Community Strategic Visioning Programs: Approaches and Outcomes

29 %
71 %
Information about Community Strategic Visioning Programs: Approaches and Outcomes
Education

Published on March 4, 2014

Author: BrianHarger

Source: slideshare.net

Description

A presentation made by Dr.Norman Walzer and Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha to the PASCAL 2012 Conference on University Outreach and Engagement in Brest, France (October 29-31, 2012).

Community Strategic Visioning Programs* Approaches and Outcomes Norman Walzer and Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha Presented to  “Role of Higher Education in Local & Regional Social & Economic Development”  PASCAL Conference Brest, France October 29‐31, 2012  *Financial Support for Survey was Provided by the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development

Presentation Overview • Institutional Arrangements for Programs  Host Agency  Topics Covered • Measuring Outcomes and Evaluation • Program Successes and Reasons • Lessons Learned 2

Community Strategic Visioning Programs (Surveyed Spring 2010) Sample Programs,  combined,  served: • • • • 338 cities 287 non‐profit organizations, 175 counties, and  30 regional economic  development agencies. 3

Program Format • Where Has the City Been? • What Do Participants Want in Future? (Vision) • How Can the Participants Get There? • How to Maintain the Momentum? • Evaluation and Modification of Plans 4

Agencies Delivering Program (Mainly Based in Non‐metro Areas) Responses Agency Total No. % University‐Based (Not Extension) 3 15% Extension Service 13 65% State Agency 1 5% Private Business 1 5% Other 2 10% Total Number of Responses 20 100% 5

Materials Included In Sessions Materials Response (s) Total No. % Evaluation Approaches Or Tools 13 19% “Best Practices” In Other Communities 12 18 Leadership Examples Or Models 12 18 Meeting Management Guides Or Assistance 11 16 Data Books Or Reports Analyzing Trends 10 15 Alternative Organizational Structures 5 7 Fund‐raising Guides 4 6 Total No. of Responses 67 100% 6

Topics Covered Issue Number of Respondents Percentage Rating  Issue As “Not Important Or  Percentage Rating  Issue As  Slightly Important” “Important Or Very  Important” Average  Response* Local Job Creation 19 24% 71% 3.8 Job Retention 19 24 71 3.7 Entrepreneurship 19 18 65 3.7 Downtown Development 19 18 53 3.6 Stimulate Private Investment 19 24 47 3.4 Finance Public Infrastructure 19 29 59 3.4 Housing Issues 19 24 47 3.3 Expand Internet Access 19 41 12 2.6 Health Care Access 19 53 18 2.5 Public Transportation 19 59 6 1.3 Note: *Responses Range From 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Very Important) 7

Main Approaches Used Number of Respondents Method(s) Percentage Of  Percentage Of  Respondents Reporting  Respondents Reporting  Technique As High In  Technique As Low In  Importance Importance Total No. Percentage Of  Respondents  Using  Technique Appreciative Inquiry 20 70% 43% 7% Needs Assessment 20 100 18 47 Asset‐Based Approach 20 75 47 33 8

Assessing Community Preparedness (Important or Very Important)* • Established Group Exists 39% • Informal Group Meets Regularly 28 • Responses to Pre‐Program Survey 36 • Pre‐Session Visit to Community 58 • “Reputation” of Community for Taking Action 36 • Financial Support by Businesses and Groups 30 • Commitment by City Administration 50 • Ability of Host Group to Raise Funds 36 *Percent of Respondents Reporting Item as Important or Very Important. 9

Program Participant Involvement Participant Group Community Volunteers Civic Organizations Cooperative Extension Service Economic Development Group Retired Or Elderly Residents Professional Groups Business Owners Higher Education Institution Youth In The Community Bankers Or Financial Groups Chamber Of Commerce Farmers Or Agricultural Groups City Council State Agency Representative Mayor Planning Board Local Clergy Conservation Committee League Of Women Voters Total No.  of Respondents 17 18 17 17 17 17 18 18 17 17 18 17 18 17 18 18 17 18 17 Percentage of  Respondents Rating  Participant as “Not Very Active or  Minimum Activity” 0% 0 12 12 12 12 22 22 29 29 33 29 33 35 28 44 41 56 82 Percentage of  Respondents Rating  Participant as “Active or  Very Active” Average  Response* 76% 78 65 71 47 47 33 44 41 41 39 29 33 41 22 39 18 22 6 4.9 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.0 1.4 Note: *Responses range from 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Very Important) 10

Criteria for Evaluating Successful Outcomes Criteria Not Important Or  Slightly Important Important Or Very  Important Average No. % No. % No.  % Number Of Active Participants 1 7% 2 14% 11 79% Jobs Created 7 50 4 29 3 21 Jobs Retained 7 50 4 29 3 21 Business Starts 7 47 6 40 2 13 Program Projects Completed 2 13 0 0 14 88 Media Coverage Or Accounts 5 36 5 36 4 29 Expanded Web Site 8 57 3 21 3 21 Acres of Land/Sites Conserved 7 50 6 43 1 7 Facilities/Services Developed 4 27 1 7 10 67 Grant Dollars/Resources 2 14 4 29 8 57 Client Satisfaction Surveys 2 14 2 14 10 71 Number Of Program Requests 3 18 3 18 11 65 11

Community Characteristics (As a Result of Program Delivery) • Goal Achievement  Ability to Complete Short And Long‐term Goals • Decision‐making Ability  Community Able to Reach Consensus in Solving Problems • Flexibility  Willingness or Ability to Choose Different Approaches • Skill Development  Programs to Educate and Train Community Members • Team Work  Cooperative Efforts to Achieve Common Goals • Resiliency  Ability to Respond to Adversity • Accountability  Mechanisms Allowing Stakeholders Input into Community Decisions 12

Session Topics and Success Session Topic Correlation Data Analysis/Presentation ‐.0850 Deriving a Community Vision 0.685* Other Strategic Planning Exercises 0.287* Building Leadership Skills 0.459* Bringing in Resource Personnel 0.285* Involving Community Members 0.663* Pursuing Level 5 Leadership 0.261 (Since the sample size is small, these correlations are exploratory only) 13

Community Characteristics Characteristics of Participating Community Participating Communities With  Characteristics That Achieve Goals in 2  Years Goal Achievement 7 (38.9%) Decision Making 8 (44.4%)* Flexibility 8 (44.4%) Developing Skills 5 (29.4%) Teamwork 7 (38.9%) Resiliency 7 (38.9%) Accountability 6 (33.3%)** * Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) ** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) 14

Government Agency Engagement Agency or Group Programs with Active Government   Agencies That Achieve Goals in 2 Years Mayor 4 (22.2%) City Council 7 (38.9%) Planning Board 9 (50.0%) Conservation Committee 5 (27.8%) Cooperative Extension Service 13 (72.2%) State Agencies 9 (50. 0%) * Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) ** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) 15

Engagement by Business/Professional Groups Business/Professional Groups Programs with Active Bus/Professional Groups and  Goal Attainment in 2 Years Economic Development Agency 13 (76.5%) Chamber of Commerce 8 (44.4%) Business Owners 7 (38.9%) Professional Groups 10 (55.6%) Farmers or Agricultural Groups 7 (38.9%)** Bankers or Financial Groups 9 (50.0%) * Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) ** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) 16

Engagement by Social Agencies Agencies and Groups Civic Organizations League of Women Voters Higher Education Institutions Youth in Community Retired or Elderly Residents Local Clergy Community Volunteers Programs with Active Social Agencies   and Achieve  Goals in 2 Years 14 (77.8%) 1 (5.9%) 10 (55.6%) 8 (44.4%)** 10 (55.6%)** 5 (27.8%)** 15 (83.3%)** * Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) ** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test) 17

Lessons Learned (Based On Small Sample and Non‐metro Areas) • • • • • • • • • Most Programs are Provided by Extension Service Asset‐Based and Appreciative Inquiry are Often Used Attention is Paid to Community Preparedness Job Creation and Retention are Most Important Issues 44% of Programs Report 50% or More Communities Achieve  Goals within Two Years Decision‐making Ability is Important to Program Success;  Accountability has a Negative Sign Community Volunteers, Civic Organizations are Most Active Specialized Groups are Correlated with Success Government Programs are Not Significantly Related to Success 18

Next Steps • Identify Other Programs to Expand Coverage of Agencies  Surveyed (Thailand May Replicate Survey) • Conduct More Intensive Interviews With Providers About Key  Elements and Ways to Measure Outcomes • Identify Promising and Effective Delivery Systems • Examine Roles Played by Governmental Agencies • Research Longer‐Term Outputs and Outcomes From Programs • Explore Innovative Ways to Measure Community Change • Contribute to the Body of Knowledge About Visioning  Practices in Community Change 19

For Further Information Norman Walzer Senior Research Scholar nwalzer@niu.edu Center for Governmental Studies Northern Illinois University De Kalb, IL 60115 815‐753‐1907 www.cgs.niu.edu

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Community Visioning Programs: Processes and Outcomes ...

Norman Walzer - Community Visioning Programs: Processes and Outcomes (Community Development Current jetzt kaufen. ISBN: 9781138907591, ...
Read more

Community Strategic Visioning Programs: Approaches and ...

Community Strategic Visioning Programs: Approaches and Outcomes ... Strategic Visioning Programs* Approaches ... Community Strategic Visioning Programs ...
Read more

Community Visioning Programs: Processes and Outcomes ...

Community Visioning Programs: ... Community Visioning Programs: Processes and Outcomes ... She has published on innovative approaches to brownfields, ...
Read more

Community Strategic Visioning Programs - starr.tamu.edu

Community Strategic Visioning Programs. ... As opposed to previous planning approaches, strategic ... and expected outcomes. Resources outside the ...
Read more

Community visioning programs: processes and outcomes ...

Community visioning programs: processes and outcomes. ... N. Community strategic visioning programs ... proven examples of approaches used ...
Read more

Community visioning programs : processes and outcomes ...

Community visioning programs : processes and outcomes. ... Approaches, Stakeholders, and ... Strategic Doing for Community Development / Ed Morrison ...
Read more

Community Visioning Programs: Processes and Outcomes ...

Community Visioning Programs: Processes and Outcomes (Community Development Research and Practice Series) eBook: Norman Walzer, Gisele F. Hamm: ...
Read more

Community visioning programs: Processes and outcomes

Community visioning programs: ... Community visioning programs: Processes and outcomes. ... Recent strategic planning approaches have been focused more on ...
Read more

The Visioning ApproAch – in communiTy WATershed mAngemenA ...

• 1 The Visioning Approach – in community Watershed ... live with the outcomes of the vision ... The visioning approach is used as a strategic tool to ...
Read more