Chapter 25. Changing Policies | Community Tool Box

• What are tax incentives?

• What do we mean by using tax incentives to support community health and development?

• Why use tax incentives to support community health and development?

• When might tax incentives be used?

• Who should be involved in decisions about tax incentives?

• How can tax incentives support community health and development?

In downtown Seattle, Washington, the historic Leamington Hotel and Apartments had stood vacant for years as the surrounding area experienced disinvestment and housing instability. The building had originally provided both hotel rooms and longer-term apartments, but it closed in the 1980s.

A housing advocacy organization later began using the property to provide housing for people who otherwise lacked stable housing. When the building was proposed for redevelopment as office space, residents and advocates organized around preserving housing at the site.

The property was eventually redeveloped as the Pacific, combining affordable permanent housing with single-room occupancy units. Federal housing and historic-preservation tax credits helped make the rehabilitation financially possible.

This historical example illustrates one way tax policy can influence private investment in projects that serve community goals. Tax incentives may be used to encourage investment in affordable housing, environmental improvements, employment and workforce development, historic preservation, accessibility, energy efficiency, and other community priorities.

Because tax programs, eligibility rules, and incentive amounts change over time and differ across jurisdictions, communities should consult current federal, state, and local guidance when considering a particular incentive.

What are tax incentives?

An incentive is a benefit intended to encourage a particular action. Tax incentives reduce or modify taxes in connection with activities, investments, or outcomes that a government has chosen to encourage.

Tax incentives may be offered by federal, state or provincial, county, or municipal governments that have authority over the relevant taxes. They may apply to businesses, organizations, property owners, or individuals.

Common forms include:

Tax deductions

A tax deduction reduces the amount of income or other value that is subject to taxation. The financial value of a deduction depends on the applicable tax rules and the taxpayer's circumstances.

For example, a government might allow qualifying businesses to deduct some of the cost of environmental improvements, accessibility upgrades, energy-efficient equipment, or another activity it wants to encourage.

Tax credits

A tax credit generally reduces the amount of tax owed rather than the amount of income subject to tax.

For example, a government might provide a credit for qualifying expenditures related to affordable housing, historic rehabilitation, accessibility, energy efficiency, workforce development, or another public purpose.

Tax reduction, abatement, or forgiveness

Governments may reduce or temporarily waive certain taxes in connection with qualifying investments or activities. Property-tax abatements associated with development projects are one example.

A community might offer a temporary tax reduction for a development that creates local employment, rehabilitates a vacant property, includes affordable housing, or meets other clearly defined community goals.

The details matter. Tax incentives differ in their eligibility rules, duration, value, reporting requirements, and public cost. Before adopting or using one, decision-makers should understand both the intended benefit and the revenue or resources being committed.

What do we mean by using tax incentives to support community health and development?

Governments use tax incentives for many purposes, including economic development. Business investment and job creation can contribute to community well-being, but a healthy community involves more than economic growth alone.

The 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion identified several fundamental conditions and resources for health:

• Peace
• Shelter
• Education
• Food
• Income
• A stable ecosystem
• Sustainable resources
• Social justice
• Equity

Tax incentives may contribute to some of these conditions by encouraging investments related to housing, environmental quality, employment, accessibility, transportation, energy, health-promoting environments, and other community priorities.

Tax incentives are one policy tool among many. Depending on the issue, communities may also use regulation, direct public investment, grants, procurement policies, technical assistance, public-private partnerships, zoning, or other strategies.

The effectiveness of a tax incentive depends on how well it is designed, who can access it, what behavior it actually changes, and whether the resulting benefits align with community priorities.

Why use tax incentives to support community health and development?

Tax incentives may be useful when reducing the cost of a socially beneficial activity makes businesses, organizations, property owners, or individuals more able or willing to undertake it.

• Tax incentives can improve the financial feasibility of community-serving investments. Projects such as affordable housing rehabilitation, environmental remediation, accessibility improvements, energy upgrades, or workforce training may involve significant upfront costs. An appropriately designed incentive can reduce some of that financial barrier.
• Tax incentives can complement standards and regulation. In some situations, incentives can help organizations go beyond minimum requirements or adopt beneficial practices more quickly.
• Tax incentives can demonstrate that community-serving projects are financially workable. A successful project may encourage additional investment, particularly when organizations can see that community benefit and financial sustainability do not have to be opposing goals.
• Tax incentives can leverage private or nonprofit investment. Public tax expenditures may help attract additional resources to projects that serve an identified community purpose.
• Tax incentives can be designed for particular purposes, places, or populations. Eligibility rules can focus incentives on specific types of investment, geographic areas, community priorities, or outcomes.

These potential benefits do not mean that every tax incentive is effective or equitable. An incentive represents public resources through reduced tax revenue, so its costs, benefits, eligibility requirements, and actual results should be examined.

A useful evaluation asks whether the activity would have occurred without the incentive, whether the intended community benefits actually resulted, who benefited, what public revenue was forgone, and whether another policy approach might have produced similar or better results.

When might tax incentives be used?

Tax incentives can be considered when financial barriers are limiting activities that support clearly identified community goals. They are often most useful as part of a broader strategy rather than as a stand-alone solution.

• When managing growth and development. Incentives may support redevelopment of already-developed areas, reuse of vacant buildings, preservation of open space, walkable development, affordable housing, or other goals included in community plans.
• When investing in communities that have experienced disinvestment. Incentives may support commercial investment, housing, local employment, cultural institutions, rural economic development, or other community-identified priorities.
• When addressing community priorities. Incentives may contribute to affordable housing, employment, education, transportation, accessibility, health-promoting environments, or other goals.
• When preventing or addressing environmental harm. Incentives may support energy efficiency, renewable energy, pollution control, brownfield cleanup, water conservation, sustainable agriculture, or environmentally responsible development.
• When incentives are part of a coordinated strategy. Tax policy may work best when combined with planning, public investment, community participation, appropriate standards, and evaluation.

Who should be involved in decisions about tax incentives?

Governments with authority over the relevant taxes ultimately establish public tax incentives. Decisions about whether to use them, however, can benefit from participation by people and organizations affected by the proposed policy.

Depending on the issue, participants may include:

• People and communities expected to experience the effects. This might include residents facing housing-cost barriers, people without adequate health coverage, people experiencing homelessness or housing instability, workers, or residents of areas where investment is proposed.
• Community-based and human service organizations. These organizations may understand how proposed incentives could affect access to housing, employment, health care, transportation, or other resources.
• Economic development and community planning professionals. They may provide information about development, land use, infrastructure, financing, and local economic conditions.
• Local and other public officials. Officials may help identify what forms of incentive are legally and financially available and how proposals relate to broader community plans.
• Businesses, employers, developers, and investors. Their input can help clarify whether a proposed incentive would actually affect investment decisions and what implementation challenges may arise.
• Environmental and public health organizations. These groups may contribute expertise related to pollution prevention, environmental health, conservation, climate resilience, and community well-being.
• Farmers and rural communities. Agricultural producers and rural residents can help assess incentives involving sustainable agriculture, land conservation, rural development, and preservation of working lands.
• Researchers, financial professionals, and other technical experts. They may help estimate fiscal costs, likely effects, implementation requirements, and evaluation methods.

Participation should be transparent about differences in interests and influence. Organizations that would receive a direct financial benefit from an incentive may have useful expertise, but their interests should be considered alongside community experience, public costs, and other evidence.

How can tax incentives support community health and development?

There are two broad questions:

• Where might tax incentives contribute to community goals?
• How can communities and decision-makers evaluate and consider proposed incentives?

Affordable housing

Tax incentives have long been used to help finance affordable housing and housing rehabilitation. They may support new construction, preservation of existing affordable units, rehabilitation of historic properties, adaptive reuse of vacant buildings, mixed-income development, or other locally identified housing goals.

The specific programs and eligibility requirements available to housing developers change over time. Communities considering an incentive should verify current federal, state, and local programs and examine affordability requirements, duration of affordability, accessibility, location, resident protections, and other community priorities.

Neighborhood and community development

Tax incentives may be combined with zoning, public infrastructure, grants, planning, and other tools to support rehabilitation of vacant or deteriorated properties, reuse of former industrial sites, neighborhood-serving businesses, public spaces, local employment, and other community-development goals.

Projects should be planned with attention to existing residents and businesses. Increased investment can create opportunities, but communities should also consider housing affordability, displacement, accessibility, local ownership, and whether residents have meaningful influence over development decisions.

Historic preservation

Tax incentives may help make restoration or adaptive reuse of historic buildings financially feasible. Historic preservation can maintain architectural and cultural resources while allowing buildings to serve current community needs.

Preservation projects may also be combined with affordable housing, community facilities, small businesses, arts and cultural spaces, or other uses identified through community planning.

Place-based economic development

Governments sometimes create geographically targeted incentives intended to encourage investment, employment, business development, or property rehabilitation in areas experiencing economic disinvestment.

The names, rules, and availability of these programs change over time and differ by jurisdiction. Rather than relying on historical program names or tax amounts, consult current government sources when examining place-based incentives.

When evaluating them, consider:

• Whether investment reaches existing residents and locally owned businesses
• Whether jobs provide adequate pay, stability, and opportunities for advancement
• Whether development contributes to displacement or rising housing costs
• Whether the incentive produces benefits beyond what would have occurred without it
• Whether community members have meaningful roles in determining priorities

Health and healthy environments

Tax incentives may support investments that improve access to health-promoting resources or reduce environmental and workplace health risks.

Examples may include:

• Development of health care facilities in areas with limited access
• Employer investments in health-related benefits or services
• Walking, bicycling, and other active transportation infrastructure
• Improvements that reduce exposure to environmental hazards
• Accessible recreational or wellness facilities

Incentives should complement rather than substitute for appropriate health, safety, accessibility, and employment standards.

Environmental responsibility

Tax incentives may encourage environmentally responsible investment in areas such as:

• Development and site planning. Incentives may encourage reuse of already-developed land, protection of sensitive environmental areas, or development patterns that reduce unnecessary land disturbance.
• Open-space preservation. Incentives can support conservation of natural areas, parks, farmland, wildlife habitat, and other community environmental resources.
• Brownfield cleanup and reuse. Financial incentives can help address the cost of assessing, cleaning, and safely reusing properties affected by previous industrial or commercial activity.
• Water conservation. Incentives may support efficient fixtures, water reuse, drought-resilient landscaping, improved industrial processes, and other conservation strategies.
• Green building. Incentives may encourage energy-efficient, resource-efficient, healthy, accessible, and environmentally responsible construction and renovation.
• Waste reduction and pollution prevention. Incentives may support cleaner industrial processes, recycling, reuse, pollution-control equipment, and reductions in hazardous emissions or waste.
• Sustainable agriculture. Incentives may support agricultural practices that protect soil, water, biodiversity, and the long-term productivity of working lands.
• Farmland, open-space, and habitat preservation. Tax policy may help reduce financial pressures that otherwise encourage conversion of agricultural or conservation land to other uses.

Energy efficiency and renewable energy

Tax incentives may reduce the cost of technologies and improvements that lower energy use or support renewable energy.

Examples include:

• Energy-efficient building improvements
• Efficient heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances
• Solar and other renewable-energy systems
• Energy storage or related infrastructure
• Energy-efficient transportation
• Research and development related to cleaner or more efficient technologies

Programs and eligibility change over time. Use current government guidance before describing a particular credit, deduction, technology, or qualifying expenditure.

Employment and workforce development

Tax incentives may also support employment and workforce goals.

• Job creation. Incentives may be connected to creation or retention of jobs, local hiring, job quality, or other employment outcomes.
• Job training. Employers may receive incentives for providing apprenticeships, technical training, credentialing, career development, or other opportunities that expand workers' skills.
• Workplace education. Programs may support English-language learning, digital literacy, foundational academic skills, professional development, or other education connected to workers' goals.
• Workforce development. Incentives may support career preparation, work-based learning, transportation, childcare, credentialing, or partnerships among employers, educational institutions, workforce organizations, and community groups.
• Expanding employment opportunity. Incentives may be structured to reduce barriers to employment for people who have historically faced discrimination or limited access to employment, including people with disabilities, people returning to the community after incarceration, and others facing documented employment barriers.

Incentives should be evaluated not only by the number of jobs created, but also by job quality, wages, benefits, accessibility, worker retention, career pathways, and whether opportunities reach the communities the program was intended to support.

Accessibility

Tax policy can help businesses and organizations offset some of the cost of improving accessibility for people with disabilities.

Accessibility improvements may include physical modifications, accessible communication, qualified interpreters, accessible digital technology, adaptive equipment, or other changes that remove barriers.

Because eligibility requirements, definitions, and tax amounts can change, organizations should consult current government and tax guidance before relying on a particular accessibility credit or deduction.

Financial incentives should support accessibility efforts, not replace legal responsibilities to provide access when those responsibilities apply.

Charitable contributions

Tax policy may also encourage charitable giving by allowing qualifying contributions to eligible organizations to receive favorable tax treatment.

The rules governing charitable deductions depend on current tax law, the donor's circumstances, the status of the receiving organization, the type of contribution, and whether the donor receives goods or services in return.

Rather than relying on a static list of what is or is not deductible, organizations and donors should consult current tax guidance when making decisions about charitable contributions.

Tax treatment can influence charitable giving, but communities should also consider broader approaches to sustaining organizations, including public funding, foundation grants, individual giving, earned income, partnerships, and other sources.

How do you bring a tax-incentive proposal into the policy process?

Unless your organization has direct authority over the relevant taxes, establishing or changing a tax incentive will involve a public policy process.

The goal should be to provide decision-makers and community members with enough reliable information to evaluate the proposal, its alternatives, and its likely consequences.

Understand the policy and decision-making process

Identify:

• Which level of government has authority over the relevant tax
• Which agency, legislative body, or other institution makes the decision
• What legal or budget process applies
• When public hearings, comment periods, budget discussions, or other opportunities for participation occur
• What information decision-makers need in order to evaluate the proposal

Build a strong evidence base

Examine both potential benefits and costs. Useful questions include:

• What community goal is the incentive intended to support?
• What evidence suggests the incentive could influence the desired activity?
• How much public revenue might be forgone?
• Who is eligible to receive the incentive?
• Who is expected to benefit from the resulting investment or activity?
• What unintended effects could occur?
• What requirements or accountability measures should accompany the incentive?
• What other policy options are available?

Be transparent about uncertainty. Do not minimize costs or overstate expected benefits.

Include community and stakeholder perspectives

People who may experience the effects of a proposed incentive should have opportunities to contribute to the discussion.

Depending on the proposal, this may include residents, workers, small businesses, community organizations, developers, environmental groups, people with lived experience related to the issue, public agencies, and other stakeholders.

Community engagement should help shape the proposal rather than simply being used to build support for a plan that has already been finalized.

Communicate with policymakers and the public

Provide decision-makers with clear information about the proposal, including the goal, expected costs and benefits, evidence, implementation requirements, and evaluation plan.

Public communication should likewise distinguish facts, estimates, assumptions, and recommendations. Use accessible language and provide opportunities for questions and feedback.

Different participants may value different kinds of evidence. Economic effects can be important, but community health, accessibility, housing stability, environmental quality, equity, worker well-being, and other outcomes may also be relevant depending on the proposal.

Evaluate the incentive

Tax incentives should be evaluated after implementation rather than assumed to be effective because businesses or individuals use them.

Evaluation may examine:

• Participation in the incentive
• Public revenue committed through the incentive
• Private or nonprofit investment generated
• Housing, employment, environmental, accessibility, or other outcomes connected to the program
• Who benefits and whether intended communities are being reached
• Unintended consequences
• Whether requirements are being followed
• Whether the incentive remains necessary

Evaluation may show that an incentive should continue, change, expand, be better targeted, or end. A time-limited incentive can provide an opportunity for review before public resources are committed for a longer period.

In Summary

Tax incentives -- including deductions, credits, abatements, and other forms of tax relief -- can be used to encourage investments or activities connected with community goals.

Depending on how they are designed, tax incentives may support affordable housing, historic preservation, community development, employment and workforce opportunities, accessibility, environmental protection, energy efficiency, health-promoting environments, and other priorities.

Tax incentives are not automatically the best approach simply because they attract private investment. They use public resources through reduced tax revenue and should therefore be evaluated for cost, effectiveness, accessibility, community benefit, and unintended consequences.

Strong tax-incentive policy begins with a clearly defined community goal, reliable information, transparent decision-making, meaningful participation from people affected by the proposal, and a plan for evaluating whether the incentive produces the outcomes it was intended to support.

Because tax laws and incentive programs change over time and vary across jurisdictions, always verify current requirements before relying on a particular program, dollar amount, eligibility rule, or tax benefit.

What are tax incentives?

___Tax incentives are ways of reducing taxes for businesses and individuals in exchange for specific desirable actions or investments.

___Tax incentives generally take one of three forms:

• Tax deductions
• Tax credits
• Tax reduction or forgiveness

What do we mean by using tax incentives to support community health and development?

___Tax incentives can be used to persuade businesses and individuals to take positive action that leads to the achievement of community goals and to the betterment of the community.

___Tax incentives can sometimes be used to persuade businesses and individuals not to take action that would create barriers to community goals and to the betterment of the community.

Why use tax incentives to support community health and development?

___Tax incentives speak to businesses’ and individuals’ self-interest.

___Tax incentives make allies rather than adversaries.

___Tax incentives can show businesses that  community-building projects can be both feasible and profitable, thus leading to more of them.

___Tax incentives can be an efficient use of taxpayer money.

___Tax incentives can be directed exactly where they’re needed.

When would you use tax incentives?

___When you’re trying to manage growth.

___When you’re revitalizing neighborhoods, communities, or rural areas.

___When you’re trying to meet community needs.

___When you’re trying to prevent or fix environmental problems.

___When tax incentives can be part of a coordinated strategy.

Who should use tax incentives to support community health and development?

___Policy makers and legislators should apply tax incentives.

___Supporting and advocating for tax incentives should be the work of:

• Direct beneficiaries of tax incentives.
• Human service providers and advocates for the poor.
• Economic developers and community planners.
• Local officials, especially those in economically depressed areas, or areas with other problems that might be addressed through incentives.
• Businesses, corporations, real estate developers, etc.
• Environmental activists.
• Farmers.

How do you use tax incentives to support community health and development?

You can apply tax incentives to:

___Affordable housing.

___Neighborhood development.

___Historic Preservation.

___Enterprise zones.

___Environmental responsibility.

• Residential, commercial, and industrial development site selection and preparation.
• Open space preservation.
• Brownfields reclamation.
• Water conservation.
• Green building.
• Waste management and pollution control.
• Sustainable agriculture.
• Farmland/open space/wildlife habitat preservation. 

___Energy conservation. 

• The purchase of alternative-fuel or hybrid vehicles.
• Recycling.
• On-site power generation.
• Resource conservation.
• The development and/or use of renewable energy and sustainable technology.

___Health.

___Employment and workforce development.

• Job creation.
• Job training.
• Workplace education.
• Workforce development.
• Hiring people from disadvantaged groups.

___ADA compliance.

___Charitable contributions.

You can convince policy makers to put incentives in place by:

___Advocating with legislators and policy makers.

___Using the media to get public opinion on your side.

___Keeping at it for as long as incentives are needed and useful.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

 

Communities often try to improve health not only by encouraging individual choices, but also by creating environments that make healthy options easier to access. They may build or improve sidewalks, walking and biking paths, parks, recreation facilities, and other spaces that support physical activity.

Food environments provide another example. What people eat is shaped by many factors, including cost, availability, marketing, time, culture, transportation, and what foods are offered in schools, workplaces, stores, and other community settings. Communities may therefore look for ways to expand access to nutritious food while reducing environmental conditions that encourage excessive consumption of products associated with health risks.

A school, for example, might provide water and a wider variety of nutritious snacks in vending areas. A grocery store might make fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other nutritious options more visible and affordable. These approaches do not remove individual choice; they change the environment in which choices are made.

This section examines ways communities can modify access to products and practices that may contribute to harm. In some situations, this may mean limiting access. In others, it may mean changing how products are marketed, sold, displayed, used, or regulated; providing clearer information; or creating safer and healthier alternatives.

What do we mean by unhealthy products and practices?

In this section, "unhealthy products and practices" refers broadly to products, activities, or conditions that can increase the risk of harm to individuals or others when they are used, experienced, or carried out in particular ways.

The level of risk varies. Some products may be harmful in almost any form of exposure, while others may present risks only in particular amounts, circumstances, ages, or patterns of use. Practices can also affect people beyond the individual involved, as in secondhand smoke, impaired driving, environmental pollution, or unsafe workplace conditions.

Modifying access does not always mean banning a product or practice. Depending on the circumstances, communities may use age restrictions, safety standards, pricing policies, zoning, education, product placement, warning labels, licensing, organizational policies, or other approaches.

Examples of products or practices for which access, distribution, marketing, or use may be regulated or otherwise addressed include:

• Food safety. Food that is contaminated, improperly handled, incorrectly stored, or otherwise unsafe can cause serious illness. Inspection, sanitation, labeling, food-handling standards, and public education can help reduce these risks.
• Tobacco and nicotine products. Tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke can cause serious health problems. Governments and institutions may use age restrictions, smoke-free policies, taxes, advertising restrictions, product-placement rules, cessation support, and other strategies to reduce exposure and use. Specific laws and age requirements vary by jurisdiction and may change over time.
• Food and beverage environments. Diet-related health is influenced by the availability, affordability, marketing, and placement of food and beverages as well as individual preferences. Schools, workplaces, retailers, and communities can expand nutritious options and consider how marketing and product placement influence purchasing and consumption.
• Alcohol. Alcohol use can create health and safety risks, particularly when it involves impaired driving, heavy use, unsafe environments, or use by people who are not legally permitted to purchase it. Communities use licensing, age restrictions, responsible-service practices, education, treatment and recovery services, and other approaches to reduce alcohol-related harm.
• Medications and household products that can cause harm when misused. Some medications, inhalants, solvents, and other products have legitimate uses but can create serious risks when used differently from their intended purpose. Packaging, labeling, secure storage, sales requirements, education, and appropriate health services may reduce harm.
• Performance-enhancing substances. Some substances used to increase athletic performance may create significant health risks when used without appropriate medical oversight. Sports organizations, schools, health professionals, and governing bodies may use education, testing, prescribing standards, and other safeguards.
• Infant feeding products and practices. Safe infant feeding depends on access to accurate information, adequate nutrition, safe water, appropriate health care, and reliable supplies. Families should receive evidence-informed information and support that respects their circumstances and feeding decisions. Marketing practices, product safety, affordability, and access to clean water can all influence health outcomes.

Some practices that may affect health do not depend on a particular product.

• Problem gambling. Gambling can become harmful when it contributes to financial problems, distress, relationship difficulties, work disruption, or loss of control. Communities may respond through consumer protections, information, age restrictions, self-exclusion options, treatment resources, and other harm-reduction approaches.
• Training or competing in ways that create avoidable health risks. Athletes may experience pressure to train through injuries, overtrain, use unsafe performance-enhancing methods, or engage in extreme weight-control practices. Coaches, schools, sports organizations, health professionals, athletes, and families can help create environments that prioritize long-term health and safety.
• Unsafe or extreme weight-control practices. Pressure related to appearance, sport, social expectations, or body image can contribute to restrictive eating, disordered eating, or other behaviors that affect physical and mental health. Prevention efforts should avoid reinforcing weight stigma and instead promote supportive environments, body respect, access to appropriate care, and healthy relationships with food and movement.
• Sex without appropriate protection or prevention. Sexual health strategies can include access to accurate information, consent education, condoms and other prevention tools, contraception, testing, vaccination where appropriate, and confidential health services.
• Not using appropriate safety equipment. Seat belts, helmets, protective equipment, fall protection, and other safety measures can reduce the likelihood or severity of injury.
• Exposure to chronic or excessive stress. Stress is influenced not only by individual behavior but also by working conditions, discrimination, caregiving responsibilities, financial insecurity, unsafe environments, limited control over decisions, and other circumstances. Policies and organizational practices can reduce preventable sources of stress while expanding access to support.

Why modify access to unhealthy products and practices?

Communities may consider modifying access when evidence shows that a product, practice, or environment contributes to preventable harm and when changing access is a reasonable way to reduce that harm.

The purpose should not be to blame people for their health or assume that everyone makes decisions under the same circumstances. Community health is shaped by individual behavior, but also by income, housing, education, transportation, discrimination, working conditions, marketing, neighborhood environments, access to care, and other social and structural conditions.

Reasons for considering changes in access include:

• To support health and well-being. Safer environments, reliable information, supportive services, and accessible healthy options can help people pursue their own health goals and reduce preventable illness and injury.
• To reduce preventable community costs. Illness and injury can affect individuals, families, employers, health systems, schools, and public resources. Prevention can sometimes reduce these impacts while improving quality of life.
• To reduce harm to others. Some practices affect people who did not choose the exposure, such as secondhand smoke, impaired driving, unsafe products, workplace hazards, or environmental pollution.
• To support healthy development for children and young people. Young people benefit from safe environments, nutritious food, supportive relationships, accurate health information, recreation, preventive services, and developmentally appropriate safeguards around products and activities that can cause harm.
• To create environments that support healthy choices. Community policies and organizational practices communicate priorities through what they make accessible, affordable, visible, and safe.
• To create and sustain a healthy community. Community health includes physical and mental health as well as housing, education, food, economic security, environmental quality, social connection, equity, and other conditions that support well-being.

When should you support efforts to modify access to unhealthy products and practices?

Communities can consider modifying access whenever reliable evidence identifies a meaningful health or safety concern and changing the surrounding environment, policy, or practice could help address it.

Some particularly useful opportunities include:

• When new facilities, programs, or developments are being planned. It is often easier to build health, safety, accessibility, and environmental considerations into a new project than to change them later.
• When policies or organizational practices are under review. Regular policy reviews, planning processes, licensing decisions, public hearings, agency rulemaking, and organizational changes can create opportunities to examine whether existing approaches remain appropriate.
• When new evidence or community data identify a health concern. Research, local data, evaluation, or community experience may reveal that a product, practice, or environment is contributing to harm.
• When a concern has become more urgent. Rising injuries, illness, environmental exposure, or other indicators may signal that existing approaches need to be reconsidered.
• When related community initiatives are already underway. Work involving prevention, transportation, environmental health, food access, substance use, recreation, or other community priorities may provide opportunities for coordinated action.
• Before a problem becomes widespread. Early evidence of an emerging risk may allow communities to consider prevention and harm-reduction strategies before the consequences become more severe.

Who should be involved in modifying access to unhealthy products and practices?

The people involved will depend on the product, practice, and type of change being considered. Include people directly affected by the issue as well as people with professional, regulatory, business, community, and lived expertise.

Public and organizational decision-makers

• Local councils, boards of health, planning bodies, and other appropriate public agencies
• Managers or owners of markets, restaurants, entertainment venues, and other relevant businesses
• Organizational leaders and boards
• Employers and industry representatives

Health, education, and community professionals

• Health care professionals
• Public health professionals
• Community and human service professionals
• Educators
• Coaches, dietitians and nutrition professionals, behavioral health professionals, and others with relevant expertise

People affected by the product, practice, or proposed change

• Consumers and community members
• Parents and caregivers
• Young people
• Retailers, workers, and business owners
• People with lived experience related to the health or safety issue
• Community-based and resident-led organizations

Meaningful participation is especially important when a proposed restriction will affect one group more than others. People should have opportunities to explain how a proposal may affect their health, autonomy, finances, work, culture, accessibility, or daily life.

How do you support local efforts to modify access to unhealthy products and practices?

Methods of modifying access

Communities have several options. Some involve law or regulation; others involve organizational policy, economic measures, environmental design, business practices, education, services, or voluntary agreements.

Laws and ordinances. Governments may establish requirements or restrictions intended to protect public health and safety. Depending on the issue and jurisdiction, these may address:

• Products whose sale or possession is prohibited under applicable law
• Age or licensing restrictions on particular products
• Requirements related to traffic safety, occupational safety, public consumption, or other activities
• Restrictions on smoking or other exposures in specified public or shared spaces

Because laws differ across jurisdictions and change over time, use current official sources when describing specific legal requirements.

Regulations. Government agencies may establish regulations addressing areas such as:

• Product labeling and hazard information
• Food production, handling, and inspection
• Workplace health and safety
• Medication and product safety
• Pollution, emissions, waste disposal, and environmental protection

Businesses and organizations may also establish internal health and safety policies. These should be lawful, evidence-informed, relevant to the actual risk, and designed to avoid unnecessary discrimination.

• Maintaining smoke-free workplaces and providing support for employees who want to stop using tobacco or nicotine products
• Providing nutritious food and beverage options in schools or workplaces
• Requiring appropriate safety equipment for hazardous work or activities
• Establishing safe-driving expectations for employees who drive as part of their work

Taxes and other economic measures. Governments may use taxes, fees, subsidies, incentives, or other economic policies to influence behavior or help address community costs associated with particular products or practices.

Economic measures should be evaluated for both effectiveness and equity. A policy that increases prices may reduce use while also placing a greater financial burden on households with fewer resources. Communities should consider whether complementary supports or alternatives are needed.

Voluntary actions by businesses and institutions. Businesses may change products, services, marketing, purchasing, environmental practices, or workplace policies in response to evidence, employee input, customer priorities, community concerns, or organizational values.

Examples might include:

• Increasing the availability and visibility of nutritious food and beverage options
• Improving the nutritional variety of workplace or institutional food options
• Providing employee assistance, behavioral health, substance use treatment, or recovery supports
• Reducing waste and using recycled or more sustainable materials
• Establishing reasonable limits on excessive work hours and supporting employee well-being
• Limiting the availability or promotion of products associated with significant health risks
• Responding promptly to credible product-safety concerns
• Following current age-verification and sales requirements for age-restricted products

Environmental and physical design. The built environment can affect behavior without removing choice.

• Traffic-calming measures on residential streets
• Designing checkout areas and other spaces to reduce marketing of products to young children
• Secure placement of products that are legally restricted by age
• Designing parks, sidewalks, buildings, schools, and workplaces to support safety, accessibility, movement, and social connection

Enforcement of existing laws and regulations. In some situations, additional rules are unnecessary because appropriate standards already exist but are not being implemented consistently.

• Laws governing sales of age-restricted products
• Air- and water-quality requirements
• Smoke-free environment requirements
• Food-safety requirements
• Building, environmental health, and chemical-safety codes

Enforcement should be consistent, transparent, and attentive to whether penalties or enforcement practices create unintended inequities.

Public education. Accurate and accessible information can help people understand risks, evaluate options, and make informed decisions.

Examples include:

• Nutrition, ingredient, or product-safety information
• Tobacco- and nicotine-prevention and cessation information
• Peer sexual health education and access to prevention resources such as condoms, testing, and appropriate health services
• Journalism and public information examining environmental, consumer, workplace, health, or medication-safety issues

How to go about supporting efforts to modify access

You may be joining an existing community effort or helping develop a new initiative. In either case, begin with a clear understanding of the issue, the evidence, the people affected, the available options, and who has authority to make relevant decisions.

Supporting an existing effort

If an organization, public agency, coalition, or resident group is already working on the issue, learn what it is trying to accomplish and where additional participation would be useful.

• Understand the goals, strategies, and responsibilities of the existing effort before deciding how you can contribute.
• Include people and organizations affected by the proposed changes, particularly those who may experience unintended burdens or barriers.
• Understand which public agencies, organizations, governing bodies, businesses, or other institutions have authority over the relevant policy or practice.
• Identify people within those institutions who can explain the decision-making process, provide technical information, or help ensure that proposals receive appropriate consideration.
• Use reliable evidence and distinguish established findings from assumptions or recommendations.
• Understand significant concerns and competing perspectives, including evidence that may challenge your preferred approach.
• Use appropriate communication channels to share accurate information.
• Make public participation opportunities clear and accessible so community members can provide their own perspectives.

Research. Research may include scientific evidence, local data, policy analysis, evaluation of similar efforts, and the experiences of people affected by the issue.

Personal stories can provide important context, but people should choose whether and how their experiences are shared. Do not use someone's hardship primarily as a communication strategy without meaningful consent.

Support and logistics. Community participation may be easier when organizations provide practical supports such as accessible meeting spaces, interpretation, childcare, transportation, food, virtual participation, or other accommodations.

Developing a new initiative

If your group is taking the lead, begin by developing a shared understanding of the issue rather than assuming in advance what the solution should be.

• Assemble a group that reflects the people, communities, organizations, and sectors affected by the issue. Include lived experience as well as professional, institutional, business, and technical knowledge.
• Assess community conditions and readiness for change. Ask what people already know, what concerns they have, what barriers exist, what changes they consider acceptable, and what resources or alternatives would make change more feasible.

Behavior does not occur in isolation. Lasting change is more likely when environments, policies, services, and social conditions support the healthier or safer option.

Avoid treating community members as "targets of change." People affected by the issue should have opportunities to help define the problem and determine which strategies are appropriate.

• Decide what kind of modification is appropriate. Consider several questions before choosing an approach:

How serious is the risk, and under what circumstances does it occur? Consider the likelihood and severity of harm, how much evidence is available, and whether risk changes according to age, dose, setting, frequency, or other conditions.

Does the product or practice create risks for people who did not choose the exposure? Risks to others may justify different protections from risks primarily affecting the person making the choice.

Do people have accurate information about the risks? If important information is missing, difficult to understand, misleading, or intentionally withheld, education, labeling, disclosure, or other transparency measures may be appropriate.

Does the product or practice also have legitimate benefits? Some medications, technologies, and activities carry risks while also serving important purposes. Policies should be designed carefully enough to reduce preventable harm without unnecessarily restricting beneficial uses.

What alternatives are available? Restrictions are more workable when people have realistic, affordable, accessible alternatives. For example, changing food environments is more useful when nutritious options are available and affordable.

Who controls the relevant conditions? Responsibility may be shared among manufacturers, retailers, institutions, regulators, employers, health systems, community organizations, and individuals. Strategies should address the level where meaningful change can occur.

What unintended consequences might result? Consider whether a restriction could increase stigma, create inequitable enforcement, reduce access to needed services, shift risk elsewhere, or create burdens for particular communities.

The answers to these questions can help determine which institutions and community partners should be involved and what combination of strategies may be most appropriate.

Community change often requires sustained participation, communication, and follow-through. Advocacy can be one part of that process, but effective advocacy should provide accurate information, create meaningful opportunities for participation, and remain open to revising a proposal when evidence or community experience identifies significant problems.

Work through appropriate public decision-making processes. If a law or ordinance is being considered, understand which governing body has authority, what procedures it follows, and how residents can participate.

Provide decision-makers with reliable information about the health or safety concern, the proposed response, likely costs and benefits, alternatives, and possible unintended consequences. People who disagree may be raising legitimate concerns about effectiveness, liberty, cost, implementation, equity, or other issues that should be considered.

Work with public agencies on policies or regulations. Learn which agency has authority, how its rulemaking or policy process works, and what evidence it needs.

• Establish clear and professional communication with relevant agency staff
• Understand the agency's structure, authority, responsibilities, and formal decision process
• Identify staff who can explain technical requirements or help participants understand the process
• Present evidence-informed options and remain open to changes that improve feasibility or address legitimate concerns
• Use established public-comment, administrative-review, oversight, or accountability processes when concerns remain unresolved

Work with businesses and industries. Businesses can play important roles in improving community health through product practices, employee supports, environmental protections, accessibility, purchasing decisions, and other policies.

Include businesses in planning when appropriate, while recognizing that their interests may differ from those of workers, consumers, residents, or regulators. Clear goals, evidence, transparency, and accountability can help partners identify areas of shared interest.

Organizations may also help businesses identify technical assistance, financing, government programs, or professional expertise that makes health- or safety-related changes more feasible.

Conduct public education. Public education should help people understand an issue and make informed decisions, not simply generate support for a predetermined outcome.

Guidelines include:

• Include people with relevant lived, community, scientific, professional, and organizational knowledge in planning
• Use accurate and current evidence and acknowledge important uncertainty
• Use plain language and provide information in languages and formats community members can access
• Communicate risks clearly without unnecessarily stigmatizing, frightening, or shaming people
• Use communication channels identified by the intended audience as relevant and trustworthy
• Include people directly affected by the issue when they choose to participate, without expecting one person to represent an entire community
• Use forums, listening sessions, community meetings, presentations, and other opportunities for two-way communication
• Use media and community communication channels appropriately
• Use community networks and word of mouth
• Use websites, email, social media, text messaging, video, and other digital tools where appropriate

Use community organizing or collective action when appropriate. Community members may use organizing, public meetings, petitions, public comments, demonstrations, legal processes, and other forms of civic participation when they want decision-makers or institutions to address an issue.

Collective action should be grounded in accurate information, clearly defined goals, meaningful community participation, and attention to the rights and safety of everyone involved. Different situations call for different approaches, and groups should periodically assess whether their strategy remains effective and aligned with community priorities.

Continue evaluating and adapting. If a change is implemented, examine whether it produces the intended results.

Ask:

• Has the relevant health or safety risk changed?
• Who has benefited?
• Are some communities experiencing unintended burdens?
• Is the policy or practice being implemented consistently?
• Are appropriate alternatives and supports available?
• Do community members believe the approach is useful and fair?
• Should the strategy continue, change, expand, or end?

Community health work is ongoing, but persistence should include a willingness to learn. Continuing an approach simply because substantial effort has already gone into it is not enough. Evidence, community experience, and changing conditions should guide what happens next.

In Summary

Modifying access to products and practices that can contribute to harm is one tool communities may use to support health and safety.

Depending on the issue, strategies may include laws and regulations, organizational policies, economic measures, environmental design, voluntary business practices, enforcement of existing standards, public education, increased access to safer alternatives, prevention services, or a combination of approaches.

The goal should not be to treat people as though they are incapable of making their own decisions. Effective community health strategies respect autonomy while recognizing that choices are influenced by environments, resources, marketing, policies, social conditions, and the availability of realistic alternatives.

Before modifying access, examine the evidence, the severity and distribution of risk, potential benefits, impacts on others, available alternatives, legal responsibilities, possible unintended consequences, and the experiences of people who will be affected.

The strongest approaches combine reliable evidence with meaningful community participation, transparent decision-making, access to supportive resources, and ongoing evaluation. When changes are made, communities should continue examining whether they are improving health and quality of life without creating unnecessary or inequitable barriers.

Example #1: H.E.A.T. Report: Place and Health - Wyandotte County, Kansas

Video: Place & Health - Geopgrahy and the Social Determinants of Health (Liquorlining and the lack of healthy choices).

 

Example #2: Another Soda Tax Success Story: Sugary Beverage Consumption Drops in San Francisco

San Francisco’s sugar sweetened beverage (SSB) tax is working as intended, according to a new study published in PLOS Global Public Health by the Public Health Institute’s Prevention Policy Group. Consumption of SSBs declined markedly (34%) in San Francisco in the first two years after implementation of a soda tax on January 1st, 2018, in the areas studied.

SSB taxes have been gaining momentum worldwide as policies to address the negative health effects of sugary drinks by creating financial incentives to help consumers make healthier choices, promote healthier reformulation by industry, and raise revenue for building healthy communities.

Read more.

 

Example #3: Linking Alcohol Outlet Density to Violence in Baltimore

Recent research highlights the troubling connection between alcohol outlet density and gun violence, particularly in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Pamela Trangenstein of the Public Health Institute (PHI) discusses how neighborhoods with a higher concentration of liquor stores often experience elevated levels of violence. These findings align with broader research indicating that alcohol availability contributes to community-level harms, including gun violence, domestic abuse, and assaults.

The Baltimore Context

In Baltimore, the clustering of liquor stores in disadvantaged neighborhoods amplifies systemic inequities. Many of these outlets operate in areas already burdened by poverty, under-resourced public services, and high crime rates, creating a dangerous cycle of harm. Residents often express concerns about the role these businesses play in fueling violence, while policymakers grapple with how to regulate alcohol sales without harming small business owners.

Research and Policy Implications

Dr. Trangenstein emphasizes that reducing alcohol outlet density is a proven public health strategy to decrease violence. Local governments can implement zoning regulations, limit the number of new liquor licenses, or incentivize businesses to diversify their offerings. These policy changes, paired with community advocacy, can help disrupt the link between alcohol sales and violence while fostering safer environments.

Broader Lessons

Baltimore’s example underscores the importance of addressing the root causes of violence through comprehensive public health approaches. Tackling alcohol outlet density is not just about regulating businesses; it is about investing in community resilience, reducing disparities, and creating equitable opportunities for health and safety.

For more details, read Dr. Trangenstein’s insights via the PHI press release and explore the full investigative story by The Trace on Baltimore's gun violence and liquor stores.

What do we mean by unhealthy products and practices?

___Unhealthy products and practices are products and practices that can be harmful, in either the long term or the short term, to those who use or engage in them, and/or to others as well.

___Unhealthy products are often unhealthy only when they’re used to excess or inappropriately.

___Some unhealthy practices are linked to products, others are not.

___Unhealthy products and practices are not always directly related to physical health, but may also be related to the social, psychological, economic, and/or political health of individuals and the community.

Why modify access to unhealthy products and practices?

___To encourage healthy lifestyles and improve health and life expectancy for individuals.

___To prevent or alleviate social expense.

___To improve the quality of life for everyone in the community.

___To improve the chances of healthy child development. 

___To send the right messages to youth.

___To create and sustain a healthy community.

When should you support efforts to modify access to unhealthy products and practices?

___When new facilities are opening.

___When there’s a change in local administration.

___When a community health problem that can be prevented or reduced by modifying access – obesity, smoking, substance use, etc. – is in the news. 

___When a particular community health issue reaches a critical level.

___When there’s a community health-related campaign already under way.

___Before something becomes a problem.

Who should support efforts to modify access to unhealthy products and practices?

___Policy makers in both public and private sectors.

___Health and other professionals.

___People affected by the product or practice, or who will be affected by a change in access.

___Any other interested stakeholders or groups.

How do you support efforts to modify access to unhealthy products and practices?

Modify access to unhealthy products and practices through:

___Laws and ordinances.                                             

___Regulations established by government agencies or business and industry.

___Taxes or other economic measures.

___Voluntary actions taken by retailers or other businesses and industries because of community pressure or because of corporate civic responsibility. 

___Physical barriers. 

___Enforcement of existing laws and regulations.

___Public education. 

Support existing efforts to modify access through:

___Advocacy.  

___Research. 

___Support and logistics.

Mount your own initiative:

___Assemble a diverse group, with representatives of all concerned stakeholders, to plan and spearhead the effort.

___Determine the readiness of the population and community to change behavior. 

___Decide what kind of modification you’re going to work for.

___Advocate, Advocate, Advocate!

___Target local lawmakers to pass laws and ordinances. 

___Approach agencies to institute or change policies or regulations.                               

___Negotiate with business or industry for changes in their internal or external policies or practices.

___Conduct a public education campaign.

___Conduct a social action campaign. 

___Keep at it.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What do we mean by "policies?"

• Why might an organization seek changes in funding policies?

• How do you work toward policy changes that support sustainable funding?

• What should nonprofits know about lobbying?

 

 

Finding the resources needed to sustain a nonprofit or community initiative can take significant time and effort. Organizations may write grant proposals, seek individual donations, charge membership dues when appropriate, develop contracts, pursue sponsorships, hold fundraising events, or combine several sources of support.

A recurring challenge is that many funding sources are temporary. A grant may support a project for one or two years but not provide renewal funding. Another funder may support new programs but not ongoing operations. Small grants may help, but managing many separate funding sources can also require substantial administrative time.

For that reason, organizations may also explore whether public agencies, foundations, businesses, institutions, or other partners could establish longer-term funding policies that support work aligned with their missions and community priorities.

This might involve:

• Asking a public agency, school system, foundation, business, or other institution to consider ongoing support for a program that contributes to goals it has already identified
• Encouraging a funder to reconsider broader policies such as whether it supports operating expenses, multi-year grants, capacity building, participant compensation, evaluation, or other costs necessary to sustain effective community work

The aim should not simply be to secure money for one organization. A strong funding-policy discussion asks whether the proposed investment addresses a demonstrated community priority, whether the organization is well positioned to contribute, what results are expected, and how the funding decision fits within the responsibilities and resources of the funder.

This section focuses on longer-term funding policy rather than short-term fundraising. Policy change often takes time and may involve research, relationship-building, public processes, organizational planning, and continued evaluation.

Policy work is generally not a substitute for an immediate funding plan. If an organization has an urgent financial need, it may also need to pursue grants, contracts, donations, partnerships, earned income, or other short-term and medium-term strategies while longer-term policy discussions continue.

What do we mean by "policies?"

In this section, policies are written or unwritten guidelines that influence how governments, foundations, corporations, institutions, and other organizations allocate money or other resources.

These policies may determine:

• What types of organizations are eligible for support
• What issues, communities, or geographic areas a funder prioritizes
• Whether funding may support programs, operations, staffing, facilities, evaluation, or other costs
• Whether grants or contracts are available for one year or multiple years
• How proposals are reviewed and decisions are made
• What reporting, evaluation, or accountability requirements accompany funding

Funding policies may be public or private.

Public funding policies

Public funding is shaped by laws, budgets, regulations, appropriations, grants, contracts, agency policies, and administrative procedures at the local, state, Tribal, territorial, or federal level.

Examples might include:

• A legislative body establishing or changing funding for a community program
• A state agency creating a grant or contract program to support a particular public purpose
• A local government, school board, or other public institution allocating resources for services that contribute to established community or institutional goals

Public funding rules and opportunities change over time. Organizations should use current official legislative, budget, agency, and grant information when considering public funding rather than relying on older examples.

Private funding policies

Foundations, corporations, businesses, philanthropic organizations, and other private funders also establish policies governing how they use their resources.

Examples of possible changes include:

• A corporation establishing or expanding an employee matching-gift program
• A foundation expanding its funding priorities in response to changing community conditions or evidence
• A funder offering multi-year or renewable grants when longer-term support better fits the type of work being funded
• A funder allowing grants to cover staffing, administration, evaluation, technology, accessibility, or other necessary operating costs

Private funders have their own missions, governance structures, resources, and responsibilities. Organizations seeking changes should understand those constraints rather than assuming that a funder can or should support every worthwhile activity.

Why might an organization seek changes in funding policies?

An organization may consider funding-policy work when a community need requires sustained effort and existing funding structures make that work difficult to maintain.

Possible reasons include:

• To contribute relevant knowledge to funding decisions. Community organizations may have useful program data, professional expertise, community relationships, and lived-experience perspectives that can help funders understand an issue and the resources needed to address it.
• To participate in public decision-making. When public funding is involved, nonprofit organizations and community members may have appropriate opportunities to provide information, participate in hearings or public-comment processes, and explain how budget or policy decisions affect community services.
• To improve long-term organizational stability. Predictable funding can allow organizations to retain staff, maintain relationships, plan services, invest in evaluation and accessibility, and spend less time continually replacing short-term funding.
• To improve funding practices more broadly. Organizations may identify policies that create unnecessary administrative burdens, discourage collaboration, limit community participation, or make effective programs difficult to sustain.

Long-term funding should not be treated as an entitlement simply because an organization has received support before. Continued funding should be connected to the funder's responsibilities, available resources, community priorities, program performance, and other relevant considerations.

How do you work toward policy changes that support sustainable funding?

The process can be organized into four overlapping phases:

1. Research
2. Preparation
3. Participation and implementation
4. Maintenance and evaluation

These phases will often overlap. Research continues as policies change. Relationships develop while an organization prepares information. New evidence may cause an organization to revise its proposal after discussions have already begun.

Phase 1: Do your research

A strong proposal begins with understanding the funding environment, the decision-making process, the community priority involved, and the evidence supporting the proposed investment.

Identify possible funding partners.

Depending on the issue, these might include:

• Corporations and businesses
• Public agencies
• Legislative and governing bodies
• Public or community foundations
• Private foundations
• Local businesses
• School districts and educational institutions
• Other nonprofit and community organizations
• Health systems, colleges and universities, philanthropic networks, and other institutions whose missions overlap with the work

Start broadly, then determine which possibilities actually align with your organization's mission and the potential funder's responsibilities or priorities.

Understand who makes funding decisions and how the process works.

Depending on the organization, decisions may involve:

• Executive leadership
• Elected officials
• Public administrators and agency staff
• Boards of directors or trustees
• Program officers, budget staff, grant committees, procurement staff, or other designated decision-makers

Learn the formal process rather than focusing primarily on personal influence. Determine when decisions are made, what criteria are used, what information may be submitted, who has legal authority, and what opportunities exist for community or organizational participation.

Understand the interests and responsibilities of the potential funder.

Useful questions include:

• What is the funder's mission?
• What communities or issues does it currently support?
• What legal, financial, or organizational constraints affect its decisions?
• What evidence does it use to assess proposals?
• What responsibilities does it have to taxpayers, donors, shareholders, participants, or the wider community?
• How would the proposed funding contribute to its stated goals?

Prioritize opportunities based on fit and potential community benefit.

Organizations usually have limited staff time. Rather than trying to approach every possible funder, identify the opportunities where there is meaningful alignment between the proposed work, community priorities, and the funder's mission and authority.

Consider:

• Mission alignment
• Potential amount and duration of support
• Administrative requirements
• Whether the organization meets eligibility requirements
• Whether the funding would strengthen or distort the organization's mission
• Whether community members affected by the work view the proposed investment as useful

Understand how the relevant policy can be changed.

A private foundation may change grantmaking policies through staff or board decisions. A corporation may use a committee or executive process. Public funding may involve agency budgets, appropriations, legislation, regulations, grants, contracts, or local budget decisions.

Use current official sources to understand public legislative and budget processes, deadlines, hearings, eligibility rules, and opportunities for input.

Understand applicable legal requirements.

Organizations participating in public-policy discussions should understand the laws and rules that apply to their organizational type, funding sources, and proposed activities. Requirements may differ for education, advocacy, lobbying, election-related activity, government grants, and private funding.

Consult current official guidance and qualified legal or tax professionals when necessary, particularly when substantial lobbying activity, restricted grant funds, or election-related activity may be involved.

Review the existing relationship with the potential funder.

Consider whether the funder already supports your work, provides contracts or referrals, shares participants or partners, regulates some aspect of your services, or has another relationship with the organization.

Useful questions include:

• How do current laws, policies, contracts, or funding rules affect our work?
• What requirements accompany current grants or contracts?
• What forms of communication or policy participation are appropriate for our organization?
• What financial, legal, operational, or relationship risks should we consider?

Build professional relationships with relevant staff.

Staff members often understand program requirements, budget processes, technical details, and organizational procedures. Establishing clear professional communication can help your organization understand the process and provide useful information.

Relationship-building should not be treated primarily as a way to gain personal leverage. The goal is to establish reliable communication, understand responsibilities, and make it easier to exchange accurate information.

Identify potential partners.

Other nonprofit organizations, community-based groups, resident-led organizations, professional associations, service providers, researchers, businesses, and institutions may share an interest in improving a particular funding policy.

Collaboration can:

• Provide a wider range of knowledge and experience
• Reduce duplication
• Identify effects of funding policies across several organizations
• Bring the perspectives of people directly affected by the issue into the discussion
• Create opportunities for coordinated recommendations

Major funding-policy changes usually affect more than one organization. When possible, examine the broader community implications rather than framing the issue only around the financial needs of a single organization.

Phase 2: Prepare your organization

Make sure you have the basic capacity to participate.

Organizations need reliable communication tools, staff or volunteer time, current financial and program information, and clear responsibility for coordinating the work.

Identify the people who should participate.

This may include staff, volunteers, board members, program participants, community partners, and people with lived experience related to the work.

Participation should be voluntary and meaningful. Do not assume that people receiving services should share personal experiences publicly simply because their stories might strengthen a funding request.

When participants contribute substantial expertise or time to policy development, presentations, advisory work, or public testimony, consider compensation and other supports when feasible.

Make sure people understand the proposed policy change.

Explain:

• The existing funding policy
• The proposed change
• Why the organization believes the change deserves consideration
• The expected benefits and possible tradeoffs
• Who has authority to make the decision
• How staff, board members, participants, and community partners may be involved

Develop a clear description of the organization and its role.

Your mission, services, community role, partnerships, and intended outcomes should be understandable to someone who is unfamiliar with the organization.

Be clear about what distinguishes your contribution without suggesting that your organization is the only one capable of addressing the issue.

Develop useful evidence.

Combine quantitative and qualitative information when appropriate.

Quantitative information may include:

• The number and characteristics of people participating in the program
• Community indicators related to the issue
• Program outcomes
• Cost and budget information
• Demand, waiting lists, geographic reach, or service gaps
• Findings from formal evaluation

Qualitative information may include participant feedback, interviews, focus groups, community input, staff observations, partner perspectives, or stories that provide context for quantitative findings.

For example, rather than describing "2,000 homeless people," write about approximately 2,000 people experiencing homelessness if that is what reliable local data show, and explain the source, date, population, and limitations of the estimate.

Personal stories should be shared only with meaningful consent. Whenever possible, give people control over how their experiences are described and whether their names, photographs, or other identifying information are used.

Maintain an informative public presence.

Keep community members, partners, and potential funders informed about the organization's work through accessible reports, community meetings, websites, newsletters, social media, presentations, or other appropriate methods.

Visibility should reflect the work accurately rather than functioning primarily as a strategy for gaining influence.

Phase 3: Participate in the decision-making process

As discussions move forward:

• Be concise
• Be clear
• Be accurate
• Explain your reasoning and evidence
• Respond within relevant timelines
• Follow through
• Acknowledge people's time and contributions

Develop an action plan with measurable goals and objectives.

Define the policy change you are asking decision-makers to consider and identify the steps required to participate in the process.

For example:

• Document the need or opportunity
• Meet with relevant staff to understand current requirements
• Gather input from program participants and community partners
• Prepare financial and program information
• Submit information through the appropriate process
• Respond to questions
• Evaluate the result and next steps

Maintain professional communication with decision-makers and staff.

Whenever possible, begin communication before an urgent decision is required. Introduce the organization, explain its work, and learn how the relevant institution handles funding and policy questions.

When public officials are involved, distinguish clearly between providing information, participating in public processes, and lobbying for or against specific legislation.

Become a reliable source of information.

Provide concise, relevant material that explains:

• The organization and its mission
• The community issue being addressed
• The existing funding policy
• The proposed change
• Supporting evidence
• Expected costs and benefits
• Important limitations, uncertainties, or tradeoffs

A short fact sheet may be more useful than a large packet if it allows decision-makers to understand the issue quickly and locate additional information when needed.

Participate in appropriate public processes.

Depending on the issue and organizational status, appropriate activities may include attending public meetings, submitting comments, providing requested information, meeting with officials or staff, participating in hearings, or providing testimony.

When asking community members or program participants to participate, explain the purpose, what information may become public, and what support is available. No one should feel pressured to disclose personal hardship in order to demonstrate that a program deserves funding.

Communicate with the wider community.

Newsletters, local media, websites, community meetings, social media, and other channels can help explain the issue and allow community members to understand and participate in the discussion.

Use terms such as participants, community members, people served by the organization, or the specific population being discussed rather than "target population."

Public communication should distinguish facts from organizational recommendations and should accurately represent significant costs, uncertainties, and competing considerations.

Acknowledge contributions appropriately.

Thank staff, community members, partner organizations, funders, officials, and others who contribute to the process. Obtain permission before identifying people publicly when privacy or professional considerations may be involved.

Phase 4: Maintain, evaluate, and adapt the work

Funding policies and community needs change over time. An organization should periodically review:

• Whether the policy change occurred
• Whether it produced the expected benefits
• Whether the funding remains aligned with community priorities
• Whether reporting or administrative requirements are reasonable
• Whether funding is reaching the people and activities it was intended to support
• Whether unintended consequences have emerged
• Whether the organization should continue, revise, or end its policy work

Long-term participation does not mean continuing to seek the same policy indefinitely. Evidence, community feedback, changing conditions, and the responsibilities of the funder should help determine whether the proposal still makes sense.

What should nonprofits know about lobbying?

Nonprofit organizations can participate in many forms of public-policy education and civic engagement, but the legal rules vary according to organizational status, funding source, type of activity, and jurisdiction.

For U.S. organizations, it is important to distinguish between general public-policy education and lobbying related to legislation.

Public-policy education and lobbying are not always the same thing

Activities such as researching public issues, providing nonpartisan educational information, holding educational meetings, and discussing public policy may not necessarily constitute lobbying.

Lobbying generally involves efforts to influence legislation, including certain communications with legislative bodies or communications encouraging the public to support or oppose legislation.

Organizations should consult current guidance when determining how a particular activity is classified.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations

Section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some lobbying, but lobbying cannot constitute a substantial part of the organization's activities under the general federal tax rules.

Eligible public charities may choose an alternative method for measuring lobbying activity by making an election under Section 501(h). This election is made using IRS Form 5768 and measures lobbying primarily through expenditure limits established in federal tax law.

Do not rely on informal rules of thumb such as assuming that a particular percentage of an organization's budget is automatically safe under every circumstance. The applicable rules depend on whether an organization uses the substantial part test or has made the Section 501(h) election, as well as on its specific activities and circumstances.

Some organizations, including private foundations and certain other organizations, are subject to different rules.

Election-related activity is different from lobbying

Lobbying about legislation and participation in campaigns for or against candidates are legally distinct activities. Organizations should not assume that permission to engage in some lobbying also permits participation in candidate campaigns.

Before undertaking substantial lobbying, using restricted grant funds, participating in ballot-measure activity, or engaging in work connected to an election, obtain current guidance appropriate to your organization's legal status.

Tax and lobbying laws can change, and additional federal, state, local, grant, or contract requirements may apply. Use current official guidance and consult qualified legal or tax professionals when necessary rather than relying solely on general summaries.

In Summary

Sustainable funding often requires a mix of strategies. Grants, contracts, donations, earned income, partnerships, public funding, and other resources can all contribute to an organization's stability.

In some circumstances, organizations may also participate in efforts to improve the policies that determine how public agencies, foundations, corporations, and other institutions provide funding.

Strong funding-policy work begins with understanding community priorities, the potential funder's mission and responsibilities, the decision-making process, the evidence supporting the proposed investment, and the perspectives of people affected by the work.

A useful process includes:

1. Research the funding environment, decision-making process, evidence, legal requirements, and potential partners.
2. Prepare the organization by clarifying its goals, developing reliable data, involving appropriate community members, and making sure participants understand the proposal.
3. Participate through appropriate public or private decision-making processes using clear, accurate, and transparent information.
4. Maintain and evaluate the work by examining whether policies produce the intended results and adapting as community conditions and funding priorities change.

The goal is not simply to make an organization appear indispensable. It is to help decision-makers determine whether sustained investment in particular work contributes to community priorities and produces value that justifies continued support.

___You understand what public policies are

___You understand policies governing private giving

Changing policies

1. Research

___You know who supports your organization

___You have decided target corporations, policies and individuals

___You understand how to change the target organization's policies

___You know the staff of the persons you wish to influence

___You have found allies in your cause

2. Preparation

___You prepared your advocacy work

___You developed a clear, agreed-upon definition for your organization.

___You developed useful data

___You have increased your visibility

3. Execution

___You developed an action plan with measurable goals and objectives.

___You have built relationships with the people you wish to influence.

___You have built a public policy presence.

___You have initiated grassroots support.

4. Maintenance

___You have maintained and increased your advocacy efforts

___You know how much lobbying your organization can do

Tool # 1: Chart of Potential Funders

What follows is a chart your organization can use while brainstorming to look at all of the organizations your group might look to change their policies, and who has the power to change policies in each group. Then, in the third column you might list who has influence over those powerbrokers. In this group especially, look for people who have connections to your organization.

Organization Name	People at that organization with the ability to help your group	People who have influence over the people with power

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What do we mean by changing policies in schools?

• Why should you work to change policies in schools?

• When should you try to change policies in schools?

• Who should be involved in changing policies in schools?

• How do you change policies in schools?

When the Watsons came to Perryville High School for their eldest son's first scheduled parent conference of ninth grade, they noticed vending machines throughout the school offering mostly sugary drinks and snacks.

Rita Watson worked in nutrition services, and her husband, Mel, was an athletic trainer. They wondered whether the school's food and beverage environment reflected what students were learning about nutrition and health.

As they looked into the issue, they learned that vending contracts also generated money for extracurricular activities, supplies, and equipment. The situation involved more than simply deciding which drinks should be sold: the school also had to consider student preferences, nutrition, school finances, contractual obligations, and possible alternatives.

The Watsons began exploring whether the school's vending policy could be updated to provide more nutritious choices while addressing the revenue the school depended on.

School policies can affect students' learning, health, safety, rights, sense of belonging, access to services, and participation in school life. Policies may also affect families, educators, staff, and the broader community. Sometimes an existing policy creates barriers or unintended consequences. In other situations, a school may need a new policy to respond to changing circumstances.

This section looks at the kinds of issues school policies may address and how students, families, educators, administrators, governing bodies, and community members can participate in reviewing and improving them.

What do we mean by changing policies in schools?

Schools vary considerably in size, structure, governance, educational approach, and the communities they serve. Public school systems may include neighborhood schools, magnet schools, charter schools, career and technical education programs, alternative learning programs, and other educational settings.

Students may learn in traditional classrooms, smaller specialized programs, virtual or hybrid environments, community-based settings, or programs designed to provide additional academic, behavioral, social, or accessibility supports.

Schools also differ in how decisions are made. Some decisions are made at the classroom or school level. Others are established across an entire district or system. Still others are shaped by state or federal requirements.

A school policy may address areas such as:

• Curriculum and academic requirements
• Student assessment and graduation requirements
• Food and nutrition
• Student conduct and disciplinary practices
• Attendance
• School schedules
• Dress codes
• Technology and digital communication
• Accessibility and accommodations
• Student health and mental health
• Bullying, harassment, and discrimination
• School safety and emergency preparedness
• Family and community engagement
• Extracurricular activities

School governance structures differ by location. In many public school systems, responsibility is distributed among a school board or other governing body, the superintendent, district administrators, principals, teachers, student-support professionals, and other staff.

Depending on the system, people involved in decisions may include:

• The school board, School Committee, or equivalent governing body
• The superintendent
• Assistant superintendents
• District administrators responsible for areas such as curriculum, student services, special education, athletics, technology, facilities, finance, or transportation
• Principals and other school administrators
• Teachers and other professional staff, such as nurses, counselors, school psychologists, social workers, librarians, and coaches
• Support, transportation, food-service, facilities, and custodial staff
• Students and families

Employees may also be represented by unions or professional associations. A proposed policy change may affect working conditions, staffing, schedules, job responsibilities, or other matters covered by collective bargaining agreements. In those cases, employee representatives should be involved appropriately.

Before beginning a policy-change effort, determine who actually has authority over the issue. A classroom concern may be addressed by a teacher. A school-level issue may fall within a principal's authority. A district-wide policy may require action from the superintendent and governing body.

Larger or system-wide changes may require formal review and approval. Implementation matters as much as adoption: a policy that exists on paper but is not understood, supported, resourced, or consistently carried out may produce little change.

Examples of school policies that communities might review include:

• Tobacco- and nicotine-free school policies
• School food and beverage policies
• Student discipline and restorative practices
• Policies related to religion and school-sponsored activities, consistent with applicable law
• Health and sexuality education
• Dress codes
• Curriculum and academic opportunities
• English-language development, multilingual education, and language-access programs
• Sexual harassment and discrimination policies
• Student use of school technology, artificial intelligence, social media, and digital resources
• Advertising and commercial partnerships in schools
• Eligibility and access to extracurricular activities
• Student journalism, expression, and communication

Why might you want to change policies in schools?

Reasons for reviewing school policy may include improving student health and well-being, strengthening teaching and learning, expanding access and inclusion, improving school climate, supporting safety, protecting rights, and responding to changing community circumstances.

To improve students' health and well-being

Schools influence health through the environments, services, information, relationships, and opportunities they provide.

Possible policy areas include:

• Tobacco- and nicotine-free school environments
• Nutritious and culturally responsive breakfast and lunch programs
• Food and beverage standards for vending machines and other school sales
• Regular opportunities for physical activity, movement, and recreation
• Age-appropriate, evidence-informed health education
• Access to school nursing, counseling, behavioral health, and other student-support services
• Policies supporting adequate rest, safe athletics, heat safety, and injury prevention

To improve education

Policy changes can address curriculum, teaching methods, instructional materials, schedules, assessment, graduation requirements, academic supports, technology, and access to advanced or specialized learning.

Areas to consider include:

• Course content
• Textbooks and other instructional materials
• World-language and multilingual-learning opportunities
• Interdisciplinary learning
• Advanced coursework, dual enrollment, career and technical education, and other academic opportunities
• High expectations paired with appropriate instruction and support
• School-day and academic-year schedules
• Student assessment
• Graduation requirements

Academic policy should be reviewed with attention to both evidence and implementation. Raising expectations, for example, is unlikely to improve outcomes if students do not also have access to high-quality instruction, appropriate accommodations, academic support, qualified educators, technology, and other resources needed to meet those expectations.

Scheduling is another area where local circumstances matter. Schools may consider class length, start times, instructional hours, transportation, extracurricular activities, family schedules, staff contracts, and student well-being when designing the academic day or year.

To expand access and support for students with different needs and experiences

Students do not all need the same supports in order to participate fully in school. Policy may be needed to remove barriers and provide equitable access to learning, services, activities, and school life.

Students who may benefit from additional or specialized supports include:

• Students with physical, sensory, communication, or mobility disabilities
• Students with mental health or behavioral health support needs
• Students with intellectual or developmental disabilities
• Students with learning disabilities
• Multilingual learners and students developing proficiency in English
• Student parents and students with caregiving responsibilities
• Students experiencing housing instability, economic barriers, foster care, family disruption, or other circumstances that may affect access to education

Strength-based policy asks what conditions will help students participate and succeed rather than defining students primarily by a diagnosis, background, language, or challenge.

To improve classroom and school climate and culture

School climate refers to how students, families, and staff experience the learning environment. It can include relationships, expectations, belonging, physical and emotional safety, fairness, communication, participation, and trust.

Policies that influence school climate may address:

• Dress codes and whether they are clear, equitable, respectful, and consistently applied
• Discipline, including prevention, restorative approaches, due process, accountability, and responses to harmful behavior
• Advising and student-support systems
• Counseling and behavioral health services
• Inclusion and mutual respect across differences in race, ethnicity, language, disability, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, culture, and other characteristics
• Peer mediation and conflict-resolution programs
• Student-teacher and student-staff relationships
• Opportunities for students, educators, staff, and families to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect them

To support student and staff safety

Safety policy should respond to the actual risks and circumstances of a school rather than assumptions about particular neighborhoods or groups of students.

School safety may involve physical, emotional, environmental, digital, and health-related concerns.

Possible areas for policy review include:

• School entry, visitor, emergency-response, and other security procedures, evaluated for effectiveness and their effects on students and school climate
• Bullying, harassment, intimidation, and violence-prevention policies
• Maintenance and repair of building hazards
• Safer use, storage, and replacement of hazardous chemicals, cleaning products, pesticides, and other materials
• Disciplinary practices that protect students from physical harm and comply with current law and professional standards
• Athletic safety, including equipment, heat exposure, injury management, return-to-play practices, training demands, and access to qualified health professionals
• Emergency preparedness, crisis response, threat assessment, and communication
• Digital safety, privacy, cyberbullying, and responsible technology use

Different safety approaches can have different benefits, limitations, and effects on school climate. Schools should consider evidence, student and staff experiences, legal requirements, implementation capacity, and possible unintended consequences when choosing among them.

To safeguard students' rights

Students have legal rights as well as responsibilities within the educational setting. Those rights may differ according to age, jurisdiction, school type, and the circumstances involved.

Policies may need to address:

• Religious freedom and the appropriate relationship between religion and school-sponsored activities
• Student speech, expression, journalism, and digital communication
• Equal treatment, nondiscrimination, accessibility, disciplinary due process, privacy, and freedom from harassment or physical harm

Because student-rights law changes over time and may differ by jurisdiction, schools and community groups should consult current official guidance and qualified legal counsel when a proposed policy raises significant legal questions.

To respond to a community priority or changing circumstances

Changes in enrollment, language use, transportation, technology, public health, housing, community demographics, or other circumstances may create reasons to review school policy.

For example, a school may expand multilingual services when enrollment changes, revise visitor procedures after a safety assessment, modify transportation when housing patterns change, or update technology policies as new digital tools become part of education.

A community priority should be examined alongside student needs, educational evidence, available resources, legal responsibilities, and the experiences of people who will be affected.

When should you try to change policies in schools?

Policy review can happen whenever evidence, experience, or changing circumstances suggest that current practices are not producing intended results. Some moments may provide especially useful opportunities:

• Before a new school year or planning cycle. Changes involving schedules, staffing, curriculum, transportation, contracts, or facilities may be easier to implement when there is adequate planning time.
• When data or community experience identify a need. Enrollment patterns, academic outcomes, attendance, student surveys, disciplinary data, health information, or other evidence may indicate that a policy should be reviewed.
• When an incident reveals a gap in existing policy or implementation. A harassment complaint, accessibility concern, safety incident, technology problem, or other event may reveal a broader issue that deserves review.
• When existing policy appears inconsistent with educational goals, current evidence, or legal requirements. Review the policy carefully and determine whether the problem lies in the policy itself, its implementation, or both.
• When student or staff health and safety concerns require attention. Some concerns may require immediate action, while others can be addressed through a regular policy-review process.
• When students', families', or employees' rights or access may be affected. Policy review may be appropriate when people report discrimination, exclusion, inconsistent treatment, barriers to participation, or other concerns.

Who should be involved in changing school policies?

Involving people who are affected by a policy and people responsible for carrying it out can improve both the quality of the policy and the likelihood that it will be implemented effectively.

Depending on the issue, participants may include:

• Students
• Parents, caregivers, and families
• The school board, School Committee, or other governing body
• The superintendent
• Other school and district administrators
• Teachers and other school employees
• Students and communities particularly affected by the proposed policy, such as multilingual learners, students with disabilities, student parents, or members of other relevant groups
• Organizations or professionals with relevant knowledge, such as health professionals, disability advocates, transportation specialists, youth-serving organizations, or public-safety professionals
• Residents and other community members

Students should be included meaningfully when policies directly affect their daily experiences. Participation should be developmentally appropriate and should not require students to disclose personal experiences publicly in order for their perspectives to be taken seriously.

No one participant should be expected to speak for an entire racial, cultural, linguistic, disability, religious, or other community.

How do you change policies in schools?

Formal school policy usually must be adopted by the person or governing body with authority to make that decision. Effective policy change also requires the educators, staff, students, and others affected by the policy to understand how it should work in practice.

Policy ideas may originate from within the school system or from students, families, community organizations, staff, researchers, public agencies, or others outside it.

Begin by understanding the problem and the decision-making process rather than assuming that conflict will be necessary. In some cases, the people responsible for the current policy may already recognize the concern and be willing to work collaboratively on improvements.

Assemble a group and clarify the issue

Bring together people who understand different parts of the issue. Depending on the policy, this might include students, families, teachers, administrators, student-support professionals, staff representatives, and community partners.

A participatory process can help distinguish among several possibilities:

• The policy itself needs to change
• The policy is appropriate but is not being implemented consistently
• Staff or students need additional information, training, or resources
• A smaller procedural change could address the concern
• The issue requires action by another institution or level of government

Establish clear ways to coordinate the work and keep participants informed. A formal organization may not be necessary, but people should know who is gathering information, communicating with the school, arranging meetings, and documenting next steps.

Do your homework

Learn about the current policy.

Obtain the actual written policy when possible. Also learn how it is implemented in practice. Sometimes a concern results from inconsistent implementation rather than the wording of the policy itself.

Determine whether the issue is governed by school policy, district policy, collective bargaining agreements, state or federal requirements, or another authority.

Understand the issue and the available evidence.

Review relevant research, local data, student and family experiences, staff perspectives, and results from other schools or districts.

Take competing evidence and concerns seriously. The purpose of research should be to understand the issue and improve the proposal, not simply to collect information that supports a conclusion already reached.

Research alternatives.

A policy should not be changed simply because the current approach is unpopular or imperfect. Compare several possible approaches and examine what is known about their effectiveness, costs, accessibility, feasibility, and unintended effects.

Develop a clear rationale.

Be prepared to explain:

• What problem or opportunity the proposal addresses
• What evidence shows that the issue deserves attention
• How students and others are currently affected
• What the proposed policy would change
• What outcomes are expected
• What resources, training, staffing, or funding would be required
• What alternatives were considered
• What unintended consequences may occur
• How the policy would be evaluated after implementation

Include appropriate expertise.

Researchers, educators, legal professionals, health professionals, disability specialists, community organizations, and others may contribute useful knowledge depending on the issue.

Lived experience is also expertise. Students and families who experience a policy firsthand may identify effects that are not visible in administrative data or professional research.

Personal experiences should be shared voluntarily and with attention to privacy. Do not rely on students' or families' personal stories primarily because they may be emotionally persuasive.

Understand the school system and the decision-making process

Learn which person or body has authority over the policy, which staff members will implement it, and what formal procedures apply.

Questions may include:

• Is this a classroom, school, district, or state-level policy?
• Who has authority to change it?
• Is there a regular policy-review process?
• Are there public meetings, advisory committees, or comment opportunities?
• Does the proposal affect a collective bargaining agreement?
• Are legal review, accessibility review, financial analysis, or other approvals required?
• Who will be responsible for implementation if the policy changes?

Attend public governing-body meetings or review meeting materials when appropriate to understand procedures, timelines, responsibilities, and how policy decisions are made.

Focus on roles and processes rather than trying to determine which individuals can be personally influenced. Understanding people's publicly stated concerns and responsibilities may be useful, but policy development should remain centered on the merits, effects, and implementation of the proposal.

Decide whether policy change is actually needed

Sometimes a formal change is not the best solution.

Alternatives may include:

• Clarifying or consistently implementing an existing policy
• Reinterpreting or updating guidance connected with an existing policy
• Developing a compromise or modified approach that addresses the central concern
• Providing additional staff training, resources, accommodations, or student supports
• Addressing a problem through administrative or personnel processes when the issue concerns individual conduct rather than policy
• Working through a broader legislative or regulatory process when the issue extends beyond one school system
• Using appropriate administrative or legal processes when rights or legal responsibilities may be involved

Personnel matters should be handled through appropriate employment, supervisory, contractual, or legal processes. Avoid treating removal of an individual employee as a substitute for addressing broader organizational or policy problems.

Draft the proposed policy

A written draft can clarify what the proposed change would actually require.

Review the draft with students, families, educators, administrators, staff responsible for implementation, and others affected by the policy.

Pay particular attention to:

• Unintended consequences. Consider how the policy could affect different students, families, employees, and school settings.
• Clarity. Define important terms, responsibilities, procedures, and exceptions so people understand what the policy requires.
• Possible misuse or inconsistent implementation. Consider whether unclear language could lead to arbitrary, discriminatory, or unintended application.
• Culture, religion, disability, language, and other forms of difference. Review whether the proposal creates unnecessary barriers or conflicts and whether reasonable accommodations or exceptions may be required.
• Equity. Examine whether benefits, restrictions, disciplinary consequences, costs, or participation opportunities are distributed differently among groups of students.
• Implementation. Determine what staffing, training, communication, funding, technology, facilities, or other resources will be necessary.
• Evaluation. Decide how the school will know whether the policy is working as intended.

When a policy involves potentially contested areas such as religion, student expression, health education, disability accommodation, privacy, or other legal rights, consult current applicable law and district guidance rather than assuming one approach applies everywhere.

Make the policy-development process as collaborative as possible

When appropriate, consider a working group or advisory committee that includes students, families, teachers, administrators, other employees, governing-body members, and relevant community partners.

Collaboration does not require everyone to agree. It means that people have meaningful opportunities to understand the proposal, contribute information, raise concerns, suggest alternatives, and see how their input affects the final recommendation.

Begin with the appropriate level of responsibility

In many situations, it makes sense to begin with the person or office closest to the issue.

A classroom concern may begin with a teacher. A school-wide issue may begin with the principal. A district-wide policy may involve district administration or the governing body.

Some matters require immediate escalation because of safety, discrimination, harassment, abuse, legal requirements, or another serious concern. Follow applicable reporting, complaint, emergency, and safeguarding procedures in those situations.

Beginning at the appropriate level can make resolution faster and can help involve the people who will ultimately be responsible for carrying out any change.

Present the proposal through the appropriate process

If formal governing-body approval is required, learn how to request agenda time, submit written materials, provide public comment, or participate through another established process.

A useful presentation should explain the issue, evidence, proposed change, expected benefits, costs, implementation requirements, alternatives considered, and how the policy will be evaluated.

Community participation can help decision-makers understand how the proposal affects different people. Encourage participation from students, families, educators, staff, and other relevant community members without treating attendance numbers alone as proof that one position is correct.

Media coverage may help the broader community understand an issue, but communication should remain accurate and transparent rather than being designed primarily to place pressure on particular decision-makers.

If students, families, or other community members speak publicly, allow them to decide what experiences they want to share. Do not select speakers mainly because their identities or personal stories are expected to be more persuasive.

During meetings:

• Present the proposal clearly and consistently while allowing different participants to describe their own perspectives
• Respond to questions and competing evidence respectfully; if you do not know an answer, say so and follow up with reliable information
• Follow applicable meeting time limits and procedures
• Allow adequate time for review when the governing body's procedures or the complexity of the proposal require additional discussion

If the proposal is not adopted, understand why

A proposal may be rejected for several reasons. Decision-makers may disagree about its likely effects, believe the evidence is incomplete, identify legal or financial concerns, prefer another solution, or conclude that the issue does not require a policy change.

Rather than assuming rejection reflects unwillingness to change, examine the reasons provided.

• Decision-makers believe the proposal would not improve outcomes for students. Review the evidence, examine their concerns, gather additional information if necessary, and consider whether the proposal should be revised.
• The proposal creates significant implementation, financial, contractual, or staffing challenges. Determine whether those barriers can be addressed through additional resources, phased implementation, a pilot program, or another approach.
• The disagreement involves values, rights, evidence, or different understandings of educational practice. Clarify where the disagreement lies, use reliable evidence, seek appropriate expertise, and continue discussion through established school and community processes.

If serious concerns remain unresolved, participants may use the administrative, public-comment, complaint, mediation, legal, or other civic processes available in their jurisdiction.

Community members may also participate in broader public discussions about education policy through lawful civic processes. Keep the focus on the policy issue, evidence, student experiences, and institutional responsibilities rather than on personal attacks against individual decision-makers.

Media engagement, public meetings, petitions, demonstrations, or other forms of civic participation may be appropriate in some circumstances. These approaches are most constructive when they communicate the issue accurately, respect participants' rights and safety, and create opportunities for the public to understand the substance of the disagreement.

When legal rights may have been violated, established complaint procedures, administrative review, mediation, or legal advice may be appropriate. Legal action can involve substantial time and resources, so organizations and families should obtain qualified advice about their specific circumstances.

Once a policy changes, focus on implementation and evaluation

Adoption is not the end of the process.

Determine:

• Who is responsible for implementing the policy
• What training or communication is needed
• What resources are required
• How students and families will learn about the change
• Whether accommodations or language access are needed
• How implementation will be monitored
• What feedback students, families, and staff can provide
• What outcomes will be examined
• When the policy will be reviewed again

Evaluation may show that the policy is working as intended, needs modification, is being implemented inconsistently, or is creating effects that were not anticipated.

Successful policy change should create an ongoing learning process rather than an assumption that the issue is permanently settled.

In Summary

School policies influence students' education, health, safety, rights, access, relationships, and daily experiences. Reviewing those policies may be appropriate when evidence, community experience, changing circumstances, or implementation problems show that the current approach is not meeting its intended goals.

Effective policy change begins by understanding the issue, current policy, legal and organizational context, decision-making process, and experiences of the people affected.

Students, families, educators, administrators, other school employees, governing bodies, and relevant community partners should have meaningful opportunities to participate when their knowledge or experiences are relevant to the decision.

A strong process examines evidence and alternatives, considers costs and unintended consequences, uses clear and inclusive policy language, follows appropriate decision-making procedures, and remains open to revising the proposal when important concerns emerge.

Once a policy is adopted, implementation and evaluation are essential. The goal is not simply to win a policy change, but to create school policies and practices that support student learning, health, safety, inclusion, accessibility, rights, and long-term well-being.

What do we mean by changing policies in schools?

___Changing policy generally means convincing the School Committee, which is usually in charge of setting policy, to change or eliminate an existing policy or to institute a new policy in order to benefit students and/or the community.

Why should you work to change policies in schools?

___To improve students’ (and others’) health.

___To improve education.

___To meet the needs of particular groups.

___To improve classroom and school climate and culture.

___To protect students and staff from harm.

___To safeguard students’ rights.

___To respond to a perceived community need.

When should you try to change policies in schools?

___Before the beginning of a new school year.

___When there’s an obvious need.

___When a situation comes to light that makes a need obvious.

___When the School Committee or staff members do something that seems to contradict good educational policy.

___When there’s a clear threat to students’ or staff members’ health, safety, etc..

___When students’, parents’, or teachers’ basic rights are threatened.

Who should be involved in changing policies in schools?

___Students

___Parents

___The School Committee

___The superintendent

___Other school administrators

___Teachers

___Particular groups affected by the proposed change

___Groups interested in the issue addressed by the proposed change

___Concerned citizens

How do you change policies in schools?

___Identify and marshal your support.

___Develop a strategy through a participatory process.

___Learn about current policy.

___Know the issue inside out.

___Research the alternatives.

___Prepare a solid rationale for policy change.

___Learn about the structure of the school system and the personalities of those within it.

___Identify your allies and opponents, both inside and outside the school system.

___Decide whether policy change is what’s really needed.

___Draft the policy you want.

___Start your discussions at the lowest responsible level in the school hierarchy.

___Get your group on the School Committee agenda.

___Present the proposed policy change at a School Committee meeting.

If the change is rejected, you can:

___Regroup and try again, or continue discussion with the School Committee.

___Conduct a social action campaign to defeat or recall current School Committee members, or to convince them to change their minds on policy.

___Once the change is accepted, use your organization to maintain it, and to tackle the next issue.

Tool # 1: The players

The School Committee

In charge of most school systems in the U.S. is the local School Committee – usually elected, but in some cases appointed. (Virtually all school systems in the U.S. are run locally, although subject to state and federal laws.) If the system were a corporation, the School Committee would be the Board of Directors. Its job is generally to set and oversee policy for the system, to be responsible for its overall functioning and finances, and to hire, fire, and supervise the Superintendent (and sometimes other staff). Like a Board of Directors, it bears legal responsibility for the operations and finances of the system.

While this is arguably how a School Committee should function in a well-managed district, in practice, many School Committees or individual members take on much more active roles in managing schools and education, sometimes to the point of micro-management. Whether an expanded role for the Committee is a positive or negative depends on the character of the Committee and the district, but, in general (assuming the Superintendent is competent), it’s not a good thing. It undercuts the Superintendent in his job (managing the educational operation), makes personnel decisions subject to favoritism, and can corrupt the educational program with the prejudices and often-mistaken assumptions of individual School Committee members.

The Superintendent of Schools

If the School Committee is the Board, the Superintendent is the system’s CEO. She’s the executive who carries out policy, hired by and responsible to the School Committee. In a well-managed system, however, she runs the show, hiring, firing, and supervising principals and other administrators (usually with the approval of the School Committee), providing educational and philosophical direction, and managing the day-to-day educational, logistical, and financial operation of the school system.

Other system-wide administrators

The number of these people varies, depending on the size and structure of the system. A large city system may have tens, or even hundreds; a small school district may have only one or two.

To continue the corporate analogy, these administrators are the Vice-Presidents in charge of various areas of the system’s functioning. In large systems, each might have several people under his supervision. The most common of these positions include:

• Assistant Superintendent. There may be only one in a system, or a large system might have several. They work with the Superintendent, taking on part of the oversight role of the system, and operating, with her, as its management team.

In some systems, most of the following roles are, in fact, assigned to Assistant Superintendents, so that some of these job categories are called “Assistant Superintendent for...” That generally happens only in large systems.

• Curriculum Director. The Curriculum Director develops or oversees the development of curriculum for the system. His responsibility would generally include keeping abreast of the latest research, seeking out best practices, networking with colleagues in other systems, and supervising curriculum developers and teachers in the design and implementation of new curriculum. The position also often involves providing for the professional development of teachers and curriculum staff.
• Athletic Director. The Athletic Director oversees the athletic program (and often the Physical Education program as well), working with coaches. She schedules team seasons, hires and supervises coaches, and is in charge of the athletic budget, ordering equipment and other supplies as appropriate. She also helps to determine what sports will be offered, student eligibility for them, what the budget will be for each, etc..
• Special Education (SPED) Director. The SPED Director manages programs for students with learning, physical, developmental, or emotional difficulties or disabilities. His responsibilities include making sure that each student receives the appropriate services, contracting with services outside the system when particular in-system services are not available. He supervises SPED programs and teachers throughout the system, monitoring outcomes and quality.
• Business Manager. This position exercises oversight of the system’s finances. While the Superintendent and School Committee prepare a budget, the Business Manager controls the day-to-day management of the money, alerts the Superintendent of potential problems, makes sure that bills and salaries are paid, and keeps track of the budget down to the penny. The Business Manager also monitors contract and grant spending, to assure that money is spent in the ways it’s supposed to be, and consults regularly with the Superintendent on the state of the budget.

Any or all of these positions might also entail writing grant proposals, either for specific programs or for broader, system-wide initiatives. Larger systems might have one or more grantwriters on staff, but in smaller ones, everyone does multiple duties. Grantwriting is a common responsibility of system-wide administrators.

• Physical plant manager. Many systems employ a person to manage the physical functioning of the buildings they own. This person is often an engineer who understands construction, electricity, heating and cooling, and other areas necessary to maintaining and repairing buildings and to using maintenance budgets wisely. If she’s good, she can save the system the cost of her salary many times over every year.

Principals

The principal is in charge of his school. In many systems, principals can hire and fire teachers and other school employees, and can determine how the budgets for their schools are spent. They also deal with problems, and are responsible for communication with parents and the community in difficult situations relating to their specific schools. They supervise teachers, and oversee curriculum and discipline (often through an Assistant Principal, who doubles as Dean of Discipline), as well as presenting the face of the school to the public. They also function as part of the administrative team that consults with the Superintendent on running the system.

How much power and flexibility school principals have depends on the system and the Superintendent. In a really large system – cities of half a million or more, say – schools may be organized into clusters within the larger school system. That might mean that principals are part of the administrative team in their cluster, but not within the larger system. The principal of a high school with several thousand students may have more clout than one whose charge is an elementary school with only a few hundred students. Principals with strong community support may wield more power than those who have little connection with the community.

The personalities of the principal and the superintendent also enter into the equation. A superintendent who is protective of his power and unwilling to share it will keep principals as weak and dependent as possible. A principal who is ambitious and unafraid to reach for and use power can become a force within the system. It’s useful for anyone seeking to change policies to understand the relationships among administrators, and to know who’s able to get his way and who’s not.

Teachers and other school employees

We all know what teachers do – they run classrooms and teach subject matter. Depending on the grade level, they can also be surrogate parents, disciplinarians, motivational coaches, psychologists and counselors, nutritionists, and practical health practitioners, in addition to the hours of preparing for class, grading homework and tests, developing curriculum, conferring with parents, and engaging in professional development that come with the job. Many people think that teaching is an easy job, because it looks like teachers work only a 6- or 7-hour day, and get summers off. Most good teachers actually work something closer to a 12-hour day and spend summers taking courses (often at their own expense) to improve or broaden their competence.

Other school employees, depending on the size of the school (in a small system, some or all of these may be system-wide, and only be present in a particular school for a few hours a week), include:

• Guidance counselors. Guidance counselors – again, depending on the size and resources of the system – may function as anything from psychotherapists to college application advisors. Generally, the smaller the system, the less flexibility counselors have, and they can find themselves doing little more than filling out forms and warning students when they have too few credits to graduate. In the ideal, counselors run groups on such topics as tolerance and conflict resolution, act as therapists for a few students with serious problems, are in charge of college and career counseling programs, and help students negotiate the educational system.

School psychologists – who often work under contract or for the whole system, rather than for a particular school – have advanced degrees and conduct psychological and cognitive testing to determine whether students who are having difficulties need special services. They may also engage in some psychotherapy with particular students – their responsibilities vary from system to system.

• School nurses. In addition to ministering to students who fall ill or are injured in the course of the school day, the nurse may also teach health classes, or teach about health topics in other contexts.
• Coaches. The coaches of athletic teams may be part-time school employees with jobs outside the system, physical education teachers, or regular teachers who take on coaching responsibilities for the love of the sport and/or a little extra pay (the pay is usually not enough to justify the hours that go into coaching). They train and coach students in specific sports, and often find themselves in counseling and parental roles as well. Good coaches – those who care more about kids than winning – often loom large in students’ lives, and act as influences for many years after the students’ athletic careers are over.
• Support staff. This includes secretaries, administrative assistants, office managers, cafeteria staff, maintenance workers, etc.. These folks, particularly secretaries and administrative assistants, can be important allies or opponents. They often have the ear of the Superintendent, or can schedule – or not schedule – meetings and appointments. It’s a standing joke that secretaries often run schools, but the joke is so common because there’s some truth to it. Furthermore, they usually know where everything is, what’s going on, and where everyone stands on issues, making them valuable sources of information

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What do we mean by policies?

• Why try to change policies?

• Who should try to change policies?

• When should you try to change policies?

• How do you go about changing policies?

Staff at the Penbrooke County Jail had reviewed local data and found that many people leaving incarceration returned to the community without consistent access to education, employment support, health and behavioral health services, housing resources, or other supports that could help with a successful transition.

Working with a community human services coalition, jail staff developed a transition program that would begin before release and connect participants with education, career services, community organizations, and mentors. The partners believed the program could fill an important gap, but they encountered a policy barrier: the agency they hoped would support the program did not currently fund services extending beyond release.

The partners therefore had to decide whether to seek a change in that policy.

Policy change can be an important strategy when existing rules, procedures, funding priorities, eligibility requirements, or institutional practices create barriers to community goals. Sometimes a policy was developed under conditions that have changed. In other cases, new evidence, community experience, or unintended consequences may suggest that a different approach should be considered.

A strategy is an overall plan for achieving objectives that will help you fulfill your vision and mission. Tactics are the methods you use in an action plan to carry out your strategy. Chapter 25 discusses a number of tactics that can be used separately or together as part of an effort to change policy.

In this first section, we'll look at policy change in general -- what policies are, why communities may seek to change them, who should participate, when opportunities for change may arise, and some general principles for approaching the work. The following sections examine particular policy-change tactics in greater detail.

What do we mean by policies?

Policies are written or unwritten guidelines that governments, organizations, institutions, businesses, communities, and other groups use when making decisions and responding to situations.

Policies are shaped by many factors, including evidence, laws, resources, organizational missions, professional standards, community priorities, historical practices, and assumptions about people and society.

Those assumptions may include:

• Assumptions about the way things should be. Values, traditions, social norms, culture, religion, lived experience, and community history can all influence people's ideas about appropriate behavior, relationships, responsibilities, and institutions.
• Assumptions about what works. Policymakers and organizations may have different ideas about which approaches will be most effective. For example, people addressing substance use may differ over the appropriate balance among prevention, treatment, harm reduction, recovery services, public health approaches, and law enforcement.
• Assumptions about people and communities. Stereotypes, incomplete information, lived experience, professional knowledge, or limited contact with people affected by an issue can influence how policies are designed. Meaningful participation from people directly affected can help challenge inaccurate assumptions.
• Assumptions about what is good for the community. People within the same community may have different priorities and experiences. Policies are stronger when decision-making processes make room for those differences rather than assuming that one group can speak for everyone.

Policies can take many forms. They may be public or private, official or unofficial, written or unwritten.

Official government policies

Official government policies may appear in laws, regulations, budgets, agency rules, executive actions, administrative procedures, eligibility standards, or formal statements of policy.

Official policy can include:

• Recognition that an issue requires public attention
• Support for particular goals, programs, or approaches
• Funding levels and budget priorities
• Eligibility and funding standards for publicly supported programs
• How laws and regulations are implemented and enforced
• Laws and regulations themselves

Because laws, regulations, and program requirements change over time and differ across jurisdictions, organizations working on policy should use current official sources rather than relying on older examples or assumptions about what government policy currently requires.

Unofficial government policy

Not every policy is written down. Agencies and governing bodies may develop informal practices, expectations, interpretations, or organizational norms that influence how decisions are made.

These informal practices can be difficult to identify because staff may see them simply as "the way things are done." Examining patterns in decisions, access, enforcement, service quality, and outcomes can help reveal whether unwritten practices are creating barriers or unequal experiences.

Historical patterns of discrimination illustrate why unofficial practices matter. Even when formal rules prohibit unequal treatment, informal expectations, organizational cultures, or discretionary practices can continue to affect people's opportunities. Understanding both written policy and how policy is carried out in practice is therefore important.

Policies made by government agencies and public services

Government agencies, schools, public safety organizations, public health departments, transportation systems, and other public institutions develop policies that shape how services are provided.

These policies may affect:

• How community members are treated and whether people experience disparities in service
• How laws and regulations are interpreted and implemented
• How services and resources are prioritized
• The quality and availability of services across neighborhoods and communities
• Where facilities, infrastructure, environmental hazards, and public investments are located

The policies of foundations and other private funders

Foundations and other funders develop policies about what they will support, who is eligible to apply, and what kinds of activities may be funded.

Funding policies may specify:

• Geographic areas
• Communities or groups the funder is particularly interested in supporting
• Eligible program activities, services, operating expenses, or capital expenses
• Eligible organizations
• Preferred methods, program structures, evaluation requirements, or other conditions

Funding policy can strongly influence which community priorities receive resources. Community organizations may therefore need to consider not only how to fit funder requirements, but also whether those requirements align with community priorities and the organization's mission.

Policies of businesses

Businesses of all sizes have written and unwritten policies that affect employees, customers, suppliers, communities, and the environment.

Examples include:

• Hiring and advancement policies. These may address qualifications, recruitment, nondiscrimination, accessibility, local hiring, promotion, and efforts to expand opportunity for groups that have historically been underrepresented.
• Compensation and benefits. Wages, raises, paid leave, retirement benefits, health coverage, scheduling, and other forms of compensation reflect organizational priorities and affect workers' economic security.
• Workplace relations. Policies related to safety, employee participation, professional development, accommodations, grievances, promotion, and communication can shape both the workplace and its relationship with the wider community.
• Community relations. Businesses may establish policies related to community investment, environmental practices, volunteering, charitable giving, local purchasing, or responding to community concerns.
• Business practices and ethics. Policies may address financial practices, conflicts of interest, treatment of suppliers and customers, environmental responsibility, privacy, safety, and compliance with laws and professional standards.

Policies of health, human service, educational, and nonprofit organizations

Nonprofit and community organizations also have written and unwritten policies that shape how they operate and how participants experience their services.

Policies may address:

• The organization's relationship with participants. Are participants treated mainly as recipients of services, or as people with knowledge, strengths, goals, and meaningful roles in decisions that affect them?
• Specific practices, methods, and programs. Organizations may establish standards for how services are delivered and how evidence, professional judgment, community knowledge, and participant preferences are incorporated.
• Collaboration. Policies may encourage or limit partnerships, information sharing, referrals, and joint work with other organizations.
• Professional and organizational ethics. Policies may address confidentiality, privacy, conflicts of interest, boundaries, reporting responsibilities, accessibility, informed consent, and use of organizational authority.

Policies of media organizations

Media organizations make choices about which issues to cover, how much attention to give them, what information and voices to include, and which language, images, headlines, or formats to use.

These choices can shape what audiences know about an issue and whose experiences receive public attention. Editorial standards, ownership, audience interests, available resources, professional norms, and organizational priorities can all influence coverage.

When working with media, community organizations should understand that media outlets make independent editorial decisions. Providing accurate information, accessible sources, relevant data, and opportunities to hear directly from people affected by an issue can help journalists understand the community context.

Community norms and informal practices

Communities also develop informal expectations about what is acceptable, important, or worthy of investment. These expectations are sometimes described as community norms rather than formal policies.

Community norms are shaped by history, institutions, public opinion, local leadership, culture, media, economic conditions, and the experiences of residents. Different groups within the same community may hold different views.

Because communities are diverse, avoid treating "the community" as though it has one voice. Understanding community perspectives requires listening to people from different neighborhoods, identities, age groups, organizations, and experiences, particularly those directly affected by the issue.

Why try to change policies?

Policies shape how organizations and institutions make decisions. When a policy creates barriers, produces unintended consequences, no longer reflects current evidence or circumstances, or does not support the goals it was designed to achieve, changing the policy may be more effective than repeatedly addressing the same problem one case at a time.

Reasons for considering policy change include:

• Policies shape future decisions. Changing a policy can influence how similar situations are handled over time rather than requiring a new response each time.
• Policy discussions can deepen understanding of an issue. Reviewing a policy may lead community members and decision-makers to examine evidence, lived experience, assumptions, benefits, costs, and unintended consequences.
• Policy change can address recurring barriers. If the same difficulty results from a rule or institutional practice, changing that underlying policy may reduce the need for repeated exceptions or workarounds.
• Policies can influence organizational practices and social norms. When institutions consistently implement new standards, expectations and everyday practices may change over time.
• Policy effects can extend over time. Decisions about education, housing, transportation, health, the environment, employment, accessibility, and other areas may affect people and communities for many years.
• Policy change can be one part of broader community change. Policy is rarely the only factor affecting a community issue, but it can influence access to resources, institutional practices, accountability, and the conditions in which people live.

Who should try to change policies?

People and organizations affected by a policy have a legitimate role in discussions about whether it should change. Effective policy work often brings together several kinds of knowledge: lived experience, community knowledge, professional expertise, research, administrative experience, and understanding of the decision-making process.

Coalitions

Coalitions can bring together organizations, community members, professionals, and others who view an issue from different perspectives.

Potential strengths include:

• Bringing people directly affected by the issue into the policy process
• Combining different kinds of knowledge and experience
• Helping participants understand community history, previous efforts, and concerns that may influence the issue
• Demonstrating that an issue is of concern to more than one organization or constituency
• Creating opportunities for shared planning and coordinated action

No coalition can automatically claim to represent every viewpoint in a community. Coalitions should be transparent about who participates, whose perspectives may be missing, and how people outside the coalition can contribute.

Organizations that work with the issue

Community-based organizations, service providers, advocacy organizations, public agencies, and other groups may have research, administrative knowledge, service data, professional expertise, and relationships with people directly affected by the policy.

Their role should complement rather than replace the voices of people who experience the effects of the policy firsthand.

Resident-led and community-based groups

Resident-led organizations and grassroots groups may bring direct knowledge of local conditions, community priorities, existing strengths, and the practical effects of policy.

Supporting community leadership can help ensure that people affected by policy are not included only as examples or sources of testimony, but also as participants in defining goals and deciding strategies.

Professional groups with an interest in the issue

Professional associations may contribute research, technical knowledge, ethical standards, or experience implementing policies in practice.

Concerned individuals

Individuals can raise issues, conduct research, participate in public processes, communicate with organizations or officials, and help bring people together.

Broader participation can strengthen policy work by adding perspectives, sharing responsibilities, and reducing dependence on any single person.

Healthy civic participation depends on people having meaningful opportunities to understand and engage with decisions that affect them. Policy advocates are most useful when they are well informed, transparent about their goals, open to evidence and community feedback, and prepared to revise their proposals when new information identifies problems or unintended consequences.

When should you try to change policies?

Policy change can be pursued whenever there is a clear reason to reconsider an existing policy, but some moments create particularly useful opportunities for participation.

• When a policy is being formally reviewed. Legislative sessions, agency reviews, planning processes, budget decisions, regulatory proceedings, public hearings, and other formal processes may provide opportunities for community input.
• When an issue or policy question first emerges. Early participation may help decision-makers consider evidence, alternatives, community experiences, and possible unintended consequences before a policy becomes established.
• When there is a deadline for public input or a decision. Public comment periods, hearings, planning deadlines, budget cycles, and other formal decision points often establish specific opportunities for participation.
• When evidence suggests that the current approach is not achieving its intended goals. Evaluation findings, community feedback, service data, or new research may identify reasons to reconsider a policy.
• When a change in circumstances creates new risks or barriers. Budget changes, emergencies, population changes, new technologies, economic conditions, or changes in services may reveal problems that existing policy does not adequately address.
• When community priorities or expectations have changed. Community engagement, surveys, public meetings, resident organizing, and other forms of participation may show that people want policymakers to reconsider an existing approach.
• When a specific policy proposal is already under discussion. This can be an important time to review the proposal, understand its likely effects, provide relevant evidence, and participate through the available decision-making process.
• When new information changes understanding of the issue. Research, evaluation, audits, court decisions, community data, or lived experience may reveal effects that were not considered when the policy was established.

Public attention to an issue may also create an opportunity for broader discussion, but attention alone is not evidence that a particular policy change is appropriate. Examine the available evidence, listen to different perspectives, and consider likely benefits, costs, tradeoffs, and unintended consequences.

How do you change policies?

Policy change usually begins when people identify a gap between current policy and the outcomes they believe the policy should achieve. Because policies affect different people in different ways, a strong policy-change process should combine research, community participation, transparency, and opportunities for disagreement and revision.

This section provides broad guidance rather than instructions for any particular political position or policy proposal. The specific process will depend on whether the policy belongs to a government agency, legislature, school, nonprofit organization, business, funder, or other institution.

The original framework can be remembered as eight P's: Preparation, Planning, Personal contact, Perspectives of the community, Positive framing, Participation, Public communication, and Persistence.

Preparation: Prepare carefully for policy work.

Develop an accurate understanding of the issue and the current policy. Examine relevant research, community data, implementation experience, legal requirements, costs, benefits, and possible unintended consequences.

Include knowledge from people directly affected by the policy as well as appropriate professional or technical expertise.

Research should be used to test your assumptions, not simply to support a conclusion you have already reached. If credible evidence shows that a proposed change is unlikely to produce the intended result or may create serious unintended consequences, reconsider the proposal.

• Understand the current law, regulation, organizational rule, funding requirement, or informal practice you hope to address
• Understand the major perspectives on the issue, including the evidence and concerns raised by people who disagree with your proposed approach
• Identify who has authority to change the policy and what formal process is required
• Identify who is affected by the policy and how they can participate meaningfully

Planning: Develop a thoughtful and participatory strategy.

Policy work should connect to a broader strategic planning process. Clarify the problem, desired outcomes, evidence, decision-making process, available resources, responsibilities, timeline, and ways community members will participate.

Meaningful participation does not require every person to agree. It means that people affected by the issue have genuine opportunities to contribute information, raise concerns, influence proposals, and understand how decisions are being made.

Emergencies may require faster decisions, but even rapid planning benefits from clear goals, reliable information, appropriate expertise, and consultation with people who understand the issue and its likely effects.

Personal contact: Establish respectful communication with people involved in the policy process.

Policy change often requires communication with public officials, agency staff, organizational leaders, funders, community organizations, residents, professionals, and others with relevant responsibilities or knowledge.

Useful contacts may include:

• Legislators and legislative staff
• Local elected and appointed officials
• Staff at regulatory, administrative, and funding agencies
• Resident leaders, community organizations, businesses, faith communities, professional groups, and people directly affected by the policy
• Other community-based organizations, initiatives, and coalitions
• Media organizations

Relationships should be reciprocal and professional. Do not treat people merely as tools for advancing a proposal. Provide accurate information, follow through on commitments, respect people's roles and time, and be transparent about the change you are seeking.

Perspectives of the community: Understand how different people experience the issue.

Community members may have different priorities, concerns, values, and experiences related to the same policy. Use listening sessions, public meetings, surveys, interviews, advisory groups, existing community relationships, and other methods to understand those perspectives.

Do not use community engagement simply to determine how people can be persuaded. It should also test whether the proposed policy responds to community priorities and whether important concerns or unintended effects have been overlooked.

Some questions involve fundamental rights or protections that should not depend solely on majority opinion. In those situations, community engagement can still help identify barriers, implementation concerns, and effective ways to communicate and carry out policy.

Positive framing: Explain clearly what the proposed policy is intended to accomplish.

Describe the expected benefits, costs, responsibilities, tradeoffs, and possible unintended consequences as accurately as possible. Avoid presenting a policy as cost-free or universally beneficial when the evidence is more complicated.

Depending on the issue, policymakers may consider a combination of:

• Incentives
• Standards or requirements
• Enforcement
• Education and communication
• Services and supports
• Investments in infrastructure or community resources

Different approaches may distribute costs and benefits differently. Make those differences visible so decision-makers and community members can evaluate them.

Potential effects of policy may include:

• Economic effects. Policies may affect public spending, household costs, employment, businesses, productivity, or long-term economic conditions.
• Social and community effects. Policies may influence access to services, safety, relationships, recreation, education, participation, and community cohesion.
• Individual and family well-being. Policies may affect stress, stability, security, time, caregiving, or other aspects of everyday life.
• Environmental and quality-of-life effects. Policies may influence air and water quality, open space, transportation, neighborhood conditions, or the built environment.
• Health and safety effects. Policies may affect exposure to hazards, access to health-promoting resources, injury risk, or other conditions related to health.

Participation: Involve people affected by the policy.

Community participation can improve policy work by adding knowledge, identifying unintended consequences, strengthening accountability, and helping decision-makers understand how policies operate in practice.

Pay particular attention to people whose perspectives have historically been excluded or whose participation may be limited by transportation, language, disability access, work schedules, childcare, digital access, or other barriers.

When community members contribute substantial time, lived expertise, or ongoing work, consider compensation and other supports when resources allow.

Public communication: Keep people informed.

Explain what policy is being considered, why it is being reviewed, what evidence is available, who has decision-making authority, what alternatives are being considered, and how people can participate.

Communication may include websites, community meetings, newsletters, accessible documents, local and social media, presentations, public notices, or other appropriate channels.

Provide information in relevant languages and accessible formats whenever possible. Distinguish clearly between factual information, organizational recommendations, and opinions.

Persistence: Continue learning and adjusting.

Policy change can take time. Continue monitoring the decision-making process, evaluating your approach, listening to feedback, and updating your recommendations as new evidence becomes available.

Persistence should not mean continuing with the same proposal regardless of what you learn. Effective policy work includes being willing to modify goals, strategies, or recommendations when evidence or community experience indicates that a different approach would be better.

The remaining sections in this chapter discuss specific policy-change tactics in greater detail. These eight principles can help guide the use of those tactics across different issues and institutional settings.

In Summary

Governments, organizations, businesses, funders, institutions, and communities all use policies -- written or unwritten guidelines that influence decisions and practices.

Policies can shape funding, eligibility, access to services, organizational practices, working conditions, community investment, enforcement, and many other aspects of community life. When a policy creates barriers, no longer reflects current conditions or evidence, or is not achieving its intended purpose, communities and organizations may consider whether change is appropriate.

Policy change is strongest when it combines reliable information, lived experience, professional and community knowledge, transparent decision-making, and meaningful participation from people affected by the policy.

A useful framework is the eight P's:

1. Preparation, developing an accurate understanding of the issue and current policy.
2. Planning, developing a thoughtful and participatory strategy.
3. Personal contact, maintaining respectful communication with people involved in the policy process.
4. Perspectives of the community, understanding the different ways people experience the issue.
5. Positive framing, clearly describing what a proposed change is intended to accomplish while acknowledging costs and tradeoffs.
6. Participation, creating meaningful opportunities for people affected by the issue to influence the process.
7. Public communication, providing clear and accessible information about the issue, proposed changes, and opportunities to participate.
8. Persistence, continuing to monitor, learn, evaluate, and adjust over time.

These principles can be adapted to the policy-change tactics outlined in the remaining sections of this chapter.

Example #1: Achieving Regulatory Change: The Kansas Asthma Coalition

Sometimes “Plan B” works best for making positive policy change.

If you determine that introducing legislation is not practical or not likely to succeed, consider seeking a change in practice or regulations.While this type of change is often a compromise, it can accomplish the desired goals more quickly than attempting to pass or amend a bill.

In Kansas, a coalition of groups and individuals working to improve children’s health wanted to introduce a bill that required screening all children in public schools for respiratory illness, a process similar to the screenings that are conducted for vision and hearing.Asthma causes more lost school days and pediatric emergency room visits than any other chronic disease in the U.S., so the supporters felt their case for screening was strong.

But the Kansas Asthma Coalition members also realized that unfunded mandates are not popular, so they took a different strategy. They proposed that the state add these four “yes/no” questions to the school health assessment form that is used by Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS):

• Has your child ever been diagnosed by a doctor as having asthma?
• Has your child ever been prescribed an inhaler?
• Has your child had an episode of wheezing in the last 12 months?
• In the last 12 months have you heard your child wheeze or cough after running or crying?

The questions are a meaningful addition to the health form because they screen for children with asthma, whose records can then be flagged to alert school nurses and other school staff to the need for preventing asthma attacks. In addition, the questions did not create any new expenses or require new training and processes for the people who conduct the screening.

The advisory board that was responsible for making such decisions approved adding the questions to the health form. While this change in regulatory practice is not as far-reaching as a statewide law for screening, it is progress toward a system-wide improvement in preventive health care for children with asthma.

This example also illustrates the fact that it usually takes a collaboration to make policy change. The Policy Committee of the Kansas Asthma Coalition drove this effort to improve care for children with asthma. The coalition included concerned physicians, along with representatives of the American Lung Association of Kansas and the Kansas Department of Health and Education.

Coalition member Judy Keller, executive director of the Lung Association of Kansas, summarizes the steps included in making this type of policy change:

1. Collect and analyze data.
2. Bring various stakeholders together to form a coalition to help in the process as early as possible.
3. Determine whether change is needed and how that change will take place.
4. Enlist support.
5. Implement change.
6. Evaluate.
7. Revise.
8. Work for continuous improvement as related to the coalition’s mission.

References

Is there a better way to influence policy? - American Psychological Association.

Example #2: Evidence-Based Environmental Strategies to Prevent Underage Drinking

Preventing Underage Drinking: Using Getting To Outcomes™ with the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework to Achieve Results describes 10 environmental strategies for reducing underage drinking that have the strongest evidence base. Each example includes a brief research summary and additional text that describes issues related to planning, implementing, and evaluating the strategy. The examples also include samples of tools, worksheets, or ordinances to facilitate the community’s work. The ten strategies are briefly described below.

• Responsible beverage service is a merchant education program designed to reduce sales to minors and intoxicated adults. It involves media advocacy to promote policy changes, manager training, and server/seller training.
• Alcohol compliance checks are thought to be most effective when they are frequent and well publicized, solicit community support, and involve penalties for the licensed establishment rather than just the server.
• Happy hour restrictions eliminate one of the environments most conducive to overconsumption of alcohol.
• Controls on alcohol outlet location and density reduce the accessibility of alcohol to young people by making it less prevalent in their immediate environment.
• Sobriety/traffic-safety checkpoints, which are very effective in reducing alcohol-related traffi c accidents, injuries, and deaths, are even more effective when combined with a vigorous public awareness campaign.
• Graduated drivers’ licensing laws, which entail clearly specified learner, intermediate, and full license phases, are effective in reducing crashes among teen drivers, but they need to be adequately enforced.
• Social-host liability laws state that adults providing alcohol to minors or those who are obviously intoxicated are legally liable if the person is killed or injured, or kills or injures another person.
• Keg registration is intended to prevent friends or relatives of legal drinking age from buying beer kegs for teen parties. Registration can be achieved in a number of ways, for example, permanent markings on each keg that identify where and when it was purchased or a requirement that keg delivery requests be made in person at the store.
• Restricting sales of alcohol at public events controls the availability of alcohol at gatherings such as concerts, street fairs, and sporting events.
• Increasing taxes on the sale of alcohol leads to reductions in the levels and frequency of drinking and, especially, heavy drinking among youth, as well as lower traffic accident fatality rates and reduced incidence of some types of crime. Several surveys indicate that most Americans support increased alcohol taxes.

For more in-depth information on these evidence-based environmental strategies to prevent underage drinking, please see the full manual Preventing Underage Drinking: Using Getting To Outcomes™ with the SAMHSA Strategic Prevention Framework to Achieve Results.

 

 

example #3: housing policy to reduce source of income discrimination

 

In Lawrence-Douglas County, Kansas, high housing costs and a lack of affordable housing are major risk factors for sexual violence. In response, the LiveWell sexual violence prevention initiative formed a housing work group led by the Sexual Trauma and Abuse Care Center. They built partnerships with housing stakeholders like the Human Relations Commission, Lawrence City Commission, Tenants to Homeowners, the Lawrence Community Shelter, and others.

With research support from the KU Center for Community Health and Development, the group explored solutions like community land trusts, incentives for affordable housing, and better legal protections for tenants. They ultimately focused on passing a source of income (SOI) discrimination ordinance, addressing the local issue of landlords refusing renters who rely on vouchers or non-wage income like disability benefits or emergency relief funds.

The work group partnered with the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and hosted community events to raise awareness and correct misinformation. After years of advocacy, the Lawrence City Commission passed Ordinance No. 9960, banning discrimination in housing based on source of income, immigration status, and providing protections for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, or stalking. The ordinance helps reduce barriers for renters most at risk of housing instability.

The group continues to support enforcement through the local community health improvement plan and A Place for Everyone: A Community Plan to End Homelessness. This work was highlighted on an NSVRC podcast and presented at the 2023 National Sexual Assault Conference, where Gabby Boyle and KU Evaluator Christina Holt shared lessons learned about addressing housing as a social determinant of sexual violence prevention.

 

 

example #4: safebar alliance and liquor licensing training ordinance

To address the risks of high alcohol outlet density and binge drinking, the Sexual Violence Prevention Work Group in Lawrence, Kansas, implemented bystander intervention and environmental strategies in bars and alcohol-serving businesses through the SafeBar Alliance and a city liquor licensing ordinance.

The SafeBar Alliance is a voluntary program where member bars commit to annual training for at least 75% of staff. The 2-hour interactive training covers social norms, warning signs, and bystander intervention, with staff practicing real scenarios and brainstorming safety improvements. Participating bars get free promotional materials and ongoing support. 

In addition, the City of Lawrence passed an ordinance requiring managers at alcohol-serving venues to complete sexual violence prevention training to renew their liquor license. Since its launch, the Sexual Trauma and Abuse CARE Center has delivered hundreds of trainings to participants from hundreds of establishments. Nearly 90% of trainees reported learning something new, showing strong support for expanding these conversations into the wider community. For more information, visit: https://www.stacarecenter.org/safebaralliance

 

 

What do we mean by policies?

___Policies are the written or unwritten guidelines that governments, organizations and institutions, communities, or individuals use when responding to issues and situations.

You address:

___Official government policies.

___Policies made by government bureaucracies, and by public services such as police and fire departments.

___The policies of foundations and other private funders.

___Policies of businesses.

___Policies of the media.

___Policies adopted by the community as a whole.

Why try to change policies?

You change policies because:

___Addressing policies can start a community conversation about the issues in question.

___Changing policy is easier in the long run than fighting the same battles over and over again.

___Changed policies can change people's minds and attitudes.

___Changed policies have effects on the next generation.

___Policy change is the path to permanent social change.

Who should try to change policies?

To change polices, you turn to:

___A broad-based coalition.

___An organization that works with those affected by the policies in question.

___A grass roots community initiative.

___A concerned professional association.

___A determined individual.

When should you try to change policies?

You make an effort to change policies when:

___It's an election year.

___The issue first arises.

___A crisis is reached, and it's clear the current policy isn't working.

___Public opinion has reached critical mass.

___There's a specific debate about the issue.

___New information changes perceptions about the issue.

___A publication or other source brings an issue to the public attention.

How do you go about changing policies?

___You try to change policies by using the 8 P's:

• Planning
• Preparation
• Personal contact
• Pulse of the community
• Positivism
• Participation
• Publicity

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

The Lawrence Community Change Project (LCCP) was formed through a shared concern about quality of life in the community. The Project brought together local agencies and institutions, community members, and local government. Through a strategic planning process, participants developed a vision and mission, identified goals, created strategies, and began carrying out an action plan.

After a year of implementation, it was time to examine what had changed. The group overseeing the effort wanted to know whether the issues identified at the beginning were still the most important priorities, which strategies were producing useful results, which needed to be adjusted, what community members were experiencing, and what responsibility the Project had for continuing or changing its work.

With these questions in mind, LCCP set out to create a report on the first year of the Project.

Policy, the subject of this chapter, is shaped by many factors, including evidence, community priorities, public opinion, institutional practices, available resources, and changing circumstances. One important source of information is knowing how well current policies and community efforts are working.

This section introduces one set of tools for informing policy and community decision-making: regularly assessing community conditions, reporting the findings clearly, and creating accountability for whether organizations, institutions, and decision-makers are making progress toward agreed-upon goals.

What do we mean by regular community assessment, reporting, and accountability?

Community assessment and reporting are useful for understanding community strengths, priorities, conditions, and change over time. In this section, we are especially interested in how regular assessment and reporting can help communities evaluate whether policies, programs, institutions, and community initiatives are contributing to intended outcomes.

Assessment

Assessment in this context is similar to an initial community assessment, but it serves a different purpose. Both may use surveys, public forums, interviews, community knowledge, statistical indicators, observation, focus groups, and other methods.

A regular assessment, however, compares current conditions with a previous point in time so that the community can examine what has changed. The comparison point may be a baseline established at the beginning of an initiative or the findings from the most recent assessment.

A community assessment may focus on one issue or examine overall community health and quality of life. The areas examined should reflect the community's goals, priorities, and circumstances.

Examples include:

• Education. Depending on community goals, measures might include student learning and engagement, graduation and completion rates, school climate, educator support and retention, access to technology, educational equity, and the availability of adult, technical, and higher education.
• Economics and economic development. Measures might include employment, job quality, wages, new businesses, business stability, opportunities for advancement, household economic security, local investment, and access to workforce development.
• Economic security and poverty. A community might examine household income, housing stability, food security, child poverty, transportation, access to services and public benefits, cost of living, and other conditions affecting whether people can meet basic needs and participate fully in community life.
• The environment. Measures may include air, water, and soil quality; access to green space; environmental hazards; climate resilience; environmental enforcement; and how environmental conditions are distributed across neighborhoods.
• Community safety. Assessment might examine experiences of violence, traffic safety, workplace safety, emergency response, environmental design, community trust, prevention resources, and the practices, training, oversight, and resources of public safety systems.
• Transportation. Communities may examine affordability, reliability, accessibility, safety, geographic coverage, environmental impact, and whether transportation systems allow people to reach jobs, schools, services, health care, recreation, and other destinations.
• Housing. Measures may include availability and cost of housing, housing quality, homelessness and housing instability, cost burden, accessibility, tenants' rights, neighborhood conditions, development patterns, and discrimination in housing.
• Cultural and recreational opportunities. Communities may examine the availability, affordability, accessibility, geographic distribution, and use of libraries, parks, arts programs, recreation, cultural institutions, trails, gathering places, and other opportunities for community life.
• Human and community services. Assessment may examine whether services are available, accessible, culturally and linguistically responsive, affordable, effective, and aligned with the priorities of the people and communities they are intended to support.
• Health and well-being. Measures might include access to health care, preventable illness, chronic health conditions, mental and behavioral health, maternal and infant health, disability access, preventive care, environmental health, and community conditions that influence well-being.

Creating and maintaining a healthy community involves much more than providing medical services. Housing, education, transportation, economic security, safety, the environment, social connection, recreation, and access to community resources all contribute to health and well-being.

Reporting

Once an assessment has been conducted, the findings should be shared in ways that community members, organizations, and decision-makers can understand and use.

Reporting may include a written report, accessible web content, public presentations, dashboards, summaries, infographics, community meetings, social media, local media, or other formats appropriate to the community.

Reporting should occur soon enough after assessment that the information remains useful for planning and decision-making.

A strong report can show:

• Where progress is occurring
• Where conditions have changed little or worsened
• Which community strengths and resources are contributing to improvement
• Which programs or policies appear to be contributing to intended outcomes
• Where additional information is needed before drawing conclusions
• Where strategies, policies, investments, or services may need to be reconsidered

Reports should distinguish clearly between what the data show and interpretations about why those changes occurred. Community outcomes are usually influenced by many factors, so avoid claiming that one program or policy caused a change unless the evidence supports that conclusion.

Accountability

Accountability means being clear about goals, responsibilities, decisions, progress, and results and being willing to respond when evidence shows that changes are needed.

Accountability can apply at several levels:

• Accountability of policymakers and institutions. Ongoing assessment can show whether policies are being implemented as intended, whether important concerns remain unaddressed, and whether changes in policy or investment should be considered.
• Shared community accountability. Communities may identify priorities that require action from several sectors, including residents, institutions, organizations, businesses, funders, and government. Reporting can make those shared responsibilities more visible.
• Accountability of organizations and initiatives doing the work. Assessment can show whether strategies are producing useful results, whether programs should be strengthened or changed, and whether resources are being used in ways that support the initiative's mission and community priorities.

Accountability should not be limited to identifying failures. It should also recognize progress, clarify what organizations and institutions have learned, and create opportunities to improve decisions over time.

Regular assessment and reporting may also show that additional resources are needed or that existing resources should be distributed differently. These findings can inform funding, planning, and community decision-making.

Why propose assessment, reporting, and accountability?

A regular process of assessment, reporting, and accountability can help communities:

• Clarify current community conditions and priorities
• Identify strategies, programs, or policies that appear to be contributing to progress
• Identify efforts that are producing less progress than expected and may need to be adjusted, strengthened, or reconsidered
• Keep community members and decision-makers informed about what is changing and what still requires attention
• Identify both community assets and areas where additional resources or action may be needed
• Help initiatives adjust strategies and action plans as circumstances change
• Keep long-term community goals visible
• Support continuity by showing why successful efforts may need sustained attention and investment

A community may see improvement in an issue and reasonably conclude that some strategies no longer need the same level of attention. Regular assessment helps the community determine whether progress is being maintained, whether conditions are changing, and whether resources should be continued, adapted, or redirected.

Regular assessment can also strengthen public accountability by making responsibilities, progress, and unresolved concerns visible. The purpose is not simply to assign blame, but to give community members and decision-makers reliable information they can use to ask questions, evaluate choices, and determine what should happen next.

Who should propose and/or conduct assessment and reporting, and establish accountability?

A broad-based coalition

Assessment and reporting are often strongest when people and organizations from across the community participate.

A coalition might include residents, people directly affected by the issues being examined, community-based organizations, public agencies, businesses, schools, health systems, funders, local government, advocacy organizations, researchers, and others with relevant knowledge or responsibilities.

An initial community assessment can establish a baseline, identify community priorities and strengths, and provide information for strategic planning. Continued community participation can help ensure that later assessments remain relevant and that people affected by the issues have meaningful opportunities to interpret findings and shape next steps.

If a broad coalition is not feasible, several other groups may take responsibility.

Local government

Local government may establish a regular assessment and reporting process, create an independent or community advisory body to oversee it, or partner with other organizations to carry it out.

When government leads the process, transparency and meaningful community participation are especially important so that the assessment reflects more than institutional perspectives.

A local or state agency

An agency may be well positioned to assess a specific issue that falls within its mission or area of expertise. It can strengthen the process by involving people affected by the issue and by making methods, data, limitations, and findings publicly understandable.

A resident-led or grassroots initiative

Resident-led groups may conduct assessments, document community experiences, track progress, and bring attention to issues that institutions have overlooked.

These groups may also partner with researchers, government, service organizations, or other institutions when additional technical expertise or data access is useful.

A community-based organization

Community-based organizations often have strong relationships with the people and communities they serve and may notice service gaps, barriers, or changes that broader institutions miss.

They can contribute valuable information to assessment and reporting, but should avoid assuming that their participants represent every person affected by an issue.

A watchdog, research, or advocacy organization

Organizations focused on public accountability, research, or a particular issue may conduct independent assessments and track whether policies, institutions, or programs are meeting stated commitments.

Credibility is strengthened when methods, data sources, assumptions, funding, and limitations are clearly disclosed.

When should you propose regular assessment, reporting, and accountability?

Regular assessment can be useful whenever a community is trying to understand conditions or monitor change. Some moments make it especially valuable:

• At the beginning of an initiative. Establishing a baseline and reporting schedule from the beginning makes it easier to examine change over time and clarify responsibilities.
• When an important issue is receiving limited attention. Assessment can document the scope and characteristics of the issue and provide information that community members and decision-makers can use to consider possible responses.
• When an issue has been addressed for some time without a clear review of progress. Regular assessment can show what has changed, where strategies appear to be helping, and where adjustments may be useful.
• When conditions change quickly or become more urgent. Assessment can help clarify what is happening, who is affected, what resources are available, and which responses should be considered.
• When community members are calling for action or greater transparency. Assessment and reporting can establish a shared information base for discussing the issue and evaluating possible strategies.

How do you conduct assessment and reporting to support accountability?

Several steps can help establish a regular assessment and reporting process:

• Introduce the concept and involve community members and partners in shaping the process
• Clarify who has responsibilities related to the issue and what accountability means in this context
• Decide what conditions, outcomes, and community experiences will be assessed
• Establish an assessment and reporting schedule
• Choose appropriate assessment and reporting methods
• Carry out the process and evaluate how well it is working
• Continue and adapt the process over time

Step 1: Introduce the concept and involve the community

• Present regular assessment and reporting as a tool for learning and improvement. The purpose is to understand what is happening, recognize strengths, identify challenges, and make better decisions.

Regular assessment can document community assets, resources, relationships, programs, and improvements as well as areas requiring additional attention.

Identifying challenges should not mean defining communities or people primarily by problems. Assessment should ask both what is working and what conditions or barriers are limiting progress.

• Present assessment as an ongoing process. Community conditions change, so assessment should be repeated often enough to inform decisions and track meaningful changes.
• Create meaningful opportunities for community participation. Residents should have opportunities to help identify questions, interpret findings, review reports, and discuss what actions should follow.

Step 2: Clarify accountability

• Accountability of policymakers and institutions. Assessment can show whether policies and institutional practices are producing intended outcomes, whether commitments are being carried out, and where additional attention may be needed.
• Shared community responsibility. Some goals require contributions from government, community organizations, businesses, funders, residents, and other partners. Assessment can help clarify what each has committed to and where additional resources or coordination may be needed.
• Accountability of organizations carrying out the work. Programs and agencies should be able to explain their goals, methods, use of resources, results, and how participant and community feedback influence improvements.

Step 3: Establish what you will examine

Assessments may focus on a specific issue, a group of connected issues, or broader conditions such as health, economic security, safety, or quality of life.

Community issues often overlap. For example, efforts related to interpersonal violence may involve housing stability, economic security, health and behavioral health services, education, transportation, prevention, legal systems, social support, and other conditions.

Choose measures based on:

• Relevance to community goals
• Importance to people affected by the issue
• Quality and availability of data
• Ability to compare information over time
• Whether the measure reflects an outcome the initiative can reasonably influence
• Whether several measures are needed to understand the issue fairly

Possible measures might include:

• High school graduation, completion, attendance, or engagement
• Experiences and rates of violence or injury, examined in ways that protect privacy and provide useful context
• Employment, unemployment, wages, job stability, or access to employment opportunities
• Participation in health, education, childcare, nutrition, housing, or other community services
• Access to parks, green space, and recreation
• Air, water, or environmental quality
• Resident satisfaction with parks, transportation, services, or other community resources
• Library use and access to educational or digital resources
• Availability of affordable and accessible housing for older adults and other community members

Use both short- and long-term measures when appropriate. Short-term measures can show progress in implementation, while longer-term outcomes can help determine whether community conditions are changing.

Avoid relying on one indicator to represent a complex issue. Economic security, for example, may require examining income, wages, housing costs, food security, employment, transportation, savings, and other measures together.

Step 4: Establish a schedule for ongoing assessment and reporting

The appropriate schedule depends on the issue. Annual reporting may work well for many community indicators, while rapidly changing conditions or shorter-term implementation measures may require more frequent review. Other outcomes may change slowly enough that longer intervals are appropriate.

Choose a schedule based on how quickly meaningful change can reasonably occur, the availability of reliable data, and the decisions the information is meant to support.

Step 5: Choose assessment and reporting methods

Assessment. Possible methods include surveys, focus groups, community forums, individual interviews, community conversations, administrative data, public records, statistical indicators, geographic information system (GIS) mapping, observation, and other quantitative and qualitative approaches.

Whenever possible, combine different kinds of evidence. Numbers can show patterns, while interviews, focus groups, and lived experience can help explain why those patterns may exist.

Methods should be appropriate to the community and accessible to people with different languages, disabilities, schedules, technology access, and communication preferences.

Keep measures reasonably consistent over time when comparison is important, but do not continue using an outdated or misleading measure simply for the sake of consistency.

Reporting. A report is useful only if people can find it, understand it, and use it.

Consider:

• Who needs the information
• What level of detail different audiences need
• Which languages and accessible formats are needed
• How findings can be communicated visually and clearly
• How community members can ask questions or respond
• How limitations and uncertainty will be explained

Reports may be distributed through websites, dashboards, printed summaries, community meetings, local media, social media, libraries, partner organizations, newsletters, or presentations.

Reports should clearly distinguish:

• Data and observed findings
• Interpretation of those findings
• Recommendations
• Areas where the evidence is incomplete or uncertain

Reports should also include progress toward established goals when those goals are still relevant. If goals or indicators no longer reflect community priorities or current conditions, explain why they were changed rather than quietly replacing them.

Charts, graphs, maps, photographs, quotations, stories, and short summaries can make findings easier to understand. Use personal stories or photographs only with meaningful consent and avoid presenting people primarily through hardship.

Community dashboards and report cards

Some communities organize assessment findings into a community report card, dashboard, scorecard, or indicator report.

These tools can make trends easier to see, but grades or scores can sometimes oversimplify complex conditions. When using them, explain how ratings were determined, what comparisons are being made, and what limitations the measures have.

A dashboard that shows trends, targets, disparities, community experiences, and explanatory context may sometimes provide more useful information than assigning a single letter grade to an issue.

Recognizing community contributions

Assessment and reporting should not focus only on deficiencies. Communities can also recognize individuals, organizations, partnerships, and resident-led efforts that have contributed to progress.

Recognition can:

• Acknowledge people's time, expertise, and contributions
• Encourage additional community participation and leadership
• Draw attention to approaches that are producing useful results
• Reinforce the importance of community strengths and collaboration
• Show that accountability includes recognizing effective work as well as identifying areas that need improvement

Recognition should be inclusive and should avoid creating the impression that community change depends on exceptional individuals alone. Sustained progress usually reflects the work of many people, organizations, relationships, and systems.

Step 6: Carry out and evaluate the assessment and reporting process

Conduct the assessment, prepare the report, and distribute the findings using the methods and responsibilities established during planning.

Evaluate the process itself as well. Ask whether the methods produced useful information, whether people affected by the issue were meaningfully included, whether findings were understandable and accessible, and whether the report influenced planning or decision-making.

Step 7: Continue and adapt the assessment and reporting process

Community conditions continue to change even after a particular project or initiative ends. If a goal is achieved, continued monitoring can help determine whether progress is being maintained. If goals have not been achieved, assessment can help identify what should change.

Ongoing assessment does not mean that every measure, strategy, or reporting format must continue forever. Periodically review whether the process is still useful, whether indicators remain relevant, and whether the resources devoted to assessment are producing information that communities can act on.

In Summary

Regular community assessment and reporting can help communities understand changing conditions, evaluate progress toward shared goals, identify strengths and barriers, and create accountability for organizations, institutions, and decision-makers.

The process is strongest when it combines quantitative and qualitative information, clearly distinguishes findings from interpretation, makes information accessible, and includes people directly affected by the issues in deciding what should be measured and what the findings mean.

Assessment and reporting should support learning rather than simply assign blame. They can show what is working, where additional resources or changes may be needed, and whether policies, programs, and strategies remain aligned with community priorities.

Useful guidelines include:

• Present assessment and reporting as tools for community learning, improvement, transparency, and shared accountability
• Clarify who has responsibility for the issues and outcomes being examined
• Identify measures that reflect community priorities and meaningful outcomes
• Establish a reporting schedule appropriate to the pace of change and the decisions the information will support
• Use assessment and reporting methods that are accurate, accessible, transparent, and appropriate to the community
• Carry out the process and use the findings to inform decisions
• Continue to evaluate and adapt the process as community conditions, priorities, and information needs change

Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project

The Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project (CAP) has been providing Santa Cruz County with useful data regarding the needs of the County for over 17 years.

Since 1994, a consortium of public and private health, education, human service, and civic organizations convened by the United Way of Santa Cruz County have sponsored the Community Assessment Project of Santa Cruz County (CAP), a collaborative project to measure and improve the quality of life in Santa Cruz County.

The goal of CAP is to continually improve the quality of life for Santa Cruz County residents by:

• Raising public awareness of human needs, changing trends, emerging issues, and community problems;
• Providing accurate, credible and valid information on an ongoing basis to human service planners, and those providing funds;
• Providing information for individual institutions to guide decision-making about creation, management and redesign of programs; setting community goals using measurable quality of life indicators that will lead to positive healthy development for individuals, families, and communities; and
• Supporting and assisting with the establishment of collaborative action plans to achieve the community goals.

The Community Assessment Project Report (CAP) provides a comprehensive view of the quality of life in Santa Cruz County.

Economy

• Goal 1 By the year 2020, reduce the winter unemployment rate by one-half percent, creating 725 new winter jobs in Santa Cruz County.
  • Darrie Ganzhorn
• Goal 2 By the year 2020, increase the housing stock by 1,000 units in Santa Cruz County.
  • Pastor James and Congregation at St. Stephens Lutheran Church

Education

• Goal 1 By the year 2020, all students will be fully connected and engaged with their school community, and will see their school as a welcoming, essential, and safe place.
  • Kathleen Crocetti
• Goal 2 By the year 2020, all students will have broader access to courses and enrichment activities, including visual and performing arts, career technical education and digital technology.
  • Deidre Hamilton
• Goal 3 By the year 2020, all students will be provided sufficient behavior, health, and counseling services to succeed in their chosen educational and career pathways.
  • Live Oak Cradle to Career Parent Leadership

Health

• Goal 1 By the year 2020, all Santa Cruz County residents will have a regular source of primary care and integrated behavioral health services with a focus on: Decreasing disparities; decreasing reliance on Emergency Rooms as a regular source of health care; and increasing access to mental health and substance use disorder treatment.
  • Cathy Simmons
• Goal 2 By the year 2020, obesity in Santa Cruz County will be reduced by 10%.
  • Abby Bell

Public safety

• Goal 1 By the year 2020, the juvenile crime rate will be reduced by 10% through the use of culturally responsive evidence based strategies that promote positive interaction and reduce conflict with public safety officials.
  • Mary Gaukel
• Goal 2 By the year 2020, there will be a 20% reduction in youth reporting gang involvement, resulting in a 10% reduction of gang related criminal activity.
  • Valerie Thompson
• Goal 3 By the year 2020, there will be a 10% decrease in arrests or citations of individuals with chronic SUD/COD through the increase of on-demand treatment for adults with such disorders.
  • Carol Williamson
• Goal 4 By the year 2020, the violent crime rate of 18 to 25 year olds will be reduced by 10% through the use of targeted gang involvement intervention strategies, including restorative practices, street outreach, and alternatives to adult gang involvement.
  • Paulina Moreno

Social environment

• Goal 1 By the year 2020, more Santa Cruz County residents will build meaningful social bridges across differences in age, race, ethnicity, class, and culture.
  • Margaret Gordon
• Goal 2 By the year 2020, schools and communities will be safe, supportive, and engaging places for children, youth, and families.
  • Ingrid Trejo
• Goal 3 By the year 2020, more Santa Cruz County residents will feel empowered to experience and pursue long-term quality of life.

Natural environment

• Goal 1 By the year 2020, residential per capita water use will be sustained at or under 2013 baseline levels through 2020.
• Goal 2 By the year 2020, 5% of homes in Santa Cruz County will have a solar electric or hot water system.
  • Lynne Achtenberg
• Goal 3 By the year 2020, stewardship actions for our waters will be increased by 10%.
• Goal 4 By the year 2020, 50 miles of urban bike and multi-use trails will be constructed within Santa Cruz County to decrease traffic, increase active transportation, and connect urban areas to open spaces.

What do we mean by regular community assessment, reporting, and accountability?

___You use regular assessment to examine anything from specific areas (education, child health) to the overall conditions and quality of life in the community.

___You compare the results of regular assessments to those of the previous assessments, and/or to the benchmarks or long-term goals from your strategic plan.

Why propose regular community assessment, reporting, and accountability?

You propose regular assessment, reporting and accountability because

___They clarify the state of the issues at hand in the community, making ongoing rational planning possible.

___They show which, if any, current efforts are bearing fruit and should be continued or strengthened.

___They show which, if any, current efforts seem to be having less impact than hoped, and need to be watched carefully, changed, or discontinued.

___They define the areas – of both community assets and needs – that should be concentrated on.

___By defining the areas of concentration, they give direction to the initiative, fleshing out the strategic plan, and allowing for changes of emphasis when necessary.

___By showing progress, and shedding light on what needs to be worked on, they motivate the community, officials, and policymakers to continue the effort.

___They keep the community vision before the public, so efforts toward change remain supported.

___They help with maintenance of the effort over time.

___They can hold the feet of politicians, corporations, agencies, and other policymakers to the fire, pointing out their responsibility for addressing issues when appropriate, and reminding the public to whom to complain – or protest – when issues are not addressed.

Who should propose and/or conduct regular community assessment andreporting, and establish accountability?

You propose and/or conduct regular community assessment and reporting, and establish accountability, through the work of :

___A broad-based coalition.

___Local government.

___A local or state agency.

___A grass roots initiative.

___A community-based organization.

___A watchdog or advocacy organization.

When should you propose regular community assessment, reporting, and accountability?

You propose regular community assessment, reporting, and accountability:

___At the beginning of an initiative.

___When an issue is being ignored by policymakers.

___When a high-profile issue has been addressed for a period of time, but there has been no assessment of progress.

___When an issue escalates to crisis proportions.

___When the public demands action on a long-standing issue.

How do you conduct regular community assessment and reporting to gain accountability?

___Present the process as positive.

___Present the process as part of an ongoing effort.

___Present the process as a way for citizens to have a voice in community change.

___Determine whose accountability you hope to increase.

___Establish the areas the assessment will examine.

___Set a regular assessment and reporting schedule.

___Adopt methods of assessment.

___Keep your methods of assessment consistent from one assessment to the next.

___Adopt methods of reporting.

___Determine how to get the reports out to the public.

___Carry out the process.

___Prepare to continue the process indefinitely.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

This video illustrates how community partners worked with local businesses to improve access to healthy, affordable foods.

 

Consider two different approaches a business might take when entering a community.

One company might build on undeveloped land without fully considering effects on nearby ecosystems, transportation, housing, schools, or infrastructure. It might bring most of its workforce from elsewhere, make limited investments in the surrounding community, and comply only with the minimum environmental or community requirements.

Another company might work with residents, local government, environmental organizations, workers, and other community partners before development begins. It might reuse an existing site, invest in energy efficiency, hire and train local workers, provide strong employee benefits, support childcare and transportation, protect nearby natural resources, and contribute to local education, community organizations, and economic development.

These examples represent different approaches to the relationship between an organization and the community in which it operates. In practice, businesses and governments make many decisions involving tradeoffs among economic, social, health, cultural, and environmental goals.

This section examines policies that businesses and governments can adopt to support community health, development, quality of life, and long-term well-being. It also considers how community members can participate in developing and evaluating those policies.

What do we mean by community-friendly policies?

Community-friendly policies are policies that support the well-being of the community and the people who live, work, learn, and participate there. They may strengthen social connection, expand opportunity, protect health and the environment, support economic stability, preserve valued community assets, or help communities adapt to change.

What counts as community-friendly will vary according to local circumstances and priorities. A policy that is useful in one community may not fit another. For that reason, decisions should be informed by community knowledge, relevant evidence, and the experiences of people who will be affected.

Community-friendly policies often have several characteristics:

• They consider each community's circumstances, strengths, priorities, and challenges rather than assuming that one approach will work everywhere.
• They pay attention to community history, culture, social relationships, settlement patterns, and local knowledge.
• They support inclusion and participation so that people from different backgrounds and experiences can contribute to community life and decision-making.
• They consider how transportation, infrastructure, and development decisions may affect existing neighborhoods, community connections, and displacement.
• They seek to avoid discrimination and unnecessary disparities in access, opportunity, services, or investment.
• They protect and maintain natural resources, cultural resources, and valued elements of community history.
• They support health, safety, economic security, accessibility, and quality of life while considering how costs and benefits are distributed across the community.

Ideally, community impact would be considered whenever significant policies are developed. Businesses, public agencies, and community organizations can ask not only whether a policy accomplishes an immediate institutional goal, but also how it affects the wider community over time.

Community-friendly policies can be social, economic, health-related, environmental, cultural, or connected to several of these areas at once. They may come from government, business, nonprofit organizations, institutions, or partnerships among them.

What are some examples of community-friendly policies?

Community-friendly social policies

Social policies influence how people participate in community life, access opportunities and services, interact with institutions, and experience rights and responsibilities.

Governments, businesses, schools, health systems, nonprofit organizations, and other institutions can all adopt social policies.

Examples of community-friendly social policies:

• Affordable housing policies. Rental assistance, affordable-housing development, preservation of existing affordable units, and incentives for mixed-income development can help expand housing options and reduce housing instability.
• Pedestrian-friendly public spaces. Sidewalks, public plazas, trails, traffic calming, accessible streetscapes, and other public spaces can support walking, social connection, recreation, and local businesses.
• Policies prohibiting discrimination. Governments and organizations can establish and enforce protections related to housing, employment, education, public accommodations, lending, and other areas.
• Accessible public transportation. Reliable transportation can connect people with employment, education, health care, shopping, recreation, and community life while reducing dependence on private vehicles.
• Language access and accessible communication. Interpretation, translation, captioning, sign language interpretation, accessible digital materials, plain language, and other communication supports can make public participation and services more accessible.
• Reuse of existing buildings and previously developed land. Rehabilitation and adaptive reuse can preserve community assets, reduce unnecessary land consumption, and create housing, business, cultural, or community space.
• Family-friendly workplace policies. Paid leave, childcare support, flexible scheduling, predictable work hours, and other policies can help workers balance employment and caregiving responsibilities.
• Workplace education and training. Employers may support English-language learning, digital skills, literacy, professional development, apprenticeships, credentialing, and other learning opportunities connected with workers' goals.
• Support for employee community participation. Employers may provide paid volunteer time or other support for employees who contribute to nonprofit organizations, community boards, schools, or other community efforts.
• Support for arts and culture. Businesses and governments can support performances, public art, cultural organizations, community events, and opportunities for local artists.
• Support for recreation. Parks, sports programs, recreation centers, trails, and other opportunities can contribute to physical activity, social connection, and community life.
• Transportation options. Public transportation, employer shuttles, vanpools, biking infrastructure, and accessible transportation can support older adults, people with disabilities, workers, students, households without reliable vehicles, and others who need transportation alternatives.

Community-friendly economic policies

Economic policy affects employment, wages, housing, business development, taxation, infrastructure, education, and people's ability to meet basic needs and pursue economic goals.

Community-friendly economic policies can help expand economic security and opportunity while supporting the long-term stability of the community.

Examples of community-friendly economic policies:

• Place-based economic and community development. Public and private investment can support neighborhoods and communities that have experienced disinvestment through infrastructure, locally owned businesses, housing, workforce development, public spaces, and other community-identified priorities.
• Fair and inclusive hiring practices. Employers and governments can reduce unnecessary barriers in recruitment, hiring, promotion, and retention and expand access to employment for people and communities that have historically faced discrimination or limited opportunity.
• Tax incentives connected with community goals. Governments may use carefully designed incentives to support investment in communities that have experienced disinvestment, environmentally responsible practices, affordable housing, accessibility, or expanded employment opportunities.
• Education and workforce investment. Public investment can expand access to schools, community colleges, universities, apprenticeships, workforce training, adult education, and other learning opportunities.
• Community development funding. Public grants, loans, and other investments may support housing, infrastructure, public facilities, economic development, and services in communities where additional investment is needed.
• Community reinvestment and responsible lending. Financial institutions and public policy can support fair access to credit, responsible lending, small-business development, homeownership, affordable housing, and investment in historically underserved communities.
• Career pathways and advancement. Employers can provide training, mentoring, apprenticeships, tuition support, transparent promotion processes, and opportunities for workers to move from entry-level positions into roles with greater responsibility and compensation.
• Employee ownership and participation. Depending on the organization, profit-sharing, employee stock ownership, cooperatives, or other approaches may give workers a greater financial stake or role in the organization. These approaches should be designed with attention to financial risk and worker protections.
• Support for local businesses and producers. Local purchasing policies can help circulate resources within the community and strengthen relationships among businesses, farms, institutions, and residents.
• Access to responsible small-dollar financing. Community lenders, credit unions, nonprofit organizations, and other institutions may help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital when conventional financing is difficult to obtain.

Small-dollar lending and microfinance can expand opportunity in some settings, but access to credit alone does not eliminate poverty. Outcomes depend on interest rates, repayment requirements, market conditions, borrower protections, business opportunities, and the broader economic environment.

Community-friendly health policies

Health is shaped by more than medical care. Housing, education, food, income, transportation, environmental conditions, working conditions, social connection, safety, and access to health services all influence community health.

Examples of community-friendly health policies:

• Walking and biking infrastructure. Greenways, sidewalks, bike lanes, trails, and other accessible routes can support physical activity, transportation, recreation, and reduced vehicle pollution.
• Smoke-free environments and tobacco-use prevention. Policies can reduce exposure to secondhand smoke while being paired with evidence-informed cessation resources for people who want to stop using tobacco or nicotine products.
• Public recreation facilities. Parks, swimming pools, courts, skate parks, recreation centers, trails, and sports facilities can provide accessible opportunities for physical activity and social connection across the lifespan.
• Access to health care. Public policy, employers, health systems, and community organizations can contribute to affordable and accessible preventive, primary, behavioral, dental, reproductive, and specialty care.
• Support for physical activity and well-being. Employers may provide active transportation benefits, recreation opportunities, wellness spaces, flexible schedules, or access to community facilities.
• Nutritious and culturally relevant food options. Workplaces, schools, health facilities, restaurants, and other organizations can expand the availability, affordability, and variety of foods that support health while respecting individual choice and cultural preferences.
• Protection of air and water quality. Businesses and governments can prevent, reduce, and monitor harmful emissions and discharges and invest in cleaner technologies and environmental protections.
• Employee assistance and behavioral health support. Employers may provide confidential mental health services, substance use treatment and recovery support, financial counseling, stress-management resources, and other services.
• Preventive health services. Employers, health systems, and community organizations may make screenings, vaccinations, preventive care, health education, and referrals easier to access.

Health-promoting workplace practices can benefit both workers and employers, but programs should respect privacy and avoid treating worker health only as a means of increasing productivity.

Community-friendly environmental policies

Community environments include natural systems, built environments, working lands, parks, public spaces, transportation networks, and other places where people live and interact.

Community-friendly environmental policies seek to protect environmental quality, reduce harmful exposure, conserve resources, strengthen climate resilience, and create accessible and livable built environments.

Examples of community-friendly environmental policies:

• Protected natural areas. Governments, land trusts, Tribal governments, communities, and other organizations may protect wildlife habitat, open space, forests, wetlands, waterways, and other environmentally or culturally important places.
• Environmental review of development. Planning and review processes can examine potential effects on air, water, land, wildlife, climate, transportation, health, and surrounding communities before major projects move forward.
• Environmental laws and standards. Air-quality, water-quality, waste-management, chemical-safety, cleanup, and emissions requirements can protect both ecosystems and community health.
• Conservation easements and working-land protection. These tools can help preserve farmland, habitat, open space, culturally important landscapes, and other valued resources while allowing landowners to retain ownership.
• Waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Communities can reduce the amount of material sent to landfills and encourage more efficient use of materials through collection systems, product design, reuse, repair, and recycling.
• Energy-efficient buildings. New construction and renovation can reduce energy use, improve indoor environmental quality, and incorporate renewable energy, efficient water systems, insulation, natural lighting, and other features.
• Community stewardship programs. Businesses, resident groups, schools, nonprofits, and other organizations may participate in litter cleanup, stream restoration, park maintenance, tree planting, and other stewardship activities.
• Urban forestry and green infrastructure. Trees, rain gardens, native plantings, shade, permeable surfaces, and other green infrastructure can reduce heat, manage stormwater, improve air quality, and strengthen public spaces.
• Cleaner technologies and operations. Businesses and governments can invest in technologies and practices that reduce pollution, conserve water and energy, lower emissions, and prevent environmental harm.

Community priorities may sometimes conflict. Preserving open space may compete with housing or commercial development. New infrastructure may create environmental benefits while causing short-term disruption. Environmental cleanup requirements may raise difficult questions about responsibility and cost.

For that reason, no policy should be labeled community-friendly simply because it produces one desirable outcome. Decision-makers and community members should consider who benefits, who bears costs, what alternatives exist, what long-term effects may occur, and whether people affected by the decision have meaningful opportunities to participate.

Why promote community-friendly policies?

Policies shape the conditions in which people live, work, learn, travel, raise families, build businesses, and participate in community life. Community-friendly policies can help align those decisions with long-term community goals.

• Community-friendly policies can improve quality of life. Investments in education, transportation, housing, public spaces, recreation, health, and other community resources can benefit residents and strengthen the community over time.
• Community-friendly policies can advance equity. Policies can reduce unnecessary barriers and expand access to housing, employment, education, transportation, health care, and other opportunities for people and communities that have historically had less access.
• Community-friendly policies can support inclusion and belonging. Policies that respect differences and remove barriers can help more people participate fully in community life.
• Community-friendly policies can support a strong local economy. Good schools, transportation, housing, public spaces, environmental quality, and community services can contribute to workforce stability, business development, and the overall attractiveness of a community.
• Community-friendly policies can support health, environmental quality, economic security, and social well-being. These outcomes are closely connected and should be considered together.

What can make community-friendly policy difficult?

People and organizations may have different priorities, values, financial interests, responsibilities, and understandings of an issue. Economic development, environmental protection, housing, transportation, public spending, and other goals can sometimes compete with one another.

Those differences do not necessarily mean that one side does not care about the community. They may reflect real tradeoffs or different experiences of the same issue.

Inclusive planning can help participants identify where interests overlap, where genuine conflicts remain, who may experience benefits or burdens, and whether alternative approaches could better balance competing goals.

When would you promote community-friendly policies?

Community impact can be considered whenever important policies or investments are being developed or reviewed. Some moments provide particularly useful opportunities for participation:

• When a policy is being developed or reviewed. Legislative sessions, agency reviews, planning processes, organizational policy reviews, budget discussions, and public hearings may provide opportunities to examine community impacts.
• When a new development, construction project, transportation project, park, or community initiative is being planned. Early participation can help incorporate accessibility, environmental protection, housing, transportation, public-space, workforce, and other community considerations before major decisions are finalized.
• When an important community resource or service may be lost. Proposed cuts, closures, demolition, environmental changes, or other major decisions may warrant a careful review of community impacts and alternatives.
• When community members are raising concerns or identifying a shared priority. Resident organizing, community assessments, public meetings, research, or other forms of engagement may show that an issue deserves additional attention.
• When community members are invited to participate in planning or policy development. Use the opportunity to share relevant evidence, community knowledge, potential benefits and burdens, and long-term considerations.

Who should promote community-friendly policies?

Ideally, decisions about what is community-friendly are made through processes that include people and organizations affected by the policy, people responsible for implementing it, decision-makers, and people with relevant community, professional, technical, or lived expertise.

No single organization or group should automatically assume that it speaks for the entire community.

Depending on the issue, participants may include:

• Residents and other people directly affected by the policy
• Resident-led groups, advocates, and community organizers
• Communities with particular interests or experiences, such as multilingual communities, public-housing residents, parents and caregivers, workers, people with lower incomes, people with disabilities, business owners, or others affected by the issue
• Public officials and other public decision-makers
• Public employees who may implement or administer the policy
• Community-based organizations and coalitions
• Schools, colleges, universities, libraries, and other educational institutions
• Businesses, workers, labor organizations, health systems, environmental organizations, professional associations, and others with relevant responsibilities or expertise

Participation should be meaningful rather than symbolic. People should understand what decisions are open to influence, what constraints exist, and how their input will be considered.

How do you promote community-friendly policies?

This part of the section shares some themes with Section 11 of this chapter. Both emphasize community participation, research, communication, and practical approaches to policy development.

Developing community-friendly policy may require changes not only in individual rules, but also in how organizations and communities think about economic development, health, equity, environmental responsibility, accessibility, and community participation.

Decide where to start

You are unlikely to address every community concern at once. Start with an issue that matters to the community and where realistic opportunities for improvement exist.

Involve people from several parts of the community early in the process. A broad-based coalition or participatory planning effort can help identify different priorities, strengths, concerns, and possible tradeoffs.

For example, work related to housing instability could include people with lived experience of homelessness or housing insecurity, housing organizations, employers, health and human service organizations, developers, landlords, local government, neighborhood groups, and other relevant partners.

Rather than assuming that people experiencing homelessness primarily need to "learn skills" or change their behavior, examine the full range of contributing conditions, including housing supply and cost, income, employment, health and behavioral health services, discrimination, transportation, disability, family circumstances, and access to supportive services.

Community surveys, listening sessions, interviews, focus groups, assessments, and other engagement methods can help identify which issues residents consider important.

A first step should be substantial enough to matter but realistic enough to accomplish. A transportation initiative, for example, might begin with improving one route, adding evening service, improving accessibility, or addressing a specific service gap before pursuing a larger system redesign.

Do your homework

Before recommending a policy, understand the issue, the evidence, the experiences of people affected, available alternatives, and potential costs and benefits.

Areas to research may include:

• Other communities or organizations that have addressed similar issues
• Policies that have been implemented elsewhere and what is known about their results
• Evidence-informed or promising practices
• Community strengths, priorities, and barriers
• Alternatives to the initial proposal
• Potential costs, funding sources, and resource requirements
• Potential benefits and how they may be distributed
• Potential unintended consequences or groups that may experience additional burdens

Research can include community data, academic and professional literature, government information, evaluations, interviews, lived experience, community organizations, businesses, public agencies, and other appropriate sources.

Take concerns and disagreements seriously. Evidence that challenges your initial idea may reveal ways to improve the proposal or show that another strategy would work better.

Help develop workable options

Rather than presenting only one predetermined solution, help the community examine several options and the tradeoffs associated with each.

Approaches may include:

• Public-private partnerships. Governments, businesses, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, and other partners may share costs and responsibilities when their goals overlap.
• Community stewardship. Residents, volunteers, neighborhood organizations, or user groups may help maintain parks, trails, gardens, cultural resources, and other community assets when participation is appropriate and adequately supported.
• Pilot programs. A smaller-scale effort can help test an idea, identify implementation problems, gather participant feedback, and improve the approach before a larger investment.
• Incentives. Governments or organizations may provide financial or other benefits to encourage practices that support identified community goals.
• Fees or dedicated revenue. Some services and facilities may use fees, taxes, grants, or a combination of revenue sources. Consider affordability and equitable access when designing these systems.
• Recognition. Communities may recognize organizations that demonstrate measurable commitments to environmental responsibility, accessibility, worker well-being, local investment, or other community priorities.

Be clear about benefits, costs, and tradeoffs

Avoid assuming that every community-friendly proposal will benefit everyone equally or create no costs. Housing, transportation, environmental, economic-development, and other policies often involve genuine tradeoffs.

Explain what the proposal is intended to accomplish, what evidence supports it, what resources are required, who may benefit, who may experience costs or disruption, and how unintended effects will be addressed.

Transparent discussion strengthens decision-making and can reveal improvements that would otherwise be overlooked.

Recognize effective community contributions

Businesses, public agencies, community organizations, resident groups, workers, and individuals that contribute meaningfully to community goals can be recognized publicly when appropriate.

Recognition should be based on meaningful practices and results rather than image alone. It should also acknowledge that community change usually depends on many contributors rather than a single organization or individual.

Communicate clearly and consistently

Share information with community members, businesses, public agencies, workers, organizations, and others who may be affected by or interested in the issue.

Communication channels may include:

• Local and community media
• Labor unions and worker organizations
• Chambers of Commerce and other business associations
• Resident groups, community organizers, and community-based organizations
• Professional associations
• Appropriate communication with public decision-makers
• Direct communication with relevant businesses and organizational leaders
• Community meetings, newsletters, websites, social media, surveys, listening sessions, and other accessible communication channels

Communication should be two-way. Providing information is important, but so is creating opportunities for questions, disagreement, feedback, and revision.

Community participation should also be made accessible. Depending on the setting, that may include childcare, transportation, interpretation, captioning, disability accommodations, virtual participation, scheduling options, or compensation for substantial community participation.

Build broad participation

Community-friendly policy is generally stronger when it incorporates several kinds of knowledge and experience rather than relying only on people with formal authority or institutional influence.

Participants may include:

• Labor unions and worker organizations
• Workers and families
• Resident groups, advocates, and community organizers
• Community organizations and institutions, including faith communities, health systems, colleges, universities, libraries, and cultural organizations
• Businesses and business associations
• Public agencies and public officials
• Community members with relevant knowledge, relationships, or lived experience

Be clear about whose perspectives are represented and whose may still be missing. Broad participation does not mean everyone will agree, but it can help decision-makers understand the range of consequences and priorities involved.

Participate in appropriate decision-making and civic processes

The appropriate approach depends on whether the decision belongs to a business, public agency, local government, legislature, school system, or another institution.

Possible forms of participation include:

• Direct communication with businesses. Community members, workers, organizations, and businesses may meet to discuss concerns, evidence, possible changes, and areas of shared interest.
• Collective bargaining and worker-management processes. When applicable, labor organizations and employers may address workplace policies through established negotiation processes.
• Business, professional, and trade-association participation. Associations may develop voluntary standards, provide technical assistance, share evidence, or participate in policy discussions.
• Public-policy participation. Organizations and community members may provide information, attend public meetings, submit comments, participate in hearings, or communicate with public officials through appropriate channels.
• Public communication and media engagement.
• Community organizing and other lawful civic participation. Residents and organizations may use petitions, public meetings, demonstrations, administrative complaints, legal processes, or other lawful approaches to raise concerns and participate in decision-making.

Different forms of participation fit different situations. Begin by understanding who has authority, what formal process exists, what rights and responsibilities participants have, and what evidence and community perspectives are relevant.

Collaboration can be useful when people and institutions share enough common purpose to work together. In other situations, substantial disagreements may remain. The goal should not be to eliminate disagreement or pressure everyone toward one predetermined position, but to make sure decisions are informed by reliable evidence, community experience, transparent processes, and consideration of likely benefits, costs, and unintended consequences.

Continue evaluating community-friendly policies over time

Community conditions, evidence, technologies, economic circumstances, and priorities change. Policies that worked well at one point may need to be revised later.

Continue asking:

• Is the policy achieving its intended goals?
• Who is benefiting?
• Who may be experiencing unintended burdens?
• Are community members able to participate meaningfully in decisions?
• Have new circumstances or evidence changed what the community needs?
• Are resources being distributed fairly and effectively?
• Should the policy continue, change, expand, or end?

The long-term goal is not to preserve every policy indefinitely, but to make consideration of community impact a regular part of decision-making.

In Summary

Community-friendly policies are social, economic, health, environmental, and organizational policies that contribute to community well-being while respecting differences, protecting important community resources, expanding opportunity, and considering how benefits and burdens are distributed.

What counts as community-friendly cannot always be determined in advance. Communities may face real tradeoffs involving housing, employment, transportation, economic development, environmental protection, public spending, cultural preservation, and other priorities.

Strong policy processes therefore include people directly affected by the issue, community organizations, businesses, workers, public agencies, technical experts, and others with relevant knowledge and responsibilities.

Useful steps include identifying an achievable starting point, gathering reliable information, examining alternatives and tradeoffs, developing workable options, communicating clearly, creating meaningful opportunities for community participation, and evaluating results over time.

The long-term goal is to make community well-being a routine consideration in significant policy decisions and to create processes in which people across the community have meaningful opportunities to help shape the decisions that affect them.

What do we mean by community-friendly policies?

___Community-friendly policies are those social, economic, health, and environmental policies that make the community healthier and improve its quality of life.

___Community-friendly policies respect cultural and other diversity, community history, and environmental integrity.

___Community-friendly policies regard each community as unique, and take its characteristics into account.

___Community-friendly policies use the community as the context for policy-making.

Why promote community-friendly policies?

___Community-friendly policies help everyone in the community.

___Community-friendly policies promote equity.

___Community-friendly policies promote diversity.

___Community-friendly policies are good for business.

___Community-friendly policies help politicians get reelected.

___Community-friendly policies promote community health, environmental quality, financial stability, and social justice.

When would you promote community-friendly policies?

___When policy is specifically being debated. 

___When something new is about to be started. 

___When there's an election.

___When there's a crisis in the making.

___When there's a public groundswell for community-friendly policy in a specific area.

___When the community is invited to the table.

Who should promote community-friendly policies?

___Everyone.

___Stakeholders (i.e. those most directly affected by the policy).

___Community activists.

___Particular populations or groups who may have an interest (language minorities, public housing tenants, parents of children in the schools, the business community, low-income workers, etc.)

___Public officials, both elected and appointed.

___Public employees (who may be asked to carry out or administer policy).

___Community-based organizations and community coalitions.

___Educational institutions.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What are family-friendly policies?

• Why consider family-friendly policies in the workplace and government?

• Who should be involved in developing family-friendly policies?

• When should family-friendly policies be considered or reviewed?

• How can workplaces and communities develop family-friendly policies?

Luz was finding it difficult to balance work and family responsibilities. She worked as a housekeeper at a hospital and was raising four children. Her schedule was demanding, but she consistently arrived on time, did her work well, and had recently been told that she might be promoted to team leader.

Then her three-year-old was diagnosed with asthma. The relative who had been providing child care no longer felt prepared to manage a possible medical emergency, and Luz did not have an affordable alternative.

Luz faced a situation familiar to many workers with caregiving responsibilities: her ability to remain employed depended not only on her commitment to her job, but also on whether safe, reliable child care was available.

When she explained the situation to her supervisor, she learned that other hospital employees had raised similar concerns. The hospital had begun planning an employee child care program. In the meantime, the organization worked with Luz to identify a temporary solution that allowed her to remain employed and continue pursuing the promotion.

This fictional example illustrates why workplace policies matter. Employees do not leave their family responsibilities, health needs, or caregiving roles behind when they come to work. Policies that recognize those realities can help workers remain employed while meeting responsibilities that are important to them.

Family-friendly workplaces and communities seek to make work, caregiving, health, and family life more compatible. This section explores what family-friendly policies can include, the benefits and tradeoffs they may involve, and how employers, workers, government, and community members can participate in developing them.

What are family-friendly policies?

In this section, "family-friendly" refers to policies that recognize that people may have responsibilities to children, partners, parents, older relatives, family members with disabilities, chosen family, or others who depend on their care and support.

There are two broad areas to consider:

• Workplace policies that help employees balance work, caregiving, personal health, and family responsibilities.
• Government policies and public investments that influence whether families and caregivers have access to leave, child care, health care, transportation, education, housing, long-term services and supports, and other resources.

Not every policy will work equally well for every workplace, job, or family. A hospital, restaurant, construction company, school, manufacturing plant, and software company may have very different staffing and scheduling needs. Effective policies therefore consider both employee needs and the realities of the work being performed.

Family-friendly workplace policies

Family-friendly workplace policies can take many forms. Some directly address caregiving, while others provide workers with greater flexibility, stability, or access to resources that make it easier to manage responsibilities outside of work.

Examples include:

• Flexible scheduling. When the work allows it, employees may have some choice in when they begin or end their workday, which days they work, or how their weekly hours are arranged.
• Predictable scheduling. Workers whose jobs require set shifts may benefit from receiving schedules far enough in advance to arrange child care, transportation, medical appointments, education, or other responsibilities.
• Job sharing. Two employees may share the responsibilities and hours of one full-time position when the role can reasonably be structured that way.
• Temporary or longer-term changes in hours. An employee may move between full-time and part-time work when organizational needs and the employee's circumstances make that possible.
• Remote or hybrid work. Some roles can be performed away from the primary worksite for part or all of the workweek. Remote work can reduce commuting time and provide flexibility, although it is not possible for every occupation and does not replace child care or other caregiving when a worker needs to be fully engaged in job duties.
• Parental leave. Employees may receive paid or unpaid time away from work following the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child.
• Caregiving leave. Short-term leave can allow employees to care for a sick child or other family member, attend medical appointments, participate in school meetings and events, or respond to other caregiving responsibilities.
• Family and medical leave. Longer periods of leave may be needed when an employee or family member has a serious health condition, when an employee becomes a parent, or in other qualifying circumstances.
• Emergency and personal leave. Employees may be provided with paid or unpaid time to respond to unexpected family, health, transportation, housing, or other urgent circumstances.
• Employee and family health benefits. Depending on the employer, benefits may include health coverage, mental and behavioral health services, dental care, employee assistance programs, wellness resources, or other supports.
• Child care support. Employers may provide on-site child care, reserve spaces with community providers, offer subsidies or flexible spending options, provide referrals, or partner with other organizations to expand child care access.
• Support for employees caring for older adults or family members with disabilities. Employers may provide referral services, caregiver resources, flexible scheduling, leave, or other forms of assistance.
• Lactation and infant-feeding support. Appropriate time, private space, refrigeration, scheduling flexibility, and other workplace practices can support employees who are breastfeeding or expressing milk.
• Bereavement leave. Policies may provide employees with time to grieve, make arrangements, participate in cultural or religious practices, and support family members after a death.
• Family-inclusive events. Workplace gatherings may be designed so that employees can include children, partners, caregivers, or other family members when appropriate.
• Family-supportive workplace practices. Some workplaces may have appropriate spaces or procedures for occasional situations in which an employee unexpectedly needs to have a child or dependent with them, when doing so is safe and compatible with the work environment.
• Education and professional development benefits.
• Education support for employees and families. Employers may offer tuition assistance, scholarships, student-loan support, education savings contributions, or other benefits depending on organizational resources and priorities.
• Employee assistance and caregiver resources. Programs may provide confidential counseling, parenting resources, caregiver support, financial counseling, substance use services, legal referrals, or other assistance.

In the United States, federal, state, and local laws may establish minimum leave, accommodation, or workplace requirements. Eligibility and benefits vary according to the law and the employee's circumstances. Employers and employees should use current official guidance when determining which protections apply.

Family-friendly government policies

Government can affect family well-being in two different roles. First, public agencies are employers and can establish workplace policies for their own employees. Second, governments establish laws, regulations, programs, funding priorities, and public services that affect families and caregivers throughout the community.

Depending on the jurisdiction and policy goals, government approaches may include:

• Establishing employment standards. Laws or regulations may address areas such as family and medical leave, workplace accommodations, nondiscrimination, child labor, scheduling, workplace safety, or other employment conditions.
• Supporting access to health coverage and health services. Public policy can influence whether children, adults, caregivers, older adults, and people with disabilities can obtain affordable health care.
• Using grants, tax incentives, or subsidies. Governments may provide financial incentives or assistance connected with child care, dependent care, paid leave, accessibility, health benefits, or other family-supportive practices.
• Funding family and caregiver services. Public funding may support child care, nutrition, education, disability services, caregiver support, behavioral health, family resource programs, and long-term services and supports.
• Providing public spaces and community facilities. Parks, recreation centers, libraries, pools, playgrounds, cultural facilities, and other public spaces can create opportunities for families and community members to gather, learn, exercise, and participate in community life.
• Designing public services with families, young people, older adults, and people with disabilities in mind. Transportation, parks, recreation, public safety, sidewalks, public buildings, libraries, and other services can be designed to be safe, accessible, and usable by people at different stages of life.
• Supporting affordable child care and early learning. Governments may fund, regulate, subsidize, or partner with providers to expand access to safe and reliable child care.
• Supporting caregivers and long-term services. Policies may provide information, respite care, home- and community-based services, transportation, or other resources for people caring for older adults, family members with disabilities, or people with serious health conditions.
• Providing information and technical assistance. Public agencies may share research, model policies, implementation resources, or technical assistance with employers and community organizations.

Different policy approaches involve different costs, responsibilities, eligibility requirements, and effects. Communities should examine who benefits, who may face barriers, how policies will be funded, and whether the proposed approach fits local needs and legal requirements.

Why consider family-friendly policies?

Family-friendly policies can create benefits for employees, families, employers, and communities, but the effects depend on the policy, workplace, workforce, and how the policy is implemented.

They can give workers more flexibility to meet caregiving responsibilities

Flexible schedules, leave, child care, predictable work hours, and other supports can make it easier for employees to care for children or other family members without unnecessarily leaving employment.

These policies may also help parents and caregivers participate in school activities, health appointments, family events, and other responsibilities that occur during traditional work hours.

They can reduce work-family conflict and stress

Employees may experience significant stress when work requirements conflict with child care, health needs, caregiving, transportation, or other responsibilities.

Policies that provide flexibility, predictability, leave, and access to supportive resources can reduce some of these conflicts. They cannot eliminate all sources of stress, but they can give workers more options for responding to changing circumstances.

They can expand employees' ability to make choices about work and caregiving

Greater flexibility can give workers more influence over how they manage their time and responsibilities.

This does not mean that every employee needs the same policy. Some employees may value remote work, others predictable shifts, paid leave, child care assistance, caregiver support, or the ability to temporarily reduce their hours.

They may support employee recruitment, retention, engagement, and productivity

Employers may benefit when workers are able to remain in their jobs, maintain reliable attendance, and manage family responsibilities without repeatedly facing conflicts that force them to reduce hours or leave employment.

The effect will vary by workplace and policy. Employers should evaluate their own results rather than assuming that every family-friendly benefit will produce the same return.

They can support economic stability for workers and families

Maintaining employment during periods of caregiving, illness, childbirth, or family transition can help households maintain income, benefits, job experience, and career opportunities.

Access matters, however. Policies are less equitable when workers with the fewest resources or the least control over their schedules are also the least likely to qualify for or be able to use them.

They may strengthen workplace inclusion

Family responsibilities are not limited to parents of young children. Employees may care for older relatives, partners, siblings, family members with disabilities, foster children, or others.

Inclusive policies avoid assuming that every household has the same structure or that caregiving is primarily the responsibility of women.

They can contribute to community well-being

Workplace and public policies can influence whether families have time, income, transportation, child care, health services, and other resources that support participation in community life.

Family-friendly policy can therefore be viewed as one part of a broader community strategy involving housing, education, health, transportation, economic security, accessibility, and social connection.

Family-friendly policies are not automatically cost-free or universally beneficial. A flexible schedule may be easy to offer in one occupation and difficult in another. A benefit may help employees who can use it while excluding workers who do not meet eligibility requirements. Paid leave or child care assistance also requires funding.

Good policy design makes these tradeoffs visible and looks for ways to distribute access and responsibility fairly.

Who should be involved in developing family-friendly policies?

People who use, administer, fund, or are affected by these policies can all contribute useful perspectives.

Depending on the issue, participants may include:

• Employees with different job types, schedules, income levels, and caregiving responsibilities
• Labor unions and worker organizations
• Employee groups and resident-led community groups
• Professional associations
• Community-based, health, human service, disability, caregiver, and family-support organizations
• Human resources professionals and workplace managers
• Small-business owners and larger employers
• Child care and early-learning providers
• Organizations supporting older adults and family caregivers
• People with disabilities and disability organizations
• Public agencies and public officials when government policy is involved
• Researchers or other experts when technical evidence is needed

Workers and caregivers who experience these policies directly should have meaningful opportunities to describe what is useful, what creates barriers, and what is missing.

Personal experience can add important context, but no employee or family member should be expected to disclose private family, health, financial, or caregiving circumstances in order for their perspective to be taken seriously.

Businesses and managers can contribute information about staffing, scheduling, costs, legal requirements, and operational feasibility. Worker representatives can help identify how a policy may affect employees in different roles.

Public officials and agency staff can explain legal authority, available resources, administrative requirements, and public decision-making processes when government action is being considered.

Media organizations can help inform the public about workplace and family issues, but they remain independent sources of information rather than participants whose role is to support one side of a policy debate.

A broad-based working group or coalition may be useful when a policy affects many sectors, but no coalition should assume that it automatically represents every family, employer, worker, or community member.

When should family-friendly policies be considered or reviewed?

Workplaces and communities can review family-supportive policies whenever employee experience, community conditions, evidence, or organizational needs suggest that existing approaches are not working well.

Useful opportunities include:

• When employees or families identify recurring barriers. Difficulties with child care, leave, scheduling, health needs, transportation, or caregiving may indicate that existing policies should be reviewed.
• When economic or community conditions change. Rising child care costs, workforce shortages, public health emergencies, transportation changes, housing instability, or other conditions may affect what employees and families need.
• When new research or community data provide additional information. Evidence related to employee retention, caregiver stress, child care access, workforce participation, health, or other outcomes may provide a reason to review existing approaches.
• During labor negotiations or workplace policy review. Employees and employers may consider scheduling, leave, child care, benefits, remote work, and other issues through established negotiation or organizational processes.
• During workforce or economic development planning. Child care, transportation, education, health services, housing, and caregiver supports may affect whether people can participate in the workforce and whether employers can recruit and retain employees.
• When an organization is redesigning work. New technology, changes in operating hours, workplace relocation, hybrid work, staffing changes, or organizational restructuring can provide opportunities to reconsider how work and caregiving responsibilities interact.
• When laws or regulations change. Employers and public agencies should review policies when new workplace, leave, accessibility, nondiscrimination, child care, or other requirements take effect.

How can workplaces and communities develop family-friendly policies?

Developing family-friendly policy involves more than choosing from a list of benefits. It requires understanding what workers and families need, what the workplace or community can reasonably provide, which barriers affect different groups, and how a policy will be implemented and evaluated.

Decide where to start

Begin by identifying the issues that matter most to the people affected.

Surveys, listening sessions, interviews, focus groups, benefits data, exit interviews, employee resource groups, and other forms of engagement can help identify priorities.

Avoid assuming that needs can be predicted simply from job title, income, gender, or family structure. For example, employees working fixed shifts may value schedule predictability, while others may place greater value on remote-work flexibility, paid leave, child care assistance, or caregiver support.

A clear starting goal can make planning more manageable. If child care is a major barrier, for example, possible responses might include subsidies, partnerships with local providers, reserved child care spaces, backup-care programs, flexible scheduling, dependent-care benefits, or an on-site program.

Do your homework

Before recommending a policy, examine:

• Employee and family priorities in the workplace or community
• Similar policies used elsewhere and what is known about their results
• Examples from workplaces or communities with similar circumstances
• Potential benefits for workers, families, employers, and the community
• Potential costs and possible funding approaches
• Concerns raised by employers, workers, caregivers, service providers, or others who may be affected
• Alternatives to the initial proposal
• Whether some workers would have less access to the benefit than others
• Current legal or contractual requirements
• How the policy will be evaluated after implementation

Research may include current government guidance, academic and professional research, employee data, community assessments, interviews, workplace experience, and information from labor, business, caregiver, disability, child care, and community organizations.

The purpose of research should be to understand the issue, not simply to develop responses to people who disagree. Concerns may reveal costs, implementation difficulties, unequal access, or unintended consequences that can improve the final policy.

Develop several workable options

Different workplaces may need different approaches.

For child care, for example, options might include:

• Employer-supported or on-site child care
• Partnerships with existing community child care providers
• Employer subsidies or dependent-care benefits
• Backup child care
• Flexible or predictable scheduling
• Reserved spaces with local providers

For remote or hybrid work, consider technology, cybersecurity, communication, accessibility, equipment, reimbursement, work hours, performance expectations, and which roles can reasonably be performed away from the worksite.

Leave policies may require decisions about eligibility, length of leave, pay, job protection, staffing coverage, use of accrued leave, and how benefits interact with applicable laws or collective bargaining agreements.

Government-supported programs likewise involve choices about eligibility, public cost, funding sources, accessibility, administration, and how benefits interact with existing public or workplace programs.

Consider access and equity

Family-friendly benefits can unintentionally create new disparities if they are primarily available to employees with greater income, seniority, professional status, schedule control, or ability to work remotely.

Review:

• Which workers are eligible
• Whether hourly, part-time, temporary, contract, or shift workers have access
• Whether employees can realistically afford to use unpaid benefits
• Whether policies recognize different family and caregiving structures
• Whether employees with disabilities and caregivers of people with disabilities face additional barriers
• Whether information is available in accessible formats and relevant languages
• Whether supervisors apply the policy consistently

Equal treatment does not always mean offering every employee the exact same form of flexibility. Different types of work may require different approaches, but differences should have clear operational reasons rather than reflecting assumptions about which employees are more deserving of flexibility.

Be clear about benefits, costs, and tradeoffs

Avoid framing every proposal as a guaranteed "win-win." Some policies may involve significant costs, staffing challenges, administrative requirements, or tradeoffs.

A transparent discussion should explain:

• What problem the policy is intended to address
• Who would be eligible
• How employees and families may benefit
• What responsibilities the employer or government would take on
• What the policy is expected to cost
• How work will be covered when employees use the benefit
• What alternatives were considered
• What unintended consequences may occur
• How success will be measured

Recognize workplaces and institutions that develop effective practices

Employers, public agencies, labor-management partnerships, or community organizations may be recognized for policies that demonstrably improve workplace flexibility, caregiver support, access, or employee well-being.

Recognition should be based on meaningful practices and employee experience rather than simply on whether an organization has adopted a particular label or benefit.

Build broad participation

When policy affects many people, include several perspectives in the discussion.

Participants might include:

• Labor unions and worker organizations
• Employees and caregivers
• Businesses and business associations
• Public agencies and public officials when government policy is involved
• Community organizations and people with relevant lived, professional, or technical knowledge

Participation should not be limited to the people with the most institutional influence. Frontline employees, hourly workers, caregivers, employees with disabilities, and others who may experience policies differently can identify issues that leadership may not see.

Communicate clearly

Share accurate information with employees, employers, community organizations, public agencies, and others affected by the proposal.

Useful channels may include:

• Community and local media
• Labor unions and worker organizations
• Chambers of Commerce and other business associations
• Professional associations
• Appropriate communication with public decision-makers
• Direct communication with employers, managers, human resources staff, and organizational leaders
• Employee meetings, surveys, newsletters, websites, social media, listening sessions, and other accessible communication channels

Communication should be two-way. Workers and community members should have opportunities to ask questions, identify concerns, suggest alternatives, and understand how decisions are being made.

Participate through appropriate workplace, community, and public processes

The appropriate process depends on who has authority to make the decision.

Possible approaches include:

• Collective bargaining and labor-management discussions.
• Business, professional, or trade-association discussions about workplace practices.
• Peer learning among employers that have implemented different family-supportive approaches.
• Participation in legislative, regulatory, budget, or other public-policy processes when government action is being considered.
• Public communication and media engagement.
• Community organizing and other lawful civic participation. Employees and community members may use meetings, petitions, complaints, demonstrations, administrative processes, legal processes, or other appropriate approaches when they believe an issue requires additional attention.

Different participants may disagree about the appropriate policy. Keep the discussion focused on the evidence, employee and family experience, operational realities, costs, accessibility, legal responsibilities, and likely consequences of different options.

Evaluate and adapt family-friendly policies

Once a policy is implemented, examine whether it is working as intended.

Questions may include:

• Are employees able to use the policy without unreasonable barriers?
• Are some groups using or benefiting from it much more than others?
• Has the policy affected employee retention, absenteeism, recruitment, morale, or other workplace outcomes?
• Do employees report less conflict between work and caregiving responsibilities?
• What costs or staffing challenges has the employer experienced?
• Are supervisors applying the policy consistently?
• Are employees concerned about stigma or career consequences when using the benefit?
• Have family or community needs changed?
• Should the policy continue, change, expand, or end?

Evaluation should include employee experience as well as organizational outcomes. A policy may exist on paper but provide little benefit if workers believe they cannot use it without risking income, advancement, scheduling opportunities, or workplace relationships.

Continue reviewing policies as circumstances change

Workplaces, families, technology, laws, and community conditions continue to change. Family-friendly policy should therefore be reviewed periodically rather than assumed to be complete once a benefit has been adopted.

The goal is not to preserve every policy indefinitely. It is to create workplace and community systems that can respond to changing caregiving responsibilities, workforce conditions, evidence, and community priorities.

In Summary

Family-friendly policies recognize that workers and community members may also be parents, caregivers, partners, people managing health conditions, or people supporting family members at different stages of life.

Workplace approaches may include flexible or predictable scheduling, remote or hybrid work where appropriate, parental and caregiving leave, health benefits, child care support, caregiver resources, education benefits, and other practices that help people balance employment with responsibilities outside of work.

Government policies and public investments may also influence child care, health care, leave, transportation, education, long-term services and supports, accessibility, recreation, and other conditions that affect families and caregivers.

These policies can create benefits for workers, employers, families, and communities, but they also involve questions about cost, eligibility, staffing, implementation, and equitable access. Not every approach fits every workplace or community.

A strong process:

1. Starts with the experiences and priorities of workers and families.
2. Uses current evidence and information about what has worked in comparable settings.
3. Develops several workable options rather than assuming there is only one solution.
4. Considers access, equity, cost, implementation, and possible unintended consequences.
5. Explains both potential benefits and tradeoffs clearly.
6. Includes workers, caregivers, employers, community organizations, and other people affected by the policy.
7. Uses clear, accessible, two-way communication.
8. Works through the appropriate workplace, labor, organizational, or public decision-making process.
9. Evaluates how the policy works in practice and adapts it when necessary.
10. Continues reviewing policies as workplaces, families, evidence, and community conditions change.

The goal is not to define one model of what a family or family-friendly workplace should look like. It is to create conditions in which people with different family structures, caregiving responsibilities, health needs, and types of work have realistic opportunities to participate in both work and family life.

Example #1: Advancing gender pay equity through family-friendly workplaces

The Gender Pay Equity work group, made up of members from organizations such as the Kansas Children’s Services League, United Community Services of Johnson County, Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, and others, worked to promote family-friendly workplace practices to help close the gender pay gap. They partnered with the Kansas Children’s Services League and the Power of the Positive initiative to help local employers gather employee feedback through surveys and provide free technical assistance for adopting family-friendly policies. To engage employers and share ideas, the group organized a Family Friendly Workplace Summit. The presentation and discussions generated valuable ideas and strategies for making workplaces more supportive of families. The central message emphasized that family-friendly practices benefit businesses, help retain workers, and support the well-being of children in Kansas.

For more information: Family-Friendly Workplaces by the Kansas Children's Service League

 

What are family-friendly policies?

___Employer or workplace policies, in both business and government, that make it possible for employees to more easily balance family and work, and to fulfill both their family and work obligations.

___Government laws, regulations, and social policies that recognize the importance of families to society, and act to meet, directly or indirectly, the needs of children, parents, and the oldest generation.

Why should you promote family-friendly policies in business and government?

You promote family-friendly policies because:

___They allow parents to spend more and better time with their children.

___Family-friendly policies reduce stress not only for parents, but for anyone caring for a family member, or coping with a difficult personal medical problem.

___They allow more choices, making it possible for employees to exercise more control over their lives.

___Employees taking advantage of family-friendly policies are more productive.

___By creating a better work-family balance, family-friendly policies allow employees in two-income or single parent families to improve their economic status and quality of life.

___Family-friendly policies help employers keep valuable employees.

___Family-friendly employers have more to offer new job candidates, and are thus able to recruit and hire the best.

___Family-friendly policies generate employee loyalty.

___Family-friendly policies are better for family stability and for children, thus improving the outlook for the next generation.

___They allow more people to work, and thus to contribute to the society.

___Family friendly policies are fairer to employees, reflecting, better than many other business practices the values of an egalitarian and democratic society.

Who should promote family-friendly policies?

To promote family-friendly policies, you enlist:

___Business people, especially those who have instituted family-friendly policies in their own businesses.

___Politicians and other policy makers.

___People affected by family-friendly policies, or those affiliated with them, such as unions.

___Key individuals.

___The media.

___A broad-based coalition, including most or all of the above, as well as community members.

When should you promote family-friendly policies in business and government?

You promote family-friendly policies:

___When employees and families broach the topic themselves.

___When you can demonstrate that families are having a difficult time.

___When family issues are in the news.

___When family becomes an issue in a political campaign.

___During labor negotiations.

___During a community development campaign.

How do you promote family-friendly policies in business and government?

 

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.

• What do we mean by modifying policies to enhance the quality of services?

• Why modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

• Who should work to modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

• When should you try to modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

• How do you modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

The quality of community services is shaped by more than individual effort. Laws, regulations, funding requirements, professional standards, organizational policies, staffing practices, accessibility, and accountability systems all influence what people experience when they use a service.

History offers many examples of why these safeguards matter. Residential care, health care, education, childcare, behavioral health, housing, and other services have all developed stronger standards over time in response to concerns about safety, neglect, discrimination, accessibility, professional practice, and participant rights.

At the same time, standards alone do not guarantee excellent services. A program can meet minimum requirements and still fall short of what participants and communities need. Quality improvement therefore involves both establishing appropriate safeguards and creating systems that listen to participants, evaluate outcomes, support staff, and adapt as evidence and community priorities change.

This section examines how policies can be developed or modified to improve service quality, who should participate in that process, when policy change may be appropriate, and how standards can be designed without becoming unnecessarily rigid or exclusionary.

What do we mean by modifying policies to enhance the quality of services?

Services are shaped by policies at many levels. Those policies may come from legislators, government agencies, public or private funders, professional associations, accrediting organizations, service providers, or the organizations themselves.

Policies intended to improve quality should help services:

• Employ or involve people who have the knowledge, skills, support, and qualifications appropriate to their roles.
• Provide services in facilities, digital environments, and community settings that are safe, accessible, well maintained, and appropriate for their purpose.
• Follow professional, organizational, and community-based ethical standards, including privacy, informed consent, appropriate boundaries, nondiscrimination, and protection from abuse or exploitation.
• Use evidence-informed and context-appropriate practices while remaining responsive to participant preferences, culture, lived experience, and changing knowledge.
• Make services physically, financially, linguistically, digitally, and otherwise accessible to the people and communities they are intended to support.
• Establish quality and safety standards that protect participants while respecting autonomy, dignity, culture, and rights.
• Evaluate services regularly and use findings, participant feedback, and community input to improve them.

Quality policy may address each of these areas differently.

Competence, qualifications, and staff support

No credential can guarantee that someone will be effective in every setting. Competence depends on education, training, experience, supervision, judgment, communication, cultural humility, continuing learning, and the ability to work respectfully with participants and colleagues.

Training and thoughtful hiring can help organizations build a capable workforce. In many fields, licensure, certification, credentialing, or registration also establish minimum qualifications for particular roles.

These terms do not always mean the same thing. Requirements differ by profession and jurisdiction. Some credentials are established by government, others by professional associations or accrediting bodies, and some occupations use several levels of credentialing based on education, supervised practice, experience, or examination.

Credentials can help establish a baseline of preparation, but strong policies should also consider:

• Ongoing supervision and professional development
• Role-specific competencies
• Cultural and linguistic responsiveness
• Accessibility knowledge
• Trauma-informed and participant-centered practice where relevant
• Lived and community expertise
• Demonstrated performance and participant outcomes

Policies should avoid assuming that formal credentials are the only source of expertise. Peer workers, community health workers, recovery specialists, cultural navigators, and others may bring forms of knowledge and trust that traditional professional qualifications do not capture.

Facilities and service environments meet appropriate standards

The quality of a service is affected by the environment in which it is provided. Hospitals, schools, residential programs, childcare programs, shelters, clinics, community centers, and other settings should be safe, clean, accessible, appropriately equipped, and supportive of the people who use them.

Depending on the service, licensing or accreditation standards may address several areas:

• Physical environment and accessibility. Buildings and spaces should be safe, maintained, usable by people with disabilities, and appropriate for the services provided. This may include accessible entrances and restrooms, appropriate heating and cooling, functioning utilities, safe equipment, adequate lighting, privacy, and other features.
• Staffing. Policies may establish qualifications, staffing levels, supervision requirements, access to specialized professionals, continuing education, and other workforce standards.
• Participant experience and well-being. Standards may address privacy, dignity, respectful communication, access to meaningful activities, social connection, personal choice, health care, behavioral health support, and opportunities to raise concerns.
• Practices and procedures. Organizations may be required to maintain appropriate financial controls, emergency procedures, maintenance systems, confidentiality protections, complaint processes, ethical safeguards, documentation, and quality-improvement systems.

Humane and respectful treatment should apply in all service environments, including correctional and detention settings. Safety, accountability, and security requirements do not eliminate the importance of dignity, health care, appropriate conditions, and protection from abuse.

Ethical standards guide services and relationships

Professional ethical standards may address confidentiality, informed consent, conflicts of interest, appropriate boundaries, discrimination, participant rights, abuse of authority, privacy, and other responsibilities.

Organizations may also develop ethical standards of their own when professional standards do not cover all aspects of their work.

Policies can strengthen ethical practice by:

• Defining expectations clearly
• Providing training and supervision
• Establishing confidential complaint and reporting processes
• Protecting people from retaliation
• Creating clear procedures for responding to ethical violations
• Including participant perspectives when ethical standards affect their rights or experiences

Services use evidence-informed and context-appropriate practices

Programs should be aware of current evidence, professional knowledge, and approaches that have worked in similar settings. At the same time, no practice is automatically appropriate for every community or every participant.

Rather than treating "best practice" as a rigid formula, it may be more useful to think in terms of evidence-informed, context-appropriate practice.

Strong service delivery may combine:

• Research evidence
• Professional expertise
• Community knowledge
• Lived experience
• Participant preferences and goals
• Cultural and linguistic context
• Ongoing evaluation

Policy should create room for innovation when an organization can demonstrate that an alternative approach is ethical, safe, responsive to participants, and producing strong results. Standards should protect quality without preventing promising new approaches simply because they differ from familiar models.

Services are accessible

Accessibility includes more than whether a building can be entered.

Services may need to consider:

• Physical accessibility for people with disabilities
• Transportation and location
• Affordability
• Scheduling and hours
• Language access
• Digital access
• Communication access
• Childcare or caregiving responsibilities
• Eligibility requirements
• Privacy and confidentiality
• Whether participants experience the environment as respectful and welcoming

Policy can address some of these directly through accessibility, funding, eligibility, or nondiscrimination requirements. Other barriers may be best addressed through organizational practice and continued participant feedback.

Services meet appropriate quality and safety standards

Quality standards can apply to many different areas. They may address environmental quality, housing conditions, food safety and nutrition, health care, education, childcare, disability access, behavioral health, transportation, or other services.

Standards may be incorporated into laws, regulations, contracts, accreditation requirements, funding agreements, or internal organizational policies.

Good standards should:

• Protect participants from preventable harm
• Reflect current evidence and professional knowledge
• Be clear enough to implement consistently
• Allow appropriate flexibility for different communities and circumstances
• Avoid unnecessary administrative burdens
• Be reviewed and updated as evidence and community conditions change

Services are evaluated and improved over time

Evaluation should be part of quality improvement rather than an activity performed only because a funder requires it.

Evaluation may examine:

• Whether services are producing intended outcomes
• Whether participants find services respectful, useful, and accessible
• Whether some groups experience different outcomes or barriers
• Whether staff have adequate training, supervision, time, and resources
• Whether services are being implemented as intended
• Whether there are unintended consequences
• Whether participant goals and community priorities have changed

Findings should lead to action when needed. Evaluation is most useful when organizations are willing to change policies, practices, staffing, resources, or program design in response to what they learn.

Why modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

Policy can establish a baseline for quality, safety, accessibility, ethical practice, and accountability. It can also create unintended barriers if requirements are too rigid, costly, or disconnected from the communities they are meant to support.

Advantages to modifying policy to enhance the quality of services

It can establish minimum expectations for quality and safety.

Credentials, accreditation, ethical requirements, staffing standards, accessibility standards, and other safeguards can reduce the likelihood of serious neglect, unsafe practice, discrimination, or abuse.

It can clarify responsibilities.

Clear policies help participants, staff, funders, regulators, and community members understand what an organization is expected to provide and what people can do when those expectations are not met.

It communicates that participants deserve respectful, capable, and effective services.

Quality policy should reflect the principle that people using community, health, education, housing, or human services deserve dignity, safety, accessibility, and meaningful participation in decisions that affect them.

It can strengthen public trust.

Transparent standards, accountability systems, participant protections, evaluation, and clear reporting can help community members understand how quality is monitored.

It can improve the likelihood that services are effective.

Policies that support appropriate staffing, training, evidence-informed practice, participant engagement, accessibility, and evaluation create conditions that can improve service quality.

It addresses systems, not only individual incidents.

When the same problem occurs repeatedly because of organizational or funding rules, changing the underlying policy may produce more lasting improvement than resolving each incident separately.

Cautions in modifying policy to enhance the quality of services

• Standards often establish only a minimum level of quality. Meeting a requirement does not necessarily mean that a service is excellent, responsive, or producing strong outcomes.
• Rigid requirements can exclude valuable people and innovative approaches. Policies should recognize appropriate combinations of education, experience, community knowledge, lived expertise, supervision, and demonstrated competence where possible.
• Professionalization can unintentionally distance services from the communities they are intended to support. Quality improves when professional expertise is combined with participant voice, community knowledge, cultural responsiveness, and local relationships.
• Administrative requirements can become barriers. Complex or expensive certification, documentation, reporting, and compliance requirements may disadvantage smaller organizations or community-based providers without necessarily improving quality.
• Policy change may not address the actual cause of poor service. Problems may result from inadequate staffing, insufficient funding, weak leadership, organizational culture, poor supervision, lack of participant involvement, or assumptions built into the service model itself.
• Standards can become outdated. Requirements should be reviewed as evidence, technology, professional knowledge, community priorities, and participant expectations change.

Flexibility does not mean lowering expectations for safety, ethics, or quality. It means recognizing that there may be more than one effective way to meet those expectations.

Who should work to modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

Policy improvement often begins with people who experience a problem directly: participants, families, staff, community organizations, regulators, funders, or professionals who recognize that existing standards are not producing the intended results.

A collaborative approach is often useful because quality looks different from different perspectives.

A broad-based group may include:

• People who currently use or have used the services
• Family members and caregivers, when appropriate
• Service providers and frontline staff
• Peer workers and people with lived experience
• Community-based and resident-led organizations
• Professional associations
• Funders
• Regulators and public agencies
• Disability, language-access, and other relevant advocates
• Researchers or technical experts when specialized knowledge is needed

Coalitions can provide a range of perspectives, but no coalition automatically represents everyone affected by an issue. Be clear about whose voices are included and whose may still be missing.

If a broad coalition is not feasible, work may also be led by:

• An advocacy organization
• Community-based organizations working on the issue
• A resident- or participant-led initiative
• A professional association or network
• A service provider, funder, regulator, or public agency undertaking its own quality-improvement process

When should you try to modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

Some times are particularly useful for reviewing quality policies:

• Before a new service begins. Quality, accessibility, participant protections, staffing, evaluation, and accountability can be built into the design from the start.
• At the beginning of a new service period, contract, accreditation cycle, or funding cycle. These transitions often provide opportunities to update requirements.
• When services are not meeting expected standards or outcomes. Poor outcomes, recurring complaints, accessibility barriers, safety concerns, high staff turnover, or participant dissatisfaction may indicate that policy should be reviewed.
• When regular assessment and reporting shows limited progress or persistent disparities.
• When new evidence, standards, technology, or community priorities emerge. This may include:
  • New research or evaluation findings
  • Changes in licensing, certification, or accreditation requirements
  • Updated environmental, health, safety, or accessibility standards
  • Revised professional or organizational ethical standards
  • New laws or regulations
• When participants, staff, or community members identify recurring concerns. Complaints, listening sessions, advisory groups, surveys, or other forms of feedback may reveal problems that formal evaluation has missed.

How do you modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

Understand existing policy, including how it operates in practice.

Review written policies, contracts, accreditation requirements, funding rules, professional standards, organizational procedures, and relevant laws or regulations.

Also examine informal practices. A written policy may appear appropriate while day-to-day implementation creates barriers or inconsistent treatment.

Decide whether policy change is the appropriate response.

Before changing requirements, identify the actual cause of the quality problem.

Questions to consider include:

• What outcomes should the service produce?
• How would the proposed policy contribute to those outcomes?
• What do participants say is working or not working?
• Are some groups experiencing barriers or different outcomes?
• What are the likely long-term effects of the proposed change?
• What unintended consequences could occur?
• What are the consequences of leaving the policy unchanged?
• What alternatives to policy change are available?
• How do those alternatives compare in effectiveness, cost, accessibility, feasibility, and equity?

A service problem may sometimes be better addressed through staff training, supervision, additional resources, participant engagement, leadership changes, redesign of the service model, or better implementation of policies that already exist.

Determine what kind of policy modification is needed.

There are several possibilities:

• Policy formation. Develop standards, requirements, ethical protections, or quality expectations where none currently exist.
• Policy adherence. Strengthen implementation or accountability when appropriate policies already exist but are not being followed consistently.
• Policy revision. Update requirements or standards that are outdated, ineffective, inaccessible, overly rigid, or inconsistent with current knowledge and community priorities.

Develop new or revised standards when needed.

Include people who will be affected by or responsible for the standards.

• Involve service participants, practitioners, frontline staff, family members or caregivers when appropriate, community organizations, people responsible for implementation, and people responsible for oversight or enforcement.

Some standards require specialized technical knowledge. Scientists, engineers, clinicians, accessibility specialists, or other experts may be necessary to determine what level of exposure, treatment, staffing, or technical performance is safe and appropriate. Technical expertise should inform the standard, while people directly affected should also have meaningful opportunities to contribute to decisions about implementation, access, burden, and community impact.

• Design requirements that address current needs while allowing enough flexibility to respond to future circumstances.
• Make sure standards address the actual quality problem and do not create unnecessary administrative or service barriers.
• Make standards practical and achievable without weakening essential protections. Where appropriate, recognize demonstrated experience, supervised practice, community expertise, or several pathways to meeting a competency requirement.
• Build in regular review, continuing education, reassessment, recertification, quality monitoring, or other mechanisms that keep standards current.
• Include clear complaint, feedback, and accountability processes so participants and staff can identify problems after implementation.

Bring the proposed changes into the appropriate decision-making process.

Identify who has authority to establish or revise the policy and what process they use.

Provide decision-makers with clear information about:

• The current quality concern
• Evidence and participant experience related to the concern
• The proposed standard or policy change
• Expected benefits
• Costs and implementation requirements
• Potential barriers or unintended consequences
• Alternatives considered
• How the new policy would be evaluated

Use research, fact sheets, program data, participant feedback, evaluations, and other appropriate information.

People who use services should have meaningful opportunities to share their perspectives if they choose to do so. Do not rely on personal hardship stories primarily because they may be more persuasive to decision-makers.

Public communication can help community members understand a proposed change, but its purpose should be to provide accurate information and opportunities for participation rather than simply to generate pressure.

If professionals, participants, providers, or other affected groups raise significant concerns, examine those concerns carefully. They may identify implementation barriers, inequitable effects, unintended consequences, or weaknesses in the proposal.

Offer to participate in implementation and improvement.

Organizations proposing new standards may also be able to contribute to working groups, advisory committees, training, implementation planning, participant engagement, or evaluation.

Continue monitoring and evaluating the policy.

Policy change should be followed by implementation review.

Ask:

• Are services safer or more effective?
• Are participants experiencing greater dignity, access, and respect?
• Are outcomes improving?
• Are some groups experiencing unintended barriers?
• Are staff able to meet the requirements with available resources?
• Are standards being implemented consistently?
• Are complaint and feedback systems working?
• Have new evidence, technology, or community priorities emerged?
• Should the policy continue, change, expand, or end?

Long-term quality improvement requires attention over time, but monitoring should not become a reason to preserve requirements that no longer serve their purpose. Policies should continue only when they remain useful, ethical, evidence-informed, and responsive to participants and communities.

In Summary

Quality services depend on more than good intentions. Policies can help establish expectations for competence, accessibility, ethical practice, safety, participant rights, evidence-informed service delivery, evaluation, and accountability.

Useful policy tools may include:

• Appropriate licensure, certification, accreditation, or competency requirements for people, programs, or facilities
• Professional and organizational ethical standards
• Expectations that programs remain informed about current evidence and use practices appropriate to their participants and context
• Physical, financial, linguistic, digital, and other forms of accessibility
• Clear quality and safety standards in laws, regulations, contracts, funding requirements, accreditation systems, or organizational policy
• Regular evaluation and modification based on outcomes, participant feedback, community priorities, and changing evidence

Standards can protect people and improve consistency, but they can also create barriers when they are too rigid, expensive, or disconnected from community realities. Formal credentials should not be treated as the only form of expertise, and professional knowledge should be complemented by lived experience, participant voice, community knowledge, and demonstrated results.

Effective policy development therefore begins by identifying the actual quality problem, understanding current policy and implementation, involving people affected by the services, considering alternatives and unintended consequences, and creating standards that are strong enough to protect quality while flexible enough to support responsive and innovative practice.

The goal is not simply to require more rules. It is to create service systems that are safe, effective, accessible, ethical, respectful, accountable, and responsive to the people and communities they are intended to support.

Example 1: Professions requiring licensure or certification

States vary in the professions and trades they regulate.

The following is a list culled from the certification boards of a number of states, including Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia, and others. The list could easily be more than three times as long as it is.

• Acupuncturists
• Architects
• Barbers
• Chiropractors
• Cosmetologists
• Dentists and Hygienists
• Dietitians
• Electricians
• EMT's and Paramedics
• Engineers
• Funeral Directors and Embalmers
• Hearing Instrument Specialists
• Home Inspectors
• Lawyers
• Nurses and Nurses' Aides
• Opticians
• Optometrists
• Pharmacists
• Physicians and Psychiatrists
• Plumbers and Gas Fitters
• Psychologists
• Public Accountants
• Radio/TV Technicians
• Real Estate Brokers and Salespersons
• Social Workers
• Speech Pathologists
• Teachers and School Principals

What do we mean by modifying policies to enhance the quality of services?

___You ensure that the people offering the services are competent through licensure and certification or other measures.

___You ensure that the facilities offering services, or where services are provided, meet basic physical and practice standards through licensure and certification or other measures.

___You confirm that individuals, programs, and facilities follow the ethical rules of their professions, or, if none exist, they employ high ethical standards in their work and in their relationships with other organizations, funders, and the community.

___You require that programs are aware of and use the best appropriate practices available in delivering services.

___You ensure that services are available and accessible to those who need them.

___You demand that individuals and programs set or follow and apply appropriate quality standards that both benefit and safeguard those who are affected by the services provided.

___You allow for the evaluation and modification of services, when necessary, to meet the changing needs of the community

Why modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

You work to modify policy because:

___It assures, to the extent possible, a minimum level of quality.

___It shows seriousness of purpose, and establishes the issue as one that should be treated seriously.

___It demonstrates respect for the target population.

___It gives the community confidence that the issue is being handled appropriately.

___It lends credibility to both the effort and to the organization(s) providing services.

___It can increase the chances that an intervention or service will be effective.

___It addresses the foundation on which quality standards are usually based.

You are careful in modifying policy because:

___It assures only a minimum level of quality.

___It may filter out imaginative solutions and people with valuable talents and skills.

___An emphasis on professionalism may alienate the target population or the community.

___Bureaucratic requirements may present barriers to talented individuals and organizations.

___Changing policy may not address the problem.

Who should work to modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

___Where possible, you form and/or participate in a broad-based coalition to modify policies.

If a coalition isn't feasible, you work through:

___An advocacy organization.

___Community based organizations that work with the target population and the issue.

___A local initiative including members of the target population.

___A local branch of a professional association.

When should you try to modify policies to enhance the quality of services?

You try to modify policies:

___Before services begin, to ensure best practices and best quality.

___At the beginning of a new service period or funding cycle.

___When services prove unsatisfactory.

___When regular assessment and reporting shows little or no progress on a particular issue.

___When new possibilities or information become available.

___When public opinion demands it.

A PowerPoint presentation summarizing the major points in the section.