizations may exist to promote interest in an issue, such as child hunger, little will happen until a significant number of people care about the issue and feel that their actions can make a difference. A big challenge is figuring out when your issue matters to enough people who share a common place or experience, so they can be organized around the issue.

Institutions that want to avoid conflict and controversy may be a difficult base for community organization work.

Consider the case of a school-community initiative to prevent pregnancies among adolescents or HIV. Although schools are well positioned to deliver information and health services to young people, school officials often oppose providing sexuality education or enhanced access to contraceptives for those who choose to be sexually active. So, human service agencies and educational institutions that rely on public funding may be bad choices for lead agencies in community organization efforts that are likely to draw opposition.

Community planning

Societal and community problems are evidence that institutions are not functioning for people.

Much of the framing of societal problems in the 1980s and 1990s focused on the personal attributes of those immediately affected. For example, stated "causes" of high rates of youth crime may highlight the values and behavior of young people and their families such as "poor anger control" or "bad parenting." Such analyses rarely emphasize the contribution of broader environmental conditions, such as availability of jobs or chronic stresses associated with low income, and the institutions responsible for them. In addition to individual responsibility, public institutions -- such as schools, business, religious organizations, and government -- should be held accountable for widespread problems in living.

It's essential to set realistic goals for community organization efforts.

Community-based initiatives often overpromise, particularly with grantmakers. Setting unrealistic objectives -- for example, to reduce academic (school) failure by 50 percent in the next two years -- sets the group up for perceived failure. Organizations should carefully assess the feasibility of their proposed aims.

If we set only modest goals, we will probably achieve less.

Although goals ought to be achievable, they should also be challenging. Objectives can be overly modest. For example, an overly modest goal might be to reduce rates of school failure (now at 80 percent) by 10 percent within three years. Insufficiently challenging objectives may not bring forth the necessary effort, resources, and degree of change needed to address the community's concern.

Social planning can engage experts (and local people) in helping address societal problems, particularly when there is consensus on the issue.

We can advance locally valued purposes by engaging technical experts and local people in defining problems and solutions. Outside experts, such as university-based researchers or public officials, can assist local people in obtaining and interpreting data, facilitating the process of setting priorities, and identifying promising alternatives. But planning can go beyond the traditional roles of facilitating coordination and communication among agencies to identifying environmental conditions to be changed.

Locality development or self-help efforts can also assist in addressing community issues.

Local people have the experiential knowledge to come together to define local issues, such as neighborhood safety or jobs, and take action in addressing them. Such self-help efforts have their roots in the settlement house movement in urban neighborhoods. They are guided by respect for the autonomy of local people to decide (and act on) what matters to them.

Local control can hinder collaboration at broader levels of planning.

Planning at higher levels than the neighborhood, city, or town may be necessary to address the broader conditions that affect community organization efforts. For example, the growing concentration of poverty in the urban core, a result of regional planning decisions and other broader policies, is a structural issue that affects community development efforts within urban neighborhoods. Although it's desirable for community building, strong local control may hinder the broader planning and coordination necessary to address local issues.

Community action and mobilization

Each individual has the capacity for self-determination, self-help, and improvement.

A basic assumption of community organization is that people most affected by local concerns, including those labeled as "clients" of agency services, can do something about them. This "strengths" perspective highlights people's assets and abilities, not their deficits and limitations. While it acknowledges personal and community competence, it also recognizes the importance of environmental supports and barriers that affect engagement in community life. For self-determination efforts to be successful, we must create opportunities for working together, and increase the positive consequences of community action.

You can't do it by yourself.

Addressing what matters to local people -- good health, education, and jobs, for example -- is beyond any one of us. The idea of "ecology" -- interactions among organisms and the environment -- helps us see community action as occurring within a web of relationships. Community life is enhanced when individual strengths are joined in common purpose -- an expression of the principle of interdependence. We are interconnected: each of us has a responsibility to make this a world good for all of us.

Strong leaders are present in even communities with very limited economic resources.

Authentic leaders -- those who enable constituents to see higher possibilities, and pursue them together -- are among us. Yet, they may not always be acknowledged by those in authority. When doing community organizing in public housing in communities facing economic barriers, I found that a simple question helped in "discovering" local leaders: "Who do children go to when they are hurt and an adult isn't home?" Such questions help us discover the "servant leaders" among us: those who "lead" by addressing the interests of their "followers."

Community practitioners should never get used to the terrible conditions they see in their community work.

Those doing community work, particularly in communities with limited economic resources, are exposed to horrible things: children in uncaring and unhealthy environments; adults without adequate food, clothing, and shelter; and other conditions essential for a decent life. Practitioners should avoid becoming desensitized about how they feel about what they see and hear. Disclosing experiences and feelings to colleagues is one way to help support each other. Community activists must also decide how to use those feelings -- such as anger about conditions in which some people live -- to energize and sustain their work.

People's beliefs and values enable them to stay committed.

To make a difference, those doing community work must be in it for the long haul. People's values, such as fairness or respect for the dignity of others, help sustain their efforts. For instance, a personal or family history of discrimination -- a common experience for many people from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups -- may incline us to embrace the value of social justice and to work for equality of opportunity.

The work of community organization is like that of a "secular church."

Faith communities and religious institutions help shape our beliefs about what is right and good, such as our responsibility to care for others. Community-based organizations, such as a coalition addressing homelessness or tenants' rights organization, call us to serve the common good -- things beyond ourselves. As such, they enable us to devote our lives to higher purposes, while working in this world.

Community practitioners have few opportunities to reflect on the work.

Those doing the work of community building are often consumed by its demands. For example, leaders and staff of community-based organizations rarely take time to consider the lessons learned about community action, barriers and resources, or other features of their work. Personal reflection journals and periodic group retreats help leaders and groups to reflect on and review the initial purposes and recent directions of their organizations. As such, they promote "praxis" -- the joining of understanding (theory) and action (practice).

Responding to events and opportunities to build community often takes us beyond what we know.

Community practice is largely an art form. Effective intervention is shaped more by trial and error than by tested general statements about the conditions under which specified interventions (the independent variable) affect desired behavior and outcomes (the dependent variables). Yet, attention to the conditions that matter to local people -- crime, substance use, and poverty, for example -- cannot wait for the findings of research trials. We must be decisive in the face of uncertainty, even when the scientific evidence for a chosen course of action is inadequate.

Understanding (and addressing) opposition and resistance

Societal problems sometimes serve the interests of those in power.

For example, a regulatory policy that permits environmental polluters to go unpunished serves the economic interests of businesses that pollute, and those elected and appointed officials who may benefit from campaign contributions or bribes. Similarly, the existence of drugs and violence may indirectly benefit elected officials since they often gain public support when they rant against perpetrators of drugs and violence. When those in authority oppose community action efforts (or ignore appeals for substantive intervention), there may be a disconnect between the public interest (common good) and the private interests of those with disproportionate influence.

Racial and ethnic tension and controversies have disrupted and destroyed many community organization efforts.

Race and ethnic differences matter in this work. For instance, most African Americans share a common history of discrimination based on race, such as being followed more closely in a store or being ignored by cabs in a city. When you are part of an underrepresented racial or ethnic group, people may assume they can think and speak for you, even if they have given no evidence that they care about you. Accordingly, understandable distrust of the "other" (the dominant culture) may breed conflict that disrupts reciprocity and collaboration among people of different races and cultures.

Social action tactics, such as disruptive protest, have many detractors.

Participating in (or supporting) protest can be dangerous, especially for those who remain in the community. For example, following a school boycott launched by residents of a public housing community facing economic barriers, it was my friend Myrtle Carter, a mother receiving public assistance and visible leader, who was subjected to police harassment. She was arrested and jailed for a minor parking violation while we outside organizers who were also part of the effort experienced only small inconveniences. Activists using protest tactics should expect those in power to retaliate, even by establishing criminal penalties for particularly effective disruptive actions such as strikes.

Less in-your-face social action approaches can produce a strong political base from which to make change.

For example, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) appeared to be relatively effective in attracting support (and avoiding opposition) for their causes. Consistent with the "I Ching" and other traditions of Eastern philosophy, less direct or forceful actions may be less likely to beget opposition and adverse reaction.

Opposition and resistance may come in many forms.

An analysis of the advocacy literature suggests different ways in which change efforts might be blunted. These include deflecting attention from the issue, delaying a response, denying the problem or request, discounting the problem or the group, deceiving the public, dividing and conquering the organization, appeasing leadership with short-term gains, discrediting group members, or destroying the group with slur campaigns through the media. Skilled practitioners can help group members recognize (and avoid or counteract) sources and modes of opposition.

Community organizations may respond to opposition with appropriate counteractions.

Consider the case of local public assistance officials (the opposition) who discount claims of a disability rights group that people with disabilities are being denied assistance unfairly. To counteract this opposition, disability advocates might document the number and kinds of cases denied, and use media advocacy about the consequences of denying eligibility to arouse public concern. Depending on the nature and form of opposition, appropriate counteractions may include reframing the issues, turning negatives into positives, going public with tactics being used against the group, concentrating the organization's strength where the opposition is weaker, and knowing when to negotiate.

Opposition to change may be like an onion.

Advocates should expect multiple layers of opposition and resistance to community and system change. For example, community organizations working for better schools may face resistance initially from school board officials; later, from local principals; and still later, from teachers. Peel off one layer, and another form of resistance or opposition may be there to protect vested interests.

Intervention and maintenance of efforts

The strategy of community organization should fit the situation.

The broad and specific means of intervention should match the ends, and the context. For example, social planning -- using technical information often with the guidance of outside experts -- may assist in defining goals when people share common interests. Similarly, locality development -- featuring self-help efforts of local people -- may be appropriate for reducing a particular problem, such as substance use or neighborhood safety, around which there is widespread agreement. In contrast, social action -- with its disruptive tactics and related conflict -- may be needed in contexts of opposing interests such as in reducing discrimination or disparities in income or power.

Using multiple strategies usually has an advantage over any single strategy.

Some initiatives -- for instance, a campaign for school reform -- get stuck using one preferred means of action, such as collaborative planning or disruptive tactics, even when the goals or conditions shift. By invoking only one strategy, the organization's actions may be easier to ignore and the benefits of complementary approaches may go untapped. For example, the threat of disruptive tactics (social action) may make support for self-help efforts (locality development) more likely. Flexibility in strategy, and use of multiple means, may enhance community efforts and outcomes.

Being in two cultures promotes creativity.

Some community practitioners operate in more than one system of influence. For example, those who combine research and practice must respect the influences of both academic disciplines and members of community-based organizations. Being open to different audiences helps integrate disparate ideas, discover novel solutions, and transform practice.

The work of community organization takes time, and follow-through.

Mobilizing people for action requires substantial time and effort. Making the calls and personal contacts to bring about a change in school policy, for example, cannot be done solely by volunteers. The stimulation and coordination of community work, like any other valued work, should be paid for. Without salaries for community mobilizers or organizers, follow-through on planned actions is rare.

External support may be both a necessity and a trap for community organizations.

Community organization efforts seldom are maintained without external resources. Yet, financial support usually has strings attached. For example, accepting money from foundations or the government may restrict advocacy efforts. Although often a necessity, outside resources may come at the price of compromising the group's goals or available means of action.

Community organizations often fade away.

When the issue that a community organization was formed around begins to fade, so may the organization. For example, a taxpayer rights organization may dissolve when its goal of blocking a particular public expenditure, such as a school bond issue, is resolved. Organizations that endure after the issue subsides may lose members unless they reinvent themselves to address other emerging issues.

Organizations need small wins.

"Small wins" are shorter-term, controllable opportunities that can make a tangible difference. For example, a good neighborhood organizer might work for improved trash pickup or more streetlights to provide (literally) visible benefits of group action. Without the small victories, community organizations won't retain current members -- or attract new ones.

Promoting community change

The central ideal of community organization practice is service.

Practitioners' interests should always be lower on the list than the interests of the people served. Yet, when disciplines, such as social welfare or public health, market training for "professionals" in the work of community organization, they risk creating professions in which the practitioners benefit more than the people served. Professions that certify people -- and not promising practices or demonstrably effective methods -- may emphasize the interests of professionals (or guild interests), and not those experiencing the problems.

Community organization must go beyond the process of bringing people together.

For some practitioners, dialogue among representatives of different groups is a sufficient "outcome" of community development efforts. Yet, local people who come together to address what matters to them are usually interested in going beyond talk, and on to action and achieving results. Community organization efforts should bring about tangible benefits such as community change, problem solving, and furthering social justice.

The primary need is not for individuals to adjust to their world, but for environments to change so people can attain their goals.

Much framing of societal problems focuses on the deficits of those most affected. For example, prominent labels for causes of academic failure might include "poor motivation" (of young people) or "poor monitoring" (by parents). Alternatively, analyses of academic failure might address such environmental conditions as "few opportunities to do academic work" (in schools) and "limited opportunities for employment" (following school). Community health and well-being are private and public matters, calling for both individual and social responsibility.

Community-based organizations can function as catalysts for change.

Effective community organizations transform the environment: they alter programs, policies, and practices related to the group's mission. For example, a disability rights organization might modify policies regarding employment discrimination against people with disabilities or establish new job training programs that accommodate people with different disabilities. In their role as catalysts for change, community organizations convene others, broker relationships, and leverage resources for shared purposes.

Influencing systems (or broader) change

The level(s) of intervention should reflect the multiple levels that contribute to the problem.

Consider the typical interventions for most societal problems. For example, job training to address unemployment or drug awareness programs to counter substance use are typical of initiatives trying to change the behavior of those with limited power who are closest to the "problem," for instance, adults with lower incomes (unemployment) or young people (substance use).

When used alone, service programs and targeted interventions for adults or young people at increased risk may deflect attention away from more root causes, such as poverty and the conditions of opportunity that affect behavior at a variety of levels. Resolution of many societal issues, such as crime or unemployment, requires changes in decisions made by corporate and political decisionmakers at levels higher than the local community.

Systems change does not occur simply by reporting felt needs to appointed or elected officials.

For those with higher economic or political status, simply expressing a concern may have influence on decisions that affect them. A variety of traditional means is available to such groups as a way of exerting influence; they include petitioning, lobbying, influencing the media, supporting political candidates, and voting in large numbers. These means are largely unavailable to those most affected by many societal problems, however, such as children and people experiencing poverty. Marginalized groups lack the resources to exert influence in conventional ways.

The great power of social movements is in communicating a different vision of the world.

Marginalized groups use the drama of protest -- and the conflict it provokes -- to display realities not widely regarded as important. For example, the media may cover a strike and related protests by farm workers or coal miners, and the violence it often evokes from owners, the police, or others in power. Media coverage helps convey the story of the conditions faced by the protesters, and the unfairness of the action (or inaction) of businesses or institutions that are targeted. The dramatic nature of protest and related conflict can help politicize voters who, through enhanced public support of the positions of marginalized groups, can exert influence on those in power.

Community organizations should seek changes within their power to manage.

Since ignoring is likely and retaliation is possible, small organizations with limited power should avoid seeking fundamental changes in the system. For example, a single grassroots organization in a neighborhood with limited economic resources may not be positioned to effect systems changes such as altering the priorities of grantmakers who support work in the community. But, small and scrappy organizations may succeed in bringing about community change when their bulkier counterparts do not.

Community and broader systems change can be brought about through collaboration.

Collaboration involves alliances among groups that share risks, resources, and responsibilities to achieve their common interests. For example, local community-based organizations interested in the well-being of children can link with each other to create local programs (e.g., mentoring), policies (e.g., flextime to be with children after school) and practices (e.g., adults caring for children not their own).

Additionally, broader partnerships with grantmakers, government agencies, and business councils can affect the conditions in which change occurs at the community level. An example is altering grantmaking programs to support collaborative work or promoting child-friendly business policies through industrial revenue bonds or new corporate policies. Collaborative partnerships help bring about community and system change when they link local people to resources and institutions at the multiple levels in which change should occur to address common interests.

Achieving community-level improvements

Societal problems often recur.

Consider the problem of gang violence that occurred after World War II and recurred in the 1990s. Broad social conditions -- wide income disparities, weak social ties, and related mistrust of others -- appear to affect the likelihood of societal problems such as increased death rates, infant mortality, and perhaps violence involving young people. Improvements achieved in one era may need to be reestablished by future generations that must again transform the environmental conditions that support the recurrence of societal problems.

Most community efforts "chip" away at the problem.

The majority of community interventions do not match the scale of the problem. For example, a community effort may prepare 10 people who are unemployed to compete for only one available job, or may create 100 jobs in a community with thousands of people who are unemployed. We often make small changes in a context that remains unchanged.

Real change is rare.

Significant improvements in community-level outcomes are highly unusual -- such as cases of reducing rates of pregnancies among adolescents or academic failure by 50 percent or more. Yet, in requests for grants, community-based organizations often promise (and grantmakers expect) statements of objectives that indicate significant improvements as a result of only modest investments over a short time. We should not perpetuate myths about what most interventions can actually accomplish.

Development of community leadership may be a positive byproduct of even a "failed" community effort.

Although an initiative may not produce statistically significant changes in community benchmarks or indicators, it may develop new leaders or build capacity to address new issues in the future. For instance, a public health initiative that produces only modest reductions in rates of pregnancies among adolescents may develop the capacity to produce changes that matter, such as four years later when the group switches its efforts from pregnancies among adolescents to child well-being.

Community documentation and evaluation must help us see what is actually achieved by community initiatives, including evidence of intermediate outcomes (e.g., community and system change) and other indicators of success or "failure" (i.e., community capacity over time and across issues).

Optimal health and development for all people may be beyond the capacity of what communities can achieve, but not beyond what they should seek.

Most community-based efforts, such as those to create healthy environments for all our children, will fall short of their objectives. Yet, justice requires that we create conditions in which all people can make the most of their different individual strengths and circumstances. Support for community initiatives should be guided by what we must do for current and future generations, not by what limited gains we have made in the past.

In Summary

The fundamental purpose of community organization -- to help discover and enable people's shared goals -- is informed by values, knowledge, and experience. This section outlined lessons learned from the experiences of an earlier generation of community organization practitioners (each with an average of over 40 years of experience). The insights were organized under broad themes of community organization practice.

Community organization often has a bottom-up or grassroots quality: people with relatively little power coming together at the local level to address issues that matter to them. For example, grassroots efforts may involve planning by members of a neighborhood association, protests by a tenants' organization, or self-help efforts of families facing economic barriers to build local housing.

Yet, community organization may also function as a top-down strategy, such as when elected or appointed officials -- or others in power -- join allies in advancing policies or resource allocations that serve their interests. Bottom-up and top-down approaches to community organization may work in conflict, such as when appointed officials conspire to make voter registration of emerging underrepresented groups more difficult. Top-down and bottom-up efforts may also work in concert, as when grassroots mobilization, such as letter writing or public demonstrations, helps support policy changes advanced by cooperative elected or appointed officials working at broader levels.

Community organization strategies may be used to serve -- or hinder -- the values and aims of particular interest groups. Consider the issue of abortion: those organizing under the pro-choice banner may use protest tactics to advance policies and practices that further individual freedom (a woman's "right" to choose whether to have an abortion). Alternatively, those working on the pro-life side may organize to seek changes consistent with the value of security and survival (an unborn child's "right" to life). Depending on our values and interests, we may support or denounce the use of similar disruptive tactics by proponents or those who hold opposing perspectives on the issue.

What is the relationship between personal values and qualities -- and the experiences and environments that shaped them -- and the work of community organization and change? Personal background, such as a basic spirituality or a history of discrimination associated with underrepresented racial or ethnic group status, can predispose a practitioner to support particular values, such as social justice or equality, consistent with the work of community organization.

What qualities and behaviors of community organizers, such as respect for others and willingness to listen, help bring people together? Many of these attributes and behaviors -- including clarity of vision, capacity to support and encourage, and tolerance of ambiguity -- are similar to those of other leaders.

How do we cultivate such natural leaders, and nurture and support their work in bringing people together? Further research may help clarify the relationship between personal qualities and behaviors, such as those of the "servant" or "servant leader," the broader environment that nurtures or hinders them, and the outcomes of community organization efforts.

Finally, leadership in community work may begin with a few good questions:

• What is desired now, in this place, by these people?
• What is success?
• Under what conditions is improvement possible?
• How can we establish and sustain conditions for effective community problem solving over time and across concerns?
• How would we know it?

Imagine a "living democracy" -- large numbers of people, in many different communities, engaged in dialogue about shared concerns and collective action toward improvement. Perhaps these lessons -- inspired by reflections of an earlier generation of community organization practitioners -- can help us better understand and improve the essential work of democracy: people coming together to address issues that matter to them.

You understand that success in community organization comes through experience with:

___Understanding (and affecting) community context

Practitioners must be able to both understand and create the conditions under which community organization efforts have the best chance for success.

___Community planning

Community planners need to help people agree on common goals and means for addressing them.

___Community action and mobilization

Community leaders and members must commit to act with and learn from each other in this hard work.

___Understanding (and addressing) opposition and resistance

To be effective, community activists must be able to defeat and counteract the efforts of those with different interests.

___Intervention and maintenance of efforts

Community practitioners must be able to implement multiple strategies and sustain local efforts.

___Promoting community change

Community leaders and members must be able to change programs, policies, and practices related to shared goals.

___Influencing systems (or broader) change

To enhance chances of success, community practitioners try to change the conditions under which local communities seek improvement.

___Achieving community-level improvements

To make broader indicators of success, community members must build leadership and affect change that is large enough and long enough to make a difference.

You know the characteristics that can define a "community"

___Shared geographic location

___Similar experiences

___Shared goal

You know the types of community organizations that can work together

___Neighborhoods

___Union Workers

___Farmers

___Religious Groups

___Ethnic Groups

___Elderly

___Disabled

You know the key points for community organization

___Plan

___Set goals and objectives

___Get assistance from within the community

___Take action

___Always follow-up and maintain

Example: Tireless 'Ms. Jessie' Cultivates Next Generation of Neighborhood Leaders

Jessie Jefferson, 79, is developing a new generation of neighborhood leaders as a consultant and community organizer for a host of neighborhoods: Town Fork Creek, Oak Park, Vineyard, South Roundtop, Seven Oaks, Blue Valley, McCoy, Washington Wheatley, and Independence Plaza.

And she fights for them, arguing for commitments from city department heads and council members to carve out financial support for these neighborhood associations so they can do the work of preserving and growing community power. Read more.

Tool #1 Supporting the Work of Community Organization and Change

Understanding (and affecting) community context

Practitioners must be able to both understand and create the conditions under which community organization efforts have the best chance for success.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

•  Assessing Community Needs and Resources
•  Understanding the Issue

 Community planning

Community planners need to help people agree on common goals and means for addressing them.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

• Coalition Building
• Developing a Strategic Plan
• Developing an Organizational Structure, Staff, and Volunteers
• Facilitating the Problem-solving Process
• Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions
• Identifying Strategies and Tactics for Reducing Risks

Community action and mobilization

Community leaders and members must commit to act with and learn from each other in this hard work.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

• Understanding Broad Strategies for Improving Health and Community Development Issues
• Training for Conflict Resolution
• Promoting Coordination, Cooperative Agreements, and Collaborative Agreements Among Agencies
• Recognizing Allies
• Communicating Information to Funders for Support and Accountability

Understanding (and addressing) opposition and resistance

To be effective, community activists must be able to defeat and counteract the efforts of those with different interests.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

• Identifying Opponents
• Encouraging Involvement of Potential Opponents as Well as Allies
• Overview of Opposition Attacks
• How to Respond to Opposition Attacks

Intervention and maintenance of efforts

Community practitioners must be able to implement multiple strategies and sustain local efforts.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

• Developing Multisector Collaborations
• Some Methods for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives
• Maintaining Quality Performance

Promoting community change

Community leaders and members must be able to change programs, policies, and practices related to shared goals.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

Our Model of Change conceptual pieces

• Communications to Promote Interest
• Encouraging Involvement in Community Work
• Understanding Social Marketing: Learning to Change People's Behavior
• Conducting a Social Marketing Campaign

Influencing systems (or broader) change

To enhance chances of success, community practitioners try to change the conditions under which local communities seek improvement.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

• Conducting a Direct Action Campaign
• Media Advocacy
•  Providing Feedback to Improve a Community Initiative

Achieving community-level improvements

To make broader indicators of success, community members must build leadership and affect change that is large enough and long enough to make a difference.

See these related sections of the Community Tool Box:

• Core Functions in Leadership
• Managing Finances
•  Getting Grants and Financial Resources
• Achieving and Maintaining Quality Performance
• Planning for Long-term Institutionalization

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What is action planning?

• How does action planning help a community?

• Why is action planning important?

• When should you create an action plan?

• What are the components of an action plan framework?

Have you had the motivation to mobilize your community to address a problem that affects the local population, but just not known how to begin? You might wonder: “How do I investigate the problem?”, “Whom do I involve in the strategies to address the problem?”, “How do I successfully facilitate a group of diverse representatives from a community to reach consensus about a common vision and the actions that will turn ideas into results?”

This tool has the answers to these and other important questions. It will prepare you to lead your community in action planning.

What is action planning?

The overall goal of action planning is to increase your community’s ability to work together to affect conditions and outcomes that matter to its residents—and to do so both over time and across issues of interest.

As your community works towards a broad vision of health for all, creating supportive conditions for change requires comprehensive efforts among diverse sectors of the community. These include health organizations, faith communities, schools, and businesses. Representatives of each sector come together to form a community coalition. Your community coalition can strive to influence systems changes—programs, policies, and practices that can enhance the community’s capacity to be a healthy environment.

A community coalition initiates its work by generating an action plan.

An action plan outlines what should happen to achieve the vision for a healthy community. Desirable changes and proposed activities (action steps), timelines, and assignment of accountability provide a detailed roadmap for collaborators to follow.

How does action planning help a community?

Regardless of the complexity of the problem at hand within your community, action planning helps you:

• Understand the community’s perception of both the issue at hand and its potential solutions
• Ensure inclusive and integrated participation across community sectors in the planning process
• Build consensus on what can and should be done based on the community’s unique assets and needs
• Specify concrete ways in which members of the community coalition can take action

The list above describes how an action plan helps a community’s sectors and residents within those sectors work together to achieve a common vision. This tool will address each item and provide guidance for your action planning work that lies ahead.

Why is action planning important?

Proper planning of any initiative is critical for yielding the best results or outcomes possible. An action plan, while a significant investment of time and energy, can be an effective tool that grounds all collaborators with a common purpose. Developing an action plan is a critical first step toward ensuring project success.

An action plan ensures that:

• No detail is overlooked
• Proposed action steps are feasible and/or realistic
• Collaborators follow through with their commitments
• Measurable activities are documented and evaluated

Overall, action planning is important because it provides a reference point with a detailed timeline and assignment of accountability for accomplishing tasks along the path to making a difference.

Research findings of the Center for Community Health and Development suggest that there are a number of factors that appear to have a positive effect on rates of community and system change—and one of those includes action planning:

• Analyzing Information About the Problem, Goals, and Factors Affecting Them
• Establishing Your Group's Vision and Mission
• Defining Organizational Structure and Operating Mechanisms
• Developing a Framework or Model of Change
• Developing and Using Strategic and Action Plans
• Arranging for Community Mobilizers
• Developing Leadership
• Implementing Effective Interventions
• Assuring Technical Assistance
• Documenting Progress and Using Feedback
• Making Outcomes Matter
• Sustaining the Work

When should you create an action plan?

Ideally, you should develop an action plan within the first six to twelve months of the start of an initiative or organization. Once an action plan is generated, it should be revisited frequently (e.g., as often as monthly but at least annually) so it can be modified to meet the changing needs of your community.

What are the components of an action plan framework?

While some issues may be universal (for example, mental health issues), each community will have different assets and barriers for improving conditions for its residents. Therefore, each community’s intervention strategy for influencing programs, policies, and practices will be unique. However, a series of steps—a framework—helps guide the process of community action and change within the context of a community’s unique needs.

If you approach the action planning process as a manageable series of steps, you can take charge and help your community coalition work through each one with confidence.

Determine what people and sectors of the community to involve

As you begin your action planning process, you will need to accomplish three things:

• Document the problem or issue with information and statistics
• Learn more about your community
• Involve community members

How do you go about accomplishing these steps?

Listen to the community about issues and options. Conduct focus groups and public forums to obtain information about perceived issues and solutions within the community.

The key pieces of information you should gather in each listening session or focus group include:

• The perceived problem or issue
• Perceived barriers or resistance to addressing the issue
• Resources for change
• Recommended solutions and alternatives
• Current and past initiatives to address the problem or issue

Gather data to document the problem. In addition to hearing the community perspective on problems or goals related to the issue at hand, it is important to document the issue using existing information sources.

• "What are the issues related to the problem/topic in your community?"
• "What are the consequences of these issues?"
• "Who is affected?"
• "How are they affected?"
• "Are these issues of widespread concern?"

While the information that you collect can answer the questions above, remember that it will also play a key role in helping you determine how effective your group was in addressing the problem. You will use these baseline data—data that document the extent of the problem prior to implementation of your initiative—for comparison with data that document the extent of the problem after implementation of your initiative.

Listed below are helpful data sources that you may want to investigate. Keep in mind that not all of them will be relevant to your particular issue or problem.

• State or county health department data
• State social services department data
• Hospital admission and discharge records
• Police records
• Chamber of commerce data
• Nonprofit service agency data
• School district data
• Information from your local reference librarian
• Data from specialized local, statewide, or national organizations

Also see federal data sources such as:

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System data
• National Center for Health Statistics data
• Census data
• Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, Title V Block Grant Information System

Become aware of local resources and past and current efforts: If current efforts targeting your issue exist, think of ways in which they can become more effective via support, advocacy, or other means. Consider the following:

• Do current efforts have a parallel vision?
• How many people are they serving?
• Do the services and programs meet local needs?

Particularly if pre-existing initiatives had a similar mission and failed, seek to understand why and apply those lessons learned to your action planning. You might gain valuable insight by talking with the agency or group with the failed initiative.

Involve key officials and grassroots leaders in a planning group: While you may easily identify key officials, service providers, or representatives from relevant agencies, extend the boundaries of your planning coalition to be as inclusive as possible. Remember that your planning group should reflect the diversity of the local community.

Your group might use interviews with both key officials and key grassroots leaders to answer the following questions:

• Who can make things happen on this issue?
• What individuals are in a position to create (or block!) change?
• What contacts within the initiative would be most successful in getting those key officials to become involved?
• What neighborhoods and ethnic and cultural communities are particularly affected by this issue?
• What individuals and groups make things happen in these neighborhoods?
• What contacts within the initiative would be most successful in involving members of these neighborhoods?

Convene a planning group

Once you identify and include interested participants for the planning group, publicize planning sessions to ensure that they are open to all group members. As facilitator, you should extend additional courtesies to planning group members, such as starting and ending meetings on time, using an agenda, and covering items in as little time as possible. Other responsibilities that you might have as a facilitator include:

Managing conflict. The richness of diverse views represented within your planning group may also lead to conflict among members. Group leaders may need to elevate discussions to a higher level on which there may be a basis for agreement. Leaders can also remind group members of the shared vision as a means of fostering discussion on common ground.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Planned Approach to Community Health (PATCH) documentation includes suggestions for reaching consensus in group meetings:

• Avoid the “one best way” attitude, and opt for that which reflects the best collective judgment of the group
• Avoid “either/or” thinking; often the best solution combines several approaches
• A majority vote may not always be the best solution. When participants give and take, several viewpoints can be combined.
• Healthy conflict may actually help participants reach a consensus; do not end conflict prematurely.
• Problems are best solved when all participants try to communicate and listen.

Conflict resolution is the process of settling disagreements among group members. The CDC recommends trying one of four approaches to resolve conflicts about goals, plans, activities, or procedures:

• Avoidance: While this can be a temporary solution, particularly if a conflict does not seem important enough to discuss, be sure to reassess the problem at a later date.
• Accommodation: Use tact and discretion to ask participants to yield or conform to the positions of others.
• Compromise: When a consensus cannot be reached, compromise may be the only solution. With compromise, everyone both wins and gives up something.
• Collaboration: While this may be the best approach, reserve it for issues of greatest importance. Collaboration requires all group members to acknowledge the conflict, consider many possible solutions and the consequences of each, and select the alternatives that best meet the needs of the group.

Creating a supportive context for planning and action. Several aspects of your community group can influence the element of support in the planning environment. They are: leadership, size and structure, organization, and diversity and integration.

• Leadership – Although a single person may accept overall responsibility, effective organizations usually have a number of leaders who work with constituents to fulfill the group’s mission. Leaders should have a clear vision and the capacity for listening and relating to others in the group.
• Size and Structure – A maximum group size of 15 is recommended. If this seems prohibitive given the number of people interested in participation, you can also structure smaller groups such as “task forces” for specific functions within the action plan.
• Organization – If your planning group or surrounding community is particularly large, you may want to allocate work to subcommittees for each sector of the community to be involved (e.g., health organizations, businesses, schools). If your planning group or surrounding community is relatively small, the group might work as a whole to accomplish action planning.
• Diversity and Integration – Include all types of participants: people in positions of authority, grassroots leaders, and local residents with experience.

Offering ongoing encouragement. Throughout the planning process, let group members know when they are doing a good job. Positive feedback is very important—especially when people are volunteering their time and energy.

If you find it challenging or intimidating to facilitate planning sessions in which diverse ideas and opinions are expressed, try applying some of the information below to your situation. Having a “plan” for effective facilitation will help you yield the most positive outcomes and best ideas from your planning meetings.

Tips for Group Facilitation

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Planned Approach to Community Health (PATCH) documentation offers the following suggestions for facilitating meetings:

• Create an environment conducive to communication by seating participants around small tables or in semicircles.
• Make participation an expectation; ask questions frequently and use open-ended questions to encourage thought and participation.
• Create opportunities for participants to work in teams.
• Give small assignments in advance, and ask participants to come to meetings prepared to share their work.
• Encourage participants to evaluate the group’s working dynamic and offer solutions for improving interaction if needed.
• Talk with quiet participants during breaks, and help them express their ideas and share their thoughts with the group.
• Use flip charts, presentation slides, or shared digital displays to record comments, but face participants while writing or ask someone else to do it.
• Suggest the “next step” if a meeting seems to be stagnating.
• Walk around to gain attention, but look directly at participants.
• Expect to make some mistakes! Acknowledge them, correct them, and move on.

Lead brainstorming sessions. Brainstorming is a problem-solving technique that encourages all members of a group to contribute ideas. You may find this technique of idea generation particularly helpful in the early phases of action planning. There are three common approaches to brainstorming:

• Freewheeling: Participants randomly call out suggestions, which are then recorded on a flip chart. Some group members may dominate in this setting.
• Round robin: Each member is called upon for a suggestion in turn, and ideas are recorded on a flip chart. This is a more organized approach and prevents domination of the session by only a few individuals.
• Slip: Each member submits anonymous suggestions on a slip of paper, and ideas are then recorded on a flip chart.

CDC suggests that a group facilitator follow these guidelines for a brainstorming meeting:

• Explain all rules at the beginning of the session. Those are:
  • No critical remarks allowed; evaluation comes later
  • Give the thought only; explanation comes later
  • Give only one idea at a time
  • Adding to or improving on someone else’s idea is appropriate
• Give all participants a chance to share ideas.
• Ask one or two people to record ideas.
• Keep a lively tempo to the process.
• Praise the quantity versus quality of ideas.

Convening and facilitating a planning group for a common vision, mission, or purpose can be challenging yet rewarding. Participation of diverse individuals can require skilled facilitation. However, you can successfully facilitate a group meeting by applying the guidelines presented above. The more meetings you lead throughout the action planning process, the more confident you will become!

Develop an action plan to address proposed changes

Your planning meetings, brainstorming sessions, and other group discussions will yield an extensive compilation of great ideas (and maybe some that are not so great!).

What do you do with all of that information? How do you sort through the pile of rocks to find the gems?

First, you will need to distill the many ideas and voices into a common vision and mission. Next, you will need to refine the relevant ideas into objectives with corresponding strategies and actions.

As you distill the large number of ideas into a common vision, the VMOSA process (vision, mission, objectives, strategies, and action) will help your planning group develop a blueprint for moving from dreams to actions to positive outcomes for your community. VMOSA gives both direction and structure to your initiative. The five components of VMOSA should be completed in the order in which they are presented here.

Vision

Your planning group needs a vision statement to serve as a unifying statement for your effort, help communicate your goals and attract participants, remind participants of the desired outcome, and guide important decisions. The vision statement should be a few short phrases or a sentence. Catchy phrases such as "Healthy teens," "Safe streets, safe neighborhoods," and "Education for all" illustrate the common characteristics of a vision statement.

Craft a vision statement that is:

• Understood and shared by members of the community
• Broad enough to include a diverse variety of perspectives
• Inspiring and uplifting
• Easy to communicate

Mission

Your planning group’s mission statement will be more specific than the vision. As the next step in the action planning process, it expresses the "what and how" of your effort, describing what your group is going to do to make your vision a reality. An example of a mission statement: "Our mission is to develop a safe and healthy neighborhood through collaborative planning, community action, and policy advocacy."

While your vision statement inspires people to dream, your mission statement should inspire them to action.

Create your mission statement to be:

• Concise
• Outcome-oriented
• Inclusive

Objectives

Objectives are the specific, measurable steps that will help you achieve your mission. Develop objectives that are SMART+C: specific, measurable, achievable (eventually), relevant to your mission, and timed (with a date for completion). The +C reminds you to add another important quality to your goals: make them challenging!

Strategies

Strategies explain how your group will reach its objectives.

Broad strategies for change include:

• Advocacy
• Coalition building
• Community development
• Education
• Networking
• Policy or legislative change.

The big picture

Charting a logical pathway for community and system change: A key question to ask as your group formulates strategies is, “What combination of changes in programs, policies, and practices are necessary to make a difference with the mission of promoting health for all?” Your group will want to take inventory of potential community and system changes for addressing the problem or issue of interest. To do this, sort your “inventory” of ideas and objectives generated via the planning group into five specific strategy categories:

• Providing information and enhancing skills
• Altering incentives and disincentives
• Modifying access, barriers, and opportunities
• Enhancing services and support
• Modifying policies and practices

To facilitate the process of thinking about how ideas fit most logically together, you may want to draft a one-page flowchart that forms pathways leading logically to widespread behavior change and elimination or reduction of the problem to be addressed. You might want to think of this flowchart as a way to double-check for any gaps that may remain despite your extensive planning and discussion up to this point. Furthermore, as you look at the pathways and linkages along the way to change, the visual representation may prompt you to think of potential resources and barriers for accomplishing objectives. These noted resources and barriers will be applied to the development of action steps—the last piece of your action plan (to be discussed in the next section).

Determining strategies within your community’s context

Once your planning group has a clear vision and mission and has chosen community and system changes to be sought, you will have the foundation for making informed decisions regarding types of strategies to implement. The information below is a guide to talking through the development of strategies as they relate to the priorities and desired changes in the context of your community.

When developing strategies to accompany your objectives, consider the following factors:

• Population levels to be affected
• Universal versus targeted outreach
• Personal and environmental factors
• Which community sectors can benefit from and contribute to efforts
• Behavioral strategies to be used.

The levels to be targeted (individuals vs. families and kinship groups vs. organizations and sectors vs. broader systems).

Whether the strategy will be universal (e.g., include all of those who may be at risk or may benefit) or targeted (e.g., targets those who may be at greater risk for the problem):

• Universal example: providing age-appropriate information to men in the community about prostate cancer screening.
• Targeted example: providing additional prostate cancer screening information to men with a family history of prostate cancer.

The personal and environmental factors to be addressed by the initiative:

• Personal factors: knowledge, beliefs, skills, education and training, experience, cultural norms and practices, socioeconomic status, cognitive or physical abilities, gender, age.
• Environmental factors: social support, available resources and services, barriers (including financial, physical, and communication), social approval, policies, environmental hazards, living conditions, poverty.

Individuals who can most benefit and contribute and how they can be reached or involved in the effort.

• People or groups experiencing the issue - those who may be at particular risk for the issue and those whose actions (or inaction) contribute to the problem.
• People or groups who can contribute to change - those who may be in a position to (and have a responsibility to) contribute to the solution or initiative (includes people or groups experiencing the issue)
• Community sectors through which people or groups who can contribute to change can be reached or involved

The behavior change strategies to be used. Approaches may include:

• Providing information and enhancing skills - Delivery of information or training through media, courses, workshops, webinars, or other modes.
• Enhancing services and supports - Increasing, improving, or expanding assistance or social or technical supports related to the identified goal(s). This could include expanding or changing components or offerings such as mental health or social services, or expanding hours or adding new locations.
• Modifying access, barriers, and opportunities - Changes in the environment (e.g., changes in office hours, reduced entry fees, changes to the built environment such as trails or lighting) that reduce barriers and improve access.
• Changing consequences - Changing the incentives or disincentives for outcomes. This might include public recognition or tax breaks. This might also take the form of implementation of policies that call for consequences to actions, such as a tax on certain products.
• Modifying policies and broader systems - Changing existing policies or regulations at the organizational or governmental level to promote desired behaviors/outcomes. This might take the form of written regulations or organizational policies.

For each strategy, consider what programs, policies, and/or practices should be created or modified. Make a list, keeping in mind how they work together to address the problem or goal. And finally, review your planning group’s strategies for:

• Consistency with the overall vision, mission, and objectives
• Fit with the resources and opportunities available
• Anticipated resistance and barriers and how they can be minimized
• Whether those who are affected will actually be reached
• Whether those who can contribute will be involved

Building consensus on proposed strategies for change
Once you think that the strategies are finalized and in place, you will want to build consensus on proposed changes within your planning group. Keeping in mind the fact that multiple sectors of the community are represented in the planning group, you should complete two types of review:

• Review proposed changes for each sector
  • Taken together, do these proposed changes maximize this sector’s contribution to the mission?
  • What other changes in programs, policies, or practices could or should be made in this sector?
• Review proposed changes for all sectors taken together
  • Would all changes, taken together, be sufficient to reduce the problem?
  • What other changes in programs, policies, or practices could or should be made within the community or system?
• Furthermore, to help attract and preserve commitments on behalf of the sectors represented in your planning group, you should build consensus on the changes to be sought by asking:
  • “Is this proposed change important to the mission?”
  • “Is this proposed change feasible?”

You can even put these two questions into a survey format and create a table for planning group members to respond to. Before administering the survey, set criteria for which sought changes will be kept or eliminated with a ranking score system.

You can see below that a sample ranking system ranging from ‘1’ for “Not at All [Important or Feasible]” to ‘5’ for “Very [Important or Feasible]” has been used. We suggest that you set criteria of an average value of 3 or higher for a proposed change to be retained.

Proposed Change	How important is it to...	How feasible is it to...
	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5	1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

How do you calculate the average ranking score using a scale like the one in the table above?

Example:

For a proposed change, 20 planning group members select one of the score values in their response. Of those, you have:

• 10 responding “3”
• 4 responding “2”
• 6 responding “4”

Given the suggested criteria of an average ranking of 3 or higher, will you keep or toss the proposed change?

Step 1. 10(3) + 4(2) + 6(4) = 62
Step 2. 62 / 20 responses = an average ranking of 3.1
Step 3. Based on the scoring criteria, you determine to keep the proposed change since the overall consensus via the survey is 3.1.

What is most important about the process demonstrated above is that each group member participates in the consensus vote on each proposed change. And when you are finished, your community will be armed with a targeted action plan that has the approval of all community sector representatives.

The Grande Finale – The Complete Action Plan!

By now, you have come a long way in your action planning process. You have gathered information, involved key community members, outlined a vision, mission, objectives, and developed appropriate strategies for your community. In this final step of action plan development, you will specify in detail who will do what, by when, to make what changes happen. The action plan will also note the resources needed, potential barriers or resistance, and collaborators or communication lines that need to be active. You can rely on this plan to know what actions you should take day by day.

Action Step Criteria

Your action plan will consist of numerous action steps needed to bring about change in the community. Each action step should outline:

• What actions or changes will occur
• Who will carry out those changes
• By when the changes will take place, and for how long
• What resources are needed to carry out proposed changes
• Communication (who should know what?)

Drafting Action Steps

Action steps are similar to well-written objectives in their structure and content, but include some additional information. First, let’s start by looking at how to draft a strong objective. Then, we will take it one step further and write a comparable action step. You may already be working from objectives in a funded grant proposal. If that is the case, you have a time-saving, solid foundation for your action steps.

The best action steps have several characteristics in common with well-written objectives. Those parallel characteristics are:

• Specific. That is, they tell how much (e.g., 40%) of what is to be achieved (e.g., what behavior of whom or what outcome) by when (e.g., by 20XX)?
• Measurable. Information concerning the objective can be collected, detected, or obtained from records (at least potentially).
• Achievable. Not only are the objectives themselves possible, it is likely that your organization will be able to pull them off.
• Relevant to the mission. Your organization has a clear understanding of how these objectives fit in with the overall vision and mission of the group.
• Timed. Your organization has developed a timeline (a portion of which is made clear in the objectives) by which they will be achieved.
• Challenging. They stretch the group to set its aims on significant improvements that are important to members of the community.

Example: Your community is working to establish on-site childcare for community health clinic clients by the year 20XX. Based on the desired systems change, here is a sample action statement: “By June 20XX, all necessary regulatory permits will be obtained.”

Now, let’s take this information and generate a complete action step. In addition to the criteria for well-written objectives, action steps address resources needed, anticipated barriers, and a communication plan. Now we will complete the five action step criteria (what, who, by when, what resources, and communication) using the sample, “By June 20XX...”

Criteria 1: What actions or changes will occur?

    All necessary regulatory permits will be obtained for the on-site provision of childcare for health clinic clients.

Criteria 2: Who will carry out those changes?

    Danelda Jackson and Tom Glinn, staff of the community health clinic

Criteria 3: By when will the changes take place, and for how long?

    June 20XX, in order to open the following year. They will be renewed annually after that.

Criteria 4: What resources are needed to carry out the proposed changes? (For example, resources may be material, financial, or time-related).

Contractors

What potential barriers might affect this action step? Barriers to success might include:

• Faltering commitment on behalf of collaborators
• Key individuals or groups opposing efforts
• Lack of sustained interest in the initiative at the community level
• Simultaneous events such as an economic downturn or parallel or competing initiatives
• City staff may resist providing a permit because it may appear to intensify the use of the clinic site.

Criteria 5: Communication (who should be informed about these actions?)

    Clinic staff, clients, and community residents should be made aware of the availability of on-site childcare at the clinic.

Note: You may find it most helpful to set up a template for a table in a word processing program so you can efficiently record each action step generated by your planning group. The table below has been filled in with the criteria and sample information listed above.

Action Step	Action	By Whom	By When	Resources/Support Needed	Potential Barriers/Resistance	Communication
By June 20XX, all necessary regulatory permits will be obtained.	All necessary regulatory permits will be obtained from the childcare licensing agency, city government, etc.	Danelda Jackson and Tom Glinn, clinic staff	June 20XX in order to open the following year	Contractors	City staff may resist providing a permit because it may appear to intensify the use of the clinic site.	Clinic staff, clients, and community residents should be made aware of the availability of on-site childcare at the clinic.

Review your action plan for completeness

Once the planning process is complete, be sure to obtain review and approval of the final action plan from all group members.

Assess the action plan for:

• Comprehensiveness
• Clarity
• Feasibility
• Timeliness
• Flexibility

Remember that the action plan will be revisited from time to time for modifications, as a community’s needs change. However, ultimately, this “blueprint for action” will be used over time, across sectors of the community, and across issues of interest. Therefore, strive to make it a powerful tool for community change.

Follow Through

Your completed action plan may contain many action steps. And while you will have mapped those out carefully along a timeline, you will probably have action steps that should occur simultaneously. Furthermore, you may sense a need to prioritize the order in which you execute action steps that are supposed to take place in the first six months of your initiative.

You may find it easier to determine that ordering or prioritization strategy if you ask the following questions:

• Which changes are the most important or key to the initiative's objectives?
• Which changes would inspire and encourage participants and build credibility within the community?
• Which changes need to be completed before others can? For example, some changes may require other changes and relationships to be established.
• Which changes are easier or quicker? Could completing them give the planning group’s members a sense of success?

Part of following through with proposed action steps will be the task of maintaining collaborator commitment and interest. An invaluable approach to fostering this working relationship is communication: communication about timelines, upcoming planning meetings, progress, results, intermediate feedback, etc.

Communicate progress

Communication is paramount to continued support and commitment within all sectors of the community. Continue to hold planning group meetings and additional public forum meetings, making sure to publicize these appropriately via local newspapers, email lists, etc. Communicate with all relevant audiences, and let them know how their feedback was used to modify the action plan when relevant. You may want to refer back to the “communication” column of your action step table to make sure that you have corresponded with all people who need to know about the status of a particular action step.

It is best to include a communication plan in your action plan, and regularly share information about progress and outcomes relevant to the initiative. And the best means of having sound information to report is an evaluation plan.

Document progress

After you have worked so hard to plan and implement action steps, your community group will most certainly want a means of measuring progress towards the vision. It is important to evaluate your initiative toward that end.

The purpose of evaluation is to document and measure the completion or success of action steps. From your action planning group’s perspective:

• Evaluation may help you clarify action steps so they are measurable.
• Documentation and evaluation help you continually refine your program. Remember—an action plan is an ever-changing blueprint that can be modified according to community needs. If evaluation of action steps reveals successes, failures, or other lessons learned, that information should be applied to future planning cycles or revision of the overall action plan.
• Evaluation data provide information about the relative costs and effort for tasks so activity and budget adjustments can be made as needed.

It is important to include evaluation components as you develop your action plan rather than waiting until you implement it. Be sure that your action plan details how information will be collected, analyzed, and communicated. Because the action plan will be implemented over a long period of time, you may want to document intermediate accomplishments on a monthly basis. Such cumulative records help you identify trends in rates of community and system change over a number of years.

Celebrate progress and revisit/renew the action plan

Even the most effective initiatives can benefit from reflection on their accomplishments. Therefore, you should review your action plan as frequently as needed, but at least annually. Arrange for ongoing review and discussion of group progress and proposed changes in the action plan. And, when new and important changes occur (e.g., a long-awaited policy change by a major employer), celebrate them.

Overall, focus on “small wins” versus creating “the perfect program.” This approach will:

• Reward outcomes versus actions
• Provide multiple opportunities for celebration
• Allow coalition partners to work together by asking each other to do their part while not demanding that everyone be locked into a single course of action
• Provide a sensitive measure of progress that can be monitored periodically to support improvement and accountability

Throughout evaluation of progress, celebration of progress, and renewal of the action plan as the community environment changes over time, maintain this key perspective:

Your community coalition is a catalyst for change, helping to bring about a series of community and system changes related to the mission, rather than simply the delivery of a single program or service. While evaluation has its place in all initiatives, try to focus more on contribution rather than attribution as your community implements its action plan.

In summary

Action planning includes:

• Convening a planning group in your community that consists of:
  • Key officials
  • Grassroots leaders
  • Representatives of key sectors
  • Representatives from all parts of the community, including diverse ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic groups
• Listening to the community
• Documenting problems that affect healthy youth development
• Identifying risk and protective factors
• Developing a framework for action
• Becoming aware of local resources and efforts
• Refining your group's vision, mission, objectives, and strategies
• Refining your group's choice of targets and people or groups who can contribute to change
• Determining what community sectors should be involved in the solution
• Developing a tentative list of changes to be sought in each sector
• Building consensus on proposed changes
• Outlining action steps for proposed changes
• Documenting progress on bringing about community and system changes
• Renewing your group's efforts along the way

When you complete these activities, celebrate (for now)  You have developed a blueprint for action.

Regardless of the complexity of the problem at hand within your community, action planning helps you:

• Understand the community’s perception of both the issue at hand and its potential solutions.
• Ensure inclusive and integrated participation across community sectors in the planning process.
• Build consensus on what can and should be done based on the community’s unique assets and needs.
• Specify concrete ways in which members of the community coalition can take action.

Myles Horton, the late founder of the Highlander Center, talked about "making the road by walking." The work of transforming communities and systems to promote healthy youth development will be made by joining with local people who care enough to make needed changes. As we do this important work, we realize that we walk the path of those before us. And, eventually, with those who will carry on this cause after we are gone.

___You understand what action planning is.

___You understand why action planning is important, and how it can help your community address a health issue or problem.

___You have reviewed the eight broad components of an action plan.

___You have guidelines for facilitating group meetings, including: resolving conflict, offering encouragement, consensus building, and leading brainstorming sessions.

___You understand how to draft clear and effective vision, mission, objective, and strategy statements.

___You have reviewed guidelines for developing, categorizing, and prioritizing strategies within the context of your community.

___You have reviewed guidelines for developing action steps that address the “what”, “who”, “when”, “resources”, and “communication” aspects of action plan activities.

___You understand the importance and relevance of evaluation within the action planning process.

___You understand why it is important to view your community planning group’s role as that of a “catalyst for change” versus a means of creating the ‘perfect program’, and that small wins should be acknowledged and celebrated.

___You understand that the action planning process is a “blue print for action” that is ever changing, and therefore requires maintenance of collaborative working relationships via communication, feedback, and action plan renewal over time.

Tool: Determine the importance of proposed changes

Proposed Change	How important is it to...	How feasible is it to ...
	Not At All Very	Not At All Very
	1 2 3 4 5	1 2 3 4 5
	1 2 3 4 5	1 2 3 4 5
	1 2 3 4 5	1 2 3 4 5

 

 

Tool: Determine action steps

 

Action Plan for [Community or Initiative Name]

Goal Area:____________________________________________________ 

Strategy: __________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Action Steps	By Whom	By When	Resources and Support Available/Needed		Communications
What needs to be done?	Who will take actions?	By what date will the action be done?	Resources Available	Resources Needed (financial, human, political, other)	Who should be informed about these actions?

Action Planning Form.doc

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

The internet can function as an invaluable resource in community health and development. In this section, you will learn how to use online tools to gather and distribute information, communicate effectively with others, and gain support and credibility in conducting community projects.

What do we mean by using online tools to promote community health and development?

The internet provides access to an enormous storehouse of information and knowledge, as well as a global communication network. With a computer or smartphone, you can post on social media or send a message and reach people across the globe. You can also work collaboratively with someone you may never meet in person, read an article on almost any subject, or search the contents of some of the world's largest libraries.

You can also find a huge array of false or misleading information. It's important to be aware of the reliability of the source of any information you get online. If you have any question about it, check the information with other sources before you assume that it's accurate. Even reliable sites -- major news organizations or universities, for instance -- make mistakes from time to time. The difference is that reliable sources generally correct themselves when they find an error, while less reliable sources may intentionally persist in error or simply may not bother to change their information once it's posted.

University libraries and other research institutions provide useful guidance for evaluating the credibility of online information. When using information you find online, consider the reliability of the source and verify questionable information with other credible sources.

There are different kinds of online tools you might use, and different purposes you might use them for:

 To learn how to do the work.  The Community Tool Box is an example, but there are many others that can provide guidance as you plan your work, start a coalition, raise money, gain participation, etc.

 To gather information . This obviously includes a broad range of possibilities -- not only websites, but also online forums, digital publications, library catalogs, databases, and other online resources. Some of the most common types of information you might be seeking:

• Demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, income, etc.). The most common source of this data in the U.S. is the Census Bureau, but much may also be found on state, county, municipal, and federal and state government agency and department websites. Equivalent data for Canada can be found through Statistics Canada and provincial and ministry websites.
• Laws and regulations. Laws can be found on a number of websites for both the U.S. and Canada. These include U.S. state laws; Uniform Commercial Code, U.S. federal laws, and the General Laws of Canada. Regulations of municipal, county, state, and federal agencies can generally be found on agency websites.
• Funders and funding opportunities. A well-defined web search will turn up the names of foundations that are interested in your issue, and their websites will tell you whether you're a good candidate for funding by them or not. State and other government agency websites will also give information about what they fund, how much is available, and usually include copies of current Requests for Proposals (RFPs). The websites of state and national coalitions and organizations may also have funding information or opportunities.
• Best practices. Many U.S. and Canadian state/provincial and national government agencies (e.g., the U.S. National Institutes of Health) have on their websites lists and descriptions of successful programs and approaches (sometimes called "best practices," sometimes identified as successes or effective programs). Professional organizations, coalitions devoted to your issue, and organizations that run successful programs are all likely to have online information about best practices.
• New methods, ideas, theory, or research in the field. Academic papers and journal articles, online discussions, and digital versions of newspapers, journals, and other media may all make this kind of information available online, or at least tell you where you can find it. Online publications may also include contact information for the author or another expert so that you can discuss the ideas more fully.
• Information to use for education or other program purposes. Biographical data, historical facts, scientific principles or formulas, and the text of important historical or government documents (the U.S. Constitution, for example).

 To communicate with others.  The internet allows you to communicate with people from all over the world in a short time through email, video conferencing, social media, messaging platforms, and other online tools. Among the reasons you might want to do so are:

• To share and discuss information and advice on your work, or on political or social factors affecting it, in online forums, discussion groups, and other spaces.
• To communicate directly with colleagues, participants, funders, collaborators, and others. You might also use email or other digital communication to ask members or supporters for contributions; advertise programs or events; discuss individual cases or situations with others involved; ask questions of colleagues or experts; or organize and engage in advocacy.
• To use a website or other online platform to get your message out, advertise your services, and post messages and other important material for participants, members, board members, staff, and others.

To distribute educational or informational material to participants . Many university courses use the Community Tool Box as text, for instance, or send students directly to the Community Tool Box site for course reading.

 To conduct business . Nonprofit and grassroots organizations, like many individuals, use the internet to find and contact suppliers; comparison shop; order materials, equipment, and supplies; pay bills; advertise positions; and sell or publicize services and products.

 To engage in advocacy . Online tools can be invaluable to an advocacy effort. Email, websites, social media, online groups, and other communication tools allow an advocacy group to organize, mobilize members for action, contact policymakers, conduct advocacy research, and educate a constituency, as well as the general public, about an issue.

Why use online tools to promote community health and development?

First, the scope: the internet is truly international and crosses geographic borders. Mobile and satellite technologies have extended opportunities for internet access to places where traditional infrastructure may be limited. This means that people in widely separated places may be able to access information and communicate with one another in ways that were once difficult or impossible. Such reach can be misused, but it can also create tremendous opportunities for economic, social, political, intellectual, and human development.

There are, of course, important limitations. Access to devices, reliable connectivity, and affordable internet service remains uneven, particularly in communities and countries with limited economic resources. People may have access through schools, libraries, community organizations, government programs, or other channels, but access remains a significant issue for many people.

Literacy and language can also create barriers. People who have limited literacy or who do not read languages commonly used in online materials may not be able to take full advantage of available information. Translation can help, but the volume of online material makes complete translation difficult.

That said, billions of people can benefit directly from internet access, and many others can benefit indirectly from information and resources that are shared through it.

Second, the internet can be a highly participatory medium. Access to a great deal of online information is free, and people who can get online may find information, communicate their ideas, connect with others, and participate in discussions that once would have been difficult to access.

Furthermore, the nature of the medium makes it possible for a message to be transmitted to someone anywhere in the world, or for that same message to reach thousands or even millions of people in a very short time. Online communication can reduce many physical barriers of time and distance and can create opportunities for people who otherwise might never encounter one another to exchange ideas. At the same time, differences in access and influence remain, and not everyone participates online on equal terms.

Governments in some countries monitor or limit internet use for political reasons. Restrictions can include blocking websites or services, monitoring online activity, or limiting access to parts of the internet. These restrictions can affect people's ability to communicate and obtain information freely.

Given these characteristics of the internet -- its enormous reach and its ability to connect people -- there are a number of reasons why online tools have enormous potential for health and community development.

•  They broaden access to knowledge and information  -- including for people who may not have ready access to libraries, universities, or other traditional sources of information. Thus, they can build capacity for people to work out solutions to their concerns.
• They make it possible for people to change their lives and communities themselves , without having to depend entirely on outside experts to solve problems for them.
• They can help distribute access to knowledge and information more equitably throughout societies. If knowledge is power -- and the one certainly has a lot to do with the other -- then access to knowledge and accurate information can help people participate more fully in decisions that affect them.
• They can help combat ignorance and misinformation, as well as disinformation  (false information deliberately spread by governments, corporations, institutions, individuals, or other entities in order to influence others or protect their own interests).
• They make it easier for people to understand how they can effect social change , and therefore to be more willing to attempt it.
• They give people models to follow. This is true in several senses: online tools can help people discover best practices and processes that are likely to work in their communities. They can, by exposing people to a range of possibilities, change their goals and sense of the possible. And they can present individual role models -- either people with whom internet users might establish direct contact, or profiles of people like themselves who have been able to accomplish good things. Many websites of NGOs and development organizations -- Oxfam America comes to mind -- profile people who have made a difference in their communities.
• They put people concerned with health and community development in touch with one another, so they can support one another and spread their own knowledge and experience farther.
• They increase the ease and effectiveness of advocacy, particularly for community members whose perspectives have been underrepresented. As discussed above, online tools can mobilize and instruct people in action, provide information on issues, and facilitate strategic planning for policy change.
• They can ease access to elected and appointed officials. Many officials maintain websites, email addresses, online contact forms, or other digital channels through which they can be contacted.
• They can help to ensure the accountability of those officials and of oversight bodies. Proceedings of governmental and legislative sessions and hearings, legislators' voting records, political contributions, and a great deal of other information relating to official accountability are available online, as well as information about public-records laws such as the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
• They can shorten response time to community emergencies or to addressing community needs. Online communication can mobilize volunteers, supplies, funding, and information to respond to disasters or address community issues. The international response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, for example, demonstrated the potential reach of online communication and fundraising.
• They encourage and facilitate collaboration among individuals and organizations at all levels. Online tools make it easier for individuals and organizations to work together, especially if they are geographically separated. A collaborative funding proposal, for instance, can be worked on by many different people without requiring everyone to be in the same place.

Who might use online tools to do health and community work?

The short -- and accurate -- answer here is everyone. The internet is particularly useful for those who want to reach out to many people in a short time.

Some examples:

• Professionals and professional organizations use online forums, websites, and other communication tools to discuss issues, conduct advocacy, plan and organize conferences (including virtual conferences), and collaborate on research and other work.
• Grassroots and community-based organizations use online tools to inform the community about their services, communicate with one another, search for best practices, seek and apply for funding, and keep current on political situations that affect them.
• Larger nonprofits and initiatives use online tools to publicize their issues, highlight their challenges and successes, and raise money.

Oxfam America's response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami illustrated the potential reach of online fundraising. The organization experienced a rapid surge in donations following the disaster, demonstrating how online tools can help organizations reach large numbers of supporters quickly.

• Community activists use online tools for organizing and for researching their issues.
• Political activists use online tools to mobilize for or against candidates and issues they care about.
• Participants in and people served by health and community service organizations and initiatives use online tools to communicate, learn about political and social issues that affect their organizations, and practice advocacy, such as contacting legislators.
• Students in disciplines related to health and community services use sites like the Community Tool Box to learn about their fields, find practicum and job opportunities, and communicate with others with similar interests.
• Community members with an interest in a topic or issue, like parents concerned about alcohol use among adolescents, can use online tools to learn more about it and make connections with others with similar interests.

When might you use online tools?

There are times when online tools are particularly helpful.

• When you want to build the community's capacity to solve its own problems. A site like the Community Tool Box can help community activists, grassroots groups, and interested community members gain the skills, knowledge, and confidence necessary to create locally developed solutions to community problems, and to do the long-term work of social change that leads to better lives for everyone.
• When you're starting a program, initiative, or other effort with little information. The vast information resources available on the web can help you assess your community's needs, learn about your issue, find best practices, determine what's worked elsewhere, etc.
• When you need to communicate with a large number of people (and decide or embark on an action) quickly. Email, websites, social media, messaging platforms, or online groups make it possible to communicate with and mobilize large numbers of people quickly.
• When you need to learn about or understand laws or regulations. Whether it's a matter of checking on the amount of lobbying your tax-exempt organization may legally engage in, or on the environmental obligations of that smoke-belching factory on the edge of town, much of this information can be found online.
• When you need information for a grant proposal or other funding possibility. Statistics, the history of your issue, and information about what a funder has previously supported may all be helpful, and much of it can be found online.
• When you want to get your own message out, or set up a place where everyone involved in your organization, effort, or issue can communicate. You can accomplish both goals by creating a website or online community space that includes discussion or communication features. You, or someone else who's qualified, might serve as a moderator or expert in the field in order to answer questions and guide discussion in productive directions.

The logic behind the Community Tool Box as an online tool for the promotion of health and community development:

Since 1995, the University of Kansas Center for Community Health and Development has been building the Community Tool Box as a free, online resource for health and community development. In order to create as nearly complete a resource as possible, the Tool Box team first tried to understand the building blocks of health and community work. What do you have to know and do first, and where do you have to go from there, in health and community work, in order to foster change that will lead to an improvement in the quality of community members' lives?

We came up with a framework for health and community work that includes five components:

1. Understanding the context of the work and collaborative planning
2. Community action and intervention
3. Community and system change
4. Widespread behavior change and improvement in population-level outcomes
5. Sustaining the effort

Each of these five components is in turn split into a number of core competencies (a total of 16 in all) that further define each component and divide the work into manageable elements. We'll look at each of the five components and its core competencies separately, but first, we'll call attention to three basic assumptions -- guiding principles -- that run through the Community Tool Box.

• An organization's vision, mission, and philosophy should all be consistent with one another. Any effort -- whether an intervention or service, a push for change in behavior or policy, an advocacy campaign, or a protest against current or planned action -- must have a clear vision, a mission that supports that vision, and a philosophical base that reflects the vision and mission. The vision, mission, and philosophy should guide every decision the organization makes, from what funding to pursue to how staff and participants are treated to relationships with other organizations and the community.

• Almost any effort will benefit from a participatory process. Such a process involves all stakeholders -- particularly those who are the focus of your work -- in the planning and implementation of anything that affects them. That often means providing the information they need to understand clearly the possibilities and limitations of the effort you're embarking on so they can make informed decisions.

  There might be various levels of involvement, from consultation to full partnership.

  There are two excellent reasons for employing a participatory process:

  • It's respectful and fair. It's arrogant and disrespectful, as well as patently unfair, to make decisions for other people without consulting them, no matter how well-meaning those decisions may be.
  • It's more effective. You're far more likely to be successful if people buy into and feel ownership of a plan, a program, an initiative, an intervention, or a policy than if they feel it's been imposed on them.

There are, realistically, times when a participatory process simply isn't possible. Time may be too much of the essence -- people's lives may be at stake, as in an emergency relief effort or a military operation. In other situations, some people may be unwilling to consider the possibility that other ideas or positions might be legitimate. In those circumstances, a participatory process may not be the best approach.

Servant leadership and collaborative leadership both assume the leadership of a participatory process.

• Ethics are important. This not only means adhering to the professional ethics of your field, if that's relevant, but behaving as you would have others behave toward you. As an organization and as an individual, you should treat others with respect and fairness, and acknowledge their work and contributions. You should never abuse whatever power you have, and should instead use it to further your cause and your work. An ethical stance should carry over into your dealings with participants; collaborators and other organizations and institutions; staff, board members, and others within your organization; funders, contributors, and members; policymakers; and the community.

The components of health and community development, and their respective core competencies

Understanding context and collaborative planning

The context of a health or community issue encompasses the history, culture, character, and economic, social, and political makeup of the community itself; the nature of the issue and its relevance to and frequency in the community or population in question; the culture, size, attitudes, and other characteristics of the population of focus; and the people involved in all these areas, and their relationships to one another.

Six core competencies, or fundamental abilities, contribute to the work of understanding context and collaborative planning:

1. Creating and maintaining coalitions and collaborative partnerships is a way to engage a variety of sectors, such as government agencies and faith communities, in a common purpose; to hear the concerns and needs of all sectors; and to gather a broad range of ideas and perspectives.
2. Assessing community needs and resources, such as the need for more accessible health services or the presence of grassroots advocacy groups, grounds the work in what is locally important and available.
3. Analyzing community-identified problems and goals with community partners helps pinpoint the personal and group factors -- knowledge and skills, or history of care or discrimination -- and environmental factors -- access and barriers, support and resources, broader policies -- that may affect the current problem and future prospects for goal attainment.
4. Developing a framework or model of change helps define how the community intends to go from the current situation, such as low rates of childhood immunization, to sustained improvements in population-level outcomes.
5. Developing strategic and action plans sets the blueprint for getting from a community's vision (Healthy Youth Program) to improvements in population-level outcomes (changes in rates of pregnancies among adolescents or substance use disorders).
6. Building leadership helps ensure that the community itself can continue to generate a team of people to develop and sustain relationships and transform conditions necessary for community change.

Community action and intervention. Once you've engaged in community assessment and used the results to formulate a plan, you have to take action in order to effect change. Action plans should flow from the overall strategy you've come up with, and should be aimed at producing the outcomes that a collaborative planning process has identified as important. Your action should, to the extent possible, involve all sectors of the community, and encompass the diversity of the community. To these ends, three core competencies fall under this component of health and community development:

• Developing an intervention involves selecting and using intervention components based on an analysis of contributing factors and available resources. For example, a comprehensive intervention to increase childhood immunization might include such elements as providing information and enhancing skills (educating parents about how vaccination works and what it protects children from); modifying access, barriers, and opportunities (expanded outreach, provision of transportation); and modifying policies (offering vaccinations as part of other clinic visits).
• Increasing participation and membership brings in the voices of those who have the most experience of the issue (young people, people from underrepresented language communities), but who may face barriers to involvement, as well as involving as many sectors of the community as possible. All of this increases the sense of ownership of any action by those involved.
• Enhancing cultural competence makes it possible for people of diverse backgrounds to work together, and to understand and respect one another's cultural beliefs and practices. Such understanding and respect increases community coherence, and aids efforts to improve the quality of life for everyone in the community. Cultural competence, through improved communication and recognition of others' abilities, also contributes to the attainment of such other competencies as building community leadership and developing strategic and action plans.

Community and system change. Bringing about permanent change in a community entails more than simply creating and running an intervention. The intervention may have an immediate effect on the issue you're concerned with, but that's rarely enough. In order to bring about permanent change, you often have to change both the systems that affect it -- e.g., policies, funding mechanisms, education, etc. -- and the community itself -- attitudes, social customs...the things that people take for granted. In order to make these kinds of changes, you may have to take a multi-pronged approach, working with several sectors of the community at once. Three core competencies help in this endeavor:

• Advocating for change. Advocacy can range from trying to convince a local merchant not to sell tobacco to minors to organizing a national campaign against a proposed military action. It may target individuals, corporations, institutions, legislators or other public officials, or be aimed directly at public opinion through use of the media. Effective advocacy takes an orchestrated effort that pulls in as many people as possible, takes into account and counters opposition, and uses a variety of strategies and tactics.
• Influencing policy development. Both formal and informal policies may need to be rethought in order to bring about long-term change. Creating a safer environment for children, for instance, may involve a restructuring of drug laws (allowing for more prevention education, and more emphasis on treatment as opposed to imprisonment); a change in workplace policies (on-site or subsidized childcare, flexible schedules, etc.); expanded nutrition education and food programs; more structured activities for children and young people in the community; community policing strategies; etc. Changing those policies may require a combination of direct legislative advocacy, working with the business community, conducting a media campaign, and negotiating with community agencies and officials.
• Evaluating the initiative. Evaluation makes it possible to see (and enhance) the effects of your work over time, and to understand their impact on indirectly related community indicators of change. Not only does it enable you to make changes that reflect ongoing changes in the population and that respond to what you've learned, but it shows you to what extent you're addressing community and system change. Thus, an evaluation of an initiative to reduce smoking among people who are pregnant that showed a significant number of participants quitting during pregnancy might be related to a subsequent decrease in the expected number of infants with low birth weight.

Widespread behavior change and improvement in population-level outcomes. How do we affect the behavior of enough people in enough places to improve overall outcomes? Changing population-level outcomes requires changing the behaviors of large numbers of people. In order to accomplish this, states, communities, and organizations may employ social marketing efforts that include promotional messages, and that incorporate environmental changes that make the desired behaviors easier and more rewarding. To increase civic engagement, a campaign might include media messages that emphasize the beneficial consequences of community participation, easier access to voting (through simplified registration, more neighborhood polling places, free transportation to the polls, etc.), and greater opportunities for public participation in policy processes. One core competency supports this component:

• Implementing a social marketing campaign. Social marketing applies the techniques of commercial marketing to social goals, "selling" behavior change in much the same way that manufacturers sell products. Social marketing surveys potential "customers" -- those whose behavior needs to change -- segments the market (decides whom to appeal to and how), carefully crafts and places messages to speak to the intended audience, maximizes benefit and minimizes cost to the customer, supports change, and continually evaluates and readjusts the campaign to make it as effective as possible.

Sustaining the effort. As the Community Tool Box continually emphasizes, the work of health and community development is never really done. Once an intervention is launched, it has to be maintained over time for as long as it's needed. Real community change -- change that involves system and attitude changes, policy change, etc. -- may take years or decades. Even once it's accomplished, it still needs to be maintained if you don't want to lose ground. Both the work and the funding have to continue, or you'll never reach your ultimate goal of an improvement in the lives of community members. The final three core competencies are aimed at keeping it all going indefinitely, or for as long as is necessary.

• Applying for grants. As much as we might wish things were otherwise, money is necessary for almost any health or community effort. Understanding where to look for both public and private funding, and how to write a successful grant proposal, are essential skills for any organization that wants to do community work.
• Improving organizational management and development. If you're going to sustain your work over a long period, your organization has to be well-managed and structured for the long haul. There are different models you can choose from, but regardless of which you use, you have to be able to pay bills and staff on time, deliver services effectively, recruit participants, deal with internal and external problems, use your assets well, work with other organizations, and develop systems that make it easy to get things done. In short, you have to be able to manage work, staff, external relationships, and money as efficiently and gracefully as possible.
• Sustaining the work or initiative. All too often, funding from a particular source is time-limited. People -- founders and key staff members of organizations -- come and go, creating shifts in organizational patterns and gaps in organizational memory. Communities change, requiring changes in services or goals. New research pushes the work in an unexpected direction. Despite these disruptions, the organization and its work have to continue if you want to effect real change. You have to find ways to keep going -- to replace lost funding, to institutionalize your work in the community, to continue to hire people who'll do an excellent job, and to respond to changes in the population or the community. Sustaining the effort becomes part of your work at a certain point, and will remain so throughout the life of the organization.

We believe that the Community Tool Box is the most comprehensive capacity-building tool available online, both in the breadth of its vision and in the sheer volume of the information it provides. However, as we've discussed in this section, there are countless other tools of various types available online, and many of them provide information or services that the Community Tool Box doesn't. Explore the CTB, but explore other options as well, especially if you're looking for specific information -- census data, methods of doing your work, research results, etc.

Much of the early public internet was shaped by ideals of cooperation and broad access to information. In that spirit, our goal is not to compete with other websites, but rather to help your organization become the best and most effective practitioner of health and community development possible. If we all work together, and use online tools well, we can help make the world a better place, one community at a time.

In summary

The internet is a vast source of information and expertise, where community builders can find instruction, data, connections to others with similar concerns, funding possibilities, and much else they need to engage in their work. Online tools for health and community development -- websites like the Community Tool Box that provide information and instruction; university sites; government sites; newspaper and other media sites; online encyclopedias and databases; email groups; online forums; and other tools that allow communication among community builders -- can all contribute mightily toward doing the work. They can transcend geographical boundaries and make it possible for communities to find information and develop their own answers to problems, while recognizing that access to online resources is not universal.

The Community Tool Box is an online resource that aims to build the capacity of community-based and grassroots groups and organizations to act effectively on health and community issues, and to bring about positive social change in their communities. To this end, we have identified five basic components of health and community work, each with its own core competencies, and have organized accordingly:

Understanding the context of the work and collaborative planning

• Creating and maintaining coalitions
• Assessing community resources
• Analyzing community-identified problems and goals
• Developing a framework or model of change
• Developing strategic and action plans
• Building leadership

Community action and intervention

• Developing an intervention
• Increasing participation and membership
• Enhancing cultural competence

Community and system change

• Advocating for change
• Influencing policy development
• Evaluating the initiative

Widespread behavior change and improvement in population-level outcomes

• Implementing a social marketing campaign

Sustaining the effort

• Applying for grants
• Improving organizational management and development
• Sustaining the work or initiative

The Community Tool Box is, we believe, the most comprehensive capacity-building tool online, with thousands of pages of how-to information for health and community activists. But it's not the only valuable or useful online tool. There are thousands of sites that might be helpful, providing additional information or expertise that the Community Tool Box doesn't. The internet is one of the most powerful communication media and sources of information ever developed; if health and community builders take full advantage of it, we can change the world...for the better.

What do we mean by using Internet-based tools to promote community health and development?

You use Internet based tools:

___To learn how to do the work.

___To gather information.

___To communicate with others.

___To distribute educational or other information to participants.

___To conduct business.

___To engage in advocacy.

Why use Internet-based tools to promote community health and development?

___They give access to knowledge and information to everyone.

___They make it possible for people to change their lives and communities themselves.

___They help to distribute power and control more equitably throughout societies.

___They help to combat ignorance and misinformation (as well as disinformation - the intentional lies that governments, corporations, institutions, and other entities sometimes tell in order to keep control or to protect their own self-interest).

___They make it easier for people to understand how they can effect social change, and therefore to be more willing to attempt it.

___They give people models to follow.

___They put people concerned with health and community development in touch with one another.

___They increase the ease and effectiveness of advocacy, particularly for those who might otherwise have no voice.

___They can ease access to elected and appointed officials.

___They can help to assure the accountability of those officials and of oversight bodies.

___They can shorten response time to community emergencies or to addressing community needs.

___They encourage and facilitate collaboration among individuals and organizations at all levels.

Who should use Internet-based tools to promote community health and development?

___Professionals and professional organizations.

___Grass roots and community-based organizations.

___Larger nonprofits and initiatives.

___Community activists.

___Political activists.

___Participants in and beneficiaries of health and community service organizations and initiatives.

___Students in disciplines related to health and community services.

When should you use Internet-based tools to promote community health and development?

___When you want to build the community's capacity to solve its own problems.

___When you're starting a program, initiative, or other effort with little  information.

___When you need to communicate with a large number of people (and decide or embark on an action) quickly.

___When you need to learn about or understand laws or regulations.

___When you need information for a grant proposal or other funding possibility.

___When you want to get your own message out, or set up a place where everyone involved in your organization or effort or issue can communicate.

The logic behind the Community Tool Box as an Internet-based tool for the promotion of health and community development.

Guiding principles:

___An organization's vision, mission, and philosophy should all be consistent with one another.

___Almost any effort will benefit from a participatory process.

___Ethics are important.

Components of health and community development, with their respective core competencies:

___Understanding the context of the work and collaborative planning

• Creating and maintaining coalitions
• Assessing community resources
• Analyzing community-identified problems and goals
• Developing a framework or model of change
• Developing strategic and action plans
• Building leadership

___Community action and intervention

• Developing an intervention
• Increasing participation and membership
• Enhancing cultural competency

___Community and system change

• Advocating for change
• Influencing policy development
• Evaluating the initiative

___Widespread behavior change and improvement in population-level outcomes

• Implementing a social marketing campaign

___Sustaining the effort

• Applying for grants
• Improving organizational management and development

Katherine Fulton: You Are the Future of Philanthropy

In this 12 minute lecture, Katherine Fulton, president of the Monitor Institute, describes how philanthropy has evolved by utilizing the internet to grow, connect, and improve.

 

 

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

 

Experienced community builders know that involving stakeholders -- the people directly connected to and affected by their projects -- in their work is tremendously important. It gives them the information they need to design, and to adjust or change, what they do to best meet the needs of the community and of the particular populations that an intervention or initiative is meant to benefit. This is particularly true in relation to evaluation.

As we have previously discussed, community-based participatory research can be employed in describing the community, assessing community issues and needs, finding and choosing best practices, and/or evaluation. We consider the topic of participatory evaluation important enough to give it a section of its own, and to show how it fits into the larger participatory research picture.

It's a good idea to build stakeholder participation into a project from the beginning. One of the best ways to choose the proper direction for your work is to involve stakeholders in identifying real community needs and the ways in which a project will have the greatest impact. One of the best ways to find out what kinds of effects your work is having on the people it's aimed at is to include people receiving or affected by information, services, or advocacy on your evaluation team.

Often, you can see most clearly what's actually happening through the eyes of those directly involved in it -- participants, staff, and others who are involved in taking part in and carrying out a program, initiative, or other project. Previously, we have discussed how you can involve those people in conducting research on the community and choosing issues to address and directions to go in. This section is about how you can involve them in the whole scope of the project, including its evaluation, and how that's likely to benefit the project's final outcomes.

What is participatory evaluation?

When most people think of evaluation, they think of something that happens at the end of a project -- that looks at the project after it's over and decides whether it was any good or not. Evaluation actually needs to be an integral part of any project from the beginning. Participatory evaluation involves all the stakeholders in a project -- those directly affected by it or by carrying it out -- in contributing to the understanding of it, and in applying that understanding to the improvement of the work.

Participatory evaluation, as we shall see, isn't simply a matter of asking stakeholders to take part. Involving everyone affected changes the whole nature of a project from something done for a group of people or a community to a partnership among participants, community members, and those implementing the project. Rather than people with less influence over decisions affecting them being acted upon, participants become copilots of a project, helping make sure that their real needs and those of the community are recognized and addressed. Professional evaluators, project staff, project participants, and other community members all become colleagues in an effort to improve the community's quality of life.

This approach to planning and evaluation isn't possible without mutual trust and respect. These have to develop over time, but that development is made more probable by starting out with an understanding of local culture and customs -- whether you're working in a lower-resource setting or in an American urban neighborhood. Respecting individuals and the knowledge and skills they have will go a long way toward promoting long-term trust and involvement.

The other necessary aspect of any participatory process is appropriate training for everyone involved. Some stakeholders may not even be aware that project research takes place; others may have no idea how to work alongside people from different backgrounds; and still others may not know what to do with evaluation results once they have them. We'll discuss all of these issues -- stakeholder involvement, establishing trust, and training -- as the section progresses.

The real purpose of an evaluation is not just to find out what happened, but to use the information to make the project better. In order to accomplish this, evaluation should include examining at least three areas:

• Process. The process of a project includes the planning and logistical activities needed to set up and run it. Did we do a proper assessment beforehand so we would know what the real needs were? Did we use the results of the assessment to identify and respond to those needs in the design of the project? Did we set up and run the project within the timelines and other structures that we intended? Did we involve the people we intended to? Did we have or get the resources we expected? Were staff and others trained and prepared to do the work? Did we have the community support we expected? Did we record what we did accurately and on time? Did we monitor and evaluate as we intended?
• Implementation. Project implementation is the actual work of running it. Did we do what we intended? Did we serve or affect the number of people we proposed to? Did we use the methods we set out to use? Was the level of our activity what we intended (e.g., did we provide the number of hours of service we intended to)? Did we reach the population(s) we aimed at? What exactly did we provide or do? Did we make intentional or unintentional changes, and why?
• Outcomes. The project's outcomes are its results -- what actually happened as a consequence of the project's existence. Did our work have the effects we hoped for? Did it have other, unforeseen effects? Were they positive or negative (or neither)? Do we know why we got the results we did? What can we change, and how, to make our work more effective?

Many who write about participatory evaluation combine the first two of these areas into process evaluation, and add a third -- impact evaluation -- in addition to outcome evaluation. Impact evaluation looks at the long-term results of a project, whether the project continues or does its work and ends.

Rural development projects in lower-resource settings, for example, often exist simply to pass on specific skills to local people, who are expected to then both practice those skills and teach them to others. Once people have learned the skills -- perhaps particular cultivation techniques or water purification -- the project ends. If, in five or ten years, an impact evaluation shows that the skills the project taught are not only still being practiced, but have spread, then the project's impact was both long-term and positive.

In order for these areas to be covered properly, evaluation has to start at the very beginning of the project, with assessment and planning. In a participatory evaluation, stakeholders should be involved in:

• Naming and framing the problem or goal to be addressed
• Developing a theory of practice (process, logic model) for how to achieve success
• Identifying the questions to ask about the project and the best ways to ask them -- these questions will identify what the project means to do, and therefore what should be evaluated

What's the real goal, for instance, of a program to introduce healthier foods in school lunches? It could be simply to convince children to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. It could be to get them to eat less junk food. It could be to encourage weight loss among children for whom excess weight is a health concern. It could simply be to educate them about healthy eating, and to persuade them to be more adventurous eaters. The evaluation questions you ask both reflect and determine your goals for the program. If you don't measure changes in weight, for instance, then clearly that's not what you're aiming at. If you only look at an increase in children's consumption of healthy foods, you're not examining whether their overall eating patterns have changed. Is increased consumption of healthy foods still beneficial if other eating habits remain the same? You answer that question by what you choose to examine.

• Collecting information about the project
• Making sense of that information
• Deciding what to celebrate, and what to adjust or change, based on information from the evaluation

Why would (and why wouldn't) you use participatory evaluation?

Why would you use participatory evaluation? The short answer is that it's often the most effective way to find out what you need to know, both at the beginning of and throughout the course of a project. In addition, it carries benefits for both individual participants and the community that other methods don't.

Some of the major advantages of participatory evaluation:

• It gives you a better perspective on both the initial needs of the people the project is intended to benefit and on its ultimate effects. If stakeholders, including project participants, are involved from the beginning in determining what needs to be evaluated and why -- not to mention what the focus of the project needs to be -- you're much more likely to aim your work in the right direction, to correctly determine whether your project is effective or not, and to understand how to change it to make it more so.
• It can get you information you wouldn't get otherwise. When project direction and evaluation depend, at least in part, on information from people in the community, that information will often be more forthcoming if it's asked for by someone familiar. Community members interviewing their friends and neighbors may get information that an outside person wouldn't be offered.
• It tells you what worked and what didn't from the perspective of those most directly involved -- participants and staff. Those implementing the project and those who are directly affected by it are often well positioned to sort out the effective from the ineffective.

 

• It can tell you why something does or doesn't work. Participants are often able to explain exactly why they didn't respond to a particular technique or approach, thus giving you a better chance to adjust it properly.
• It results in a more effective project. For the reasons just described, you're much more apt to start out in the right direction, and to know when you need to change direction if you haven't. The consequence is a project that addresses the appropriate issues in the appropriate way, and accomplishes what it sets out to do.
• It empowers stakeholders. Participatory evaluation gives people who are often not consulted -- particularly line staff and participants -- the chance to be full partners in determining the direction and effectiveness of a project.
• It creates opportunities for perspectives that are often not included to be heard. Some project participants may have lower incomes or limited access to formal education and may have had fewer opportunities to influence decisions affecting them. By involving them from the beginning in project evaluation, you help ensure that their perspectives are included and that they have meaningful opportunities to speak for themselves.
• It teaches skills that can be used in employment and other areas of life. In addition to the development of basic skills and specific research capabilities, participatory evaluation encourages critical thinking, collaboration, problem-solving, independent action, meeting deadlines...all skills valued by employers, and useful in family life, education, civic participation, and other areas.
• It can strengthen self-confidence and self-esteem. This can include project participants and others who, because of circumstance, may have had few opportunities for their knowledge, abilities, or contributions to be recognized. The opportunity to engage in a meaningful and challenging activity, and to be treated as a colleague by professionals, can make a significant difference.
• It demonstrates ways in which people can take more control of decisions affecting their lives. Working with professionals and others to complete a complex task with real-world consequences can show people how they can take action to influence people and events.
• It encourages stakeholder ownership of the project. If those involved feel the project is theirs, rather than something imposed on them by others, they'll work hard both in implementing it and in conducting a thorough and informative evaluation in order to improve it.
• It can spark creativity in everyone involved. For those who've never been involved in anything similar, a participatory evaluation can be a revelation, opening doors to a whole new way of thinking and looking at the world. To those who have taken part in evaluation before, the opportunity to exchange ideas with people who may have new ways of looking at the familiar can lead to a fresh perspective on what may have seemed to be a settled issue.
• It encourages working collaboratively. For participatory evaluation to work well, it has to be viewed by everyone involved as a collaboration, where each participant brings specific tools and skills to the effort, and everyone is valued for what they can contribute. Collaboration of this sort not only leads to many of the advantages described above, but also fosters a more collaborative spirit for the future as well, leading to other successful community projects.
• It fits into a larger participatory effort. When community assessment and the planning of a project have been a collaboration among project participants, staff, and community members, it only makes sense to include evaluation in the overall plan, and to approach it in the same way as the rest of the project. In order to conduct a good evaluation, its planning should be part of the overall planning of the project. Furthermore, participatory process generally matches well with the philosophy of community-based or grassroots groups or organizations.

With all these positive aspects, participatory evaluation carries some negative ones as well. Whether its disadvantages outweigh its advantages depends on your circumstances, but whether you decide to engage in it or not, it's important to understand what kinds of drawbacks it might have.

The significant disadvantages of participatory evaluation include:

• It takes more time than a conventional process. Because there are so many people with different perspectives involved, a number of whom have never taken part in planning or evaluation before, everything takes longer than if a professional evaluator or a team familiar with evaluation simply set up and conducted everything. Decision-making involves a great deal of discussion, gathering people together may be difficult, evaluators need to be trained, etc.
• It takes the establishment of trust among all participants in the process. If you're starting something new (or, all too often, even if the project is ongoing), differences in social class, culture, and experience may divide groups of stakeholders. These can lead to snags and slowdowns until they're addressed, which won't happen overnight. It will take time and a good deal of conscious effort before all stakeholders feel comfortable and confident that their needs and culture are being addressed.
• You have to make sure that everyone's involved, not just "leaders" of various groups. All too often, "participatory" means the participation of an already-existing power structure. Most leaders are actually that -- people who are concerned with the best interests of the group, and whom others trust to represent them and steer them in the direction that best reflects those interests. Sometimes, however, people who hold leadership positions may not represent the full range of perspectives within a community.

By involving only leaders of a population or community, you run the risk of losing -- or never gaining -- the confidence and perspective of the rest of the population, which may distrust a particular leader or may simply see themselves shut out of the process. They may see the participatory evaluation as a function of authority and be uninterested in taking part in it. Working to recruit other community members as well as leaders may be an important step for the credibility of the process. But it's a lot of work and may be difficult.

• You have to train people to understand evaluation and how the participatory process works, as well as teaching them basic research skills. There are really a number of potential disadvantages here. The obvious one is that of time, which we've already raised -- training takes time to prepare, time to implement, and time to sink in. Another is the question of what kind of training participants will respond to. Still another concerns recruitment -- will people be willing to put in the time necessary to prepare them for the process, let alone the time for the process itself?
• You have to get buy-in and commitment from participants. Given what evaluators will have to do, they need to be committed to the process, and to feel ownership of it. You have to structure both the training and the process itself to bring about this commitment.
• People's lives -- illness, childcare and relationship problems, agricultural work, etc. -- may cause delays or get in the way of the evaluation. People facing economic hardship may have less flexibility when unexpected demands arise. A sick child, relationship difficulties, or too many days of rain in a row during an important agricultural period may disrupt someone's ability to participate on a given day, or at all. If you're working with a rural community that depends heavily on agriculture, for instance, an unexpected change in weather can derail the process temporarily or, in some cases, permanently.
• You may have to be creative about how you get, record, and report information. If some of the participants in an evaluation have limited literacy, or if participants speak a number of different languages (English, Spanish, and Lao, for instance), a way to record information will have to be found that everyone can understand, and that can, in turn, be understood by others outside the group.
• Funders and policymakers may not understand or believe in participatory evaluation. At worst, this can lose you your funding, or the opportunity to apply for funding. At best, you'll have to spend a good deal of time and effort convincing funders and policymakers that participatory evaluation is a good idea, and obtaining their support for your effort.

Some of these disadvantages could also be seen as advantages: the training people receive blends in with their development of new skills that can be transferred to other areas of life, for instance; coming up with creative ways to express ideas benefits everyone; once funders and policymakers are persuaded of the benefits of participatory process and participatory evaluation, they may encourage others to employ it as well. Nonetheless, all of these potential negatives take time, which can be crucial. If it's absolutely necessary that things happen quickly (which is true not nearly as often as most of us think it is), participatory evaluation is probably not the way to go.

When might you use participatory evaluation?

So when do you use participatory evaluation? Some of the reasons you might decide it's the best choice for your purposes:

• When you're already committed to a participatory process for your project. Evaluation planning can be included and collaboratively designed as part of the overall project plan.
• When you have the time, or when results are more important than time. As should be obvious from the last part of this section, one of the biggest drawbacks to participatory evaluation is the time it takes. If time isn't what's most important, you can gain the advantages of a participatory evaluation without having to compensate for many of the disadvantages.
• When you can convince funders that it's a good idea. Funders may specify that they want an outside evaluation, or they may simply be uncertain about the value of participatory evaluation. In either case, you may have some persuading to do in order to be able to use a participatory process. If you can get their support, however, funders may value the fact that participatory evaluation can have added benefits in the form of empowerment and transferable skills.
• When there may be issues in the community or population that outside evaluators (or program providers, for that matter) aren't likely to be aware of. Political, social, and interpersonal factors in the community can shape the results of an evaluation, and without an understanding of those factors and their history, evaluators may have no idea that what they're finding out is being influenced in any way. Evaluators who are part of the community can help sort out the influence of these factors, and thus end up with a more accurate evaluation.
• When you need information that it will be difficult for anyone outside the community or population to get. When you know that members of the community or population in question are unwilling to speak freely to anyone from outside, participatory evaluation is a way to increase the chances that you'll get the information you need.
• When part of the goal of the project is to empower participants and help them develop transferable skills. Here, the participatory evaluation, as it should in any case, becomes a part of the project itself and its goals.
• When you want to bring the community or population together. In addition to fostering a collaborative spirit, as we've mentioned, a participatory evaluation can create opportunities for people who normally have little contact to work together and get to know one another. This familiarity can then carry over into other aspects of community life, and even change the social character of the community over the long term.

Who should be involved in participatory evaluation?

We've referred continually to stakeholders -- the people who are directly affected by the project being evaluated. Who are the stakeholders? That varies from project to project, depending on the focus, the funding, the intended outcomes, etc. There are a number of groups that are generally involved, however:

• Participants or people intended to benefit. These are the people whom the project is meant to benefit. That may be a specific group (people with a certain medical condition, for instance), a particular population (recent immigrants from Southeast Asia, residents of a particular area), or a whole community. They may be actively receiving a service (e.g., employment training) or may simply stand to benefit from what the project is doing (violence prevention in a given neighborhood). These are usually the people with the greatest stake in the project's success, and often those with the least experience with evaluation.
• Project line staff and/or volunteers. The people who actually do the work of carrying out the project. They may be professionals, people with specific skills, or community volunteers. They may work directly with project participants as mentors, teachers, or health care providers; or they may advocate for immigrant rights, identify open space to be preserved, or answer the phone and prepare mailings. Whoever they are, they often know more about what they're doing than anyone else, and their lives can be affected by the project as much as those of participants.
• Administrators. The people who coordinate the project or specific aspects of it. Like line staff and volunteers, they know a lot about what's going on, and they're intimately involved with the project every day.
• Outside evaluators, if they're involved. In many cases, outside evaluators are hired to run participatory evaluations. The need for their involvement is obvious.
• Community officials. You may need the support of community leaders, or you may simply want to give them and other participants the opportunity to get to know one another in a context that might lead to better understanding of community needs.
• Others whose lives are affected by the project. The definition of this group varies greatly from project to project. In general, it refers to people whose jobs or other aspects of their lives will be changed either by the functioning of the project itself, or by its outcomes.

An example would be landowners whose potential use of their land would be affected by an environmental initiative or a neighborhood plan.

How do you conduct a participatory evaluation?

Participatory evaluation encompasses elements of designing the project as well as evaluating it. What you evaluate depends on what you want to know and what you're trying to do. Identifying the actual evaluation questions sets the course of the project just as surely as a standardized testing program guides teaching. When these questions come out of an assessment in which stakeholders are involved, the evaluation is one phase of a community-based participatory research process.

A participatory evaluation really has two stages: One comprises finding and training stakeholders to act as participant evaluators. The second -- some of which may take place before or during the first stage -- encompasses the planning and implementation of the project and its evaluation, and includes six steps:

• Naming and framing the issue
• Developing a theory of practice to address it
• Deciding what questions to ask, and how to ask them to get the information you need
• Collecting information
• Analyzing the information you've collected
• Using the information to celebrate what worked, and to adjust and improve the project

We'll examine both of these stages in detail.

Finding and training stakeholders to act as participant evaluators

Unfortunately, this stage isn't simply a matter of announcing a participatory evaluation and then sitting back while people beat down the doors to be part of it. In fact, it may be one of the more difficult aspects of conducting a participatory evaluation.

Here's where the trust building we discussed earlier comes into play. The population you're working with may be distrustful of outsiders, or may be used to promises of involvement that turn out to be hollow or simply ignored. They may be used to being ignored in general, and/or offered services and programs that don't speak to their real needs. If you haven't already built a relationship to the point where people are willing to believe that you'll follow through on what you say, now is the time to do it. It may take some time and effort -- you may have to prove that you'll still be there in six months -- but it's worth it. You're much more likely to have a successful project, let alone a successful evaluation, if you have a relationship of mutual trust and respect.

But let's assume you have that step out of the way, and that you've established good relationships in the community and among the population you're working with, as well as with staff of the project. Let's assume as well that these people know very little, if anything, about participatory evaluation. That means they'll need training in order to be effective.

If, in fact, your evaluation is part of a larger participatory effort, the question arises as to whether to simply employ the same team that did assessments and/or planned the project, perhaps with some additions, as evaluators. That course of action has both pluses and minuses. The team is already assembled, has developed a method of working together, has some training in research methods, etc., so that they can hit the ground running -- obviously a plus.
The fact that they have a big stake in seeing the project be successful can work either way: they may interpret their findings in the best possible light, or even ignore negative information; or they may be eager to see exactly where and how to adjust the work to make it go better.

Another issue is burnout. Evaluation will mean more time in addition to what an assessment and planning team has already put in. While some may be more than willing to continue, many may be ready for a break (or may be moving on to another phase of their lives). If the possibility of assembling a new team exists, it will give those who've had enough the chance to gracefully withdraw.

How you handle this question will depend on the attitudes of those involved, how many people you actually have to draw on (if the recruitment of the initial team was really difficult, you may not have a lot of choices), and what people committed to.

Recruit participant evaluators

There are many ways to accomplish this. In some situations, it makes the most sense to put out a general call for volunteers; in others, to approach specific individuals who are likely -- because of their commitment to the project or to the population -- to be willing. Alternatively, you might approach community leaders or stakeholders to suggest possible evaluators.

Some basic guidelines for recruitment include:

• Use communication channels and styles that reach the people you're aiming at
• Make your message as clear as possible
• Use plain language and/or whatever other language(s) the population uses
• Put your message where the audience is
• Approach potential participants individually where possible -- if you can find people they know to recruit them, all the better
• Explain what people may gain from participation
• Be clear that they're being asked because they already have qualities that are important for participation
• Encourage people, but also be honest about the amount and extent of what needs to be done
• Work out with participants what they're willing and able to do
• Try to arrange support -- childcare, for example -- to make participation easier
• Ask people you've recruited to recommend -- or recruit -- others

In general, it's important for potential participant evaluators -- particularly those whose connection to the project isn't related to their employment -- to understand the commitment involved. An evaluation is likely to last a year, unless the project is considerably shorter than that, and while you might expect and plan for some dropouts, most of the team needs to be available for that long.

In order to make that commitment easier, discuss with participants what kinds of support they'll need in order to fulfill their commitment -- childcare and transportation, for instance -- and try to find ways to provide it. Arrange meetings at times and places that are easiest for them (and keep the number of meetings to a minimum). For participants who are paid project staff, the evaluation should be considered part of their regular work, so that it isn't an extra, unpaid burden that they feel they can't refuse.

Be careful to try to put together a team that's a cross-section of the stakeholder population. As we've already discussed, if you recruit only "leaders" from among the participant population, for instance, you may create resentment in the rest of the group, fail to get a full perspective of the thinking or perceptions of that group, and defeat the purpose of the participatory nature of the evaluation as well. Even if the leaders are good representatives of the group, you may want to broaden your recruitment in the hopes of developing more community leadership and creating opportunities for people whose perspectives may not always be heard.

Train participant evaluators

Participants, depending on their backgrounds, may need training in a number of areas. They may have very little experience in attending and taking part in meetings, for instance, and may need to start there. They may benefit from an introduction to the idea of participatory evaluation and how it works. And they'll almost certainly need some training in data gathering and analysis.

How training gets carried out will vary with the needs and schedules of participants and the project. It may take place in small chunks over a relatively long period of time -- weeks or months -- might happen all at once in the course of a weekend retreat, or might be some combination. There's no right or wrong way here. The first option will probably make it possible for more people to take part; the second allows for people to get to know one another and bond as a team, and a combination might allow for both.

By the same token, there are many training methods, any or all of which might be useful with a particular group. Training in meeting skills -- knowing when and how to contribute and respond, following discussion, etc. -- may best be accomplished through mentoring, rather than instruction. Interviewing skills may best be learned through roleplaying and other experiential techniques. Some training -- how to approach local people, for example -- might best come from participants themselves.

Some of the areas in which training might be necessary:

• The participatory evaluation process. How participatory evaluation works, its goals, the roles people may play in the process, what to expect.
• Meeting skills. Following discussion, listening skills, handling disagreement or conflict, contributing and responding appropriately, general ground rules and etiquette, etc.
• Interviewing. Putting people at ease, body language and tone of voice, asking open-ended and follow-up questions, recording what people say and other important information, handling interruptions and distractions, group interviews.
• Observation. Direct vs. participant observation, choosing appropriate times and places to observe, relevant information to include, recording observations.
• Recording information and reporting it to the group. What interviewees and those observed say and do, the nonverbal messages they send, who they are (age, situation, etc.), what the conditions were, the date and time, and any other factors that influenced the interview or observation.

For people for whom writing isn't comfortable, where writing isn't feasible, or where language is a barrier, there should be alternative recording and reporting methods. Drawings, maps, diagrams, audio recordings, videos, or other imaginative ways of remembering exactly what was said or observed can be substituted, depending on the situation. In interviews, if audio or video recording is going to be used, it's important to get the interviewee's permission first -- before the interviewer shows up with the equipment, so that there are no misunderstandings.

Planning and implementing the project and its evaluation. There's an assumption here that all phases of a project will be participatory, so that not only its evaluation, but its planning and the assessment that leads to it also involve stakeholders (not necessarily the same ones who act as evaluators). If stakeholders haven't been involved from the beginning, they don't have the deep understanding of the purposes and structure of a project that they'd have of one they've helped form. The evaluation that results, therefore, is likely to be less perceptive -- and therefore less valuable -- than one of a project they've been involved in from the start.

Naming and framing the problem or goal to be addressed. Identifying what you're evaluating defines what the project is meant to address and accomplish. Community representatives and stakeholders, all those with something to gain or lose, work together to develop a shared vision and mission. By collecting information about community concerns and identifying available assets, communities can understand which issues to focus a project on.

Naming a problem or goal refers to identifying the issue that needs to be addressed. Framing it has to do with the way we look at it. If violence involving young people is conceived of as strictly a law enforcement problem, for instance, that framing implies specific ways of solving it: stricter laws, stricter enforcement, zero tolerance for violence, etc. If it's framed as a combination of a number of issues -- availability of handguns, unemployment and substance use among young people, social issues that lead to the formation of gangs, alienation and hopelessness in particular populations, poverty, etc. -- then solutions may include employment and recreation programs, mentoring, substance use treatment, etc., as well as law enforcement. The more we know about a problem, and the more different perspectives we can include in our thinking about it, the more accurately we can frame it, and the more likely we are to come up with an effective solution.

Developing a theory of practice to address the problem. How do you conduct a community effort so that it has a good chance of solving the problem at hand? Many communities and organizations answer this question by throwing uncoordinated programs at the problem, or by assuming a certain approach (law enforcement, as in our example, for instance) will take care of it. In fact, you have to have a plan for creating, implementing, evaluating, adjusting, and maintaining a solution if you want it to work.

Whatever you call this plan -- a theory of practice, a logic model, or simply an approach or process -- it should be logical, consistent, consider all the areas that need to be coordinated in order for it to work, and give you an overall guideline and a list of steps to follow in order to carry it out.

Once you've identified an issue, for instance, one possible theory of practice might be:

• Form a coalition of organizations, agencies, and community members concerned with the problem.
• Recruit and train a participatory research team which includes representatives of all stakeholder groups.
• The team collects both statistical and qualitative, firsthand information about the problem, and identifies community assets that might help in addressing it.
• Use the information you have to design a solution that takes into account the problem's complexity and context.

This might be a single program or initiative, or a coordinated, community-wide effort involving several organizations, the media, and individuals. If it's closer to the latter, that's part of the complexity you have to take into account. Coordination has to be part of your solution, as do ways to get around the bureaucratic roadblocks that might occur and methods to find the financial and personnel resources you need.

• Implement the solution.
• Carry out monitoring and evaluation that will give you ongoing feedback about how well you're meeting objectives, and what you should change to improve your solution.
• Use the information from the evaluation to adjust and improve the solution.
• Go back to #2 and do as much of it again as you need to until the problem is solved, or -- more likely, since many community problems never actually disappear -- indefinitely in order to maintain and increase your gains.

Deciding what evaluation questions to ask, and how to ask them to get the information you need. As we've discussed, choosing the evaluation questions essentially guides the work. What you're really choosing here is what you're going to pay attention to. There could be significant results from your project that you're never aware of, because you didn't look for them -- you didn't ask the questions to which those results would have been the answers. That's why it's so important to select questions carefully: they'll determine what you find.

Framing the problem is one element here -- putting it in context, looking at it from all sides, stepping back from your own assumptions and biases to get a clearer and broader view of it. Another is envisioning the outcomes you want, and thinking about what needs to change, and how, in order to reach them.

Framing is important in this activity as well. If you want simply to reduce violence involving young people, stricter laws and enforcement might seem like a reasonable solution, assuming you're willing to stick with them forever; if you want not only to reduce or eliminate that violence, but to change the climate that fosters it (i.e., long-term social change), the solution becomes much broader and requires, as we pointed out above, much more than law enforcement. And a broader solution means more, and more complex, evaluation questions.
In the first case, evaluation questions might be limited to some variation of: "Were there more arrests and convictions of young people for violent crimes in the time period studied, as compared to the last period for which there were records before the new solution was put in place?" "Did young people convicted of violent offenses receive harsher sentences than before?" "Was there a reduction in violent incidents involving young people?"

Looking at the broader picture, in addition to some of those questions, there might be questions about counseling programs for young people who committed offenses to change their attitudes and help ease their transition back into the community, substance use treatment, control of handgun sales, changing community attitudes, etc.

Collecting information. This is the largest part, at least in time and effort, of implementing an evaluation. Various evaluators, depending on the information needed, may conduct any or all of the following:

• Research into census or other public records, as well as news archives, library collections, online sources, etc.
• Individual and/or group interviews
• Focus groups
• Community information-sharing sessions
• Surveys
• Direct or participant observation

In some cases -- particularly among populations with limited access to formal education in lower-resource settings -- evaluators may have to find creative ways to draw out information. In some cultures, maps, drawings, representations ("If this rock is the headman's house..."), or even storytelling may be more revealing than the answers to straightforward questions.

Analyzing the information you've collected. Once you've collected all the information you need, the next step is to make sense of it. What do the numbers mean? What do people's stories and opinions tell you about the project? Did you carry out the process you'd planned? If not, did it make a difference, positive or negative?

In some cases, these questions are relatively easy to answer. If there were particular objectives for serving people, or for participants' accomplishments, you can quickly find out whether they were met or not. (We set out to serve 75 people, and we actually served 82. We anticipated that 50 would complete the program, and 61 actually completed.)

In other cases, it's much harder to tell what your information means. What if approximately half of interviewees say the project was helpful to them, and the other half say the opposite? A result like that may leave you doing some detective work. (Is there any ethnic, racial, geographic, or cultural pattern as to who is positive and who is negative? Whom did each group work with? Where did they experience the project, and how? Did members of each group have specific things in common?)

While collecting the information requires the most work and time, analyzing it is perhaps the most important step in conducting an evaluation. Your analysis tells you what you need to know in order to improve your project, and also gives you the evidence you need to make a case for continued funding and community support. It's important that it be done well, and that it make sense of odd results like that directly above. Here's where good training and good guidance in using critical thinking and other techniques come in.

In general, information-gathering and analysis should cover the three areas we discussed early in the section: process, implementation, and outcomes. The purpose here is both to provide information for improving the project and to provide accountability to funders and the community.

• Process. This concerns the logistics of the project. Was there good coordination and communication? Was the planning process participatory? Was the original timeline for each stage of the project -- outreach, assessment, planning, implementation, evaluation -- realistic? Were you able to find or hire the right people? Did you find adequate funding and other resources? Was the space appropriate? Did members of the planning and evaluation teams work well together? Did the people responsible do what they were expected to do? Did unexpected leaders emerge (in the planning group, for instance)?
• Implementation. Did you do what you set out to do -- reach the number of people you expected to, use the methods you intended, provide the amount and kind of service or activity that you planned for? This part of the evaluation is not meant to assess effectiveness, but only whether the project was carried out as planned -- i.e., what you actually did, rather than what you accomplished as a result. That comes next.
• Outcomes. What were the results of what you did? Did what you hoped for take place? If it did, how do you know it was a result of what you did, as opposed to some other factor(s)? Were there unexpected results? Were they negative or positive? Why did this all happen?

Using the information to celebrate what worked, and to adjust and improve the project. While accountability is important -- if the project has no effect at all, for example, it's just wasted effort -- the real thrust of a good evaluation is formative. That means it's meant to provide information that can help to continue to form the project, reshape it to make it better. As a result, the overall questions when looking at process, implementation, and outcomes are: What worked well? What didn't? What changes would improve the project?

Answering these questions requires further analysis, but should allow you to improve the project considerably. In addition to dropping or changing and adjusting those elements of the project that didn't work well, don't neglect those that were successful. Nothing's perfect; even effective approaches can be made better.

Don't forget to celebrate your successes. Celebration recognizes the hard work of everyone involved, and the value of your effort. It creates community support, and strengthens the commitment of those involved. Perhaps most important, it makes clear that people working together can improve the quality of life in the community.

There's a final element to participatory research and evaluation that can't be ignored. Once you've started a project and made it successful, you have to maintain it. The participatory research and evaluation has to continue -- perhaps not with the same team(s), but with teams representative of all stakeholders. Conditions change, and projects have to adapt. Research into those conditions and continued evaluation of your work will keep that work fresh and effective.

If your project is successful, you may think your work is done. Think again -- community problems are only solved as long as the solutions are actively practiced. The moment you turn your back, the conditions you worked so hard to change can start to return to what existed before. The work -- supported by participatory research and evaluation -- has to go on indefinitely to maintain and increase the gains you've made.

In Summary

Participatory evaluation is a part of participatory research. It involves stakeholders in a community project in setting evaluation criteria for it, collecting and analyzing data, and using the information gained to adjust and improve the project.

Participatory process brings in the all-important multiple perspectives of those most directly affected by the project, who are also most likely to be connected to community history and culture. The information and insights they contribute can be crucial to a project's effectiveness. In addition, their involvement encourages community buy-in, and can result in important gains in skills, knowledge, self-confidence, and self-esteem for participant evaluators. All in all, participatory evaluation can create benefits for both the project and the people involved.

Conducting a participatory evaluation involves several steps:

• Recruiting and training a stakeholder evaluation team
• Naming and framing the problem
• Developing a theory of practice to guide the process of the work
• Asking the right evaluation questions
• Collecting information
• Analyzing information
• Using the information to celebrate and adjust your work

The final step, as with so many of the community-building strategies and actions described in the Community Tool Box, is to keep at it. Participatory research in general, and participatory evaluation in particular, has to continue as long as the work continues, in order to keep track of community needs and conditions, and to keep adjusting the project to make it more responsive and effective. And the work often has to continue indefinitely in order to maintain progress and avoid sliding back into the conditions or attitudes that made the project necessary in the first place.

What is participatory evaluation?

___Participatory evaluation is an evaluation that involves all the stakeholders in a project - those directly affected by it or by carrying it out - in every phase of evaluating it, and in applying the results of that evaluation to the improvement of the work.

Why would (and why wouldn't) you use participatory evaluation?

Advantages:
___It gives you a better perspective on both the initial needs of the project's beneficiaries, and on its ultimate effects.

___It can get you information you wouldn't get otherwise.

___It tells you what worked and what didn't from the perspective of those most directly involved - beneficiaries and staff.

___It can tell you why something does or doesn't work.

___It results in a more effective project.

___It empowers stakeholders.

___It can provide a voice for those who are often not heard.

___It teaches skills that can be used in employment and other areas of life.

___It bolsters self-confidence and self-esteem in those who may have little of either.

___It demonstrates to people ways in which they can take more control of their lives.

___It encourages stakeholder ownership of the project.

___It can spark creativity in everyone involved.

___It encourages working collaboratively.

___It fits into a larger participatory effort.

Disadvantages:
___It takes more time than conventional process.

___It takes the establishment of trust among all participants in the process.

___You have to make sure that everyone's involved, not just "leaders" of various groups.

___You have to train people to understand evaluation and how the participatory process works, as well as teaching them basic research skills.

___You have to get buy-in and commitment from participants.

___People's lives - illness, child care and relationship problems, getting the crops in, etc. - may cause delays or get in the way oftheevaluation

___You may have to be creative about how you get, record, and report information.

___Funders and policy makers may not understand or believe in participatory evaluation.

When would you use participatory evaluation?

___When you're already committed to a participatory process for your project.

___When you have the time, or when results are more important than time.

___When you can convince funders that it's a good idea.

___When there may be issues in the community or population that outside evaluators (or program providers, for that matter) aren't likely to be aware of.

___When you need information that it will be difficult for anyone outside the community or population to get.

___When part of the goal of the project is to empower participants and help them develop transferable skills.

___When you want to bring the community or population together.

Who should be involved in participatory evaluation?

All stakeholders, including:

___Participants or beneficiaries.

___Project line staff and/or volunteers.

___Administrators.

___Outside evaluators, if they're involved. 

___Community officials.

___Others whose lives are affected by the project.

Tool: Team Data Collection - How to Do It Well

This is a summary of responses from e-listserves ARLIST-L (Action Research) and CBPR (Community-Based Participatory Research) to an inquiry posted by Michelle Garred in November 2007. We have included her initial e-mail, and then added the summarized reponses to each of her questions.

From: Michelle Garred
Subject: Team data collection: how to do it well?

Dear colleagues,

I am working on an action research project aimed at field-testing a new method for community-based peacebuilding, in cooperation with a partner agency in the Philippines. Within the agency, there is an established core team assigned to this project, and we collaborate in the research design, data collection, data analysis and dissemination of results. The project has two distinct outcomes: A) a practitioner-focused lessons learned publication to be published by the partner agency and B) my Ph.D. thesis.

Much of our data collection will be conducted by a team, rather than the more traditional approach of data collection by an individual researcher. I am wrestling with some questions about how to do this well.

Among the many questions are:

• What are the methodological advantages of team data collection? What are the pitfalls that we should avoid?
• How can we design the written question protocols, the note-taking templates, and the note-taking processes in ways that maximize the depth and consistency of data?
• How can I encourage and assist my partners in note-taking, when written documentation is not their preferred or strongest skill?
• In my Ph.D. thesis, what might be an acceptable proportion of data collected by team versus data collected directly by me?
• How would you cite team interviews in a Ph.D. thesis?
• What are the key resources I should review?

What are the methodological advantages of team data collection? What are the pitfalls that we should avoid?

Advantages:

• Data collection - Interview more participants / increase sample size, thus presumably increasing reliability and validity of the data while reducing time and cost to do the study.
• Data analysis - Diversity within the research team can enrich interpretation and lead to fresh perspectives.

Pitfalls:

• More personalities and activities to coordinate means more opportunities for things to go wrong.
• Quality assurance: possibility of inconsistencies in question interpretation; possibility of inadequate, erroneous, or extraneous data.
• Team motivation may requirement payment and/or incentive, and full support of the team’s supervisor.

Pitfalls can be addressed through training:

• Need for consistent, systematic training of data collectors.
• Lead researcher conduct pilot interviews first, to get a handle on how to better train the team.
• Conduct interviewing practice sessions before beginning actual interviews.
• During practice, use some standardized interviewees for training purposes and set a high inter-rater reliability for interviewers to make sure they have demonstrated proper technique before you let them loose on your subject population.
• Make sure all interviewers know how to ask delving follow-up questions to elicit clarity of meaning, depth, examples, etc.
• Ensure interviewing ground rules are clear. For example, what follow-up comments may an interviewer add to help an interviewee understand the question? What words may be used and/or not used?
• Demonstrated skills before graduation from training phase

And through regular team meetings:

• Meet periodically throughout the data collection period. This will help to identify any difficulties, and refine your process as you go along.
• Have regular – daily at first if necessary – debriefing, trouble-shooting meetings with all the data collectors, so all can learn from each others’ problems and solutions.
• Regular quality assurance meetings. Since these are partners and not hired data collectors, you will have to train them in a collaborative and diplomatic way. Group review of the data collected each day or each week may help, serving both for QA and as a support group.
• If not together on site, consider on-line conferencing.

How can we design the written question protocols, the note-taking templates, and the note-taking processes in ways that maximize the depth and consistency of data?

Keep in mind that we will have a team of 5 people conducting semi-structured interviews and we will probably not use audio recording.

• Conduct some preliminary focus groups to clarify the questions and problems. Have the interviewers sit in and/or help with the focus groups as part of their training and debrief with them afterwards.
• Use the focus group data to develop some checklists/checkboxes for anticipated responses so that you can have at least some quantitative data.
• Develop the interview guide together with the interview team. It is possible to use a participatory process such as “card storming” to build team consensus on the questions to be asked.  Here's one example of a card storming.
• If possible, use two-person data collector teams with the second person taking notes and listening/looking for any problems.

How can I encourage and assist my partners in note-taking, when written documentation is not their preferred or strongest skill?

Again, this can be addressed through team training and regular meetings . . .

• Show the trainee interviewers how it’s done right, but also how it’s done badly. They need to see both the model behavior and also what mistakes to avoid.
• Find a way to illustrate to them how faulty memories of interview material can be, and how difficult it is to analyze interview data when there is little depth of content.
• Revisit this issue during regular team meetings during the data collection phase.

And through wise design of the note-taking protocols:

• Ensure the written interview protocol has space for note-taking in answer to each question, and also for noting unprompted comments from the interviewee.
• Additionally, you might have team members write up a brief summary within 24 hours of completing the interview.
• Focus the note-taking on direct recall of interviewee’s words. Interviewers should strive not to conduct implicit analysis at this point. Reserve analysis for a separate follow-up step.

In my Ph.D. thesis, what might be an acceptable proportion of data collected by team versus data collected directly by me?

I understand that team data collection is common in action research, but less common in a Ph.D. thesis. It would help me to hear some different opinions on this issue.

• For quantitative data, one might set a quota of random 10% of data reviewed for QA.
• I would suggest doing as many as you possibly can, up to the average done by the team, so you can know what they’re experience really is.
• As long as you are directing the study, I wouldn’t have a problem with a sharing of the data collection; however, you would need to be integrally involved in all aspects of the study, particularly coding and analysis.
• Ortrun Zuber-Skerritt and Chad Perry suggest that you distinguish between the field research (where others are involved) and the thesis research, which is your reflection on the field research.
  • Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun, and Perry, Chad (2002)  Action research within organisations and university thesis writing. The Learning Organization, 9(4), 171-179.

How would you cite team interviews in a Ph.D. thesis?

• In table format within the document.
• I assume the interview data and individual interviewer will be de-identified in the thesis itself, even if you know who said what in your field notes and quality assurance activities.
• I think I would explain in the body of the text just how the study was carried out, including the qualifications of the team members. Since they are part of the Human as Instrument section, their backgrounds and experience as researchers would need to be shared to instill a sense of trust on the part of the reader for the qualifications of the data collectors.
• When referencing, check APA, but I think it would involve citing interviews in the text by noting the date of the interview, then citing APA style in the bibliography.
• Consider in advance whether you will use the participants' real names or pseudonyms.

Key resources

• See Madeline Church's doctoral thesis, Creating an Uncompromised place to belong - why do I find myself in networks? from the living theory section of Action Research.
• The following paper describes some of the advantages of using a particular form of team-based qualitative research interviews. You may find it useful: Driedger, S. Michelle; Gallois, Cindy; Sanders, Carrie; and Santesso, Nancy (2006).  "Finding common ground in team-based qualitative research using the convergent interviewing method." Qualitative Health Research, 16(8), 1145-1157.
  • There's a detailed critique in the following book chapter: Rao, Sally, and Perry, Chad (2006). Convergent interviewing: a starting methodology for enterprise research program. In Hine, Damian, and Carson, David, eds., Innovative methodologies in enterprise research, 86-99. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• A good reference is Clifford Geertz's 1973 book, The Interpretation of Cultures. The questions you are asking are actually much deeper and more philosophical than the operational issues you asked about. You are basically working within anthropological practices and rules about fieldnotes and fieldwork rather than traditional interviews like we do in psychology.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

What is a logic model?

A logic model presents a picture of how your effort or initiative is supposed to work. It explains why your strategy is a good solution to the problem at hand. Effective logic models make an explicit, often visual, statement of the activities that will bring about change and the results you expect to see for the community and its people. A logic model keeps participants in the effort moving in the same direction by providing a common language and point of reference.

More than an observer's tool, logic models become part of the work itself. They energize and rally support for an initiative by declaring precisely what you're trying to accomplish and how.

In this section, the term logic model is used as a generic label for the many ways of displaying how change unfolds.

Some other names include:

• roadmap, conceptual map, or pathways map
• mental model
• blueprint for change
• framework for action or program framework
• program theory or program hypothesis
• theoretical underpinning or rationale
• causal chain or chain of causation
• theory of change or model of change

Each mapping or modeling technique uses a slightly different approach, but they all rest on a foundation of logic -- specifically, the logic of how change happens. By whatever name you call it, a logic model supports the work of health promotion and community development by charting the course of community transformation as it evolves.

A word about logic

The word "logic" has many definitions. As a branch of philosophy, scholars devote entire careers to its practice. As a structured method of reasoning, mathematicians depend on it for proofs. In the world of computing, computers operate according to programmed logic.

There is, however, another meaning that lies closer to the heart of community change: the logic of how things work. Consider, for example, the logic of rush-hour traffic. No one plans it. No one controls it. Yet, through experience and awareness of recurrent patterns, we comprehend it, and, in many cases, can successfully avoid its problems (by carpooling, taking alternative routes, etc.).

Logic in this sense refers to "the relationship between elements and between an element and the whole." All of us have a great capacity to see patterns in complex phenomena. We see systems at work and find within them an inner logic, a set of rules or relationships that govern behavior. Working alone, we can usually discern the logic of a simple system. And by working in teams, persistently over time if necessary, we can often make sense of even very complex systems.

On the flip side, we can also project logic into the future. With an understanding of context and knowledge about cause and effect, we can construct logical theories of change, hypotheses about how things will unfold either on their own or under the influence of planned interventions. Like all predictions, these hypotheses are only as good as their underlying logic. Magical assumptions, poor reasoning, and fuzzy thinking increase the chances that despite our efforts, the future will turn out differently than we expect or hope. On the other hand, some events that seem unexpected to the uninitiated will not be a surprise to long-time residents and careful observers.

The challenge for a logic modeler is to find and accurately represent the wisdom of those who know best how community change happens.

The logic in logic modeling

Like a roadmap, a logic model shows the route traveled (or steps taken) to reach a certain destination. A detailed model indicates precisely how each activity will lead to desired changes. Alternatively, a broader plan sketches out the chosen routes and how far you will go. This roadmap aspect of a logic model reveals what causes what, and in what order. At various points on the map, you may need to stop and review your progress and make any necessary adjustments.

A logic model also expresses the thinking behind an initiative's plan. It explains why the program ought to work, why it can succeed where other attempts have failed. This is the "program theory" or "rationale" aspect of a logic model. By defining the problem or opportunity and showing how intervention activities will respond to it, a logic model makes the program planners' assumptions explicit.

The form that a logic model takes is flexible and does not have to be linear (unless your program's logic is itself linear). Flowcharts, maps, or tables are the most common formats. It is also possible to use a network, concept map, or web to describe the relationships among more complex program components. Models can even be built around cultural symbols that describe transformation, such as the Indigenous medicine wheel, if the stakeholders feel it is appropriate.

See the "Generic Model for Disease/Injury Control and Prevention" in the Examples section for an illustration of how the same information can be presented in a linear or nonlinear format.

Whatever form you choose, a logic model ought to provide direction and clarity by presenting the big picture of change along with certain important details. Let's illustrate the typical components of a logic model, using as an example a mentoring program in a community where the high school dropout rate is very high. We'll call this program "On Track."

• Purpose, or mission. What motivates the need for change? This can also be expressed as the problems or opportunities that the program is addressing. (For On Track, the community focused its efforts on the mission of enhancing healthy youth development to improve the high school dropout rate.)
• Context, or conditions. What is the climate in which change will take place? (How will new policies and programs for On Track be aligned with existing ones? What trends compete with the effort to engage young people in positive activities? What is the political and economic climate for investing in youth development?)
• Inputs, or resources or infrastructure. What raw materials will be used to conduct the effort or initiative? (In On Track, these include the coordinator and volunteers in the mentoring program, agreements with participating school districts, and the endorsement of parent groups and community agencies.) Inputs can also include constraints on the program, such as regulations or funding gaps, which are barriers to your objectives.
• Activities, or interventions. What will the initiative do with its resources to direct the course of change? (In our example, the program will train volunteer mentors and refer young people who might benefit from a mentor.) Your intervention, and thus your logic model, should be guided by a clear analysis of risk and protective factors.
• Outputs. What evidence is there that the activities were performed as planned? (Indicators might include the number of mentors trained and young people referred, and the frequency, type, duration, and intensity of mentoring contacts.)
• Effects, or results, consequences, outcomes, or impacts. What kinds of changes came about as a direct or indirect effect of the activities? (Two examples are bonding between adult mentors and young people and increased self-esteem among young people.)

Putting these elements together graphically gives the following basic structure for a logic model. The arrows between the boxes indicate that review and adjustment are an ongoing process -- both in enacting the initiative and developing the model.

Using this generic model as a template, let's fill in the details with another example of a logic model, one that describes a community health effort to prevent tuberculosis.

Remember, although this example uses boxes and arrows, you and your partners in change can use any format or imagery that communicates more effectively with your stakeholders.

As mentioned earlier, the generic model for Disease/Injury Control and Prevention in Examples depicts the same relationship of activities and effects in a linear and a nonlinear format. The two formats helped communicate with different groups of stakeholders and made different points.

The linear model better guided discussions of cause and effect and how far down the chain of effects a particular program was successful. The circular model more effectively depicted the interdependence of the components to produce the intended effects.

When exploring the results of an intervention, remember that there can be long delays between actions and their effects. Also, certain system changes can trigger feedback loops, which further complicate and delay our ability to see all the effects. A definition from the System Dynamics Society may help here: "Feedback refers to the situation of X affecting Y and Y in turn affecting X perhaps through a chain of causes and effects. One cannot study the link between X and Y and, independently, the link between Y and X and predict how the system will behave. Only the study of the whole system as a feedback system will lead to correct results."

For these reasons, logic models indicate when to expect certain changes. Many planners like to use the following three categories of effects (illustrated in the models above), although you may choose to have more or fewer depending on your situation.

• Short-term or immediate effects. (In the On Track example, this would be that young people who participate in mentoring improve their self-confidence and understand the importance of staying in school.)
• Mid-term or intermediate effects. (Mentored students improve their grades and remain in school.)
• Longer-term or ultimate effects. (High school graduation rates rise, thus giving graduates more employment opportunities, greater financial stability, and improved health status.)

Here are two important notes about constructing and refining logic models.

Outcome or Impact?

Clarify your language. In a collaborative project, it is wise to anticipate confusion over language. If you understand the basic elements of a logic model, any labels can be meaningful provided stakeholders agree to them. In the generic and TB models above, we called the effects short-, mid-, and long-term. It is also common to hear people talk about effects that are "upstream" or "proximal" (near to the activities) versus "downstream" or "distal" (distant from the activities). Because disciplines have their own jargon, stakeholders from two different fields might define the same word in different ways.

Some people are trained to call the earliest effects "outcomes" and the later ones "impacts." Other people are taught the reverse: "impacts" come first, followed by "outcomes." The idea of sequence is the same regardless of which terms you and your partners use. The main point is to clearly show connections between activities and effects over time, thus making explicit your initiative's assumptions about what kinds of change to expect and when. Try to define essential concepts at the design stage and then be consistent in your use of terms. The process of developing a logic model supports this important dialogue and will bring potential misunderstandings into the open.

For good or for ill?

Understand effects. While the starting point for logic modeling is to identify the effects that correspond to stated goals, your intended effects are not the only effects to watch for. Any intervention capable of changing problem behaviors or altering conditions in communities can also generate unintended effects. These are changes that no one plans and that might somehow make the problem worse.

Many times our efforts to solve a problem lead to surprising, counterintuitive results. There is always a risk that our "cure" could be worse than the "disease" if we're not careful. Part of the added value of logic modeling is that the process creates a forum for scrutinizing big leaps of faith, a way to search for unintended effects. (See the discussion of simulation in "What makes a logic model effective" for some thoughts on how to do this in a disciplined manner.)

One of the greatest rewards for the extra effort is the ability to spot potential problems and redesign an initiative (and its logic model) before the unintended effects get out of hand, so that the model truly depicts activities that will plausibly produce the intended effects.

Choosing the right level of detail: the importance of utility and simplicity

It may help at this point to consider what a logic model is not. Although it captures the big picture, it is not an exact representation of everything that's going on. All models simplify reality; if they didn't, they wouldn't be of much use.

Even though it leaves out information, a good model represents those aspects of an initiative that, in the view of your stakeholders, are most important for understanding how the effort works. In most cases, the developers will go through several drafts before producing a version that the stakeholders agree accurately reflects their story.

Should the information become overly complex, it is possible to create a family of related models, or nested models, each capturing a different level of detail. One model could sketch out the broad pathways of change, whereas others could elaborate on separate components, revealing detailed information about how the program operates on a deeper level. Individually, each model conveys only essential information, and together they provide a more complete overview of how the program or initiative functions. (See "How do you create a logic model?" for further details.)

Imagine "zooming in" on the inner workings of a specific component and creating another, more detailed model just for that part. For a complex initiative, you may choose to develop an entire family of such related models that display how each part of the effort works, as well as how all the parts fit together. In the end, you may have some or all of the following family of models, each one differing in scope:

• View from Outer Space. This overall roadmap shows the major pathways of change and the full spectrum of effects. This view answers questions such as: Do the activities follow a single pathway, or are there separate pathways that converge down the line? How far does the chain of effects go? How do our program activities align with those of other organizations? What other forces might influence the effects that we hope to see? Where can we anticipate feedback loops and in what direction will they travel? Are there significant time delays between any of the connections?
• View from the Mountaintop. This closer view focuses on a specific component or set of components, yet it is still broad enough to describe the infrastructure, activities, and full sequence of effects. This view answers the same questions as the view from outer space, but with respect to just the selected component(s).
• You Are Here. This view expands on a particular part of the sequence, such as the roles of different stakeholders, staff, or agencies in a coalition, and functions like a flowchart for someone's work plan. It is a specific model that outlines routine processes and anticipated effects. This is the view that you might need to understand quality control within the initiative.

Families, Nesting, and Zooming In
In the Examples section, the idea of nested models is illustrated in the Tobacco Control family of models. It includes a global model that encompasses three intermediate outcomes in tobacco control -- environments without tobacco smoke, reduced smoking initiation among young people, and increased cessation among young people and adults. Then a zoom-in model is elaborated for each one of these intermediate outcomes.

The Comprehensive Cancer model illustrates a generic logic model accompanied by a zoom-in on the activities to give program staff the specific details they need. Notably, the intended effects on the zoom-in are identical to those on the global model and all major categories of activities are also apparent. But the zoom-in unpacks these activities into their detailed components and, more important, indicates that the activities achieve their effects by influencing intermediaries who then move gatekeepers to take action. This level of detail is necessary for program staff, but it may be too much for discussions with funders and stakeholders.

The Diabetes Control model is another good example of a family of models. In this case, the zoom-in models are very similar to the global model in level of detail. They add value by translating the global model into a plan for specific actors (in this case a state diabetes control program) or for specific objectives (e.g., increasing timely foot exams).

When can a logic model be used?

Logic models are useful for both new and existing programs and initiatives. If your effort is being planned, a logic model can help get it off to a good start. Alternatively, if your program is already underway, a model can help you describe, modify, or enhance it.

Planners, program managers, trainers, evaluators, advocates, and other stakeholders can use a logic model in several ways throughout an initiative. One model may serve more than one purpose, or it may be necessary to create different versions tailored for different aims. Here are examples of the various times that a logic model could be used.

During planning to:

• clarify program strategy
• identify appropriate outcome targets (and avoid over-promising)
• align your efforts with those of other organizations
• write a grant proposal or a request for proposals
• assess the potential effectiveness of an approach
• set priorities for allocating resources
• estimate timelines
• identify necessary partnerships
• negotiate roles and responsibilities
• focus discussions and make planning time more efficient

During implementation to:

• provide an inventory of what you have and what you need to operate the program or initiative
• develop a management plan
• incorporate findings from research and demonstration projects
• make mid-course adjustments
• reduce or avoid unintended effects

During staff and stakeholder orientation to:

• explain how the overall program works
• show how different people can work together
• define what each person is expected to do
• indicate how one would know if the program is working

During evaluation to:

• document accomplishments
• organize evidence about the program
• identify differences between the ideal program and its real operation
• determine which concepts will (and will not) be measured
• frame questions about attribution (of cause and effect) and contribution (of initiative components to the outcomes)
• specify the nature of questions being asked
• prepare reports and other media
• tell the story of the program or initiative

During advocacy to:

• justify why the program will work
• explain how resource investments will be used

How do you create a logic model?

There is no single way to create a logic model. Think of it as something to be used, its form and content governed by the users' needs.

Who creates the model? This depends on your situation. The same people who will use the model -- planners, program managers, trainers, evaluators, advocates, and other stakeholders -- can help create it. For practical reasons, though, you will probably start with a core group, and then take the working draft to others for continued refinement.

Remember that your logic model is a living document, one that tells the story of your efforts in the community. As your strategy changes, so should the model. On the other hand, while developing the model you might see new pathways that are worth exploring in real life.

Two main development strategies are usually combined when constructing a logic model.

• Moving forward from the activities (also known as forward logic). This approach explores the rationale for activities that are proposed or currently underway. It is driven by "But why?" questions or if-then thinking: But why should we focus on briefing Senate staff? But why do we need them to better understand the issues affecting young people? But why would they create policies and programs to support mentoring? But why would new policies make a difference?... and so on. That same line of reasoning could also be uncovered using if-then statements: If we focus on briefing legislators, then they will better understand the issues affecting young people. If legislators understand, then they will enact new policies...
• Moving backward from the effects (also known as reverse logic). This approach begins with the end in mind. It starts with a clearly identified value, a change that you and your colleagues would definitely like to see occur, and asks a series of "But how?" questions: But how do we overcome fear and stigma? But how can we ensure our services are culturally responsive? But how can we admit that we don't already know what we're doing?

At first, you may not agree with the answers that certain stakeholders give for these questions. Their logic may not seem convincing or even logical. But therein lies the power of logic modeling. By making each stakeholder's thinking visible on paper, you can decide as a group whether the logic driving your initiative seems reasonable. You can talk about it, clarify misinterpretations, ask for other opinions, check the assumptions, compare them with research findings, and in the end develop a solid system of program logic. This product then becomes a powerful tool for planning, implementation, orientation, evaluation, and advocacy, as described above.

By now you have probably guessed that there is not a rigid step-by-step process for developing a logic model. Like the rest of community work, logic modeling is an ongoing process. Nevertheless, there are a few tasks you should be sure to accomplish.

To illustrate these in action, we'll use another example for an initiative called "HOME: Home Ownership Mobilization Effort." HOME aims to increase homeownership in order to give neighborhood control to the people who live there, rather than to outside property owners with little connection to the community. It does this through a combination of educating community residents, organizing the neighborhood, and building relationships with partners such as businesses.

Steps for drafting a logic model

• Find the logic in existing written materials to produce your first draft.
  • Available written materials often contain more than enough information to get started. Collect narrative descriptions, justifications, grant applications, or overview documents that explain the basic idea behind the intervention effort. If your venture involves a coalition of several organizations, be sure to get descriptions from each agency's point of view. For the HOME campaign, we collected documents from planners who proposed the idea, as well as mortgage companies, homeowner associations, and other neighborhood organizations.
  • Your job as a logic modeler is to decode these documents. Keep a piece of paper by your side and sketch out the logical links as you find them. (This work can be done in a group to save time and engage more people if you prefer.)
  • Read each document with an eye for the logical structure of the program. Sometimes that logic will be clearly spelled out (e.g., The information, counseling, and support services we provide to community residents will help them improve their credit rating, qualify for home loans, and purchase homes in the community; over time, this program will change the proportion of owner-occupied housing in the neighborhood).
  • Other times the logic will be buried in vague language, with big leaps from actions to downstream effects (e.g., Ours is a comprehensive community-based program that will transform neighborhoods, making them controlled by people who live there and not outsiders with little connection to the community).
  • As you read each document, ask yourself the "But why?" and "But how?" questions. See if the writing provides an answer. Pay close attention to parts of speech. Verbs such as teach, inform, support, or refer are often connected to descriptions of program activities. Adjectives like reduced, improved, higher, or better are often used when describing expected effects.
• Determine the appropriate scope of the model for its intended users and uses. Consider creating a family of models for multiple users.
  • The HOME initiative, for instance, created different models to address the unique needs of its financial partners, program managers, and community educators. Mortgage companies, grantmakers, and other decisionmakers who decided whether to allocate resources for the effort found the global view from space most helpful for setting context. Program managers wanted the closer, yet still broad view from the mountaintop. And community educators benefited most from the You Are Here version. The important thing to remember is that these are not three different programs, but different ways of understanding how the same program works.
• Check whether the model makes sense and is complete.
  • Logic models convey the story of community change. Working with the stakeholders, it's your responsibility to ensure that the story you've told in your draft makes sense (i.e., is logical) and is complete (has no loose ends). As you iteratively refine the model, ask yourself and others if it captures the full story.
  • Here are the plot points common in most community change initiatives, presented with their "storytelling" names.
    • The Promised Land (desired effects). Does the model show specific measurable results that you hope to achieve? Does it contain big leaps of faith or does it show change through a logical sequence of effects? Are crucial behavioral changes identified (e.g., more applications for homeownership, increased home buying, greater engagement in community and civic affairs, etc.)? And if those behavior changes are supposed to be sustained, does the model explain how community conditions will change to reinforce new behaviors (e.g., homeowner support groups, tax cuts on owner-occupied housing, discounts at the local hardware store for customers who own property in the neighborhood, etc.)? In the HOME model, we specified the following sequence of effects:
      • Short-term -- Potential homeowners attain greater understanding of how credit ratings are calculated and more accurate information about the steps to improve a credit rating; mortgage companies create new policies and procedures allowing renters to buy their own homes; local businesses start incentive programs; and anti-discrimination lawsuits are filed against illegal lending practices.
      • Mid-term -- The community's average credit rating improves; applications rise for home loans along with the approval rate; support services are established for first-time homebuyers; neighborhood organizing gets stronger; and alliances expand to include businesses, health agencies, and elected officials.
      • Longer-term -- The proportion of owner-occupied housing rises; economic revitalization takes off as businesses invest in the community; residents work together to create walking trails, crime patrols, and fire safety screenings; and rates of obesity, crime, and injury are expected to fall.
    • An advantage of the graphic model is that it can display both the sequence and the interactions of effects. For example, in the HOME model, credit counseling leads to better understanding of credit ratings, while loan assistance leads to more loan submissions, but the two together (plus other activities such as more new-buyer programs) are needed for increased homeownership.
• Drama (activities, interventions). How will obstacles be overcome? Who is doing what? What kinds of conflict and cooperation are evident? What's being done to rearrange the forces of change? What new services or conditions are being introduced? Your activities, based on a clear analysis of risk and protective factors, are the answers to these kinds of questions. Your interventions reveal the drama in your story of directed social change.

Dramatic actions in the HOME initiative include offering educational sessions and forming business alliances, homeowner support groups, and a neighborhood organizing council. At evaluation time, each of these actions is closely connected to output indicators that document whether the program is on track and how fast it is moving. These outputs could be the number of educational sessions held, their average attendance, the size of the business alliance, etc. (These outputs are not depicted in the global model, but that could be done if valuable for users.)

• Raw Materials (inputs, resources, or infrastructure). The energy to create change can't come from nothing. Real resources must come into the system. Those resources may be financial, but they may also include people, space, information, technology, equipment, and other assets. The HOME campaign runs because of the input from volunteer educators, support from schools and faith institutions in the neighborhood, discounts provided by lenders and local businesses, revenue from neighborhood revitalization, and increasing social capital among community residents.
• Setting (background, context, and conditions). Really good stories convey facts, but they also have texture. There is a backdrop against which the main action takes place. Community change always takes place in the context of history, geography, politics, etc. Although it is impossible to represent all of those factors in a model, you can strive to include features that remind users those conditions exist and will affect how change unfolds.
  • Stakeholders working on the HOME campaign understood that they were challenging a history of racial discrimination and economic injustice. They saw gentrification occurring in nearby neighborhoods. They were aware of backlash from outside property owners who benefit from the status quo. None of these facts are included in the model per se, but a shaded box labeled History and Context was added to serve as a visual reminder that these things are in the background.
• Attend to the nuts and bolts of drawing the model.
  • Draft the logic model using both sides of your brain and all the talents of your stakeholders. Use your artistic and your analytic abilities.
  • Arrange activities and intended effects in the expected time sequence. And don't forget to include important feedback loops -- after all, most actions provoke a reaction.
  • Link components by drawing arrows or using other visual methods that communicate the order of activities and effects. (Remember -- the model does not have to be linear or read from left to right, top to bottom. A circle may better express a repeating cycle.)
  • Allow yourself plenty of space to develop the model. Freely revise the picture to show the relationships better or to add components.
  • Neatness counts, so avoid overlapping lines and unnecessary clutter.
  • Color-code regions of the model to help convey the main storyline.
  • Try to keep everything on one page. When the model gets too crowded, either adjust its scope or build nested models.
  • Make sure it passes the "laugh test." That is, be sure that the image you create isn't so complex that it provokes an immediate laugh from stakeholders. Of course, different stakeholders will have different laugh thresholds.
  • Use presentation or diagramming software to animate or build the model step by step so that, when you present it to an audience, people can follow the logic behind every connection.
• Revisit and be ready to revise the model as necessary.
  • Don't let your model become a tedious exercise that you did just to satisfy someone else. Don't let it sit in a drawer. Once you've gone through the effort of creating a model, the rewards are in its use. Revisit it often and be prepared to make changes. All programs evolve and change over time, if only to keep up with changing conditions in the community. Like a roadmap, a good model will help you to recognize new or reinterpret old territory.
  • Also, when things are changing rapidly, it's easy for collaborators to lose sight of their common goals. Having a well-developed logic model can keep stakeholders focused on achieving outcomes while remaining open to finding the best means for accomplishing the work. If you need to take a detour or make a longer stop, the model serves as a framework for incorporating the change.
  • As you improve, modify, or realign your model, take stock of emerging activities and effects. You might need to do one or more of the following:
    • Clarify the path of activities to effects and outcomes
    • Elaborate links
    • Expand activities to reach your goals
    • Establish or revise mile markers
    • Redefine the boundary of your initiative or program
    • Reframe goals or desired outcomes

What makes a logic model effective?

You will know a model's effectiveness mainly by its usefulness to intended users. A good logic model usually:

• Logically links activities and effects
• Is visually engaging (simple, parsimonious) yet contains the appropriate degree of detail for the purpose (not too simple or too confusing)
• Provokes thought and triggers questions
• Includes forces known to influence the desired outcomes

The more complete your model, the better your chances of reaching "the Promised Land" of the story. In order to tell a complete story or present a complete picture in your model, make sure to consider all forces of change (root causes, trends, and system dynamics). Does your model reveal assumptions and hypotheses about the root causes and feedback loops that contribute to problems and their solutions?

In the HOME model, for instance, low homeownership persists when there is a vicious cycle of discrimination, lower credit scores, and feelings of hopelessness that prevent neighborhood-wide organizing and social change. Three pathways of change were proposed to break that cycle: education, business reform, and neighborhood organizing. Building a model on one pathway to address only one force would limit the program's effectiveness.

You can discover forces of change in your situation using multiple assessment strategies, including forward logic and reverse logic as described above. When exploring forces of change, be sure to search for personal factors (knowledge, beliefs, skills) as well as environmental factors (barriers, opportunities, support, incentives) that keep the situation the same as well as ones that push for it to change.

Take time to simulate

After you've mapped out the structure of a program strategy, there is still another crucial step to take before taking action: some kind of simulation. As logical as the story you are telling seems to you, as a plan for intervention it runs the risk of failure if you haven't explored how things might turn out in the real world of feedback and resistance.

Simulation is one practical way to find out if a seemingly sensible plan will actually play out as you hope. Simulation is not the same as testing a model with stakeholders to see if it makes logical sense. The point of a simulation is to explore how things may change -- how the system may behave -- over time and under different conditions.

Though simulation is a powerful tool, it can be conducted in ways ranging from the simple to the sophisticated.

• Simulation can be as straightforward as an unstructured role-playing game, in which you talk the model through to its logical conclusions.
• In a more structured simulation, you could develop a tabletop exercise in which you proceed step by step through a given scenario with predefined roles and responsibilities for the participants.
• Ultimately, you could create a computer-based mathematical simulation using available software tools.

The key point to remember is that creating logical models and simulating how those models may behave involve two different sets of skills, both of which can help in discovering which change strategies may be effective in your community.

What are the benefits and limitations of logic modeling?

You can probably envision a variety of ways in which you might use the logic model you've developed or that logic modeling would benefit your work.

Here are a few advantages that experienced modelers have discovered.

• Logic models integrate planning, implementation, and evaluation. As a detailed description of your initiative, from resources to results, the logic model is equally important for planning, implementing, and evaluating the project. If you are a planner, the modeling process challenges you to think more like an evaluator. If your purpose is evaluation, the modeling prompts discussion of planning. And for those who implement, the modeling answers practical questions about how the work will be organized and managed.
• Logic models prevent mismatches between activities and effects. Planners often summarize an effort by listing its vision, mission, objectives, strategies, and action plans. Even with this information, it can be hard to tell how all the pieces fit together. By connecting activities and effects, a logic model helps avoid proposing activities with no intended effect, or anticipating effects with no supporting activities. The ability to spot such mismatches easily is perhaps the main reason why so many logic models use a flowchart format.
• Logic models leverage the power of partnerships. As the W.K. Kellogg Foundation notes (see Internet Resources below), refining a logic model is an iterative or repeating process that allows participants to make changes based on consensus-building and a logical process rather than on personalities, politics, or ideology. With a well-specified logic model, it is possible to note where the baton should be passed from one person or agency to another. This enhances collaboration and guards against things falling through the cracks.
• Logic models enhance accountability by keeping stakeholders focused on outcomes. As Connie Schmitz and Beverly Parsons point out (see Internet Resources), a list of action steps usually functions as a manager's guide for running a project, showing what staff or others need to do -- for example, "Hire an outreach worker for a TB clinic." With a logic model, however, it is also possible to illustrate the effects of those tasks -- for example, "Hiring an outreach worker will result in a greater proportion of people coming into the clinic for treatment." This short-term effect then connects to mid- and longer-term effects, such as "Satisfied patients refer others to the clinic" and "Improved screening and treatment coverage results in fewer deaths due to TB."

In a coalition or collaborative partnership, the logic model makes it clear which effects each partner creates and how all those effects converge to a common goal. The family or nesting approach works well in a collaborative partnership because a model can be developed for each objective along a sequence of effects, thereby showing layers of contributions and points of intersection.

• Logic models help planners set priorities for allocating resources. A comprehensive model will reveal where physical, financial, human, and other resources are needed. When planners are discussing options and setting priorities, a logic model can help them make resource-related decisions in light of how the program's activities and outcomes will be affected.
• Logic models reveal data needs and provide a framework for interpreting results. It is possible to design a documentation system that includes only beginning and end measurements. This is a risky strategy with a good chance of yielding disappointing results. An alternative approach calls for tracking changes at each step along the planned sequence of effects. With a logic model, program planners can identify intermediate effects and define measurable indicators for them.
• Logic models enhance learning by integrating research findings and practice wisdom. Most initiatives are founded on assumptions about the behaviors and conditions that need to change, and how they are subject to intervention. Frequently, there are different degrees of certainty about those assumptions. For example, some of the links in a logic model may have been tested and shown to be sound through previous research. Other linkages, by contrast, may never have been researched, and indeed may never have been tried or thought of before. The explicit form of a logic model means that you can combine evidence-based practices from prior research with innovative ideas that experienced practitioners believe will make a difference. A logic model also makes it easier to show the reasoning and evidence behind your work.
• Logic models define a shared language and shared vision for community change. The terms used in a model help to standardize the way people think and how they speak about community change. It gets everyone rowing in the same direction, and enhances communication with external audiences, such as the media or potential funders. Even stakeholders who are skeptical or opposed to your work can be drawn into the discussion and development of a logic model. Once you've got them talking about the logical connections between activities and effects, they're no longer simply criticizing from the sidelines. They can become engaged in problem-solving in an open forum where assumptions, disagreements, and different views of how change happens can be examined.

Limitations

Any tool this powerful must not be approached lightly. When you undertake the task of developing a logic model, be aware of the following challenges and limitations.

First, no matter how logical your model seems, there is always a danger that it will not be correct. The world sometimes works in surprising, counterintuitive ways, which means we may not comprehend the logic of change until after the fact. With this in mind, modelers will appreciate the fact that the real effects of intervention actions could differ from the intended effects. Certain actions might even make problems worse, so it's important to keep one eye on the plan and another focused on the real-life experiences of community members.

If nothing else, a logic model ought to be logical. Therein lies its strength and its weakness. Those who are trying to follow your logic will magnify any inconsistency or inaccuracy. This places a high burden on modelers to pay attention to detail and refine their own thinking to a great degree. Of course, no model can be perfect. You'll have to decide on the basis of stakeholders' uses what level of precision is required.

Establishing the appropriate boundaries of a logic model can be a difficult challenge. In most cases, there is a tension between focusing on a specific program and situating that effort within its broader context. Many models seem to suggest that the only forces of change come from within the program in question, as if there is only one child in the sandbox.

At the other extreme, it would be ridiculous and unproductive to map all the simultaneous forces of change that affect health and community development. A modeler's challenge is to include enough depth so the organizational context is clear, without losing sight of the reasons for developing a logic model in the first place.

On a purely practical level, logic modeling can also be time-consuming, requiring much energy in the beginning and continued attention throughout the life of an initiative. The process can demand a high degree of specificity; it risks oversimplifying complex relationships and relies on the ability to represent complex thought processes visually.

Indeed, logic models can be very difficult to create, but the process of creating them, as well as the product, can yield many benefits over the course of an initiative.

In Summary

A logic model is a story or picture of how an effort or initiative is supposed to work. The process of developing the model brings together stakeholders to articulate the goals of the program and the values that support it, and to identify strategies and desired outcomes of the initiative.

As a means to communicate a program visually, within your coalition or work group and to external audiences, a logic model provides a common language and reference point for everyone involved in the initiative.

A logic model is useful for planning, implementing, and evaluating an initiative. It helps stakeholders agree on short-term as well as long-term objectives during the planning process, outline activities and actors, and establish clear criteria for evaluation during the effort. When the initiative ends, it provides a framework for assessing overall effectiveness of the initiative, as well as the activities, resources, and external factors that played a role in the outcome.

To develop a model, you will probably use both forward and reverse logic. Working backward, you begin with the desired outcomes and then identify the strategies and resources that will accomplish them. Combining this with forward logic, you will choose certain steps to produce the desired effects.

You will probably revise the model periodically, and that is precisely one advantage to using a logic model. Because it relates program activities to their effects, it helps keep stakeholders focused on achieving outcomes, while it remains flexible and open to finding the best means to enact a unique story of change.

What is a logic model?

___You understand the purpose and elements of a logic model as a picture of why and how your effort is supposed to work

___You understand the utility of family, nested, or zoom in models for a complex initiative

___You have an initial plan for how and when to use your logic model

How do you create a logic model?

___Apply forward and/or reverse logic to your effort or initiative

___Create the first draft by finding the logic in existing written materials

___Adjust the model's scope to make it appropriate for intended users and uses

___Create multiple (family, nested, or zoom in) models if needed by users

___Check whether the model makes sense and is complete, including the common plot points

___Attend to the nuts and bolts of drawing the model

___Revisit and revise the model as necessary

These are examples of logic models that other people have found effective. Please note, however, that no other person's or group's logic model can serve as template for your own; even if your initiative is similar, the forces of change and other important details for each effort will differ.

Example 1: Community Health Assessment and Action Planning (CHAAP) Process Improvement Plan in St. Louis County

This logic model lays out St. Louis County’s Department of Public Health and Human Services’ proposed improvement plan to overcome the challenges of protecting vulnerable populations in the event of a disaster.

Example 2: Integration of Mental Health into Chronic Disease Prevention Strategies and Health Promotion Efforts

As mental health greatly affects an individual's capacity to participate in health promoting-behaviors, this logic model details possible steps to address mental health and its relationship with chronic disease prevention and health promotion.

Example 3: Georgia Society for Public Health Education Logic Model

Example 4: Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) Education Program Logic Model

 

Example 5: National Endowment for the Arts - "Our Town" Logic Model

This logic model was developed by the National Endowment for the Arts for their Creative Placemaking Grants Program deemed "Our Town". The model promotes strengthening communities by advancing local physical, economic, and social outcomes.

Example 6: CDC Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke Prevention Program Logic Model

Example 7: LHFA Logic Model / Framework

Example 8: Tenderloin Health Improvement Partnership Logic Model

This logic model helps visualize how TLHIP, an initiative led by the Saint Francis Foundation, works collectively with community partners and other stakeholders to improve the health of Tenderloin residents in downtown San Francisco.

Tool 1: Tearless Logic Model

 

The Tearless Logic Model breaks down the logic model process into a series of manageable, jargon-free questions. Access the tool.

Tool 2: Logic Model to create a Framework or Model of Change

This logic model template (docx) provides a framework to help begin the process.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

If you were a contractor setting out to build a wood-frame house, you wouldn’t just pick up whatever wood you found lying around and begin. You’d consult first with the owner, and start with an idea of the house they wanted – its size, its shape, its features. You’d want a picture of the finished house, and a floor plan as well, with some notes on measurements and materials. You’d plan the construction with them, and set out a process for getting it done. And you’d do all this before you ever picked up a tool, because otherwise the process would be hit-or-miss: they wouldn’t get the house they wanted, and your time would be wasted.

The same is true if you’re developing an intervention to address a health or community issue. It makes no sense to pick an issue at random, and to use whatever service happens to be available to try to address it. You have to consult with the community, understand and analyze community information, your own and others’ observations, and the context of the issue to create an intervention that will actually bring about the changes the community wants and needs.

In the first section of this chapter, we introduced the need for a process for doing health and community work. In this section, we’ll look at PRECEDE-PROCEED, the first of several specific models that may prove helpful to you in carrying out your own work. We’ll examine other models in subsequent sections of this chapter. Then in the last section, we’ll examine some ways in which elements of various models can be combined to respond to your particular situation.

What is PRECEDE-PROCEED?

Like most of the other models we’ll examine in this chapter, PRECEDE-PROCEED was developed for use in public health. Its basic principles, however, transfer to other community issues as well. As a result, we’ll treat it as a model not just for health intervention, but for community intervention in general. And in fact, PRECEDE-PROCEED focuses on the community as the wellspring of health promotion.

During the latter half of the 20th century, chronic conditions such as heart disease, stroke, cancer, and diabetes became increasingly prominent causes of disability and death. The focus of health maintenance, therefore, expanded beyond the treatment of disease to include prevention and, more recently, the active promotion of behaviors and conditions – proper diet, exercise, and reduction of stress, for instance – that can help maintain health and improve the length and quality of life.

Behind PRECEDE-PROCEED lie some assumptions about the prevention of illness and promotion of health, and, by extension, about other community issues as well. These include:

• Since many health-promoting behaviors and activities that individuals engage in are voluntary, carrying out health promotion has to involve the people whose behaviors or actions are affected. PRECEDE-PROCEED should be a participatory process, involving all stakeholders – those affected by the issue or condition in question – from the beginning.
• Health is, by its very nature, a community issue. It is influenced by community attitudes, shaped by the community environment (physical, social, political, and economic), and colored by community history.
• Health is an integral part of a larger context, probably most clearly defined as quality of life, and it’s within that context that it must be considered. It is only one of many factors that make life better or worse for individuals and the community as a whole. It therefore influences, and is influenced by, much more than seems directly connected to it.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic changed the way many people in the U.S. view and practice sex, for instance. In some other countries, it affected the whole social structure because of the number of orphans it created and its impact on the workforce. By the same token, violence involving young people changes the views and actions of many people who are not directly at risk of experiencing it, and may put a community at an economic disadvantage by making it less attractive to new business or industry. Almost any other issue could serve equally well as an example of the broad reach of community problems (or assets, for that matter).

• Finally, health is more than physical well-being, or than the absence of disease, illness, or injury. It is a constellation of factors – economic, social, political, ecological, and physical – that add up to healthy, high-quality lives for individuals and communities.

This broad perspective on health extends to other community issues. We can define the health of a community as its fitness in many areas, of which community members’ physical health is only one. Indications of a community’s overall health include how well it:

• Contributes to the stability of families
• Nurtures and supports children
• Fosters lifelong learning
• Provides meaningful work for community members
• Invites involvement in the democratic process
• Supports people who need help
• Protects and sustains the natural environment
• Encourages the arts
• Values and encourages racial and cultural diversity
• Works to promote and maintain safety and physical well-being for its members

PRECEDE and PROCEED are acronyms (words in which each letter is the first letter of a word). PRECEDE stands for Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational/Environmental Diagnosis and Evaluation. As its name implies, it represents the process that precedes, or leads up to, an intervention.

PROCEED spells out Policy, Regulatory, and Organizational Constructs in Educational and Environmental Development, and, true to its name as well, describes how to proceed with the intervention itself.

PRECEDE has four phases, which we’ll explore in greater detail later in the section:

• Phase 1: Identifying the ultimate desired result.
• Phase 2: Identifying and setting priorities among health or community issues and their behavioral and environmental determinants that stand in the way of achieving that result, or conditions that have to be attained to achieve that result; and identifying the behaviors, lifestyles, and/or environmental factors that affect those issues or conditions.
• Phase 3: Identifying the predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors that can affect the behaviors, attitudes, and environmental factors given priority in Phase 2.
• Phase 4: Identifying the administrative and policy factors that influence what can be implemented.

Another premise behind PRECEDE-PROCEED is that a change process should focus initially on the outcome, not on the activity. (Many organizations set out to create community change without stopping to consider either what effect their actions are likely to have, or whether the change they’re aiming at is one the community wants and needs.) PRECEDE’s four phases, therefore, move logically backward from the desired result, to where and how you might intervene to bring about that result, to the administrative and policy issues that need to be addressed in order to mount that intervention successfully. All of these phases can be thought of as formative.

PROCEED has four phases (also to be discussed in more detail later) that cover the actual implementation of the intervention and the careful evaluation of it, working back to the original starting point – the ultimate desired outcome of the process.

• Phase 5: Implementation – the design and actual conducting of the intervention.
• Phase 6: Process evaluation. Are you actually doing the things you planned to do?
• Phase 7: Impact evaluation. Is the intervention having the desired impact on the population of focus?
• Phase 8: Outcome evaluation. Is the intervention leading to the outcome (the desired result) that was envisioned in Phase 1?

A word about logic models: Although most formal models, like PRECEDE-PROCEED, present themselves as a way to structure an intervention or other activity, the word “logic” implies that you should carefully consider your own situation as well as the model. If there are reasons why a particular part of a model might not work for you, it’s reasonable (logical) to change it. While PRECEDE-PROCEED presents a structure that could conceivably work well (and has worked well) in a variety of situations, it’s still important to think about whether all parts of it will work for you.

A flowchart of the model (see Fig. 1), developed by its originators, shows a circular process. It starts (on the upper right) with a community demographic and quality-of-life assessment, and goes counterclockwise through PRECEDE’s four phases that explain how to conceive and plan an effective intervention. PROCEED then picks up with the intervention itself (described here as a health program) and evaluates whether the intervention is being carried out as planned and producing the intended effects. The process evaluation in Phase 6 looks at whether the intervention is being implemented as intended. The impact evaluation in Phase 7 examines its effect on the behaviors or environmental factors identified earlier. And the outcome evaluation in Phase 8 explores whether the intervention has contributed to the desired quality-of-life outcome identified in Phase 1. Eventually, the process arrives back at the beginning, either having achieved the desired outcome or ready to begin another cycle incorporating lessons from the first effort. The arrows in the flowchart demonstrate the relationships among the phases and their effects.

Figure 1. Generic representation of the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model. From L. Green and M. Kreuter. (2005). Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach (4th Ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishers.

 

• The PRECEDE-PROCEED model applies a medical perspective to public health, even though its focus is health promotion, rather than treatment of disease. Just as a medical diagnosis precedes treatment, the model assumes that a far-reaching diagnosis should precede a public health intervention. A diagnosis suggests a treatment (an intervention), which is closely monitored for process (Is the person receiving the treatment prescribed?), impact (Is the treatment having the hoped-for impact on the symptoms?), and outcome (Does the treatment have the desired effect on the person’s overall health?). A premise of the model is that a diagnosis should start with the desired end result and work backward to determine what needs to be done to bring about that result.
• Another basic premise of the model is that the purpose of a health program – and by extension, the purpose of any proactive type of community intervention – is to improve the quality of life for individuals and their community, and that the two are largely inseparable. Thus, any intervention should be community-based, and should look at the needs of the community, even if the intervention is aimed at a more specific population of focus.
• A final premise of any community-based model for intervention is that planning and implementing a community intervention calls for a joint effort among health and other professionals and organizations, policymakers, community officials, community leaders, and community members broadly, including members of the population of focus. In order to ensure accurate information and community support, people from throughout the community should be involved in the process from the beginning.

Why use PRECEDE-PROCEED?

First, there are good reasons for using some kind of logic model or theoretical framework for any intervention:

• It provides a structure within which to plan your work, so that you’re not simply grasping at straws. As a result, you’re more likely to develop a coherent plan that addresses the necessary issues.
• Most models give you either a guide or a foundation for critical analysis of the issues at hand. That doesn’t guarantee that your analysis will be complete or accurate, but it significantly increases the chances. (See Analyzing Community Problems and Solutions for more on logical analysis.)

This is not to say that you have to use a logic model. There are other ways to approach developing an intervention, many of them outlined in the Community Tool Box. The advantage of PRECEDE-PROCEED and similar models is that they give you a structured procedure for developing an intervention. The disadvantage is similar: if some part of the model isn’t appropriate for your setting or your circumstances, you’ll have to recognize that and change it to fit, or risk a problem. PRECEDE-PROCEED offers a flowchart or algorithm to facilitate decisions for skipping some steps or phases, thereby tailoring the model to different local situations.

Originators or advocates of a model may encourage close adherence to it. In practice, however, you may need to adapt it. If you like the model, you can be sure to include its important elements while still changing some of them, changing the timing, or even changing the order to better match the needs of your community. You might also find yourself taking some pieces of one model and grafting them onto another, or reinterpreting a model in light of a particular theoretical framework.

Over and above the use of logic models in general, there are some good reasons for using PRECEDE-PROCEED specifically:

• PRECEDE-PROCEED provides a template for the process of conceiving, planning, implementing, and evaluating a community intervention.
• PRECEDE-PROCEED is structured as a participatory model, to incorporate the ideas and help of the community. That means that its use can provide you with more, and more accurate, information about the issues in question, and with a better understanding of their history and context in the community.
• Community involvement is also a means of building community ownership of the intervention, leading to more community support and a greater chance of success.
• PRECEDE-PROCEED considers the ways in which administrative and policy guidelines can limit or shape an intervention, an area of planning too often ignored.
• PRECEDE-PROCEED incorporates evaluation of the process, the intervention itself, and the final outcome. That allows the intervention to be monitored and adjusted to respond to community needs and changes in the situation, and checks whether its accomplishments actually lead to the projected goal.
• Although PRECEDE-PROCEED sets out a structured process, it says much less about content. It leaves plenty of room for adapting your intervention’s design and methods to the situation and the needs of the community.

Although these are good reasons to use PRECEDE-PROCEED, they are also good reasons to use some of the other models in this chapter. This is the reason we are presenting several – so that you can decide which among them, if any, makes the most sense to you, and would be best for your circumstances and community. PRECEDE-PROCEED’s greatest strength may be its comprehensive and rigorous structure – it covers all the bases.

How do you use PRECEDE-PROCEED?

Logic models don’t really mean much unless you actually use them in the community. Once you’ve decided that PRECEDE-PROCEED provides a good model for your intervention, how do you translate it into action? We’ll look at each of the eight phases of the model with that question in mind.

PRECEDE: Doing the groundwork. PRECEDE starts by determining the desired outcome for the community, and then works back to what has to be done to obtain that outcome. Each phase moves one step closer to the actual intervention.

Our presentation of the model assumes that, although it was developed for use in public health, it can be used by activists or organizations concerned with any issues that affect the quality of life in a community, as demonstrated in many published applications.

Phase 1: Defining the ultimate outcome. The focus here is on what the community wants and needs, which may seem unrelated to the issue you plan to focus on. What outcome does the community find most important? Eliminating or reducing a particular problem (homelessness)? Addressing an issue (race)? Improving or maintaining certain aspects of the quality of life (environmental protection)? Improving the quality of life in general (increasing or creating recreational and cultural opportunities)?

This phase starts with the collection of demographic data, which is then presented to the community to help community members decide on priorities. The way to determine what community members want for their community is to ask them. There are a number of options here, which can be used individually or in combination, including:

• Community surveys
• Focus groups
• Phone interviews
• Face-to-face interviews
• Questionnaires in community settings

Rather than just asking people for their opinions about what would improve the community, it’s far more powerful to involve community members in the whole process from the beginning, including them in all phases of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model. While actual applications of the model may sometimes be top-down, it is likely to work better if the community has significant input and decision-making power from the beginning.

Phase 2: Identifying the issue. In Phase 2 of PRECEDE, you look for the issues and factors that might cause or influence the outcome you’ve identified in Phase 1 (including supports for and barriers to achieving it), and select those that are most important, and that can be influenced by an intervention. (One of the causes of community poverty, for instance, may be the global economy, a factor you probably can’t have much effect on. As important as the global economy might be, you’d have to change conditions locally to have any real impact.)

It’s important to analyze these issues carefully, and to make sure that you’ve chosen the right ones. What would the elimination of a particular factor make possible, for instance, that isn’t possible already? How does a particular issue create a barrier to the desired outcome? What else do these issues affect, besides the desired outcome?

Which are the issues with the most significant effects? And how do you define “the most significant effects?” Are they economic? Social? Physical?

An industry responsible for pollution that actually or potentially causes health problems may also be the local economic mainstay. Even if the industry has the best of intentions, it may be unable to afford to clean up its operation. The town may be faced with the choice of either losing the jobs and tax base that the industry provides, or continuing to live with a health hazard. What’s more important here, and how do you decide what to focus on? (And is there an answer that isn’t either-or?)

This kind of situation is by no means universal...but it isn’t particularly unusual, either.

In some cases, the issues you choose to focus on may be directly related to the outcome you’re seeking – building more affordable housing as a way to address homelessness, for instance. In others, you may be trying to affect factors that have just as great an impact on the outcome, but seem further removed from it – e.g., addressing safe streets by providing parenting classes and other services for families facing greater risks.

Once again, involving stakeholders and other community members here is likely to get you the best information possible about which issues to emphasize, and to keep you from making mistakes based on ignorance of the community’s history or of the relationships among community members.

Phases 1 and 2 are where you develop the long-term goals for your intervention. They tell you what your ultimate desired outcome should be, and what the issue(s) or associated factors may be that influence it. Those are the things you’re ultimately aiming to change.

Most of the factors influencing the issues or outcomes can be classified as behavioral, lifestyle, or environmental.

The behavior referred to here is a specific, observable, often measurable – and usually customary – action. Some behaviors increase or reduce people's or communities’ risk for health or other problems.

• Sharing needles or other injection equipment among people who inject heroin increases the risk of hepatitis and HIV.
• Consistent studying usually lessens the risk of school failure for a student.
• If littering is a common individual behavior, it may have community consequences that range from the aesthetic (piles of trash creating an unattractive scene) to health (breeding of mosquitoes in garbage-strewn lots, water pollution, etc.) to the economic (businesses unwilling to locate in the community because of its physical condition). It may also have social consequences, with neighborhood conditions affecting residents’ self-image and leading eventually to a breakdown of civic responsibility.

A lifestyle is a collection of related behaviors that go together to form a pattern of living. Some lifestyles may increase the risk of health and other problems for people and communities.

• An example of a lifestyle that may increase health risks is one that includes very little exercise, a diet high in calories and saturated fats, and lots of stress. Such a lifestyle can increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and other health problems.
• A lifestyle that involves gang membership and regular participation in violent acts has both individual consequences (the constant risk of serious injury or death, an arrest record, detachment from others’ humanity) and consequences for the community (people afraid to use the streets, reduced economic activity, scarce resources spent on extra law enforcement, etc.).

The environment of a particular issue or problem can refer to the natural, physical environment – the character and condition of the water, air, open space, plants, and wildlife, as well as the design and condition of built-up areas. But it can also refer to the social environment (influence of family and peers; community attitudes about gender roles, race, childrearing, work, etc.), the political environment (policies and laws, such as anti-smoking ordinances, that regulate behavior or lifestyle; the attitudes of those in power toward certain groups or issues), and the economic environment (the availability of decent-wage jobs, affordable housing, and health insurance; the community tax base; global economic conditions).

In general, behaviors, lifestyles, and environmental factors are what an intervention sets out to change. The changes in these areas in turn affect the crucial issues, and lead to the achievement of the final outcome that was identified in Phase 1 of the model.

So how do you choose which behaviors, lifestyles, or environmental factors to focus on? That’s where analysis comes in. What are people doing – or what are the factors in the environment – that lead to, maintain, or prevent the issue or condition you want to change? Using critical thinking and the “But why?” technique, you should be able to narrow it down to a handful. The criteria for choosing a particular target for your intervention are: (a) Is the potential target an important enough factor to have a real effect on the issue, and thus on the quality of life in the community? and (b) Is it likely that the potential target can actually be changed by an intervention that you have the resources to mount?

A classic example of community change through behavior change is reducing the incidence of lung cancer and heart disease in a community by helping people who smoke to quit. Fewer people smoking means less secondhand smoke, less time lost from work because of smoking-related illnesses, fewer low-birth-weight babies, fewer children with asthma and other respiratory ailments, and lower health care costs. Altogether, changing smoking behavior can contribute to an improvement in the overall quality of life for the community.

Changing smoking behavior fits both criteria described above. It has a profound effect on the issue and on the general quality of life; and it can be responsive to change because of many people's desire to quit, general knowledge about the dangers of smoking, the cost of tobacco products, community support, and already-existing strategies and smoking-cessation groups that can be incorporated into an intervention.

Phase 3: Examining the factors that influence behavior, lifestyle, and responses to environment. Here, you identify the factors that will create the behavior and environmental changes you’ve decided on in Phase 2.

The terms “health-promoting behavior” and “behavior that increases risk” below refer not only to physical health, but to any behavior that’s advantageous or harmful to the individual and/or the community, and is likely to have a significant effect on quality of life.

Predisposing factors are intellectual and emotional “givens” that tend to make individuals more or less likely to adopt health-promoting behaviors or behaviors that increase risk, or to approve of or accept particular environmental conditions. Some of these factors can often be influenced by educational interventions. They include:

• Knowledge. You’re more likely, for instance, to avoid sunburn if you know it can lead to skin cancer than if you don’t.
• Attitudes. People who have spent their youth as athletes often come to see regular exercise as an integral part of life, as necessary and obvious as regular meals.
• Beliefs. These can be mistaken understandings – believing that anything low in fat is also low in calories – or closely held beliefs based on religion or culture. For example, someone may interpret the old saying “Spare the rod and spoil the child” as justification for physically punishing children for mistakes or misdeeds.
• Values. A value system that renounces violence would make a parent less likely to use physical violence against a child, spouse, or other family member.
• Confidence. Many people fail to change behaviors that increase risk simply because they don’t feel capable of doing so.

Enabling factors are those internal and external conditions directly related to the issue that help people adopt and maintain healthy or unhealthy behaviors and lifestyles, or to embrace or reject particular environmental conditions. Among them are:

• Availability of resources. People experiencing mental health challenges, for instance, are much more likely to get help if services are readily available.
• Accessibility of services. Services do no good if they have waiting lists that run into years, or aren’t physically accessible to those who need them.
• Community and/or government laws, policies, priorities, and commitment to the issue. Government laws and policies can both require changes in behavior or environment, and underline the importance of those changes.
• Issue-related skills. People who start out with familiarity with workplace expectations and routines, for instance, may be better positioned to benefit from job placement programs.

Reinforcing factors are the people and community attitudes that support or make difficult the adoption of healthy behaviors or the fostering of healthy environmental conditions. These are largely the attitudes of influential people: family, peers, teachers, employers, health or human service providers, the media, community leaders, politicians, and other decisionmakers. An intervention might aim at these people and groups – because of their influence – in order to most effectively reach the population of focus.

Phases 2 and 3 comprise the part of the model where the real planning of an intervention has to take place. What are you trying to change, and what are the factors that will help to bring that change about? Answering these questions should bring you to an understanding of whom and what an intervention should target, who best might conduct the intervention, and what it should look like in order to hit its targets effectively.

Phase 4: Identifying “best practices” and other sources of guidance for intervention design, as well as administrative, regulatory, and policy issues that can influence the implementation of the program or intervention. Phase 4 helps you look at organizational issues that might have an impact on your actual intervention. It factors in the effects on the intervention of your internal administrative structure and policies, as well as external policies and regulations (from funders, public agencies, and others).

Design issues: “Matching, mapping, pooling, and patching” or “Selecting, designing, blending, and supporting interventions.”

The discussion of the ways in which organizational issues, particularly internal ones, interact with a proposed intervention is one that all too often never takes place. For that reason, Phase 4 is particularly important. Such a discussion can avoid mismatches between an organization and its proposed intervention (a strictly hierarchical organization attempting to implement an intervention meant to empower underrepresented community members, for instance), or alert an organization to an internal or external regulation or policy that needs to be changed or addressed for an intervention to proceed as planned.

Administrative issues include organizational structure, procedures, and culture; and the availability of resources necessary for the intervention.

• The organizational structure may be hierarchical, democratic, collaborative, or some combination, and may be more or less rigid or flexible within each of those categories. It should be appropriate to the design of the intervention (e.g., allowing for staff decisions in the field in a gang outreach program), and flexible enough to make adjustments when necessary.
• Organizational procedures are the ways in which the organization actually carries out its work. In order for an intervention to be successful, those procedures have to focus on its goals, rather than on internal convenience or traditional methods. An intake procedure, for instance, should be designed to be as straightforward and respectful for participants as possible – otherwise it can become a barrier to participation.
• The organizational culture. Organizations are social groups that develop cultures of their own. Those cultures often dictate, among other things, how staff members interact with one another, how program participants are treated, and how the organization views its work and its mission. (Is it just a job, or is it God’s work?) They also usually determine the fit between an organization and an intervention.
• The resources available for the intervention include not only money – although that’s certainly important – but time, personnel, skills, and space. Now is the time to pinpoint any gaps in resources beforehand and work to close them. Thus, finding funding and/or the right staff people may be a good part of this phase.

Policy and regulatory issues have to do with the rules and restrictions – both internal and external – that can affect an intervention, and their levels of flexibility and enforcement.

Internal policies:

• Staff members. Organizational policy may treat staff as employees who take orders, as colleagues who contribute to the work of the organization, or as collaborators who jointly own it. The amount of freedom they have to exercise their creativity and to take initiative probably depends on that policy, which may be unstated.
• Participants. Does organizational policy see participants as “clients” that the organization is doing something to or for, or as partners in a change effort? Does it treat participants respectfully, as equals, or does it act in a condescending or overly authoritative way?

How does the organization treat relationships among participants and staff? In some organizations, they may be friendly; in others, strictly professional. (Romantic or sexual relationships raise some ethical questions, and probably need to be considered separately. See “Professional ethics” below.)

• Specific practices, methods, or programs. Many organizations maintain policies that suggest or mandate certain ways of carrying out their work.
• Collaboration. Some nonprofits make it a point of policy to collaborate as much as possible, while others rarely, if ever, work with other organizations.
• Professional ethics. Many organizations expect staff members to adhere to a code of professional ethics – either an internal one, or one set out by a professional association – that governs confidentiality, inappropriate relationships, abuse of position, reporting (or non-reporting) of specific kinds of illegal behavior, etc. There may be organizational regulations about these areas as well.

External policies and regulations that might affect an intervention can come in a variety of forms:

• Funders’ requirements. These may apply to the intervention itself, or they may place restrictions on anything the organization can do, even those areas – such as, perhaps, this intervention – that aren’t funded directly by the funder in question.
• Oversight agency regulations. The organization may be subject to the authority of a state or federal agency whose regulations affect the intervention.
• State or federal laws, or local ordinances
• Unstated community policies. Certain actions may simply be unacceptable to the majority of the community, to coalition partners, etc.

PROCEED: Implementing and evaluating the intervention.

Phase 5: Implementation. At this point, you’ve devised an intervention (largely in Phases 3 and 4), based on your analysis. Now, you have to carry it out. This phase involves doing just that – setting up and implementing the intervention you’ve planned.

The final three phases take place as the intervention continues, and serve to help you monitor and adjust your work to make it as effective as possible.

Phase 6: Process Evaluation. This phase isn’t about results, but about procedure. The evaluation here is of whether you’re actually doing what you planned. If, for instance, you proposed to offer mental health services three days a week in a rural area, are you in fact offering those services?

Phase 7: Impact Evaluation. Here, you begin evaluating the initial success of your efforts. Is the intervention having the desired effect on the behavioral or environmental factors that it aimed at changing – i.e., is it actually doing what you expected?

Phase 8: Outcome Evaluation. Is your intervention really working to bring about the outcome the community identified in Phase 1? It may be completely successful in every other way – the process is exactly what you planned, and the expected changes are made – but its results may have no effect on the larger issue. In that case, you may have to start the process again, to see why the factors you focused on aren’t the right ones, and to identify others that might work.

Some outcomes may not be apparent for years or decades. Lifestyle changes made by young people to reduce their risk of heart disease and stroke, for instance, may not reveal their full health benefits until those people are older. If you know that an outcome may not show itself for a long time, you may just have to be patient and continue to monitor the process and impact of your intervention, with the expectation that longer-term outcomes may become apparent over time.

Phases 6-8 call for formal evaluations of each phase, with controlled studies and detailed findings, but many Community Tool Box users probably don’t have the resources for that, and shouldn’t expect to do it. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t evaluate, however.

It’s a relatively simple matter, for instance, to keep records and examine them to find out whether your process was carried out as planned, or simply to look at what you are doing to see whether it matches what you intended to do. The same is true for the other stages of evaluation. Don’t worry if you can’t do a formal study...but don’t let evaluation go, either. It’s an important part of the process.

Remember also that evaluation is ongoing throughout the work. It takes place while the intervention is being implemented, not only afterward. The whole point of evaluation of each phase of the model is to adjust or change what you’re doing in that phase, if necessary, to make it more effective.

At any point in the PROCEED continuum, you should be prepared to revisit your analysis. If you find a gap between your planning and reality, or if you realize that your intervention isn’t achieving the results you aimed at, you should go back to the PRECEDE part of the model, try to determine what needs to be changed, and adjust what you’re doing accordingly. The point of evaluation is not to see whether you pass some kind of test – it’s to make sure that your intervention brings about the outcome that the community wanted or needed in the first place.

In Summary

PRECEDE-PROCEED provides a logic model that can serve as the basis for an individual, one-time intervention or a decades-long community development program or project. Although designed for health programs, it’s adaptable to other community issues as well. As with many models, it’s meant to be a guide, not a prescription.

PRECEDE-PROCEED is community-based and participatory, founded on the premise that many changes promoting health (and addressing other community issues) depend on voluntary action, and therefore need the participation of people directly affected by the change and others who might influence or be influenced by it.

A major reason to use PRECEDE-PROCEED is that it is a logic model. As a result, it will provide a structure within which to plan your work, and organize both your thinking and your actions, so that your intervention will be a carefully planned, coherent whole, rather than cobbled together. As a logic model, it also provides a guide for analyzing the issues involved, and choosing both the most likely areas to address and the most likely avenues to address them.

There are also reasons to use PRECEDE-PROCEED specifically. First, it’s a participatory model. By involving the community, it can bring more and better ideas about issues and ways of addressing them, and build community ownership of the intervention. Second, since it includes multi-level (ecological) planning and evaluation, PRECEDE-PROCEED builds in monitoring of the intervention, allowing for adjustment and greater effectiveness. And finally, the model allows the freedom to adapt the structure to whatever content and methods meet the needs of your community.

PRECEDE is the diagnostic portion of the model. It starts with the idea that the focus of change must be on its desired outcome, and works backward from that outcome to construct an intervention that will bring it about. It has four phases:

Phase 1: Social diagnosis – determine what the community wants and needs to improve its quality of life.

Phase 2: Epidemiological diagnosis – determine the health problems or other issues that affect the community’s quality of life. Include also the behavioral and environmental factors that must change in order to address these problems or issues. Behavioral factors include patterns of behavior that constitute lifestyles. In considering environmental factors, you should include the physical, social, political, and economic environments.

Phases 1 and 2 identify the goals of the intervention.

Phase 3: Educational and organizational diagnosis – determine what to do in order to change the behavioral and environmental factors identified in Phase 2, taking into account predisposing factors (knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, values, and confidence); enabling factors (availability of resources, accessibility of services, government laws and policies, issue-related skills); and reinforcing factors (largely the influence of significant others in the social environment).

Phase 4: Designing programs or interventions and the support for them through administrative and policy diagnosis – determine (and address) the internal administrative and internal and external policy factors that can affect the success of your intervention. The former include organizational structure, procedures, culture, and resources; the latter encompass both internal policies and funders’ requirements, oversight agency regulations, state or federal laws, local ordinances, and unstated community policies.

Phases 3 and 4 set the structure and targets for the planning and design of the intervention.

PROCEED is, in medical terms, the treatment portion of the model, and comprises the implementation and evaluation of the intervention. It consists of four phases:

Phase 5: Implementation – conduct the intervention.

Phase 6: Process evaluation – determine whether the intervention is actually taking the actions intended.

Phase 7: Impact evaluation – determine whether the intervention is having the intended effects on behaviors and/or the environment.

Phase 8: Outcome evaluation – determine whether the intervention ultimately brings about the improvements in quality of life identified by the community as its desired outcome.

An unstated but important part of the model is that, at any point, your plan or intervention can and should be revisited and revised, based on continued analysis and the results of the various evaluations.

What is PRECEDE-PROCEED?

___PRECEDE-PROCEED is a community-oriented, participatory model for creating successful community health promotion interventions.

PRECEDE has four phases:

___Phase 1: Social diagnosis

___Phase 2: Epidemiological diagnosis, including behavioral and environmental diagnosis

___Phase 3: Educational and organizational diagnosis

___Phase 4: Administrative and policy diagnosis

PROCEED has four phases:

___Phase 5: Implementation

___Phase 6: Process evaluation

___Phase 7: Impact evaluation

___Phase 8: Outcome evaluation

PRECEDE-PROCEED rests on the following premises:

___Since behavior change is by and large voluntary, health promotion (and, by extension, the promotion of other community benefits) is more likely to be effective if it's participatory.

___Health and other issues must be looked at in the context of the community.

___Health and other issues are essentially quality-of-life issues.

___Health is itself a constellation of factors that add up to a healthy life for individuals and communities.

Why use PRECEDE-PROCEED?

You use PRECEDE-PROCEED because:
___A logic model provides a procedural structure for constructing an intervention.

___A logic model provides a framework for critical analysis.

___PRECEDE-PROCEED is participatory, thus assuring community involvement.

___Community involvement leads to community buy-in.

___PRECEDE-PROCEED incorporates a multi-level evaluation, which means you have the chance to constantly monitor and adjust your evaluation.

___The model allows leeway to adapt the content and methods of the intervention to your particular needs and circumstances.

How do you use PRECEDE-PROCEED?

___In Phase 1, you ask the community what it wants and needs to improve its quality of life.

___In Phase 2, you identify the health behaviors and lifestyles and/or environmental factors that most clearly influence the outcome the community seeks that must be changed to affect the issues, and determine which of them are most likely to be changeable.

___In Phases 1 and 2, you create the objectives for your intervention.

___In Phase 3, you identify the predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors that act as supports for or barriers to changing the behaviors and environmental factors you identified in Phase 2.

___In Phases 3 and 4, you plan the intervention.

___In Phase 4, you identify (and adjust where necessary) the internal administrative issues and internal and external policy issues that can affect the successful conduct of the intervention.

___Those administrative and policy concerns include generating the funding and other resources for the intervention.

___In Phase 5, you carry out the intervention.

___In Phase 6, you evaluate the process of the intervention - i.e., you determine whether the intervention is proceeding according to plan, and adjust accordingly.

___In Phase 7, you evaluate whether the intervention is having the intended impact on the behavioral and environmental factors it's aimed at, and adjust accordingly.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What is Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?
• Why use Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?
• Who should participate in Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?
• How do you use Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

 

In this video, Tyler Norris, Vice President of Kaiser Permanente Center for Total Health, discusses the meaning and impacts of community health. "What is a healthy community? What is healthy, and what is a community?" he asks. In this section, we will explore the concepts of defining, creating, and promoting healthy communities.

What is Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities is a theoretical framework for a participatory process through which community members can create healthy communities. In 1985, at a conference in Toronto organized by Trevor Hancock, Len Duhl spoke about his long-held conviction that health issues could only be effectively addressed through an inclusive, community-wide approach. Ilona Kickbusch, a World Health Organization (WHO) official who was attending the conference, brought the idea back to her colleagues at the WHO European office in Copenhagen. Within a matter of weeks, Duhl and Hancock had been hired as consultants to help WHO and Kickbusch start a Healthy Cities movement in Europe. A year later, the attendees of a WHO conference in Ottawa drafted the Ottawa Charter, the “Constitution” of Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities. In the years since that first conference, the concept has spread to hundreds of large and medium-sized cities on all continents, and has also been used in smaller municipalities and rural communities in countries with varying levels of resources. It has become an influential framework for addressing community health and related community issues.

A healthy community, as we discussed above, is one in which all systems work well (and work together), and in which all community members enjoy a good quality of life. This means that the health of the community is affected by the social determinants of health and development – the factors that influence individual and community health and development.

So, what does the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities model look like? Unlike PRECEDE/PROCEED, it has no single prescribed flowchart or diagram, largely because its process may be very different in different communities. It’s a loosely defined strategy that asks community members and officials to make becoming a healthy community a priority, and to pursue that end by involving people throughout the community in identifying and addressing the issues most important to them.

We have created an informal logic model in order to connect you to Community Tool Box resources that can support your effort to implement Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities.

Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities rests on two basic premises:

A comprehensive view of health. As we’ve been discussing, a comprehensive view of health takes in all the elements of a community’s life, since they affect both individual health and the health of the community itself. The Ottawa Charter lays out the prerequisites for health in communities:

Peace. This can be interpreted to cover both freedom from warfare and freedom from fear of physical harm.

During the Vietnam War, young Black men on the streets of their home neighborhoods in the U.S. were statistically more likely to be killed by gunfire than were young Black soldiers in combat. Those home neighborhoods weren’t at peace, by anyone’s definition.

Shelter. Shelter adequate to the climate, to the needs of the occupants, and to withstand extremes of weather.

Education. Education for children (and often adults as well, as in the case of adult literacy) that is free, adequate to equip them for a productive and comfortable life in their society, and available and accessible to all.

Food. Not just food, but enough of it, and of adequate nutritional value, to ensure continued health and vigor for adults and proper development for children.

Income. Employment that provides an income adequate for a reasonable quality of life, and public support for those who are unable to work or find jobs.

A stable ecosystem. Clean air, clean water, and protection of the natural environment.

Sustainable resources. These might include water, farmland, minerals, industrial resources, power sources (sun, wind, water, biomass), plants, animals, etc.

Social justice. Where there is social justice, no one is mistreated or exploited by those with more power. No one is discriminated against. No one suffers needlessly because they are experiencing poverty, illness, or disability. All are treated equally and fairly under the law, and everyone has a voice in how the community and society are run.

Equity. Equity is not exactly the same thing as equality. It doesn’t mean that everyone gets the same things, but that everyone gets, or has access to, what they need.

If all of these factors are considered, then health must extend far beyond medical treatment to all aspects of community life.

A commitment to health promotion. Health promotion differs from the more familiar medical models of treatment and prevention. Treatment and prevention often focus on identifying and addressing illness or the risk of illness. Health promotion looks at health from a broader perspective: people and communities can take positive steps to improve and sustain well-being.

Health promotion – and we’ll use the term here to mean the promotion of healthy communities as well as healthy individuals – is key both to the thinking behind the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities concept and to actually developing healthy communities. It calls for a commitment on the part of all sectors of the community, particularly government, to promote community health by:

Building healthy public policy. Communities can establish policies that foster the health of the community. According to the Ottawa Charter, such policies are “coordinated action that leads to health, income, and social policies that foster greater equity.” Thus, smoke-free policies in restaurants, local tax policies that encourage businesses to create jobs, training for police and people who work with young people to help them communicate with young people and reduce violence involving young people, and strong environmental ordinances might all be seen as healthy public policy. Community support of such policy produces an atmosphere that makes it easier for policymakers to make choices consistent with community goals, because they know the public is behind them.

Like all elements of a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities strategy, healthy public policy is about a great deal more than simply fostering individual health – it’s about public policy that fosters a healthy society. That means equity, health for all, and attention to such things as supportive environments (see below).

Len Duhl talks about the fact that much public policy doesn’t deal with real needs, but rather with concerns of economics and power. For public policy to be healthy, it has to reflect reality, rather than what policymakers want to see, or what will get them elected. Objectivity can lead to public policy that benefits everyone, not just the influential few.

Creating supportive environments. Community environments run the gamut from the physical to the social to the economic to the political. Some supportive environments can be created by laws or regulations, some by community effort, and some only by changes in attitude (which may or may not be influenced by social and other pressures). Some examples:

The natural environment. Laws and regulations that restore and/or preserve clean air and water; preservation and creation of open space, natural beauty, and wilderness; restrictions on the use and disposal of toxic substances; conservation of natural resources, including plants and animals. All of these can enhance health and reduce stress, provide an aesthetic experience, and affect community life for the better.

The Peak to Peak Healthy Communities Project, based in Nederland, CO, has worked on renovating parks and creating a transportation link from downtown to trails and natural areas outside the city.

The built environment. People-friendly design of buildings and spaces (human scale, with pedestrian passageways, gathering places, views, attractiveness, etc.); accessibility for people with disabilities; preservation of historic and cultural heritage; cleanliness; safety (lighting, building and bridge design, long views, traffic patterns, restrictions on the use of toxic materials); good public transportation; traffic-free paths to encourage walking, jogging, and bicycling.

For example, a city that builds or designates traffic-free walking and bike paths will probably see more of its residents walk and bicycle to work and on errands than one where walking and biking are difficult and dangerous. Davis, California, for instance, has long encouraged bicycling and developed extensive infrastructure for people who bike, walk, or otherwise travel without cars.

The economic environment. A healthy economic environment is one where there is work for everyone capable of working, where workers are treated as assets (see directly below) and are paid a living wage, where there is equal economic opportunity for all, where those who can’t work are supported, and where money doesn’t buy political power or immunity from the law.

Bethel New Life, a faith-based, grassroots initiative in the Garfield Park neighborhood of Chicago, started out to rehabilitate derelict housing in the area, using “sweat equity” – i.e., the labor of local residents, who could then exchange their work for part of the cost of the home they had rebuilt. Bethel later expanded into housing, employment training and job placement, economic development, cultural, family support, and community development programs. Its work has focused on building assets and bringing greater economic stability to the West Side of Chicago.

The work environment. The work environment should be a source of stimulation, rather than stress. Respect for employees, good safety precautions and procedures, firm rules forbidding harassment or abuse, adequate pay and/or other compensation, humane and fair production expectations and treatment – all contribute to work environments that nurture creativity and enthusiasm, and improve, rather than detract from, both production and workers’ quality of life.

The leisure environment. The work and home environments can provide time for leisure. The community can provide recreational and cultural opportunities to use in that leisure time: museums, parks and beaches, cultural and sports events, libraries, etc.

The social environment. A healthy community encourages social networks, provides gathering places where people from all parts of the community may mingle, nurtures families and children, offers universal education and other services, fosters nonviolent and healthy behavior, invites familiarity and interaction among the various groups that make up the community, and treats all groups and individuals with respect.

The North Quabbin Community Coalition, in north central Massachusetts, was concerned, among other things, with the high incidence of child physical and sexual abuse in the area. A task force on the issue eventually developed into Valuing Our Children, a parent education and family life program that trained area parents as “parent educators” and provided services to area families.

The political environment. In a healthy community, all community members have a say in how and by whom their community is governed, and have easy access to the information necessary to understand political situations and make informed political decisions. Political decisions, opinions, and speech are protected. Community members feel they have power in the community – that they have a stake in it and can and should help control its direction.

Strengthening community action. Communities can encourage and strengthen community action in at least three ways. The first involves encouraging and fostering grassroots planning and action. When issues are identified and addressed by the people affected by them, as well as by others concerned, two things happen: the issues are more likely to be resolved successfully, and the people involved learn how to use their own resources to take charge of their lives and their communities. A second way of strengthening community action is through a commitment from government, community leaders, and other decisionmakers to encourage action by passing legislation conducive to it, lending public support to it through the media and other communication channels, and including members of all segments of the community in the conception, planning, and implementation of any community initiative. The third is by decisionmakers and the media ensuring a free and accurate flow of necessary information about the community and community initiatives to all community members, and providing everyone in the community with learning opportunities about issues and about quality of life in general.

The latter two of these methods are really top-down conceptions where government and others in power “let” community members share in the decision-making process. While community members – particularly those with less experience in planning and running projects, or with less access to formal education – may need support to learn some necessary skills, the drive for change can and should come from them to begin with. There is a big difference between officials organizing an initiative and inviting community members to join, and officials approaching community members with a request to participate in envisioning and organizing an initiative.

Developing personal skills. Healthy communities aid their community members in gaining the skills necessary to address health and community issues, by providing education and information in school, home (through the media and other sources), work, and community settings. Courses, workshops, posters, television and radio messages, news articles, mailings, community meetings, presentations in social clubs and faith communities, and digital communication tools might all serve to help community members understand an issue and make decisions about it.

The education referred to here doesn’t relate only to health and wellness issues and life skills (e.g., parenting). In fact, it could, and does, apply to all learning that touches on topics related to the life of the community – political, social, environmental, and economic issues, for instance. Furthermore, the encouragement and accessibility of lifelong learning is a mark of a healthy community.

Reorienting services. To be useful to a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities strategy, health and other human and municipal services have to shift from an exclusively individual- and treatment-centered point of view to one that is also community-centered and focuses on the promotion of a healthy community.

It’s not only a matter of reorienting health services, but one of reorienting all services to work together toward the goal of a healthy community. Any community issue has to be viewed through the lenses of both the individual and the community. It takes a village not only to raise a child, but to help families move out of poverty, to create employment, to improve mental health, to stop violence, to safeguard the natural environment, and to create a just and equitable society.

Why use Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

There are a number of reasons to consider using the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities framework in planning and implementing community action:

• Community perspective. Virtually all health and community issues are affected by economic, social, political, and/or environmental factors that operate at the community level. If you don’t deal with those factors, the chances are slim that you’ll be able to resolve the issue you’re concerned with.
• Participatory planning and community ownership. Planning that includes those who will be directly affected by or benefit from any community initiative is more likely to reflect the real needs of the community than planning done only by one group. Furthermore, the participatory nature of the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities framework means that community members themselves create initiatives and goals for the community. Those initiatives and goals are theirs – not imposed by those in power or by outside “experts.” As a result, their commitment to the process and to the goals makes them far more likely to support and work for the outcomes they’ve chosen.
• Range of ideas. Community participation leads to the presentation and consideration of a greater range of ideas and possibilities, and is therefore more likely to identify effective goals and actions.
• Knowledge of the community. Community participation taps the community’s wisdom about its own history, relationships, and conflicts, and can thus steer initiatives around potentially serious pitfalls.
• Community-wide ties. Involving all segments of the community encourages interaction across social, economic, and political lines. Those ties strengthen the community as a whole, can broaden people’s perspectives, increase community-wide cooperation, and positively transform how the community works.
• Achievable and measurable goals. Although Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities’ ultimate goals are broad and long-term, individual goals can be achievable in a manageable amount of time, and their successful achievement can be demonstrated. Each success sets the stage for enthusiasm for the next initiative.
• Identification and use of community assets and resources. A Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative depends to a large extent on human, institutional, organizational, environmental, and other assets and resources already available within the community. Through identifying and using these, communities learn that they can create their own positive change and reshape themselves in the ways they want to.
• Community commitment to the long-term process. Because of the participatory nature of the process, and because it requires recruiting more people at each new phase, it builds an ever-expanding core of people with varied skills, talents, and experience committed to the ideal of building a healthy community and improving the quality of life for everyone. That’s important for sustaining the work indefinitely.
• Community self-image. Through the use of the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities process, the community comes to think of itself as a healthy community, and is concerned with maintaining that image through addressing issues as they come up. Perhaps more important, it is brought to look at the larger picture as well. Holding out an ultimate goal of a totally healthy community, whether attainable or not, keeps everyone working toward it, and means that planning goes on as a matter of course. The healthy community ideal becomes embedded in the self-image of the community, and people understand that they can take their future into their own hands and work to improve it. The process itself thus becomes an important element in the definition of a healthy community – one in which community members work together to identify and solve problems, create and consolidate assets, generate improvements, and raise the quality of life for all.

Who should participate in Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

The easy answer to this question is everyone in the community, and that’s in fact the ideal. In a perfect world, everyone everywhere would participate in some way in creating a healthy community. In the real world, while it’s important to try to involve all sectors of the community, you have to work to involve some particular people and groups if your effort is to be successful. Crucial participants include:

• Elected and appointed officials. Although a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative should not be top-down, it needs the commitment and backing of those with the power to make things happen. Officials can use the media to publicize the effort, pass laws and regulations (and enforce those already existing) that reinforce it, and bring the weight and resources of government behind it. Without official support, a community-wide effort is more likely to struggle.
• Those most affected by the issue. A sure recipe for failure is to try to impose an intervention or initiative on a population “for their own good.” All too often, “experts” – sometimes people who have little firsthand knowledge of the group or its issues – formulate plans that might make perfect sense on paper, but make no sense at all in the actual situation for which they’re proposed. The participation of those affected in identifying the issues to address, developing action plans for addressing them, and implementing and overseeing those plans is absolutely crucial to the success of a Healthy Communities initiative. (This is equally true when the group concerned is the whole community.)

There are many instances of a group resisting and short-circuiting well-meaning changes because they weren’t part of the planning. The author experienced one as a teacher in Philadelphia, which had, at the time, an innovative and progressive school superintendent. He tried to institute reforms that probably would have improved the lives of teachers and students in the system, but he did it without conferring with them. As a result, the teachers simply ignored directives from the central office, the reforms failed, and the superintendent was gone within three years.

• The people who will actually administer and carry out the initiative, or whose jobs or lives will be affected by it. It is both unfair and unwise to expect organization staff, community employees (police, firefighters, Department of Public Works personnel, etc.), business people, and others to throw themselves into carrying out an initiative they had no part in devising. It may have elements that ignore the realities of their jobs or their lives, or that make things harder than necessary for them, and they may be the only people who have the information to understand that. In addition, they may regard it as just another foolish imposition to be gotten around, and do as little as possible to make it effective.
• All the agencies and groups that will need to cooperate and coordinate their activities in order to implement a community-wide effort. Both the ways in which these groups will work together, and which of them will have responsibility for what, have to be part of the planning for any community-wide initiative. Without their full participation, there’s no guarantee that they’ll work together at all, let alone that the methods for doing so will be simple and efficient.
• Community opinion leaders. These are the people whose opinions others trust, and who lead the community by adopting new ideas and bringing others with them. They are seen as level-headed, thoughtful, and serving the best interests of the community. Some may be current or former members of the groups already listed, and others may be clergy, respected institutional or business leaders (college presidents or faculty, CEOs), or other community members known for their integrity and common sense.

If you can gain the participation of members of all these groups, it is more likely that others will follow. If you can’t get people from all these groups to buy in at the outset, an alternative is educating them about the process and persuading them to join it, while you continue to recruit other participants. Ultimately, the combination of education and your momentum may bring in those who were initially reluctant. That may take time and patience, but it’s worth the effort – it can easily mean the difference between a successful long-term Healthy Community movement and a dead-on-arrival, failed attempt at one.

How do you use Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

Because the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities framework is just that – an intellectual framework, rather than a prescription – there is no single step-by-step instruction for employing it. It is meant to be adapted to the different needs of different communities. There are, however, necessary components of any Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative:

• Create a compelling vision based on shared values. As with virtually any process that involves planning – and particularly participatory planning – the first step is to create a vision that defines the effort to be made. That vision may be broad (“A community that is truly just and equitable”) or more specific (“A community where every potential worker in the community can find employment that offers a living wage and acceptable working conditions”). Whatever the case, the vision must be compelling – one that motivates people to work for its realization. It must be founded in those values that they hold in common, and must be widely shared and recognized as legitimate and desirable. (Proclaiming Your Dream: Developing Vision and Mission Statements.)

In Orlando, Florida, the Healthy Community Initiative began with meetings of a few influential people. As they learned about healthy communities, they convened a group of about 160, representing all sectors of the city’s population – community members of all races and economic levels, organizations and institutions, city government, and other groups – to hash out a vision. That group, in turn, conducted focus groups and public meetings to hear and understand community members’ concerns. Ultimately, they drafted a vision, based on their own discussions and the input of hundreds of others from all walks of life, that contained 14 statements about what Orlando should be. That vision became the foundation of the initiative.

• Embrace a broad definition of health and well-being. Health must be seen as not merely the physical health of individuals, but the creation and nurturing of those factors leading to health named in the Ottawa Charter (peace, shelter, education, income, food, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice, and equity). A truly healthy community encompasses – or works toward – all those elements and more.
• Address quality of life for everyone. The key word here is “everyone.” A Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative should be aimed at improving the quality of life for all groups and individuals in the community, not just those in a particular population of focus or those who began the initiative.
• Engage diverse community participation and be community-driven. Initiatives should be originated, planned, and implemented with the full participation of community members from all racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and other backgrounds and all walks of life. Community members themselves, rather than a government agency or outside experts, should be the force behind both the direction and the implementation of any community initiative.
• Seek multisectoral membership and widespread community ownership. All sectors of the community – government, the business and nonprofit communities, health care, education, faith communities, cultural institutions and the arts, populations of focus, and other community members – should be represented in an initiative, and the community should feel that it created the initiative and owns it.

In many places in this and other sections of the Community Tool Box, we refer to “ownership” of an initiative or intervention or organization. In most cases, what we mean is that those who take part in creating and/or running such an endeavor feel that it belongs to them. It was their idea, and they therefore see themselves as not only supportive of it, but responsible for it.

True ownership can rarely, if ever, be attached to actions or ideas that are imposed by others who “know better” or have more power. It comes from within, from the feeling that you’ve made a choice based on your best judgment. That’s why the inclusion of people from all sectors of the community is so important to a successful Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities process. At the end, perhaps after a lot of argument and soul-searching, participants feel that they’ve had a hand in creating something important that will result in better lives for everyone in the community. There’s no substitute for that feeling to ensure their doing all they can to make their creation work.

• Acknowledge the social determinants of health and the interrelationship of health with other issues (housing, education, peace, equity, social justice). The research on the social determinants of health points to three overarching factors:
  • Socioeconomic equity. Within societies and communities, economic and social inequality can have significant effects on health and quality of life. The size of the income gap between the most and least affluent segments of a society or community is important, and affects whether people have access to what they need.
  • Social connectedness. Many studies indicate that “belonging” – whether to a large extended family, a network of friends, a social or volunteer organization, or a faith community – is related to health and well-being, as well as to community participation.
  • Sense of personal efficacy. This refers to people’s sense of control over their lives. A stronger sense of efficacy can support health, well-being, and participation in community affairs and politics.

Like the Ottawa Charter, the World Health Organization, in its publication The Solid Facts, identified a number of factors that affect health and life expectancy, and advocated addressing them within a coherent approach that looks at their relationships within society. These factors include:

• The social gradient (equity)
• Stress
• Early life
• Social exclusion (the opposite of social connectedness)
• Work
• Unemployment
• Social support
• Addiction
• Food
• Transport

• Address issues through collaborative problem-solving. Given a diverse group, there are bound to be disagreements and conflicts. These should be viewed as opportunities, rather than roadblocks, and people should be encouraged and helped to work together to reach creative solutions.
• Focus on systems change. To be successful, a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative has to be active, rather than reactive. It’s not enough to “fix” a problem: your goal is to address the causes of that and other problems and improve the long-term quality of life in the community in the process.

In order to address causes, you have to concentrate not only on individual problems, but on improving and changing systems – the ways in which the community operates, and the attitudes, assumptions, and policies behind them. That includes identifying, using, and strengthening the assets the community already possesses, as well as changing systems that create barriers.

• Build capacity using local assets and resources. All communities, no matter how troubled, have real and potential strengths. These vary from community to community, but could include:

Individuals with the talents, skills, leadership, and passion to work to change the community for the better.

Individuals, businesses, and foundations that can provide material resources – money, space, etc. – to a community effort.

• Institutions – libraries, schools, hospitals, houses of worship – that have the capacity to act as both resources for and agents of change.
• Community-based and other organizations whose mission is to work for the betterment of the whole community.
• Governments and individual government officials that can add both official support and legal and regulatory power to an initiative.
• Human resources – the skills, experience, and commitment of the community’s workforce, for example.
• Natural and other environmental resources – open space, clean air and water, wilderness, fisheries, historic sites or buildings, housing stock.
• Perhaps most important, the potential for all these individuals, groups, and resources to be joined in a coordinated pursuit of a common vision.
• At least some of these and other assets already exist in virtually every community – usually to a far greater extent than most community members realize until they start looking for them. They must be identified and included in a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities effort.
• Measure and benchmark progress and outcomes. Whatever you’re doing, whether it’s a public relations campaign or a complex behavioral intervention, you have to monitor and evaluate it in order to be sure that it’s effective. That means setting objectives – benchmarks – to indicate your progress along the road to your goal, and defining clearly the outcome you’re aiming for. Regularly monitoring what you’re doing is crucial, because it allows you to spot problems or inadequacies in goals, methods, procedures, communication, etc., and correct them before they derail your initiative entirely. Even more important, regular monitoring allows you to change what you’re doing to respond to changes in circumstances and community needs, so that you’re always addressing current reality. Communities are dynamic: they develop and change, sometimes in short periods. Your initiative has to be dynamic, too, especially if you expect it to continue for the long term.

Implementing a Healthy Communities strategy

How do you actually put these components together to create a healthy community? There’s no one way to do that – it depends on your community, the issues you want to address, and the ideas and capacities of the groups and individuals that participate in the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities process. There are, however, some basic procedures that, at least in outline, should be common to any Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative.

• Assemble a diverse and inclusive group. To begin a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative, people from all parts of the community have to come together to hammer out a vision. That group, as we’ve been saying throughout this section, should be representative of everyone in the community, so that whatever it decides will be seen as legitimate by as much of the community as possible, and will be owned by the community.

Someone has to start the process. That may be a charismatic or persistent individual, an organization, a coalition, or a government office or agency. Whoever it is should be simply a convener, and not necessarily expect to lead over the long term. Leaders should be chosen by the group itself as it forms, and they should be collaborative (Collaborative Leadership.)

This is not to say that a Healthy Communities effort doesn’t need leadership. Quite the contrary – leadership and structure are necessary for any successful effort. But leadership should be collaborative and arise from the community. The leader may be an individual, or two, or a larger group. Whatever the situation, leadership should operate among equals, and decision-making should be the province of the whole group. That’s how a participatory process works.

It is assumed that all the other steps listed here will also be carried out by an inclusive group, and that all sectors of the community – including those affected and individual community members – will be represented and have decision-making power. The group may change from step to step or over time, but should remain inclusive and participatory.

• Generate a vision. A vision of how the community should be, based not on a single issue, but on values shared among all participants and on a high quality of life for everyone in the community, is needed to motivate and inspire participants and to guide the initiative over the long term. Generating such a vision may take time and a great deal of discussion, but it’s absolutely necessary for a successful effort.
• Assess the assets and resources in the community that can help you realize your vision, and the issues that act as barriers to it. Placing assets first is not just an accident here. A Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative is best served by looking at the community through a positive lens, and asking first what’s right with it, rather than what’s wrong with it. The initiative then becomes an exercise in community health promotion, instead of the treatment of a diseased community. Taking a positive perspective can improve the attitudes of everyone involved, the community’s self-image, and the perception of whether realizing your vision is possible. By the same token, it’s important to be honest and clear-eyed about issues and problems in the community. Once they’ve been identified, they have to be acknowledged and understood, so they can be addressed at some point in the process.
• Choose a first issue to focus on. The best way to sink a long-term initiative is to try to accomplish all your goals at once. It’s vital to choose one issue – or in some cases, perhaps, two or three – to address, and to make it one that can be resolved, so that your first effort leads to success.

What the issue is doesn’t matter, except in that it must be one chosen by community members as important to them, and must be one that is specific enough to be resolvable. Len Duhl talks about the process in a 1993 interview by Joe Flower in Healthcare Forum Journal.

The first thing that happens when the Healthy Cities program develops in a new place is that some persons assume the responsibility of bringing together all segments of the community to deal with the issues: the business community, the government, the voluntary sector and the citizens themselves. ...

Then there are "vision workshops" in which people are asked, "What kind of city do you really want?" My personal surprise is that the clearer I am about what a Healthy City program is, the less likely a community is to develop it. The fuzzier I am in what a Healthy City is, "A Healthy City is what you want to make it," the greater the odds are that they will start.

The various participants define the program. All I say is that you have to start someplace. You have to begin to look at it in an ecological and systemic way. You have to involve people. You have to start thinking of values of equity and participation. Beyond that, you can start wherever you want.

Some cities start on the environment, on pollution, on smoking, seat belts and the quality of life index. Some have government operations, some have newspapers, big organizations, housing. Barcelona linked it to the Olympics. Glasgow linked it to developing itself as the cultural capital of Europe. It is being done every way.

• Develop a community-wide strategy, incorporating as many organizations, levels, and sectors as possible. Here’s where Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities differs most from many logic models and other methods that are clear on exactly how to go about planning and carrying out an initiative. Rather than offering a step-by-step process, HC might use any participatory planning process that incorporates a community-wide approach and that looks at all the possible areas that might affect the issue chosen. Thus, you might use VMOSA, PRECEDE/PROCEED, or some variant, or a less structured process – whatever seems appropriate and works for your community.

It is important, however, that your plan result in a community-wide, multi-pronged approach. If your focus is on violence involving young people, for instance, it should involve some sort of action or supportive function by local government, parents and parent advocates, schools, law enforcement, the court system, public assistance and human service agencies, organizations that work with young people and families, physical and mental health services, family planning services, the media, adult literacy programs, and young people who have experienced or participated in violence. All of these groups and individuals should be working together as a team, each referring young people to other appropriate services or agencies among them, and all coordinated and collaborating in their operation. The focus should be on changing the systems that make a problem possible, or that present barriers to the ideal the community is working toward.

• Implement the plan. Once again, this should involve a community-wide effort. Any oversight of the implementation should include a broad range of individuals and groups, representing a cross-section of the community.
• Monitor and adjust your initiative or intervention. Once you’ve implemented your plan, it’s crucial to evaluate the effectiveness of both your process (Are you doing what you set out to do?) and your results (Are you reaching your benchmarks? Are you having the planned effect on the issue?) If an evaluation gives unsatisfactory answers to any of these questions, you can revisit the issue, determine the reasons your plan isn’t working well, and change it accordingly.
• Establish new systems that will maintain and build on the gains you’ve made. Once you’ve reduced violence involving young people, for example, you still have to do whatever is necessary to make sure it doesn’t rise again, and that it continues to decline. (What’s the ultimate goal here? Is there an acceptable level of violence involving young people?) That may mean setting up new organizations or programs, working to change or cement changes in community attitudes and procedures, redesigning school curricula, working regularly with the media – whatever it takes to sustain progress.
• Celebrate benchmarks and successes. Public celebration of achievements not only energizes those who have been working toward them, but informs the community that the drive toward a healthy community is moving forward successfully. It helps to establish the idea of a healthy community in the public mind, and to build a foundation for the continuation of the initiative.
• Tackle the next issue(s). The ultimate goal here is the development of a truly healthy community, which translates to improving the quality of life for everyone in the community. After your first success, it’s time to use your momentum to address another (or more than one other) issue. That may be the removal of a barrier to a healthy community, or it may be the creation of a necessary element of a healthy community. In either case, it means sustaining community members’ commitment to an ongoing and long-term process, the end result of which is a community shaped by its residents, where systems work toward the public good.

In Summary

The health of a community, like that of an individual, depends on far more than freedom from pain or disease. Health, or its lack, for a community is the result of a large number of factors, often intertwined, that span the social, economic, political, physical, and environmental spheres. Virtually any community issue has an effect on, and is affected by, the overall health of the community as a whole, and therefore should be approached in a community context. Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities provides a philosophical framework for an inclusive, participatory process aimed at raising the quality of life for everyone, and creating a truly healthy community.

Two basic premises underlying the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities concept are a comprehensive view of health and community issues, covering a broad range of factors that contribute to a healthy community; and a commitment to the active promotion of a healthy community, rather than the “treatment” of problems. By addressing the social and other determinants of health and community issues (including the Ottawa Charter’s list of peace, shelter, education, food, income, a stable ecosystem, sustainable resources, social justice, and equity), and by creating appropriate policies and environments, encouraging community action, developing personal skills, and reorienting services to a more wide-ranging approach, communities can foster community empowerment and equity.

Reasons for adopting the Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities approach include:

• Its community perspective, leading to a more effective approach to issues.
• Community ownership of any effort, resulting from community participation in its development and implementation.
• The broad range of ideas gained from a participatory process.
• Its access to community members’ knowledge of the community, helping to avoid pitfalls caused by ignorance of community history and relationships.
• The forging of community-wide ties that cross economic, social, racial, and other lines.
• Participatory planning leading to solutions that reflect the community’s real needs.
• The adoption of achievable goals, leading to success.
• The identification and use of community assets and resources, which both take advantage of what already exists and teach the community what it can do with its own considerable resources.
• The fostering of community commitment to the process of building a healthy community.
• The creation of a healthy community self-image.

While a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities process should involve everyone, some particularly important participants include local government and officials; those affected by the issue(s); those who will actually administer and implement the initiative, or whose lives or jobs will be affected by it; any organizations that will be expected to work together; and opinion leaders.

There are 10 important components of a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities process:

1. Create a compelling vision based on shared values.
2. Embrace a broad definition of health and well-being.
3. Address quality of life for everyone.
4. Engage diverse community participation and be community-driven.
5. Seek multisectoral membership and widespread community ownership.
6. Acknowledge the social determinants of health and the interrelationship of health with other issues (housing, education, peace, equity, social justice).
7. Address issues through collaborative problem-solving.
8. Focus on systems change.
9. Build capacity using local assets and resources.
10. Measure and benchmark progress and outcomes.

Although there is no one step-by-step procedure for a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative – both the content and the structure of the process depend upon your community’s needs, and particularly on community decisions – there is, given the ten components above, a reasonable way to approach it in most cases.

• Assemble a diverse and inclusive group.
• Generate a vision.
• Assess the assets and resources in the community that can help you realize your vision, and the issues that act as barriers to it.
• Choose a first issue to focus on.
• Develop a community-wide strategy, incorporating as many organizations, levels, and sectors as possible.
• Implement the plan.
• Monitor and adjust your initiative or intervention.
• Establish new systems that will maintain and build on the gains you’ve made.
• Celebrate benchmarks and successes.
• Tackle the next issue.

What is Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

___Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities provides an intellectual and philosophical framework for an inclusive, participatory process of developing a healthy community.

The two basic premises upon which Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities rests are:

___A comprehensive view of health.

___A commitment to health promotion.

Why use Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

You use Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities because:

___It takes a community perspective on issues and health promotion.

___It brings a sense of community ownership to any initiative.

___It provides a broader range of ideas.

___It gives access to citizens’ knowledge of the community.

___It encourages community-wide ties.

___It assumes participatory planning.

___It sets achievable goals.

___It asks for the identification and use of community assets and resources.

___It establishes a community commitment to the process over the long term.

___It creates a healthy community self-image.

Who should participate in Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

___You try to engage everyone in the community.

You make particular efforts to engage:

___Local officials.

___Target populations.

___Anyone who implements or administers, or whose life or job will be changed or affected by, the initiative.

___All the agencies, organizations, and institutions that will need to cooperate or collaborate in order to realize goals.

___Local opinion leaders.

How do you use Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities?

You include the necessary components of a successful Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities initiative by encouraging the community to:

___Create a compelling vision based on shared values.

___Embrace a broad definition of health and well-being.

___Address quality of life for everyone.

___Engage diverse citizen participation and be citizen-driven.

___Encourage multisectoral membership and widespread community ownership.

___Acknowledge the social determinants of health and the interrelationship of health with other issues (housing, education, peace, equity, social justice).

___Address issues through collaborative problem-solving.

___Focus on systems change.

___Build capacity using local assets and resources.

___Measure and benchmark progress and outcomes.

To approach a Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities process, you:

___Assemble a diverse and inclusive group.

___Generate a vision.

___Assess the assets and resources in the community that can help you realize your vision, and the issues that act as barriers to it.

___Choose a first issue to focus on.

___Develop a community-wide strategy, incorporating as many organizations, levels, and sectors as possible.

___Implement the plan.

___Monitor and adjust your initiative or intervention.

___Establish new systems that will maintain and build on the gains you’ve made.

___Celebrate benchmarks and successes

Example 1: The Mayor’s Guide for Promoting the Quality of Life, produced by Maria Teresa Cerqueira, Marilyn Rice, and their colleagues at the Unit on Healthy Settings, the Area of Sustainable Development, Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO)

PAHO is the Americas’ regional arm of the World Health Organization (WHO). In the Mayor’s Guide, it presents an alternative to the top-down model of health care and maintenance, and an example of the ways in which PAHO encourages the building of healthy communities. Rather than setting out a prescription for creating healthy communities, the Guide offers some basic principles and a framework within which municipalities and communities can work to plan and carry out initiatives that meet their unique needs.

While PAHO serves all of the Americas, the Guide is – rightly – oriented toward the countries in the region with the greatest needs and most difficult health situations. Its emphasis on shoring up the “infrastructure” of health – the physical, political, economic, and social conditions whose presence promotes, and whose absence prevents, healthy living and a good quality of life – is likely to benefit most the less developed nations where that infrastructure is weakest. At the same time, its encouragement of participatory process and decision-making speaks to all the countries in the hemisphere.

Rather than simply describing it, we’re including an edited version of the Mayor’s Guide here, as an example of a Healthy Communities framework. Also included are links to relevant Community Tool Box sections and tool kits.

Guide for Mayors and Other Local Authorities

Key Concepts related to the Healthy Municipalities and Communities (HMC) Strategy

This guide is intended to strengthen the implementation of health promotion activities at the local level, placing health promotion on the political agenda of mayors and other local authorities… [I]t is hoped that efforts will be made to ensure healthy public policies, the maintenance of healthy environments, and the promotion of healthy lifestyle.

What is the Importance of Having a Kit for Mayors and Other Local Authorities?

…PAHO offers a basic set of tools with which mayors and other local authorities can begin to implement the HMC strategy…[T]his material does not by any means pretend to be a “prescription for, or key to, success”…Successful experiences have shown that there is no single best way to deal with problems that arise.

[L]ocal government is closest to the people and can use its resources to achieve major improvements in health and the quality of life. As the community’s representative, the municipal government is in the best position to involve politicians, administrators from other sectors, and the community itself in coordinating joint projects. Finally, at the local level it is possible to mobilize the collective will…

What is the Healthy Municipalities and Communities Strategy?

The mission of the Healthy Municipalities and Communities Strategy consists of improving the implementation of health promotion and protection activities at the local level and ensuring that such activities are accorded the highest political priority, thereby encouraging the participation of government authorities and the active participation of the community…[Its] objective is to promote health together with people and communities, in settings where they study, work, play, love, and live.

A municipality begins the process of becoming healthy when its political leaders, local organizations and citizens commit themselves to, and initiate, the process of continuously and consistently improving the health and quality of life of all its inhabitants…It uses local planning as a basic tool, including social participation in management, evaluation, and decision-making. A municipality becomes healthy with sustained long-term improvement in social conditions with a view to ensuring the health and quality of life of all those who live within that particular environment.

What Do We Mean by a Comprehensive Vision of Health?

…WHO regards health as a fundamental human right and defines it as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not the mere absence of disease or infirmity.” Several factors have been identified that affect, and often determine, the health of individuals and communities, including:

• Living and working conditions (income, education employment, physical environment, public policies);
• Psychosocial factors (care groups and/or support networks; sense of belonging to a community; the environment in which children develop; social support of family and friends; support for older adults, adolescents, pregnant women, and other vulnerable populations);
• Individual behaviors (lifestyles and behaviors: physical exercise, diet, tobacco use, alcohol and drug abuse); and
• Genetic factors.

Research indicates that living and working conditions have the greatest influence on health. Therefore, health is as much the result of our physical and social environment…as it is a product of the health-care system and social services. [See Chapter 17, Section 5, Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Development.]

What Do We Mean by Health Promotion?

The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) defines health promotion as “the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health”… Health promotion goes beyond the health-care sector alone, emphasizing that health should be part of the political agenda of all sectors and at all levels of government. Furthermore, the participation of the population/community is essential if health promotion actions are to be sustained.

[F]ive priority action areas are recommended:

• Build healthy public policy;
• Create supportive environments;
• Strengthen community action;
• Develop personal skills; and
• Reorient health services.

What Do We Mean by Community Participation?

…Members of a community may or may not reside in the same geographical area. What is important is that they consider themselves to be a community. An organized community is not necessarily a participatory community. To facilitate participation, the community should be given the right and opportunity to make effective decisions regarding issues affecting the lives of its members.

Steps in Developing Community Participation:

1. Become familiar with the community…This step permits technical personnel and local government to comprehend how the community understands and explains the world, whether through its beliefs, folklore, or other ways of looking at life, and to know its assets. [See Chapter 3, Sections 1, Developing a Plan for Identifying Local Needs and Resources, 2, Understanding and Describing the Community, and 8, Identifying Community Assets and Resources.]
2. Build a common vision. [See Chapter 8, Section 2, Proclaiming Your Dream: Developing Vision and Mission Statements.]
3. Utilize language and communication resources appropriate to the cultural context of the community. [See Chapter 6, Sections 1, Developing a Plan for Communication, and 19, Handling Crises in Communication; Chapter 27, Section 1, Understanding Culture and Diversity in Building Communities; and Chapter 45, Section 5, Promoting Awareness and Interest Through Communication.]
4. Keep the community informed and ensure that it takes part in decision-making throughout the process. [See Chapter 18, Section 2, Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions.]
5. As the community members perceive and establish a relationship between the HMC goals and their personal lives, their health, education, housing, and other conditions, they are also able to set personal goals and feel a sense of responsibility, not just for a community initiative but for their lives in general.

What Do We Mean by Creating Effective Strategic Alliances?

Strategic alliances are relationships and agreements between different stake-holding sectors, organizations, and actors in order to achieve a desired goal. The most common strategic alliances are carried out with government agencies; health institutions and other related sectors such as education, judicial, transportation and agriculture; nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); schools and universities; the mass media; religious groups and public and private organizations. [See the CTB Toolkit 1: Creating and Maintaining Partnerships, as well as Chapter 5, Sections 5, Coalition Building I: Starting a Coalition, and 6, Coalition Building II: Maintaining a Coalition; Chapter 7, Encouraging Involvement in Community Work; and Chapter 9, Section 3, Developing Multisector Task Forces or Action Committees for the Initiative.]

What Do We Mean by Healthy Public Policies?

Healthy public policies are those that have a significant positive influence on people’s health status through their influence in the areas of education, housing, food, human resources, employment, mental health, and sustainable development. [They are] characterized by an explicit concern for health and equity…[,and] the recognition and effective exercise of the rights of the people, based on equality, with no restrictions imposed on access to, or use of services provided by different social sectors.

Healthy public policies should be translated into legislation that safeguards the conditions necessary for developing healthy lifestyles…:guaranteeing the human rights and fundamental liberties of members of the community; protecting communities, families, and individuals from risk factors; and promoting conditions that ensure that the healthiest options are those that are most accessible and most easily attainable.

Why Has the HMC Strategy Been So Successful and Appealing in the Region of the Americas?

[It] has helped to support and focus the decentralization process that many countries have been undergoing, and in light of the democratization of local decision-making, it has provided a platform on which all local stakeholders can participate in defining priorities and key interventions in a collaborative manner…Health promotion programs are more cost-effective than treatment…By coordinating the efforts of different sectors and actors, resources can be maximized and duplications eliminated.

What are the Essential Elements of a Healthy Municipality and Community?

• Building public commitment by the mayor and municipal council, local government (key sectors), nongovernmental and private sectors and the community (leaders and representatives of organizations and social groups) to the process of improving the quality of life through the HMC strategy. [See Chapter 7, Section 6, Involving Influential People in the Initiative.]
• Ensuring and continuously strengthening community participation during the planning, implementation, and evaluation phases. The HMC Strategy calls for strong community involvement and action and offers a genuine chance to strengthen and consolidate democratic processes at the regional level, especially through the participation of civil society in making decisions about priorities, activities, and the use of resources. [See Chapter 7, Encouraging Involvement in Community Work; Chapter 13, Sections 5, Developing a Community Leadership Corps, and 11, Collaborative Leadership; and Chapter 18, Section 2, Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions.]
• Developing a strategic plan to overcome obstacles and threats to developing and maintaining a healthy municipality or community. This plan highlights the need to mobilize internal and external resources, provide adequate support and technical cooperation, and create healthy spaces. The participatory, multi-sectoral development process encourages decentralization and should enhance the ability of local communities to make decisions and control resources. [See the CTB Toolkit 5: Developing Strategic and Action Plans, as well as Chapter 8, Developing a Strategic Plan.]
• Building consensus and forming partnerships through various networks and projects comprised of a wide range of institutions and organizations, both within the health sector itself and with other sectors. Efforts are made to reach consensus among participants with opposing views. The strategy strongly supports the inclusion of local governmental representatives, NGOs and the private sector. “A partnership for health promotion is a voluntary agreement between two or more partners to work cooperatively toward a set of shared health outcomes.” [See the CTB Toolkit 1: Creating and Maintaining Partnerships, as well as Chapter 1, Section 7, Working Together for Healthier Communities: A Framework for Collaboration Among Community Partnerships, Support Organizations, and Funders.]
• Encouraging leadership and the participation of all social sectors including the health sector, as many strategies and activities extend beyond the capacity of the health sector alone. At the same time, reorienting health services to include health promotion and illness prevention is both a major challenge and a fundamental opportunity that should be pursued. Care should be taken to guard against excessive control by the health sector. [See the CTB Toolkit 6: Building Leadership, as well as Chapter 13, Section 5, Developing a Community Leadership Corps, and Section 11, Collaborative Leadership.]
• Formulating healthy public policies at the local, regional, and national levels. This process enables capacity building of those involved in a more democratic form of governance; it gives people the opportunity to participate in public decision-making that affects them, their families, and their communities. [See the CTB Toolkit 11: Influencing Policy Development, as well as Chapter 25, Sections 1, Changing Policies: An Overview, and 10, Modifying Policies to Enhance the Quality of Services.]
• Conducting ongoing monitoring and evaluation to track and assess progress of the initiative, and to identify the intended and the unintended results. It is critical that information and surveillance systems are strengthened and are used to rethink and revise the activities of the initiative. [See the CTB Toolkit 12: Evaluating the Initiative, as well as Chapter 36, Introduction to Evaluation and Chapter 38, Some Methods for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives.]

Sustainability: How to Guarantee the Continuity of a Healthy Municipality and Community Initiative

Lessons learned from previous experiences have shown that initiatives that are initiated and/or motivated from outside the community often fail to sustain themselves or continue over time. …Experience shows that in communities where social participation and community organization are high, there is greater opportunity to ensure the continuity of the HMC Strategy and for social organizations and new authorities to negotiate its continuation. The key then is to motivate all community actors sufficiently so that they become involved in and make a commitment to a medium- and long-term process. …Securing the support of the municipal council or legislature is essential in guaranteeing a regulatory framework for the sustainability of HMC because it helps to ensure that the HMC initiative will remain effective and operational regardless of any institutional changes that may occur in the local authority. [See the CTB Toolkit 16: Sustaining the Work or Initiative as well as Chapter 45, Social Marketing of Successful Components of the Initiative, and Chapter 46, Planning for Long-Term Institutionalization.]

Establishing HMC Networks

At the Second Latin American Congress on Healthy Municipalities and Communities held in Boca del Rio, Mexico, in 1997, 18 nations signed an agreement to create the Latin American Network of Healthy Municipalities and Communities to build and strengthen their national networks and ensure their sustainability. Networks make it easier to share information about successes and challenges and facilitate addressing the needs of other groups and at different levels, such as the private sector, government, and international organizations, and can play a major role in the development of new experiences. … In some countries of the region, such as Mexico, Costa Rica, Chile, and Cuba, national networks have already been established and have been working for a number of years with good results.

Why Are Evaluation and Monitoring Important?

Evaluation and monitoring play a fundamental role in the health promotion and protection process because they empower individuals and communities to make informed decisions, justify the expenditures and the contributions of donors, improve the initiatives, and contribute to the health promotion knowledge-base. Making informed decisions contributes to empowerment – one of the basic concepts of the health promotion strategy – which means achieving the power to make decisions concerning individual or collective actions, with a view to improving the quality of life and social justice. In monitoring it is particularly important to strengthen the information and surveillance systems at the community level in order to collect data and information, and make sure that it is reviewed appropriately by all involved groups, including the community. Evaluation examines how an undertaking meets the standards and objectives of a project, whereas monitoring is concerned with the “continuous overseeing of the implementation of an activity to make sure that inputs, schedules, targets, and other actions required are proceeding according to plan.”

It is through monitoring that a thorough understanding of a project can be grasped, and all impacts planned and unplanned can be observed. Policy monitoring allows decision-makers and community members to have a thorough grasp of the policies that are being implemented, and how they are affecting the community in order to adjust, modify, or change actions to best serve their own local needs. Evaluation is important because it enables members participating in initiatives to reflect on the work being carried out in terms of its limitations and achievements, determine whether municipalities and communities are indeed adhering to initial proposals, and refine actions or activities in keeping with their needs. It is an important feedback mechanism for all participants in the process, and can also increase the legitimacy of health promotion activities.

Phases of the Healthy Municipalities and Communities Strategy

Initial and Organizational Phase (1 to 3 Months)
Expected Outcome:
An approved proposed HMC strategic plan

Suggested Strategies:

• Conduct a participatory assessment with the community to ascertain the health and quality of life situation of the municipality or community by identifying needs, enabling conditions, obstacles and resources. [See the CTB Toolkit 2: Assessing Community Needs and Resources, as well as Chapter 3, Assessing Community Needs and Resources, and Chapter 18, Section 2, Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions.]
• Create an intersectoral and municipal committee to carry out a consultation with the community and together define a common vision and mission. Also, it is important to designate a focal point on the municipal council for the HMC Strategy. [See Chapter 5, Sections 5, Coalition Building I: Starting a Coalition, and 6, Coalition Building II: Maintaining a Coalition; and Chapter 9, Section 3, Developing Multisectoral Task Forces or Action Committees for the Initiative.]
• Develop a proposed strategic plan through a participatory and intersectoral process – which should include local authorities, community (including men and women of all ages and ethnic groups) and other organizations – that defines objectives, goals, expected results, and targets. [See Chapter 8, Developing a Strategic Plan.]
• Gain approval and assign resources for the plan by the Municipal Council. [See Chapter 7, Section 6, Involving Influential People in the Initiative.]
• Present, discuss, and disseminate the approved plan through a public forum. [See Chapter 3, Section 3, Conducting Public Forums and Listening Sessions.]

Planning Phase (4 to 6 Months)
Expected Outcome:
A work group and detailed work plan

Suggested Strategies:

• Designate members of the intersectoral municipal committee to be part of a working group for activity implementation and monitoring.
• Develop a detailed work plan based on the community assessment (Initial Phase) with activities, assigned responsibilities and resources, a timeline, and indicators for monitoring and evaluation. [See the CTB Toolkit 7: Developing an Intervention, as well as Chapter 19, Choosing and Adapting Community Interventions.]
• Identify strategies to encourage sustained participation and partnerships for the implementation of the plan and resource mobilization.

  [See the CTB Toolkit 5: Developing Strategic and Action Plans and Chapter 8, Developing a Strategic Plan.]

Action Phase (2/3 years and beyond…):
Expected Outcome:
A Healthy Municipality and Community

Suggested Strategies:

• Promote local healthy public and institutional policies and intersectoral actions.
• Develop a policy framework and infrastructure to support and sustain the implementation of the Healthy Municipalities and Communities Strategy. [See the CTB Toolkit 11: Influencing Policy Development, as well as Chapter 25, Changing Policies.]
• Create a range of healthy spaces.
• Encourage politicians and other decision-makers to commit themselves to community capacity-building, strengthening the HMC Strategy and ensuring its sustainability and intersectoriality. [See Chapter 33, Sections 10, General Rules for Organizing for Legislative Advocacy, and 11, Developing and Maintaining Ongoing Relationships with Legislators and Their Aides.]

Expected Outcome:
Community Participation

Suggested Strategies:

• Involve the community (including women and men of all ages and ethnic groups) in the entire process, from initial assessment of the situation, to actions to identify resources and possible solutions, to implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
• Identify strategies to mobilize the community effectively while respecting the cultural and social values of each specific population.

  [See Chapter 7, Encouraging Involvement in Community Work; Chapter 18, Section 2, Participatory Approaches to Planning Community Interventions; and Chapter 27, Sections 1, Understanding Culture and Diversity in Building Communities, and 8, Multicultural Collaboration. See also the CTB Toolkit 9: Enhancing Cultural Competency.]

Expected Outcome:
Communications

Suggested Strategies:

• Use all forms of communication available in the community (mass media, interpersonal discussions, organized groups and all forms of cultural expression including events, songs, dances, story telling, etc.) [See Chapter 6, Communications to Promote Interest.]
• Ensure that messages and information are shared with the community on a continuous basis.
• Adapt health promotion messages (addressing action throughout the life cycle) to specific target audiences, taking into account reaching vulnerable population groups.
• Promote the messages of the HMC Strategy, utilizing existing positive examples and influential personalities. [For more information on how to carry out this and the previous strategy, see Chapter 45, Social Marketing of Successful Components of the Initiative, as well as the CTB Toolkit 13: Implementing a Social Marketing Effort.]

Expected Outcome:
Capacity-Building

Suggested Strategies:

• Use multiple channels to offer capacity-building (i.e., courses, Internet meetings, etc.)
• Include orientation and skill development for each aspect of HMC development.

Expected Outcome:
Monitoring and Evaluation

Suggested Strategies:

Cover process, outcome, and impact, including quantitative and qualitative indicators. Make it participatory and interactive. [See the CTB Toolkit 12: Evaluating the Initiative.]

Guidelines for Evaluating Healthy Municipalities and Communities

[PAHO considers evaluation so important that it devotes a separate part of the Mayor’s Guide to it. The Guide explains that, since “[e]valuation should be a continuous cycle of ongoing feedback,” monitoring is an ongoing activity, and that the term “evaluation” includes it. Evaluation is not something that only takes place once a year or at the end of a project, but an ongoing part of the HMC Strategy. The Community Tool Box supports relevant to all of these guidelines for evaluating a healthy municipalities initiative are the Toolkit 12: Evaluating the Initiative and Chapters 36, Introduction to Evaluation; 38, Some Methods for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives; and 39, Using Evaluation to Understand and Improve the Initiative.]

Why and What to Evaluate

Evaluation of healthy municipalities and communities is very important for many reasons, including:

• Providing the stakeholders the opportunity to reflect on the HMC initiative.
• Designing the best HMC initiative in the context of the community health resources and needs.
• Creating accountability, or determining/gauging if the healthy municipality is doing what was proposed, and redirecting efforts when needed.
• Contributing to general knowledge development; sharing what works and what doesn’t work with other communities.
• Sustaining the work of HMC over time.
• Creating opportunities for intersectoral multidisciplinary dialogue, and strengthening participatory efforts within the municipalities.
• Developing networks, links, and contacts between different community processes.
• Convincing decision-makers and policy-makers that HMC is a beneficial strategy.

… Because of the participatory nature of healthy municipality initiatives, it is suggested that participatory evaluation play an important role in the evaluation of healthy municipality initiatives. …[I]t is a collaborative approach that builds on strengths and values the contribution of everyone involved.

[A PAHO] working group on healthy municipality evaluation in the Americas…recommended different areas that should be taken into account when evaluating HMC initiatives, such as context, planning and implementation of the evaluation, and evaluation methodologies:

Context

• Evaluation must factor in the different political, economic, social, and cultural contexts of the country, municipalities, and communities involved in the evaluation. It is important to consider the influence of the following:
  
  • Socioeconomic and political situation (national and local)
  • Local and national policies
  • Local health situation
  • Administrative structures and management styles, both national and local
  • Geographical, ecological, and demographic characteristics
  • Stage in the development process of the healthy municipality
  • Sociocultural aspects

Considerations for Planning and Implementing Evaluations

• The conception and development of the evaluation as a formative process originating from the municipalities and the stakeholders. This implies adopting the rigor and complexity required by the topic and the collective definition of the variables and indicators to be used.
• The definition of work processes that ensures: a) a broad and diverse commitment that reflects a consensus of joint evaluation objectives, and b) clearly identified ways to disseminate this work to other relevant groups.
• The relationships between health and well-being and between health and development.
• The conceptual definitions of what “healthy” means in the context of the psychosocial and physical aspects of the environment, health promotion, human and social development, and equity.

Evaluation Methodologies

• Utilize an evaluation methodology that integrates qualitative and quantitative approaches.
• Develop qualitative indicators constructed with the actors involved in the process itself – this requires intersectoral and participatory work. [See Chapter 3, Section 15, Qualitative Methods to Assess Community Issues.]
• Aim for an evaluation that covers structures, processes, and outcomes.
• Take advantage of the information available in each municipality, strengthening the existing databases with qualitative data (and creating databases where they do not exist).
• Conduct the evaluation recognizing the influence of the various levels (international, national, and local, and, at the local level, institutional/government and community forces or social groups) and contexts (geographical, demographic, political/administrative, economic-environmental, social, and cultural). [See Chapter 36, Section 2, Community-Based Participatory Research.]

Areas for Evaluation

The following areas have been identified as key in the evaluation of healthy municipalities:

• Public Policies
• Social Participation
• The Intersectoral Approach
• Sustainability
• Development Process Undergone by the HMC Initiative

Evaluating the Process

…[I]t is wise to think about evaluation from the very beginning…Good evaluation goes hand in hand with planning. A planning approach that works well with for participatory evaluation is one in which evaluation, implementation, and planning activities interact with each other at any point in the life of the endeavor.

[E]valuation should review the various steps of the process itself: its successes, difficulties, strengths, and weaknesses. It should not simply register, describe, or quantify attainments and products.

Evaluating Results

Results in health promotion are dynamic and diverse in nature, and measuring these results can include information from the following areas:

• Health education
• Influence and social action
• Healthy public policies and organizational practices
• Healthy living conditions and lifestyles
• Effectiveness of health services
• Healthy environment and spaces
• Social results
• Health outcomes
• Capacity-building and development

[The following] is a list of suggested guidelines [for evaluating healthy municipalities initiatives] but it is not comprehensive; it is recommended that each HMC advisory group or committee review, adapt and augment the guidelines based on the evaluation needs and particular context.

Describe the context

• Clearly define the vision of the healthy municipality initiative. What does the community understand by the phrase “healthy municipalities”? What do the various sectors involved understand by the phrase? What activities are being carried out in order to achieve this goal? How will people know when those objectives have been met? [See Chapter 8, Section 2, Proclaiming Your Dream: Developing Vision and Mission Statements.]
• Use the logical framework method to illustrate the steps involved in the process as well as the expected results. [See the CTB Toolkit 4: Developing a Framework or Model of Change, as well as Chapter 2, Section 1, Developing a Logic Model or Theory of Change.]
• Establish an intersectoral group comprised of community representatives to coordinate and perform the evaluation. [See Chapter 36, Section 4, Choosing Evaluators.]
• When will the evaluation be carried out? Within what timeframe?

Indicate causes for concern

• What is the purpose of the evaluation? What are the main concerns of the various parties involved?
• How will the results of the evaluation be used?
• What are the specific questions that need to be addressed by the evaluation within the context of the healthy municipalities initiative?
• Are public policy, the intersectoral approach, social participation, and sustainability addressed in the questions and the objectives?
• Do the evaluation’s questions and objectives address the basic principles of the HMC movement (the concern for equity, the intersectoral approach, social participation, and strengthening local capacities)?

Organize the data-collection process

• What methodologies will be used? (This will depend on the responses to the questions above.) Have a range of qualitative methods been considered?
• Are the methods appropriate to the local context? Have both process and results been taken into account?
• Is the methodology understandable to those involved?
• Have pilot studies been conducted, using the same tools that will be used in the evaluation?
• Have the tools to be used in the evaluation been validated?
• How will broad participation be achieved?
• Is care being taken to include marginalized groups or individuals (both from among those who are the object of the evaluation and those in charge of conducting it) in the proposed evaluation? [See Chapter 36, Section 2, Community-Based Participatory Research.]

Compile the data

• This task should be carried out using the methods established in the previous steps.
• This task should be monitored to ensure that the data compiled are of good quality.

Describe, analyze, and evaluate the data

• What was learned through the evaluation?
• How different are the results from what was expected?
• Were the qualitative and quantitative methods complementary?
• How can discrepancies be addressed and resolved?
• Consider the possibility of using other qualitative methods in order to provide more information about unexpected results.
• Promote the participation of interested parties in the interpretation of the results.
   
  [See Chapter 17, Analyzing Community Problems and Solutions.]

Make recommendations

• What are the short- and long-term implications of the conclusions?
• What changes might be made to address negative results? Analyze recommended changes, taking their costs and benefits into account.

Disseminate conclusions

• Communicate conclusions, recommendations, and anticipated actions to donors, all interested parties, networks, etc.
• Use the Internet to share experiences wherever appropriate.

Make changes based on the results of the evaluation

• Obtain feedback from all evaluation participants.
• Adapt initiatives wherever necessary.
• Continue to monitor evaluations.
   
  [See Chapter 39, Using Evaluation to Understand and Improve the Initiative.]

The steps listed might also be presented as a continuous cycle.

Other principles for evaluation [agreed upon at a 2001 conference by the Working Group on the Evaluation of Healthy Municipalities and Communities Initiatives in the Americas]

Value

The evaluation process must reveal any theoretical, ideological, or political assumptions and explicitly indicate any power relationships (including those in which the evaluator is involved). The evaluation should also respect and value experience and local knowledge, recognizing the people as the principal health resource. The evaluation should embody a spirit of hope, happiness, love, and fun, while never forgetting equity, social justice, and solidarity.

Empowerment

Evaluation of Healthy Municipalities initiatives should:

• be based on the community’s strong points;
• support local problem-solving;
• ensure equity by allowing all voices to be heard, including the voices of the most vulnerable and least powerful; and
• make it possible for information about the evaluation to be used by those concerned to lobby for and promote Healthy Municipalities.

Usefulness

Evaluation of Healthy Municipalities initiatives is useful when:

• it answers the questions of who, why, and how;
• it is integrated into the planning process and oriented toward action and change;
• it contributes to the creation of resources in the community;
• it has practical and political relevance;
• it helps define the healthy municipality as an investment; and
• it recognizes the need for a range of dissemination methods and feedback mechanisms.

Learning

Evaluation of Healthy Municipalities initiatives should:

• promote a joint learning process;
• promote dialogue and reflection, and encourage all means of developing knowledge by those affected and influenced by the process, including any external evaluators;
• recognize that learning is the key to the community and to increasing the capacity for local organization; and
• lead to action and change.

 

Adolescence is a time of experimentation. Young people test themselves physically, intellectually, socially, and emotionally, all in the service of learning what it means to be an adult. Most young people move through their teen years without experiencing serious, lasting problems. They may have some close calls and have their hearts broken once or twice, but, by and large, they move into adulthood, go on to further education or work, and build lives for themselves.

Some young people experience more serious challenges. They may smoke heavily, drink excessively, use drugs, become involved in violence, get in trouble with the law, experience pregnancy or parenthood during adolescence, or even die – including by suicide or in an alcohol-related driving crash.

We often view young people who have difficulty in a negative way: they have “problems,” or are seen as lacking basic traits – intelligence, self-control, empathy, or persistence, for instance. There’s another way to consider the issue, however: perhaps these young people simply haven’t had enough of the factors in their lives that adolescents need in order to grow into successful, caring, productive adults.

A child benefits from caring parents or caregivers, of course, but is also helped by having positive lessons and values reinforced by what they see and hear from other adults in the community, and by the behavior of society as a whole. It really does take a village to raise a child.

Chapter 2 of the Community Tool Box is about models of community change – ways to introduce changes that will continue improving the quality of life for everyone in the community indefinitely. In this section, we’ll discuss using a model of community change that focuses on young people. It assumes that fostering the internal and external assets that contribute to the healthy development of children and adolescents is the task not only of parents and caregivers, but of the whole community, and proposes that communities be organized to accomplish it. And it assumes that improving life for the community’s children and adolescents will also improve it for the community as a whole.

What is asset development?

Developmental assets are positive characteristics and factors that form the foundation of the healthy development of children and adolescents. A community engaged in asset development for young people is committed to identifying developmental assets that may be less available to children and adolescents in the community, and to working to strengthen access to those assets. The Search Institute (SI) of Minneapolis, Minnesota developed a framework of 40 developmental assets for adolescents, based on its own survey research and the theories and research of others in the field.

In the research summarized in this section, the more of these assets adolescents reported having in their lives, the less likely they were to report behaviors or situations that increased risk. Those behaviors and situations included:

• Substance use (alcohol, drugs, tobacco).
• Sexual activity. Sexual activity during adolescence can involve emotional and physical risks. Those risks can be greater when protection is not used or when adolescents have multiple sexual partners.
• Violence. This can mean anything from experiencing bullying or abuse to carrying or using a gun.
• Behavioral and legal problems. The range here extends from persistent conflict with teachers or other authority figures to serious trouble with the law.
• Depression and suicide risk. Not all depression leads to suicide, of course, and not all adolescents experiencing depression consider suicide. Depression during adolescence can nevertheless be serious, and suicide is a critical concern.
• School difficulties. Academic difficulties, truancy, absence, etc.
• Alcohol-impaired driving. A combination that can lead to arrest, property damage, injury, and death.
• Gambling. Gambling can lead to serious financial problems and put adolescents and their families under significant pressure when debts accumulate.

Thriving indicators are the traits or conditions that indicate positive development. Search Institute studies summarized in this section also found that the more developmental assets adolescents reported, the more thriving indicators they were likely to have. The thriving indicators measured included:

• School success. Good grades, mostly A’s or A’s and B’s.
• Helping others. Spending at least one hour a week helping others outside one’s own family.
• Valuing diversity. Having friends from different ethnic and racial groups, and an interest in their experiences and cultures.
• Good health. Engaging in behaviors – exercise, adequate sleep, good nutrition, and regular medical and dental care – that promote and maintain good physical health.
• Leadership. Taking a leadership position at school, in extracurricular activities, or in the community.
• Resistance to danger. The ability to manage one’s own impulses and peer pressure in order to avoid dangerous behavior and situations.
• Delaying gratification. The ability to save for a future purchase, or otherwise put off immediate pleasure in favor of a larger or more important gain later.
• Overcoming adversity. The capacity to keep going after a failure, or to continue a task or effort in the face of difficulty.

The original list of developmental assets SI compiled numbered 30, but it was increased to 40 as a result of information received in its early surveys. The list was derived both empirically – i.e., as a result of information gathered directly by the Search Institute itself – and from the theories and research of others.

In the studies summarized here, SI identified 31 or more assets as an ideal range associated with positive adolescent development, while fewer than 10% of adolescents surveyed reported that many. The average number reported in most of the communities described was 18-20, and more than 60% of young people surveyed reported 20 or fewer. The communities surveyed were largely White, but varied in economic status, education, types of employment, and urban, suburban, and rural characteristics.

The survey described in this section consisted of 156 items, each intended to gather information about a specific asset, behavior that increases risk, or thriving indicator. It was designed for young people in grades 6-12. The emphasis was not on completing it within a particular amount of time, but on providing accurate information, with appropriate allowance for age, reading ability, language fluency, and other factors that could affect completion.

Half of the 40 assets are labeled external, provided directly by parents, teachers, the community, or environmental factors. The rest are considered internal, coming from within the adolescent. In reality, however, the distinction is less clear. Internal assets are often specifically taught or encouraged by parents, caregivers, and other significant adults, for instance, or are fostered by community norms and attitudes. External assets may also be influenced by the child’s or adolescent’s relationships, experiences, and individual characteristics.

External assets are further divided into four categories:

• Support. People significant to the adolescent encourage, help, and respect them.
• Empowerment. The adolescent has opportunities to exercise responsibility and to feel a sense of control over important parts of their own life.
• Boundaries and expectations. The adolescent is expected to adhere to clear rules and meet high standards.
• Constructive use of time. The adolescent has opportunities to engage in meaningful and productive activity.

Internal assets are also divided into four categories:

• Commitment to learning. The adolescent understands the value of learning and education, and can apply themselves in school and other areas of learning.
• Positive values. The adolescent has developed and internalized a positive value system.
• Social competencies. The adolescent possesses personal and interpersonal skills to manage their own life and engage in positive relationships with others.
• Positive identity. The adolescent sees themselves in a positive light and has a healthy sense of self-worth.

What are the characteristics of an asset development program?

In the process described in this section, a community organizes to conduct an asset assessment, often through the schools, administers the survey, and receives an analysis of the results. The community then uses that information to determine how to respond to its own needs. Many communities have used their initial organization to mount a participatory effort based on the analysis.

Communities that have assessed developmental assets have used their results to create community plans for supporting children and adolescents.

Once a community – or, more likely, a school system, community-based organization, parents’ group, community official, or governing body – has decided to establish an asset development approach, what should that approach look like? There are some specific characteristics common to a careful asset development effort.

• The effort demands a commitment from the whole community. The asset development approach assumes that, to address challenges affecting young people, it isn’t enough to focus only on individual adolescents experiencing greater risks. A community must make a commitment to developing supportive assets for all its young people. In broadest terms, that commitment includes:
  • A commitment to administering an asset assessment or conducting a similar study that asks children and adolescents themselves – and, in some cases, adults important in their lives and in the community – about the assets they believe are available to them.
  • A commitment by community leaders – elected and appointed officials, school personnel, the business community, opinion leaders, etc. – to support an asset development effort, both with their voices and their resources.
  • Acceptance by the community of the idea that asset development is a community-wide activity that demands a commitment from adults whether or not they are parents.
• The effort should be participatory. As with most types of community efforts, asset development works best if it is conceived, planned, and implemented through a process that involves all sectors of the community, particularly those most directly affected – young people, in this case. A participatory process often involves the formation of a coalition or other leadership body that includes representation from all sectors of the community, including young people, to plan, coordinate, monitor, and oversee asset development efforts.
• The effort should be based on what’s actually needed in the particular community. An asset assessment or some other form of community assessment should be conducted to determine which assets are already widely available to young people and which may need strengthening. Strategies can then be devised to strengthen assets that are less available while maintaining those that are already strong.
• The effort should focus on the positive. Like the other health and community development models we’ve discussed so far in this chapter, asset development has a proactive, positive thrust. It is based on building assets rather than fixing deficits. An asset-developing community is engaged in positive actions that are meant to become an integral part of community life and to affect the quality of that life for generations to come.

At the same time, the need to strengthen assets may coexist with immediate concerns – violence involving young people, school difficulties, substance use among adolescents, etc. Asset-building may be accompanied by strategies that address current problems as well as seek to keep them from recurring. While stronger developmental assets may help reduce violence involving young people over time, for instance, it’s also important to address immediate safety concerns. You can keep a positive and future-oriented emphasis on the overall effort and still deal with current realities. Don’t let ideology steer you away from reality.

• Asset development demands a coordinated, community-wide effort. This means something slightly different from community commitment, although that commitment is probably necessary for a community-wide effort to be mounted. An asset development effort needs to be carefully coordinated so that all sectors of the community – young people and adults, health and human service organizations, community-based and nonprofit organizations, community officials and agencies, businesses, etc. – are working together toward the same goals and sending the same messages.

A community-wide effort also implies that people throughout the community take responsibility for supporting the community’s children and adolescents. It may mean adults responding appropriately when they see a young person in a situation likely to lead to harm or serious trouble. It may also mean parents, caregivers, and other adults volunteering time with adolescents or younger children as coaches, supervisors of after-school activities, community-service mentors, etc.

In the working-class urban neighborhood where the author grew up, for instance, adults knew the children in the neighborhood and wouldn’t hesitate to intervene or call a parent if they saw a child doing something likely to cause trouble. While that made childhood mischief a problem, it also meant that children felt fairly safe. They knew adults would intervene to keep them from getting hurt, and they also knew that the rules would be enforced throughout the neighborhood. In that environment, adults generally felt some responsibility for the children around them, whether or not they were parents themselves.

What are the developmental assets that children and young people need?

The following list of the 40 developmental assets, divided into categories, is based on the Search Institute’s 1997 framework.

External Assets

• Support
  • Family Support – Family life provides high levels of love and support.
  • Positive Family Communication – Young person and parent(s) communicate positively, and the young person is willing to seek advice and counsel from parents.
  • Other Adult Relationships – Young person receives support from three or more nonparent adults.
  • Caring Neighborhood – Young person experiences caring neighbors.
  • Caring School Climate – School provides a caring, encouraging environment.
  • Parent Involvement in Schooling – Parent(s) are actively involved in helping the young person succeed in school.
• Empowerment
  • Community Values Youth – Young person perceives that adults in the community value young people.
  • Youth as Resources – Young people are given useful roles in the community.
  • Service to Others – Young person serves in the community one hour or more per week.
  • Safety – Young person feels safe at home, in school, and in the neighborhood.
• Boundaries and Expectations
  • Family Boundaries – Family has clear rules and consequences and monitors the young person’s whereabouts.
  • School Boundaries – School provides clear rules and consequences.
  • Neighborhood Boundaries – Neighbors take responsibility for monitoring young people’s behavior.
  • Adult Role Models – Parent(s) and other adults model positive, responsible behavior.
  • Positive Peer Influence – Young person’s best friends model responsible behavior.
  • High Expectations – Both parent(s) and teachers encourage the young person to do well.
• Constructive Use of Time
  • Creative Activities – Young person spends three or more hours per week in lessons or practice in music, theater, or other arts.
  • Youth Programs – Young person spends three or more hours per week in sports, clubs, or organizations at school and/or in the community.
  • Religious Community – Young person spends one or more hours per week in activities in a religious institution.
  • Time at Home – Young person is out with friends “with nothing special to do” two or fewer nights per week.
  • Internal Assets
• Commitment to Learning
  • Achievement Motivation – Young person is motivated to do well in school.
  • School Engagement – Young person is actively engaged in learning.
  • Homework – Young person reports doing at least one hour of homework every school day.
  • Bonding to School – Young person cares about their school.
  • Reading for Pleasure – Young person reads for pleasure three or more hours per week.
• Positive Values
  • Caring – Young person places high value on helping other people.
  • Equality and Social Justice – Young person places high value on promoting equality and reducing hunger and poverty.
  • Integrity – Young person acts on convictions and stands up for their beliefs.
  • Honesty – Young person “tells the truth even when it is not easy.”
  • Responsibility – Young person accepts and takes personal responsibility.
  • Restraint – Young person believes it is important not to be sexually active or to use alcohol or other drugs.
• Social Competencies
  • Planning and Decision Making – Young person knows how to plan ahead and make choices.
  • Interpersonal Competence – Young person has empathy, sensitivity, and friendship skills.
  • Cultural Competence – Young person has knowledge of and comfort interacting with people from different cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds.
  • Resistance Skills – Young person can resist negative peer pressure and dangerous situations.
  • Peaceful Conflict Resolution – Young person seeks to resolve conflict nonviolently.
• Positive Identity
  • Personal Power – Young person feels they have control over “things that happen to me.”
  • Self-Esteem – Young person reports having high self-esteem.
  • Sense of Purpose – Young person reports that “my life has a purpose.”
  • Positive View of Personal Future – Young person is optimistic about their personal future.

Why would you (and why would you not) use an asset development approach?

Advantages to the asset development approach

• It’s based on extensive research. The asset development concept, as well as the contents of the asset list, grew out of Search Institute research with adolescents as well as research and theory by others in the field.

As discussed above, the research summarized in this section included surveys of more than a million adolescents. It found associations between the number of assets adolescents reported and both behaviors that increase risk and thriving indicators.

While the average number of assets reported was fairly steady across communities in this research, the particular assets that were present or less available varied by community. Thus, although adolescents in several surveyed communities might report a similar average number of developmental assets, the specific assets in question could be significantly different in each community. By the same token, young people in each community might report different behaviors that increase risk and different thriving indicators. An assessment can help each community better understand which assets, challenges, and thriving indicators are common among its young people.

The research described here does not establish a simple one-to-one relationship between particular assets and particular behaviors or thriving indicators. Communities therefore need to be careful about assuming that one specific asset will automatically produce one specific result.

• Its participatory approach to planning and implementing the effort encourages community buy-in and puts many minds to work. The emphasis on an inclusive and widespread process increases the chances that the community will see the effort as its own, and thus work hard to make it succeed. Including all sectors of the community, particularly young people, in planning and implementation provides a broad range of knowledge and ideas to work with and can increase the effectiveness of the effort.

Including young people, particularly those experiencing greater risks or barriers, reduces the likelihood that the effort will be seen as just another attempt by adults who may not understand their experiences. If young people are involved from the beginning, treated with respect, and know that their opinions matter, they’re more likely to see themselves as part of the effort.

• Placing the accent on positive asset development can make challenges affecting young people seem more possible to address. A community facing high levels of violence involving young people, substance use, or pregnancy among adolescents may see no clear solution to the problem. If the issues are multiple, they can seem even more difficult to address. A positive approach – actively building assets and strengthening adolescents’ connections with supportive adults and institutions – allows the community to identify constructive steps it can take to bring about change.
• Each community develops its own approach to asset development, based on the assets it needs and other factors unique to it. Rather than taking a cookie-cutter approach, asset development encourages the examination of each community as a unique entity. Each community examines its own situation and develops asset-building strategies designed for its own needs.
• Data can be analyzed in numerous ways. It may be that young people attending one school report different asset needs than those attending another, or that young people from a particular neighborhood or population report different experiences than others. Breaking down assessment data can help a community understand those differences and plan accordingly.
• Asset development aims at long-term social change. With its focus on the next generation, and on changes in attitudes and behavior throughout the community, an asset development approach can contribute to long-term positive change.
• Asset development can address a broad range of issues. School difficulties, leaving school before graduation, crime involving young people, substance use among adolescents, pregnancy among adolescents – all of these and more may be affected by the ongoing strengthening of developmental assets and by changes in community attitudes and behavior.
• Asset development can increase community cohesiveness. Because it concentrates on continuity and on preparing the next generation, an asset development approach can bring together people throughout the community to work toward its future. That not only heightens awareness of the meaning of community among those involved, but creates a sense of purpose as well. People aren’t just solving a problem – they’re moving forward into the future as a community.
• Healthy Youth helps to foster a Healthy Community. SI calls its asset development approach Healthy Community/Healthy Youth. If you focus on supporting the healthy development of all young people in the community, you’re focusing on the development of the community as well. A healthy community is one where children and adolescents have access to the support and opportunities they need. If that happens, the chances are that equity is being nurtured in other areas as well.

Despite these reasons to pursue asset development, there are also cautions to consider before proceeding with it.

Potential disadvantages to the asset development approach

• The original data underlying the framework were drawn from a largely White sample of young people. The research described in this section drew heavily from a population that was about 80% White. That raises questions about how well findings from that sample represent young people from the full range of racial, ethnic, cultural, and community backgrounds. Surveying only young people also raises several considerations:
  • First, self-reported data reflect adolescents’ own perceptions of their lives and circumstances. Those perceptions are important, but they may differ from the perspectives of parents, caregivers, teachers, or others.
  • Second, school-based surveys may not fully capture the experiences of young people who are no longer enrolled in school. Excluding them could leave an important part of the community’s adolescent population out of the assessment.
  • Finally, perspectives from adults who are significant in adolescents’ lives may add useful context to young people’s responses.
• An assessment by itself does not tell a community exactly how to develop assets. The ability of each community to plan for its own unique needs is an advantage, but communities may still need research, technical assistance, and local expertise to decide how best to strengthen the particular assets they choose to address.
• Using an external survey and analysis process may require resources and reliance on an outside organization. Communities need to consider the costs, timing, support, and analysis available through whatever assessment process they choose.

The original section also discussed CADY (Community Asset Development for Youth) as an alternative asset-development model. At the time described, CADY focused more narrowly on reducing substance use, violence, and bullying among young people and combined an asset framework with identified community deficits.

It also sought information from school personnel, parents, community leaders, community members, and young people. This broader set of perspectives was intended to provide additional context for understanding conditions affecting adolescents.

At the same time, the model described here provided young people with less direct involvement in planning and coordinating the asset-development program and relied more heavily on leadership from schools, agencies, officials, and organizations. That distinction is important in a section that emphasizes participatory community work.

• Small communities or small schools may not have large enough populations for detailed statistical analysis. Statistical analyses require enough participants to produce reliable findings, particularly when a community wants to examine smaller subgroups. Rural communities and small schools may therefore face limitations in how specifically they can break down their results.
• There is no guarantee that an asset-development effort will address every current problem. Asset development is largely future-oriented. Young people currently experiencing serious difficulties may need immediate forms of support in addition to a longer-term community asset-building strategy.
  • Another question is how developmental assets function at different ages and stages of development. Older adolescents and young adults may respond differently from younger adolescents, and communities should not assume that the same strategy will have the same effect for everyone.
• Most adolescents do well despite not reporting the ideal number of assets. Even though relatively few adolescents in the research summarized here reported the number of assets SI associated with optimal development, that does not mean that everyone with fewer assets is experiencing serious difficulties, or that everyone with many assets is necessarily doing well. The developmental assets can be useful indicators without determining any individual young person’s future.

The SI picture of an adolescent with all the desired assets can sometimes look like an ideal young person from an adult’s point of view – good grades, likes school, helps others, and avoids experimenting with potentially harmful behavior. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that adolescents also question, test limits, experiment, and sometimes flounder as they develop an adult identity. The ideal is to provide ways for them to do that as safely as possible, but not every adolescent will follow the same path, assets or not.

Then there are the poets, the dreamers, the rule-breakers who refuse to be bound by convention. They may spend their adolescence struggling, sometimes because they don’t have support for who they are from either their families or society. Some may continue to struggle as adults, while others may go on to make remarkable contributions. They may not fit an ideal asset profile, but they may still be developing internal strengths that shape their future.

There is little question within the framework presented here that children and adolescents benefit from developmental assets, particularly support from caring adults. But some internal assets may develop later, as older adolescents test themselves against the adult world. The fact that they don’t yet appear to have every asset may be part of the process of adolescence. An asset-development approach therefore has to leave room for the questioning, experimentation, and occasional failure that can be part of developing an adult identity.

• When considered together, the advantages listed here may outweigh the potential disadvantages, but those disadvantages still deserve attention. Perhaps an overriding reason to consider asset development as a means of community building is that supporting the next generation is one of the most important functions of a community. An inclusive, participatory effort to provide young people with support, opportunities, values, skills, and meaningful roles can sharpen the community’s focus on what a community is and does. The result can improve the quality of life not only for young people, but for the whole community.

How do you use an asset development approach?

A note about asset development approaches:

This section examines a specific logic model – the Search Institute framework of 40 developmental assets for adolescent growth and development. The original approach described here included use of a formal survey and analysis process. Not all communities, however, have the resources – or the desire – to approach asset development in so formal a way.

There are ways around this. One – perhaps the most straightforward – is to focus on developing and/or strengthening developmental assets broadly. Another is to focus on an area that you already know represents a gap in your community – involving young people in town government and community service (empowerment), for instance, or creating or strengthening mentoring programs for parents and adolescents (support). Still a third is to develop your own method of identifying assets and gaps, perhaps with help from a university or another research partner if such support is available.

A fourth possibility is that you can employ asset development as part of a larger healthy community initiative. You may want to take SI’s 40 developmental assets into account without using them as the sole foundation for your effort.

Much of what follows assumes the use of a structured asset assessment. It’s important to realize, however, that that’s not necessarily the only way to address developmental assets in your community.

Once you’ve decided to employ an asset development approach in your community, how do you go about it? Because a successful effort has to involve the whole community, it’s not just a matter of starting and picking up support as you go along.

Someone has to take the initiative. Whether or not you plan to use a formal survey, the community has to be informed about developmental assets and prepared to focus on them. Existing efforts may be spearheaded by schools, but one could be led by other entities as well:

• A pre-existing coalition
• Civic officials or a civic agency – the mayor or the police department, for instance
• A parents’ or caregivers’ group
• A community-based or other nonprofit organization, particularly one that works with, or is concerned with, young people
• A community-wide nonprofit, such as United Way
• A faith-based organization or clergy association
• A business or a business group, such as the Chamber of Commerce

Form a coalition or other group to introduce asset development (and the idea of an asset assessment) to the community. The group should contain people from all sectors of the community, including young people, and should be participatory, involving everyone in decision-making.

Whoever takes the initial lead should expect to be a collaborative leader and allow for the possibility of sharing leadership with, or relinquishing leadership to, a community member or group.

Good communication by this group – in speaking, in writing, and through the media – is crucial to the success of an asset development effort, especially if a survey is to be part of it. (Please see Communicating Information about Health and Community Issues and Promoting Awareness and Interest Through Communication.) People may have questions about surveys and about how their responses will be used. In order to build trust, the coalition or group should provide the information people need, answer questions candidly and clearly, and try to anticipate common concerns. Questions people in many communities might have include:

• Who is conducting the survey or assessment? What organization is involved, what are its credentials, and what role will it play?
• What other communities have used this assessment, and what did they do with the results?
• Is the survey anonymous and confidential? What will happen to the results after they’re tabulated? Can young people or their parents opt out?

This last question, if not carefully considered, can cause major problems. If you go through the schools, the school system may have its own requirements regarding parental permission and research involving students, and may also be subject to applicable laws or policies. Whether parents are asked to take a positive action to allow participation, or are informed of the process and given an opportunity to decline, can be an important issue. It’s the kind of detail that can stall or even prevent a community effort if it isn’t handled carefully.

• What will the assessment cost the community?
• Who will be responsible for setting up the assessment and transmitting, receiving, and publicizing the results?

Once the community agrees to pursue an asset assessment, its logistics have to be worked out. Will the survey be carried out in school? Will all eligible young people be surveyed, or only those in certain schools or grade levels, or a sample? If subgroup analysis is important, the community also needs enough participants to produce meaningful results for those groups.

• If the school system isn’t able or willing to administer the assessment, another local organization, members of the coordinating coalition, or another appropriate group may be able to assist. Whatever process is used, it is useful to designate a coordinator to manage communication and administration.

Implement the assessment. The survey or other assessment now has to be administered, collected, and prepared for analysis. If it is school-based, the cooperation of the school system will probably be important. Communities may also want to consider ways of hearing from young people who are not enrolled in public schools, so that the assessment does not automatically exclude their experiences.

Analyze the assessment results. Once the assessment has been completed and analyzed, the community has to make sense of the findings: which assets appear widely available, which appear less available, which challenges are most common, and whether experiences differ among groups of young people.

• If an outside organization conducts the analysis, communities should understand what interpretation or technical assistance is included and what additional support, if any, may be needed to move from results to action.

By this point, more people may want to be part of your coordinating or planning group. It’s probably a good idea to keep the group open to new membership in some way, although a group that’s too big can become unwieldy. The formation and use of subcommittees or task forces may be one way to keep the planning group to a reasonable size and still accommodate many people who want to help.

Depending on how the population is assessed and how results are reported, an examination of the findings can tell you:

• Which assets are most often less available to young people in your community.
• Which behaviors or situations that increase risk are most common among young people in your community.
• Whether experiences differ among groups of young people by neighborhood, school, age, gender, socioeconomic conditions, or other relevant factors.
• Which thriving indicators are most often found, and among whom.

Communicate your findings to the community. If this is to be a community-wide effort, the community has to have as much information as possible. The coordinating group or individual should communicate the results through the media, public meetings, neighborhood gatherings, community organizations, schools, and other channels that can reach people throughout the community. The goal is to prepare community members to take part in planning the next steps if they so choose, and to think about their eventual participation in an asset development effort.

Plan your next steps. The character of your plan will depend on which developmental assets your community decides to address, but there are some general steps that can be helpful in any planning process.

• Convene a diverse, inclusive, and participatory planning group (or, as mentioned above, a number of task forces or committees, perhaps one for each related group of assets you plan to address), representing all sectors of the community, including young people. It might be the same group that has guided the process so far, that group with members added, or an entirely different group. Some people may be invited to join because of their skills or influence; others may volunteer solely out of interest and dedication to the community.
• Determine what assets you’ll focus on. A community with considerable resources – money, people, space, available expertise, etc. – might decide to address many assets at once. Another with fewer resources might choose to focus initially on one area – support, for instance – and/or on a particular part of the youth population.

Many communities may decide that the appropriate focus is all adolescents and/or children in the community. A “community,” however, could be a relatively small neighborhood as well as a diverse city or a whole rural county. How the community is defined may have a great deal to do with where its focus lies.

• Do your research. Find out what other communities have done, and how. Look at promising and effective practices, and at the research on the areas you’re addressing. Enlist faculty and students at local colleges and universities to help.

Research on asset and child/adolescent development can help communities understand different approaches to strengthening developmental assets. Community partners, universities, and organizations with experience in youth development may all be useful sources of information and assistance.

• Develop a strategic plan for building assets. The strategic plan is long-range, and should serve as a guide to what may be a decades-long process of community change. This is your conception of how you’ll build and maintain developmental assets in your community over time, including which you’ll approach first, how you’ll keep the community involved, how you’ll measure your success, etc. It should include a timeline, with benchmarks to check your progress against.
• Design an action plan. In general, each benchmark will require some kind of action – often an effort or program designed to address a particular developmental asset or group of assets. Each of these actions will need its own action plan, describing exactly what you’re going to do and how. Issues to consider here are cultural differences in the community and the actual practice of promoting the development of various assets. The Community Tool Box deals with the specifics of interventions and initiatives in a number of different areas, many focused specifically on young people.

Strategic and action plans can be devised regardless of whether you choose to use a formal survey. Developing and strengthening developmental assets can remain a goal even when many are already strong among the community’s young people. Assets won’t necessarily remain strong without continued support for parents and caregivers, adolescents, teachers and other adults significant in young people’s lives, and community members in general.

Present the plan to the community. Communication is again the key here. Community members should have a chance to understand, discuss, and react to the plan. Their feedback should then be considered in developing a final version.

Implement your initial action plan. Once you’ve finalized how you’re going to approach developing assets, it’s time to get to work. The first phase of your plan may involve only one small group of assets, or it may address changing your community in many ways.

Continue to monitor, evaluate, and adjust your action plan. As with any type of intervention or action, it’s vital to make sure that you’re doing what you planned, and that it’s having the results you aimed for. If either of these is not the case, or if circumstances in the community change, you may need to alter what you’re doing, or even rethink it completely. Even if it’s working well, careful monitoring and evaluation can often show you ways to make it better.

Continue to form, implement, monitor, and adjust new action plans, and to maintain the gains you’ve made. As you make progress in asset development, remember that the goal is to transform the community over the long term. Once assets have been made more widely available to adolescents and children in the community, that access has to be maintained. The work of making your community a place where all children and adolescents are valued, supported, and able to thrive has no end.

In Summary

Asset development is the fostering of developmental assets that can support children and adolescents in becoming healthy, caring, productive, and successful adults. The Search Institute framework described in this section identifies 40 assets and links adolescents’ reported access to those assets with both behaviors that increase risk and “thriving indicators.”

Assets are divided into eight categories. Four are external (support, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, and constructive use of time), and four are internal (commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies, and positive identity).

The research summarized in this section found that adolescents varied widely in the number of assets they reported. The framework emphasizes not only how many assets are available to young people, but which assets appear strong or less available within a particular community.

Asset development is a community enterprise that demands commitment from people throughout the community, from school and civic officials to businesses, institutions, organizations, community members, and young people themselves. Because asset development has to be seen as a shared community responsibility, the effort should be inclusive and participatory, helping to foster community ownership. It should be focused on the actual needs of the particular community and emphasize the positive – proactively building assets rather than simply reacting to problems. The effort should also be community-wide.

• A foundation in both empirical research and theory.
• Community ownership and diverse, broad-ranging input stemming from a participatory process.
• An emphasis on positive asset development that can make challenges affecting young people seem more possible to address.
• The ability of each community to design asset-building solutions that fit its own needs.
• The ability to analyze data in multiple ways and across different populations.
• An emphasis on long-term social change.
• The capacity to address a broad range of issues.
• The possibility of increasing community cohesiveness.
• The emphasis on what supports young people also contributing to the health of the community.

Potential disadvantages or limitations of the asset development approach:

• Limitations in how representative the original research sample was of all young people and communities.
• An assessment alone may provide limited guidance about exactly how to develop particular assets.
• Formal assessment and analysis may require outside expertise or resources.
• Statistical limitations that may make detailed analysis difficult for small communities or schools.
• No guarantee that asset development alone will address immediate problems.
• Questions about how developmental assets function across different young people, ages, and life circumstances.

In sum, the potential benefits of focusing on developmental assets may outweigh the limitations for many communities, but those limitations shouldn’t be ignored.

Although each community’s approach to asset development will be different, based on the needs and resources of the community, there are some basic steps that can be used to structure the process:

• Someone has to take the initiative.
• Form a coalition or other group to introduce asset development and the idea of an asset assessment to the community.
• Once the community agrees to pursue asset development, work out the logistics of the assessment.
• Implement the assessment.
• Analyze the assessment results.
• Communicate your findings to the community.
• Plan your next steps.
  • Convene a diverse, inclusive, and participatory planning group, representing all sectors of the community, including young people.
  • Determine what assets you’ll focus on.
  • Do your research.
  • Develop a strategic plan for building assets.
  • Design an action plan.
• Present the plan to the community.
• Implement your initial action plan.
• Continue to monitor, evaluate, and adjust your action plan.
• Continue to form and implement new action plans and maintain the gains you’ve made.

What is asset development?

___You work to build the 40 developmental assets that will support and enhance the healthy development of children and adolescents in your community.

___You seek to develop assets that will help youth guard against high-risk behaviors and patterns.

___You seek to enhance the assets that encourage thriving indicators in youth:

What are the characteristics of an asset development program?

___You seek commitment from the whole community.

___You create an inclusive, participatory effort.

___You base your effort on what’s needed in the community.

___You focus on the positive.

___You seek a comprehensive, community-wide effort.

What are the developmental assets kids need?

___You are familiar with the 40 developmental assets listed in the section.

Why (and why not) should you use an asset development approach?

___You are familiar with the advantages of an asset-building approach:

• A strong base in both empirical research and theory.
• Community ownership and diverse, broad-ranging input stemming from a participatory process.
• An accent on positive asset development, making youth issues seem more resolvable.
• The ability of each community to design its own asset-building solutions.
• The ability to analyze data in numerous ways and by different populations.
• An emphasis on long-term social change.
• The capacity to address a broad range of issues.
• The possibility of increasing community cohesiveness.
• The emphasis on what’s best for youth leading to what’s best for the community.

___You know the potential disadvantages to the asset development approach:

• A data base that’s 80% white and all youth for the Search Institute’s 40 assets.
• No real guidance as to how to develop assets.
• Community dependence on the Search Institute or CADY to analyze the surveys.
• Statistical limitations that may make accurate analysis difficult for small communities or schools.
• The lack of any guarantee that asset development will address current problems.
• The question of how necessary assets actually are for eventual success for most youth.

How do you use asset development?

___You find someone to take the initiative (or do it yourself).

___You form an inclusive, participatory group to introduce the asset development concept and the idea of the survey of developmental assets to the community.

___You work out the logistics of administering the survey.

___You implement the survey.

___You analyze the survey results.

___You communicate the survey results and analysis to the community.

___You plan your next steps.

___You develop an initial action plan.

___You implement your action plan.

___You monitor, evaluate, and adjust your plan.

___You continue to develop, implement, monitor, and adjust action plans, and to maintain the gains you’ve made.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

 

Many funders and health and human service organizations aim to make progress on large and complex social problems – such as improving educational outcomes for all children, reducing homelessness, or improving community health outcomes. This has proved challenging for all of us.

This community-level work goes by different names and associated models – including collaborative action, community mobilization, and comprehensive initiatives. One version of this approach is known as “collective impact.” Collective impact refers to the commitment of participants and organizations from different sectors to a common agenda for addressing a specific social problem at scale. Like other models in Chapter 2 of the Community Tool Box, this section aims to provide an overview of this approach and links to resources for its implementation.

 

WHY USE A COLLECTIVE IMPACT APPROACH?

A premise of the collective impact approach is that not all problems are created equal – some are simple, some are more complicated, and some are truly complex. Each type requires a somewhat different approach to solving it.

• An example of a simple problem is baking a cake – the right “recipe” is essential, but once you’ve discovered it, replication will get you almost the same result every time.
• An example of a complicated problem is sending a rocket to the moon – the right “protocols and formulas” are needed, as are high levels of expertise and training. Experience is built over time to get to the right result, which can be repeated with the expectation of success.
• An example of a complex problem is raising a child – there are no “right” recipes or protocols that work in every situation. There are many outside factors that influence the situation, and every situation is unique. Experience helps, but in no way guarantees success.

A single service program may be quite appropriate for addressing problems that are simple or only somewhat complicated. Collective impact, however, is an approach to addressing complex social problems.

Taking a collective impact approach requires moving away from more isolated ways that service organizations may attempt to address problems. Isolated approaches to making an impact on outcomes often look like this:

• Funders select individual grantees.
• Organizations seeking to implement change work separately and often compete with one another for funding.
• Evaluation is structured to isolate a particular organization’s impact to show progress.
• Large-scale change is assumed to depend upon scaling individual organizations or interventions.
• Business and public sectors are not heavily involved in the process.

Like other approaches to collaborative action, the collective impact approach engages multiple participants in working together to address complex social problems:

• Funders and implementers understand that social problems – and their solutions – arise from the interaction of many organizations and community forces within a larger system.
• Organizations actively coordinate their actions and share lessons learned.
• Progress depends on working toward the same goal and measuring the same things.
• Large-scale change depends on increasing cross-sector alignment and learning among many organizations.
• Business and public sectors are essential partners.

​What Is Collective Impact?

As noted above, collective impact is the commitment of participants and organizations from different sectors to a common agenda for addressing a specific social problem at scale.

Organizations and communities have used collective impact approaches for years. Collective impact initiatives generally incorporate five conditions associated with their success:

• Common Agenda
  • All participants share a vision for change that includes a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to addressing it through agreed-upon actions.
• Shared Measurement
  • All participating organizations agree on the ways success will be measured and reported, with a short list of common indicators identified and used for learning and improvement.
• Mutually Reinforcing Activities
  • A diverse set of stakeholders, typically across sectors, coordinate differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action.
• Continuous Communication
  • All participants engage in frequent and structured open communication to build trust, maintain shared objectives, and create common motivation.
• Backbone Support
  • Dedicated, funded staff provide ongoing support to the initiative by helping guide its vision and strategy, supporting aligned activities, establishing shared measurement practices, building public will, advancing policy, and mobilizing resources.

Below is a selected list of Community Tool Box resources that support implementation of a collective impact approach.

Common Agenda

• Toolkit 3: Analyzing Problems and Goals
• Toolkit 7: Developing an Intervention
• Chapter 2, Section 9: Community Readiness
• Chapter 2, Section 13: MAPP: Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships
• Toolkit 5: Developing Strategic and Action Plans
• Chapter 8, Section 1: An Overview of Strategic Planning or “VMOSA” (Vision, Mission, Objectives, Strategies, and Action Plans)
• Chapter 8, Section 2: Proclaiming Your Dream: Developing Vision and Mission Statements

Shared Measurement

• Chapter 3, Section 9: Developing Baseline Measures of Behavior
• Chapter 3, Section 18: Creating and Using Community Report Cards
• Chapter 3, Section 19: Using Public Records and Archival Data
• Chapter 8, Section 3: Creating Objectives

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

• Chapter 1, Section 7: Working Together for Healthier Communities: A Framework for Collaboration Among Community Partnerships, Support Organizations, and Funders
• Chapter 1, Section 8: Some Lessons Learned on Community Organization and Change

Continuous Communication

• Chapter 6, Section 1: Developing a Plan for Communication
• Chapter 6, Section 2: Using Principles of Persuasion
• Chapter 6, Section 3: Preparing Press Releases
• Chapter 6, Section 4: Arranging News and Feature Stories
• Chapter 6, Section 6: Preparing Guest Columns and Editorials
• Chapter 6, Section 7: Preparing Public Service Announcements
• Chapter 6, Section 8: Arranging a Press Conference
• Chapter 6, Section 9: Using Paid Advertising
• Chapter 6, Section 10: Creating Newsletters
• Chapter 6, Section 11: Creating Posters and Flyers
• Chapter 6, Section 12: Developing Creative Promotions
• Chapter 6, Section 13: Creating Brochures
• Chapter 6, Section 15: Creating Fact Sheets on Local Issues
• Chapter 6, Section 16: Creating a Website
• Chapter 6, Section 17: Using Email Lists
• Chapter 6, Section 18: Using Direct Mail
• Chapter 6, Section 19: Handling Crises in Communication
• Chapter 4, Section 5: Making Community Presentations
• Toolkit 13: Implementing a Social Marketing Effort
• Chapter 4, Section 2: Communicating Information about Community Health and Development Issues

Backbone Support

• Toolkit 1: Creating and Maintaining Partnerships

The term “collective impact” was introduced in a 2011 article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Collective impact has been applied to social change efforts in a variety of fields and domains. Examples identified in this section include:

In education

• Strive
• CCER

In public health

• Shape Up Somerville
• LiveWell Colorado
• Global Alliance to Improve Nutrition (GAIN)
• Tackling Youth Substance Abuse

In addressing homelessness

• Calgary
• Home Again

In youth development

• NYJJ
• Project U-Turn
• Communities That Care

In economic/urban development

• Fund for our Economic Future
• Memphis Fast Forward
• Living Cities Integration Initiative

In community development

• Magnolia Place

In addressing environmental issues

• Elizabeth River Project

When Is a Collective Impact Approach Appropriate?

You can use the following readiness assessment to determine whether a collective impact approach is appropriate for your situation. This assessment is most valuable when completed by a group of stakeholders committed to addressing a specific social or environmental issue, with the results and implications discussed together.

• Is a collective impact approach appropriate for pursuing your goals?
  • There are many forms of collaboration, each suited to different types of social and environmental issues. Consider whether you are addressing a complex, large-scale social or environmental issue. Do you have the time and resources required?
• Do the preconditions exist for the potential success of a collective impact approach?
  • Are there influential champions, sufficient resources to support the planning process and infrastructure, and enough urgency to address the issue in new and different ways?
• Are the nuts and bolts for a collective impact approach already in place?
  • If your group has determined that this collaborative approach is appropriate and the preconditions are in place, an in-depth readiness assessment can help you take stock of the extent to which the necessary structures are in place to begin your work.

Collective impact is not right for every problem. The process can take a long time and requires significant resources to sustain – resources from partners making new investments and changing their practices, as well as support for the underlying backbone infrastructure.

How Do You Implement a Collective Impact Approach?

Before implementation of this approach can begin, the organizations and individuals involved must embrace the logic of collaborative, adaptive, and servant leadership.

• Pay attention to adaptive work, not just technical solutions: The group has to move beyond thinking only about technical solutions, which are best suited for simple and complicated problems, and begin to think about adaptive solutions to problems that require continuous learning.
• Look for silver buckshot instead of the silver bullet: Achieving population-level change, the ultimate goal for collective impact initiatives, requires stakeholders to abandon the search for a single silver-bullet solution. Instead, they must recognize that progress comes from the combination of many interventions.
• Sharing credit is as important as taking credit: Seeking to take direct credit is extremely difficult in large-scale collaborations where change is being created by many participants simultaneously. Organizations should think about their decisions in the context of others and share credit with the group to encourage greater collaboration and cohesion.

PHASES OF A COLLECTIVE IMPACT APPROACH

Collaborative action of this type can generally be categorized by levels of maturity, or phases. Every initiative is unique, however, and should be rooted in the local context and the readiness of stakeholders. Some generalizations about phases:

• Phase 1: Assess Readiness
  • Conduct a readiness and landscape assessment – assess the complexity and urgency of the problem, the history of collaboration, existing local collaborations, potential champions, and available resources.
• Phase 2: Initiate Action
  • Launch a steering committee.
  • Begin community engagement.
  • Create baseline landscape and data mapping.
  • Review research and lessons from other collaborative efforts.
• Phase 3: Organize for Impact
  • Create a common agenda: a clear problem definition, common vision, population-level goal, and basic theory of change.
  • Develop a high-level population goal.
  • Seek and incorporate community perspectives and input.
• Phase 4: Begin Implementation
  • Determine shared measurement and aligned strategies to create mutually reinforcing activities.
  • Develop working groups to implement strategies. We’ll talk more about who is on working groups in the next section.
  • Select backbone support.
  • Introduce the initiative to the broader community and share what you are trying to accomplish.
  • Establish the backbone structure that will help sustain the work moving forward.
• Phase 5: Sustain Action and Impact
  • Begin implementing strategies and measuring indicators.
  • Collect and use data to learn and refine strategies, and identify quick wins.
  • Evolve steering committee and working group composition to match adaptive strategies.
  • Continue sharing initiative progress and seeking community input.

Who Should Be Engaged By Your Collective Impact Effort?

As we noted earlier in this chapter, one of the common features of collective impact is that it is cross-sector. Complex problems generally require cross-sector coalitions that engage people and organizations beyond the nonprofit sector – or any other single sector.

However, it isn’t just who you bring together, but how you bring them together. The structures that collaborative efforts create enable people to come together regularly to look at data and learn from one another, and to understand what is working and what is not. The main structural components described here are the steering committee, working groups, backbone support, and community engagement.

Steering Committee

Collaborative action often begins with the establishment of an oversight group, usually called a steering committee or executive committee. The key responsibilities of the steering committee are to:

• Provide long-term strategic direction to the initiative.
• Oversee the work of the backbone.
• Determine staff and resource needs to support sustainability, in coordination with the executive team.
• Monitor progress against common-agenda goals and indicators to ensure continued advancement and uncover obstacles.
• Review data and use it to inform changes in stakeholder engagement, working group composition, or strategies.
• Provide guidance to working groups’ efforts.
• Champion the effort broadly in the community.

The composition of the steering committee is vital to the success of the initiative, because its members help set the initiative’s strategic direction. Some important characteristics to consider when selecting steering committee members include:

• Decision-making authority: Members should include people able to influence systems and decisions relevant to the effort.
• Representation: Membership should reflect the geographic area of the effort as well as relevant sectors.
• Influential champions: Members should include people who are trusted or influential among broader groups of stakeholders, who can bring people to the table, help keep them engaged, and champion the strategy with the broader community.
• Content expertise and practitioners: Members should include people familiar with the subject matter who can contribute substantively.
• Passion and urgency: Members should care about the issue and recognize the need for change.
• Focused on the greater interest: Members may represent the needs of their own organizations, but should also be able to think and act in the broader interest of the community.
• Commitment: Members should be willing and able to commit time and energy to attend meetings and get work done.
• Lived experience: Residents and community members with lived experience of the issue being addressed should be included.

Effective steering committees often have two co-chairs from different agencies or organizations; meet at least quarterly, and often monthly at first; have diverse, cross-sector membership and opportunities for shared or rotating leadership; coordinate activity with working groups and other coalitions through backbone leadership and working group chairs; communicate regularly according to agreed-upon schedules and methods; and report processes, findings, and concerns to stakeholders.

Working Groups

Once the strategic action framework is agreed upon, different working groups – also known as action committees – are formed around each of its primary leverage points or strategies. The key responsibilities of the working groups are to:

• Identify effective strategies to support achievement of goals:
  • Collect research on effective, evidence-informed strategies.
  • Use data to inform identification of strategies.
  • Suggest refinement of indicators based on strategy development, as needed.
  • Identify funding sources and local agencies to support strategies.
• Community engagement:
  • Convene relevant stakeholder dialogues and other forms of community engagement.
  • Coordinate communication messages and strategy with other working groups.
• Implementation:
  • Coordinate activities among working group member organizations and others in the community to implement strategies.
  • Dedicate time to practical tasks such as planning events, identifying volunteers, and carrying out other necessary work.

Effective working groups often have at least two co-chairs from different organizations; meet at least monthly, and sometimes more often at first; include diverse, cross-sector membership and opportunities for shared or rotating leadership; coordinate activity with other working groups through backbone leadership and working group chairs; communicate regularly according to agreed-upon schedules and methods; and report processes, findings, and concerns to the steering committee.

Backbone Support

Backbone support is provided by dedicated, funded staff supporting the collective impact initiative. Backbone support includes six major areas:

• Guide Vision and Strategy:
  • Build a common understanding of the problem that needs to be addressed.
  • Provide strategic guidance to develop a common agenda and serve as a thought leader and standard bearer for the initiative.
• Support Aligned Activities:
  • Help ensure mutually reinforcing activities take place by:
    • Coordinating and facilitating partners’ continuous communication and collaboration, and convening partners and key external stakeholders.
    • Catalyzing or incubating new initiatives or collaborations.
    • Providing technical assistance to build management and administrative capacity, such as coaching, mentoring, training, and fundraising support.
    • Creating pathways for new partners to become involved and actively recruiting them.
    • Seeking opportunities for alignment with other efforts.
• Establish Shared Measurement Practices:
  • Collect, analyze, interpret, and report data.
  • Catalyze or develop shared measurement systems.
  • Provide technical assistance for building partners’ data capacity.
• Build Public Will:
  • Build public will, consensus, and commitment by:
    • Framing the problem to create a sense of urgency and articulating a call to action.
    • Supporting community-member engagement activities.
    • Producing and managing communications, such as news releases and reports.
• Advance Policy:
  • Advocate for an aligned policy agenda.
• Mobilize Resources:
  • Mobilize and align public and private resources to support the initiative’s goals.

It is vitally important that backbone support be viewed as fair and trustworthy by stakeholders on the steering committee and in the wider community. It is just as important, however, to understand what backbone support is not. Backbone staff do not set the agenda for the group, do not drive all the solutions, do not receive all the funding, should not be self-appointed rather than selected through the initiative’s process, and are not simply “business as usual” in terms of staffing, time, and resources. They are a facilitative support team that can help plan, manage, and support the initiative through ongoing facilitation, technology and communications support, data collection and reporting, and the many logistical and administrative details needed for the initiative to function smoothly.

There is no one model of backbone support. The models identified in this section include:

• Funder-Based: One funder initiates a collective impact strategy as planner, financier, and convener.
• New Nonprofit: A new entity is created, often with private funding, to serve as the backbone.
• Existing Nonprofit: An established nonprofit takes the lead in coordinating the strategy.
• Government: A government entity, at the local or state level, helps coordinate the effort.
• Shared Across Multiple Organizations: Multiple organizations share responsibility for supporting and coordinating the work.

Community Engagement

In collaborative action, it is vitally important to include multiple organizations and sectors – business, nonprofit, government, and philanthropy. However, it is equally important to engage the community. Effective community engagement is a critical factor in the long-term success of collective impact initiatives.

When considering community engagement, it is important to use both broad-based community engagement – which seeks to reach a large and varied set of stakeholders within a community, including community members broadly rather than only experts, leaders, or special-interest groups – and targeted community engagement, which seeks to involve a particular group that may otherwise be underrepresented or less likely to participate without a more focused effort.

How the community is engaged depends upon the goals of the initiative and how community members can best participate in achieving those goals. A few ways a community can be engaged, based on thinking from Tamarack Institute, are shown below:

• Understand pressing systemic community challenges
  • Begin a process of understanding the issue.
  • Clarify questions that arise during the process.
• Co-create solutions
  • Spark innovative problem-solving rooted in the lived experience of the community.
  • Identify and spread solutions that already exist within the community.
• Verify the direction
  • Get feedback on specific strategies and indicators from community members and groups.
• Expand the reach of involvement
  • Expand participation in and adoption of initiative strategies.
  • Build and sustain the will to take aligned action.
• Build community capacity to lead and sustain change
  • Support stakeholders in developing skills for effective collaboration and strategy execution, such as shared measurement.
  • Share resources and learning across the community to support the spread of effective practices.

Shared Measurement

Creating and using shared measures is a key component of a rigorous collaborative effort. Shared measurement means identifying a targeted set of indicators that participants agree to pursue, and then using those data both to track progress and to improve efforts over time. This differs from more traditional approaches to evaluation that focus on isolating the impact of a single organization or grant, rather than examining multiple organizations working together to address a common problem.

There are several common challenges to shared measurement:

• Competing priorities among organizations when establishing common measures.
• Differences in organizations’ capacity for data collection and analysis.
• Willingness to invest the time, and sometimes money, needed to develop a shared measurement system.
• The ability to shift from using data primarily to prove performance toward using data to improve the work, which may require overcoming concerns that organizations will be compared negatively.

There are some basic practices that can help address these challenges and support successful shared measurement:

• Effective relationships with funders – Successful implementation of shared measurement requires commitment not only from collaborators, but also from funders. Funding requirements may need to align with the initiative’s shared measures. This calls for leadership, adequate resources, and enough independence for participants to develop appropriate indicators and manage the system.
• Broad and open engagement – The shared measurement design process should include broad engagement, with clear expectations about participation, confidentiality, and transparency.
• Infrastructure for deployment – Infrastructure includes both technological and human capacity. Effective digital tools may be needed, along with ongoing staffing to train people to use the measures, facilitate the shared measurement process, and help ensure data quality.
• Pathways for learning and improvement – The power of shared measurement comes from testing and continuously improving through ongoing feedback. This requires a facilitated process in which participants can share data and results, learn from them, and better coordinate their efforts.

For organizations that choose to embrace shared measurement, potential benefits include:

• Improved data quality.
• Greater alignment across organizations.
• The ability to track progress toward a shared goal.
• More collaborative problem-solving.
• Learning that benefits organizations working on a common problem and supports course corrections that can lead to better results.

Evaluating Collective Impact

Evaluating the overall impact of an initiative is an important part of the process for all parties. Practitioners need timely, high-quality data that support reflection and inform strategic and tactical decision-making. Funders and other supporters need approaches to performance measurement and evaluation that can provide evidence of progress toward the initiative’s goals at different points along the collective impact journey.

The change process typically involves three stages of development, each of which requires a somewhat different approach to performance measurement and evaluation:

The initiative’s early years are typically focused on understanding context and designing and implementing the initiative. This includes establishing the five core conditions of collective impact, as well as coordinating multiple programs, activities, and campaigns according to the initiative’s overarching strategy or theory of change.

• Recommended approach to performance measurement: Partners should agree on a set of early performance indicators to track their progress in establishing key elements of the initiative’s infrastructure.
• Recommended approach to evaluation: Developmental evaluation, aimed at helping partners understand their initiative’s context and learn more about how the initiative is developing.

Evaluating a comprehensive initiative’s context and carefully assessing the quality of its design and implementation in its early years is critically important and should not be dismissed as merely a focus on process. The successful reorganization and alignment of the system of people and organizations addressing a problem can itself be an important outcome of the change process.

The initiative’s middle years are when partners may expect to see meaningful changes in patterns of behavior – such as changes in professional practice or individual behavior – and in the way systems operate, such as changes in cultural norms, funding flows, or public policy. These changes can serve as a gateway to the initiative’s ultimate population-level outcomes and are therefore an important area of focus for both performance measurement and evaluation.

• Recommended approach to performance measurement: Partners should use data from the initiative’s shared measurement system to determine whether, where, and for whom the initiative is making progress.
• Recommended approach to evaluation: Formative evaluation to help partners refine, improve, and fine-tune the work, along with developmental evaluation to explore newer aspects of the initiative.

The initiative’s later years are when collective impact partners may expect to see meaningful, measurable change related to the initiative’s ultimate goals. At this point, the initiative may be ready for a summative evaluation to assess its impact, merit, value, or significance.

In Summary

Collective impact – like other models in Chapter 2 of the Community Tool Box – offers a promising approach to addressing complex social problems at scale.

Contributor

This section was contributed by Jennifer Splansky Juster, Director of the Collective Impact Forum, FSG. Visit the CI Forum.

Collective Impact – Progress Assessment

Is There a Common Agenda?

_____ Do we have all of the necessary stakeholders at the table?

_____ Does the group have an explicit definition of the problem in agreed-upon language to refer to?

_____ Has the group agreed upon the scope of the landscape it is focusing on? (i.e., Which stakeholders need/do not need to be involved?)

_____ Has the group written a vision and mission statement?

_____ Does the group have agreed upon goals, and measurable targets related to those goals?

Does Backbone Support Exist?

_____ Has a structure for the backbone been clearly decided (e.g., existing organization, new organization, hybrid)?

_____ Is there a funder willing to fund the creation of backbone infrastructure over several years?

_____ Is the backbone actively supporting aligned activities through convening partners, providing technical assistance, and recruiting new partners?

_____ Has the backbone organization begun to build public will with consensus and commitment through communications management, articulating the call to action, and supporting community member engagement activities?

Is a Shared Measurement System in Place?

_____ Is ongoing staffing assigned and funding allocated to develop and implement a shared measurement strategy?

_____ Have we decided what metrics and benchmarks to use to gauge our progress?

_____ Have we established processes to ensure that measurement remains aligned to hold all organizations accountable? Is this data accessible enough so that organizations can easily course-correct?

_____ Have we established a web-based technology tool for bringing shared measurement to scale?

_____ Is that web-based tool easily accessible to stakeholders, customizable, and inexpensive?

_____ Are stakeholders sharing results and learning from each other using the tools and processes we’ve created?

Have Mutually Reinforcing Activities Been Established?

_____ Is there an up-to-date map of the players, strategies and work underway?

_____ Is it clear who is responsible for the different strategic elements of the initiative?

_____ Has overlap and redundancy between organizations been identified and minimized?

_____ Have sub-groups been established by locality and type of activity?

_____ Has a list of prioritized activities and next steps been written so that the different groups are coordinated around common agenda?

Is There Continuous Communication?

_____ Have meeting schedules been established for activity-focused sub-groups? Will these meetings occur yearly? Monthly? Weekly?

_____ Have meeting schedules been established for community-focused sub-groups? Will these meetings occur yearly? Monthly? Weekly?

_____ Have vertical and horizontal reporting processes been established? (i.e., How will sub-groups report out to the steering committee? How will groups report to each other?)

_____ Have decision-making processes been established?

Collective Impact – Readiness Assessment

Use the following gauges to determine “readiness” for Collective Impact by identifying which preconditions the group is well prepared for or will need further investment in:

Progress Gauges:

Significant Investment Needed – The group does not currently have these elements/processes in place. There is an incomplete or unclear plan to accomplish this goal and/or significant time and resources will need to be allocated to either begin or complete this process.

Some Investment Needed – While these elements/processes are not fully in place, significant thought and planning has gone into these elements. Time and resources have been allocated and clear progress is being made.

Current Situation Strong – These elements/processes are either fully in place or sufficient progress has been made in them so that they are operationally functional in the context of the initiative.

 

Download a Microsoft Word version of this assessment here.