Section 3. Defining and Analyzing the Problem

• The nature of problems

• Clarifying the problem

• Deciding whether and how to act

• Analyzing the problem

When people encounter a community or organizational problem, the first impulse is often to move quickly toward a solution.

But the way a problem is defined strongly influences which solutions appear reasonable.

If the problem is defined too broadly, the group may not know where to begin. If it is defined too narrowly, important contributing conditions may be ignored. If the definition already contains a preferred solution, other potentially more effective approaches may never be considered.

Defining and analyzing the problem therefore deserves deliberate attention.

This section focuses on four related tasks:

• Understanding the nature of the problem
• Clarifying what is known and what remains uncertain
• Deciding whether and how your organization should act
• Analyzing contributing conditions, context, assets, and system relationships

These tasks are related and often iterative. New information may cause you to revise a problem statement that originally seemed clear.

The nature of problems

A concern may first appear as a pattern, complaint, unexpected result, safety issue, gap in services, inequity, unmet goal, or observation that conditions are not working as intended.

Intuition or discomfort can be a useful signal that something deserves investigation.

It should not, however, be treated as proof of what the problem is or what causes it.

What is a problem?

A problem can be understood as an observed condition, gap, risk, unmet need, or unwanted outcome that warrants attention.

Often, the problem involves a difference between current conditions and a desired condition.

When using that definition, make the desired condition explicit.

Ask:

• What is happening now?
• What condition are we comparing it with?
• Where does that standard or goal come from?
• Is it based on community priorities, evidence, policy, law, safety standards, organizational goals, rights, or another benchmark?

For example:

Current condition: Fewer than half of eligible residents complete the program's enrollment process.

Desired condition: Eligible residents can complete enrollment without unnecessary procedural, communication, transportation, technology, or accessibility barriers.

This identifies a gap without assuming what intervention will close it.

Problems differ in complexity

Some problems are relatively straightforward.

For example, if required supplies are repeatedly unavailable because no one is responsible for reordering them, assigning ownership and establishing a reorder process may resolve the problem.

Other problems involve systems.

They may:

• Change over time
• Involve multiple organizations and groups
• Have several interacting causes
• Be affected by policy, funding, infrastructure, institutions, and behavior
• Affect different groups differently
• Produce feedback effects or unintended consequences

A complex problem may not have one root cause or a single permanent solution.

The goal may instead be to reduce harm, improve conditions, change a particular part of the system, strengthen protective factors, or manage risk over time.

Do not define people as the problem

Define problems in terms of conditions, outcomes, systems, policies, practices, barriers, or risks rather than labeling populations.

For example:

Less useful: Young people are the problem because they do not participate.

More useful: Participation among residents ages 16–24 has declined over the past two years, and the organization does not yet know which barriers are contributing to the decline.

This keeps the analysis focused on conditions that can be investigated.

Look for assets as well as problems

Communities and organizations usually have strengths, protective factors, existing relationships, successful practices, and other resources that can help address the problem.

Ask:

• Where is the problem less severe?
• What is working there?
• What strengths already exist?
• Which organizations, relationships, practices, or community assets could support improvement?

Clarifying the problem

Before finalizing a problem statement, clarify what is known, what is believed, and what still needs investigation.

Start with what is currently known

Gather existing information before deciding what additional information is necessary.

Sources might include:

• Program and administrative records
• Surveys
• Interviews
• Community listening sessions
• Observations
• Research studies
• Public datasets
• Policies and regulations
• Previous evaluations
• Geographic information
• Professional expertise
• Community and lived experience

Not every source answers the same kind of question.

A community member's experience may reveal a barrier that administrative data do not show. Administrative records may reveal the scale or frequency of a pattern that individual experiences cannot establish by themselves.

Distinguish different kinds of information

As information is gathered, distinguish among:

• Observed evidence: information directly documented through reliable data, records, observation, or other appropriate methods.
• Interpretation: an explanation of what the evidence may mean.
• Hypothesis: a possible explanation that can be examined further.
• Lived or community experience: information about how a condition is experienced by people affected by it.
• Value judgment: a conclusion about what is desirable, fair, acceptable, or important.
• Unsupported assertion: a claim for which adequate evidence has not yet been provided.

These forms of information can all influence problem analysis, but they should not be treated as interchangeable.

Identify what information is missing

Ask:

• What information would materially change how we understand the problem?
• What do we currently assume rather than know?
• Are important groups or perspectives missing?
• Do we know how conditions differ by location, time, or population?
• Do we have enough information to distinguish symptoms from contributing conditions?

Do not collect information simply because it might be interesting.

Focus on information that can improve understanding or decision-making.

Examine the quality and limitations of information

For important evidence, ask:

• Who produced it?
• How was it collected?
• Who or what was included?
• Who or what may have been left out?
• How current is it?
• What does it actually measure?
• What uncertainty or limitations are present?
• Does another credible source support the same conclusion?

Gather information ethically

When collecting information from people, consider:

• Privacy
• Confidentiality
• Informed participation where appropriate
• Accessibility
• Language access
• Burden on participants
• How information will be stored and used

Community engagement should be a two-way relationship rather than a process in which organizations simply extract information and disappear.

Define the problem without embedding the solution

A problem statement should describe the condition that needs attention.

For example:

Less useful: We need to create a mobile outreach team.

More useful: Residents in three neighborhoods use the service at substantially lower rates than eligible residents elsewhere, and transportation, scheduling, awareness, eligibility, accessibility, or trust may be contributing factors.

The second statement leaves room to investigate whether a mobile team, schedule change, transportation support, communication change, eligibility reform, partnership, or another approach would be most appropriate.

Do not manufacture agreement

People may understand or experience a problem differently.

The goal is not necessarily to write a statement that makes everyone equally satisfied.

Instead:

• Identify areas of agreement
• Document important differences
• Identify which claims are supported by evidence
• Identify what remains uncertain
• Clarify who has responsibility for deciding how the problem will ultimately be framed for organizational action

Define important terms

Words such as access, community, safety, participation, affordable, quality, success, and underserved can mean different things to different people.

Define important terms precisely enough that participants know what is being discussed and, where possible, how the condition will be measured.

Deciding whether and how to act

After clarifying the problem, determine what role your organization should play.

Not every important problem should be addressed by every organization.

Your organization may decide to:

• Lead the response
• Work in partnership
• Support another organization
• Refer the issue to an authority with greater expertise or responsibility
• Gather more information before acting
• Address only one part of a larger problem
• Maintain the current approach while monitoring conditions

Consider severity and urgency

Ask:

• How serious is the harm or risk?
• How many people are affected?
• How severely are they affected?
• Is the condition worsening?
• Are immediate protective actions required?

Some safety, legal, safeguarding, or public-health concerns may require action before a complete analysis can be finished.

Immediate action can occur while deeper analysis continues.

Consider equity

Overall averages can hide large differences.

Ask:

• Who experiences the greatest burden?
• Are barriers concentrated among particular groups or places?
• Who has historically had the least influence over decisions about the issue?
• Could a proposed response reduce one problem while increasing another inequity?

Consider organizational authority and fit

Ask:

• Does the issue fit the organization's mission and responsibilities?
• Does the organization have legal or professional authority to act?
• Does another organization already have primary responsibility?
• Would partnership be more effective than acting alone?

Consider feasibility and capacity

Consider:

• Staff and volunteer capacity
• Funding
• Expertise
• Technology
• Partnerships
• Time
• Political or organizational conditions

Feasibility should not be used to dismiss an important problem merely because it is difficult.

It may instead indicate that the organization needs partners, a smaller initial objective, or a longer-term strategy.

Consider consequences and tradeoffs

Ask:

• What benefits are expected?
• What harms or burdens could occur?
• Who receives the benefits?
• Who bears the costs or risks?
• What unintended effects are plausible?
• Can those effects be prevented or reduced?

Legal, ethical, safety, or rights-based obligations should not be treated merely as optional costs to be balanced away.

Consider opportunity cost

Resources used for one problem are not available for another.

Ask:

If we devote substantial staff time, funding, and leadership attention here, what other work will receive less attention?

Consider what happens if you do not act

Maintaining the current approach is itself a choice.

Compare the likely consequences of action with the likely consequences of no additional action.

Prioritize among several problems

When several problems compete for attention, establish criteria before choosing among them.

Criteria might include:

• Severity
• Urgency
• Number of people affected
• Equity
• Organizational responsibility
• Evidence that meaningful improvement is possible
• Available capacity
• Community priority
• Opportunity cost

A simple matrix can help participants compare problems consistently.

Numerical scores may be useful in some situations but should not create an illusion of precision where judgments remain uncertain.

Analyzing the problem

After developing a preliminary problem definition and deciding that the issue warrants attention, examine it in greater depth.

The purpose is not to force everyone toward one causal story.

It is to develop a sufficiently accurate understanding of the conditions that create, maintain, worsen, or reduce the problem.

Ask the basic descriptive questions

What is happening?

Describe the condition as specifically as possible.

Ask:

• What outcome or condition are we observing?
• How is it measured?
• What evidence supports the description?

Who is affected?

Ask:

• Who experiences the condition directly?
• Are effects different among groups?
• Who may experience indirect effects?

Avoid assuming that the people most affected are also the people responsible for causing the condition.

Where is it happening?

Geographic patterns may reveal differences in:

• Access
• Infrastructure
• Resources
• Exposure
• Institutional practices

When is it happening?

Examine:

• When the problem emerged
• Whether it is increasing or decreasing
• Seasonal patterns
• Important events or policy changes that occurred around the same time

A long-standing problem may reflect entrenched systems, resource constraints, policies, incentives, infrastructure, or other conditions rather than simply people's unwillingness to change.

How much?

Examine:

• Number of people or cases affected
• Rate or proportion
• Frequency
• Duration
• Severity
• Trends over time

Use appropriate denominators and comparison groups so the scale of the problem is not misleading.

Examine contributing conditions

Instead of asking only, "What is the root cause?" ask:

What conditions contribute to this problem, and how do they interact?

Consider:

• Policies and rules
• Organizational processes
• Funding
• Incentives
• Staffing
• Infrastructure
• Access
• Information and communication
• Social and economic conditions
• Historical conditions
• Trust and relationships
• Individual and organizational behavior

Use repeated “why” questions carefully

Asking "Why?" several times can help reveal assumptions and deeper contributing conditions.

For example:

Program appointments have a high no-show rate.

Why might that be happening?

Participants report transportation and scheduling difficulties.

Why are those difficulties affecting this program more than others?

Appointment times are concentrated during working hours and the site is not served directly by public transportation.

This exercise can identify useful lines of investigation.

It does not prove that the final answer is the one true root cause.

Several causal pathways may operate at the same time.

Use systems thinking when the problem is complex

For complex issues, consider mapping relationships among:

• Policies
• Organizations
• Resources
• Infrastructure
• Incentives
• Behaviors
• Community conditions
• Feedback loops

Tools may include:

• Causal diagrams
• Process maps
• System maps
• Timelines
• Stakeholder maps

Use the simplest tool that helps participants see relationships they were previously missing.

Examine forces maintaining and changing the situation

Force-field analysis can still be useful when the group wants to identify factors that maintain the current condition and factors that support change.

Instead of treating the exercise as an unrestricted list, ask participants to identify:

• Evidence supporting each factor
• How strongly the factor influences the situation
• Whether the organization can influence it
• How it interacts with other factors

Identify assets and protective factors

Ask:

• Where is the desired outcome already occurring?
• What is different there?
• What community strengths can be built upon?
• Which relationships or institutions already reduce the problem?

An analysis focused only on deficits can overlook practical solutions already operating in part of the system.

Analyze stakeholders without assigning simplistic blame

Instead of asking only "Who is causing the problem?" ask:

• Who is affected?
• Who influences important conditions?
• Who controls relevant resources?
• Who has formal decision authority?
• Who has relevant knowledge or experience?
• Who might help implement change?
• Who may experience costs or unintended effects?

Accountability still matters.

If a particular policy, organizational practice, decision, or harmful behavior materially contributes to the problem, identify it accurately.

Examine power and interests

Ask:

• Who currently defines the problem?
• Who controls the data?
• Who controls funding or authority?
• Whose knowledge has historically carried the greatest weight?
• Who has less ability to influence the response?
• Are conflicts of interest or incentives affecting how the problem is framed?

Identify uncertainty and competing explanations

At the end of the analysis, the group may still have several plausible explanations.

Document:

• What is well supported
• What is plausible but uncertain
• What information is missing
• What evidence would help distinguish among competing explanations

Do not force agreement merely to make the process appear complete.

Revisit the problem statement

Analysis may show that the original statement was:

• Too broad
• Too narrow
• Focused on a symptom
• Based on an unsupported assumption
• Missing an important population, place, or condition

Rewrite it when necessary.

Prepare a concise problem-analysis summary

Before moving to potential solutions, summarize:

• The problem statement
• Magnitude and trend
• Who is affected
• Relevant context
• Major contributing conditions
• Assets and protective factors
• Important differences among groups or places
• Areas of uncertainty
• Evidence still needed
• Relevant authority and organizational role

This summary gives participants a shared reference point when they begin generating and comparing possible responses.

Keep the analysis open to revision

Defining a problem is not a one-time event.

New information may emerge while an intervention is being designed, implemented, or evaluated.

If the evidence changes, revisit the analysis.

A responsible organization should be willing to change its understanding rather than continuing to act on a problem definition that the evidence no longer supports.

In Summary

Defining and analyzing a problem is a foundation for effective community and organizational action.

Begin by describing the condition rather than assuming the solution. Make clear what standard, goal, right, or community priority defines the difference between current and desired conditions.

Gather credible information from multiple appropriate sources. Distinguish observed evidence from interpretations, hypotheses, values, and unsupported assertions, and identify important limitations and uncertainties.

Decide what role your organization should play by considering severity, urgency, equity, authority, capacity, opportunity cost, community priorities, likely benefits, and potential harms.

When analyzing causes, avoid assuming that a complex community problem has one root cause. Examine interacting policies, systems, institutions, resources, behaviors, relationships, historical conditions, assets, and feedback effects.

Include affected communities and other relevant people in ways that are meaningful, accessible, and appropriate to their knowledge, responsibilities, and decision authority. Pay attention to power, trust, and whose interpretations have historically shaped the issue.

Finally, treat the problem definition as revisable. Monitoring, implementation, community feedback, and evaluation may reveal conditions that were not visible at the beginning.

Strong problem analysis does not guarantee a simple answer. It gives the organization a clearer, better-supported foundation for deciding what to do next.