Background

Until recently, community-based programs have typically focused on one or a few aspects of poverty and have often been implemented and measured in silo format. Although many relatively successful programs have existed, there has been an increasing awareness that individual or family economic stability and quality of life is a complex dynamic that calls for more holistic approaches. Such approaches address a full range of issues including education, housing, employment and wage rate environment, neighborhood safety, the norms and networks that enable collective action (social capital) ¹, community engagement, family support structures, and the individual's and society's commitment to the alleviation of poverty.

Various strategies have existed over the years, but virtually all programs could be categorized as "place strategies" or "people strategies." Place strategies have dominated over the last forty years and these have focused on rebuilding impoverished neighborhoods through improvement of housing, job creation, and retail development. The concept behind these approaches is that the social and economic environment that people live in must be improved in order for individuals to have opportunities to reach their full potential. By contrast, people strategies have focused on helping those living in poverty to obtain the skills, personal orientation, and support needed to achieve self-sufficiency. There is a growing consensus that both strategies must be integrated to be successful. This line of thinking puts more emphasis on developing the individual and mobilizing his or her personal responsibility towards economic self-sufficiency.

As a third dimension, there is a growing realization that many aspects of "community" must be in place in order for productive change to occur. Strategies to alleviate poverty often have and most likely will continue to be different in urban versus rural communities. Urban centers are challenged by urban sprawl, affordability of housing, and long commute times, all of which can hinder a cohesive sense of community. In urban areas, community approaches that address issues like poverty now tend to emerge from town centers in a suburban area. Rural areas have dispersed populations, fewer natural resource-based industries, increased global competition for the low-skill, low-wage rural jobs and are often disconnected from urban resources. It is more difficult to develop a cohesive community in a rural area; however, business or social "clusters" can exist that link small groups of individuals to create economies of scale, to educate or provide technical assistance, or to initiate or change a policy of mutual interest. The use of technology has significantly facilitated such rural efforts. Groups of individuals and businesses with mutual interests have been striving to create a "community approach" to the alleviation or amelioration of various problems.

Various Approaches to Community-Based Solutions

The notion of community building as a possible solution to poverty embodies the idea that the many facets of community must be included in order to effectively address poverty. Community building is a comprehensive approach to addressing the interwoven problems of unemployment, inadequate housing, economic disinvestment, substance abuse and other crime, and educational shortcomings. These community approaches possess several core principles that serve as guidelines, including:

• Building on the existing assets of a community.
• Emphasizing strategic planning that represents the whole community.
• Addressing the sources of deterioration in a way that acknowledges the inter-relatedness of complex, social problems.
• Developing partnerships and collaboration among all stakeholders.
• Being flexible to the changing needs of the community.

Comprehensive Community Building Models

Comprehensive Community Building projects work on the assumption that poverty can only be alleviated with a comprehensive approach that incorporates the many community entities that impact individual and family socio-economic status. These are usually HUD or Foundation-funded projects. They focus on housing improvement, neighborhood enhancement, home ownership, capacity building, and coalition or collaboration building. Although infrastructure is stressed in these initiatives, there is also strong attention to the "spillover" effect of improved housing and how to maximize these positive externalities. [Ed -there are several examples in the tables from p. 37-39 but no indicators of efficacy of any of the projects.]

Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Another emerging community-based organizational structure that focuses on poverty is the Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs) model. There are far fewer CCIs relative to the Community Action Agencies discussed below; however, they also work on the premise that collaboration is a key ingredient to the success of community-based coalitions. This model is more "place based" and goals include: development of community empowerment, leadership and organizational capacity building, improving the delivery of human services, expanding beyond housing development, fostering local economies and job creation, and pursing comprehensive community transformation. Most CCIs are funded by foundations.

Some CCIs have a broad focus that attempts to address many facets of poverty alleviation and work on building collaborations between agencies in order to facilitate change. Other CCIs have a more narrow focus, such as juvenile violence, although most CCIs fall somewhere in between in terms of comprehensiveness. A central theme is that CCIs typically use strategies that build community and social capital. These are important attributes for any community to have; however, they are very difficult to measure so assessment of impact can take many years. Another central theme is the engagement of all residents in a community, which can delay action but can also result in near universal legitimacy of the changes that are enacted.

A notable example of CCIs is the Neighborhood and Family Initiative launched by the Ford Foundation in 1990. Four cities were chosen for revitalization and citizen empowerment. Over four years, $1,125,000 was given to each of the communities. It may take several years to have conclusive evidence of success; however, many examples of short term gains are evident such as microenterprise type loans to small businesses (which tend to be highly successful), improved outdoor lighting in high crime areas, and purchases of park land.

Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives

Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives ² focus upon crime, safety, and nuisance abatement. These initiatives look at both the supply and demand factors in criminal activity and attempt to address both. Demand side strategies try to address human needs by strengthening family-oriented services. These could include child care, employment, mental health, and substance abuse services. The idea is that by alleviating some of the extreme stressors that low-income individuals can have, they are less likely to engage in criminal activity.

The supply side strategies include "opportunity blocking" and the development of social capital. "Opportunity blocking" involves making changes to places where criminal activity occurs such that crimes are more difficult to carry out, less rewarding financially, and more risky in terms of getting caught. The development of social capital involves initiating a neighborhood association that brings residents together for ideas and action that can revitalize the neighborhood and reduce crime.

Neighborhood revitalization strategies that have been most effective are those that promulgate effective crime prevention strategies and those that have a strong partnership between residents and other community entities. A seemingly effective example of this model is the HOPE VI ³ initiative launched by Congress in 1993. This program involves large-scale demolition and redevelopment of public housing units - usually more than 300 units - in very distressed neighborhoods. A recent study of eight HOPE VI neighborhoods did find many positive outcomes from 1990-2000, including increases in income, employment and education levels, and decreases in crime. Again, it is difficult to quantify how much of these gains are due to HOPE VI and how much is due to other factors like the stronger economic climate during the 1990s. From 1993 to 2002, over $5 billion was earmarked for 193 HUD-funded, HOPE VI revitalization grants.

Community Action Agencies⁴

Community Action Agencies (CAAs) serve over a quarter of all Americans living in poverty or close to the poverty line. CAAs were created through the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and most of the approximately 1,100 organizations dedicated to alleviating poverty are CAAs. A total of $9 billion is administered by the CAA networks, and each dollar is matched by almost $5 of state, local, and private contributions. These additional dollars demonstrate the additional commitment that can emerge from engaged communities.

CAAs can significantly differ from community to community. However, the overarching goals of CAAs include: securing and maintaining employment, providing adequate education, ensuring adequate housing, providing emergency services, improving nutrition, creating linkages among anti-poverty programs, and achieving self-sufficiency. It is interesting to note that CAA goals include a mixture of "people" and "place" strategies as well as a mixture of services that hold both society and the individual accountable for the socio-economic outcomes of a given community.

Workforce Development Alongside Community and Economic Development

The average income for a low-income family, adjusted for inflation, is less than it was 30 years ago. The major cause for this negative trend is the decline in the rate of pay. One result has been that the gap between the higher and lower income stratums is at its highest post-WWII level. Various theories exist as to the reasons why the gap has grown; however, a somewhat naturally occurring outcome has been the emergence of community economic development efforts, including workforce development.

In the past, many networks have existed in workforce development and in economic development, although the two typically have not been integrated in any systematic fashion. Generally speaking, economic development efforts are primarily locally funded and governed while workforce development efforts are primarily responsive to federal mandates and dependent on federal funds.

Economic development efforts have not been formalized due primarily to the lack of federal funding and leadership in this area. Workforce development organizations tend to have more formalized partnership arrangements primarily because federal, state, and local government has emphasized this. However, local entities, both public and private, have independently connected with workforce development and community building agencies to address key economic, community, and workforce issues.

Community Economic Development Efforts

Economic Development efforts to alleviate poverty include enterprise zones, micro-enterprise programs, and community development financial institutions (CDFIs). Enterprise zone programs share the basic concept that the revival of significant industrial or commercial areas is a promising approach to revitalizing adjacent residential areas. Limited data about outcomes suggest that these zone programs have not been effective. Micro-enterprise programs provide business development services, including modest start-up funds, to individuals who are interested in starting a small business (or micro-enterprise). These businesses are defined as having no more than five employees. Micro-enterprise programs typically produce businesses with high survival rates. CDFIs provide lending services to low-income individuals who usually have restricted access to capital.

Another community economic development model is the Community Development Corporation (CDC). A result of the Great Society programs, CDCs aim to bring about social, economic, and physical revitalization in a given community. CDCs carry the theme of comprehensive and integrative approaches to poverty alleviation. There were relatively few CDCs in the early 1970s, but they grew significantly in number during the 1980s when many social programs were cut or abolished.

CDCS have a wide range of activities and goals but most deal with housing issues, commercial real estate development, community and tenant organizing, the provision of human services, employment counseling and placement, rehabilitation of industrial property, loans and other assistance to small businesses, and neighborhood planning.

Integrating Workforce Development

Workforce development strategies that interface job seekers and employers are not usually geared towards "holistic" community development. Instead, workforce development tends to focus upon the immediate goal of increasing employment and ensuring optimal matches between employers and employees.

Nonetheless, economic and community development has embraced the notion of workforce development as part of a healthy and desirable community. In general, there have been four strategies or models that have been utilized by various communities around that notion:

1. Urban education linked to workforce development.
2. Programs and services supporting successful transition to work.
3. Successful urban entrepreneurial strategies and resources.
4. Effective tax incentives and financial tools to promote inner city development.

Economic and community development does not necessarily have at its core the alleviation of poverty. However, it is implied that poverty can be diminished or eradicated through its goals of employer and employee opportunity creation.

There is usually more emphasis in economic and community development efforts on the employer side of the equation as can be seen by the common characteristics found in the various programmatic tenets:

• Linked to a market need and strategy.
• Entrepreneurial, opportunity-driven approach.
• Visionary and pragmatic leadership.
• Endorsed by high level corporate, philanthropic or governmental leaders.
• Focused mission with clear goals and customers.
• Comprehensive, customer-focused program design.

Some communities have also adapted urban revitalization and/or economic integration efforts or living wage ordinances as part of their community development. For example, in Baltimore and Los Angeles, firms under contract with the city had to pay their workers within a specific wage rate, one higher than the minimum wage. Outcomes have shown no negative cost effects on the city itself, no evidence of job loss, less bidding based only on low cost (and lower wages for workers), and some increases in other quality of life indicators for the affected workers. As another example, in New York City, a partnership between community, economic, and workforce development devised job placement and support services for released inmates. The efforts called for much collaboration and coordination between community, economic, and workforce entities.⁵

Although some concrete examples exist, community economic development efforts, including those that integrate workforce development, have very little empirical data regarding their effectiveness. There are several reasons for this, including that it can be a long time before results are observable and there are many variables in anything that entails "community," so pinpointing and attributing success is challenging. Correspondingly, some projects are very small scale and any research and/or evaluation of these projects is lacking. These are challenges to most community initiatives as is further discussed in the evaluation section below.

Key Contextual and Structural Conditions for Successful Community-Based Coalitions that Address Poverty Key Paradigms for Potential Future Models

Having stated that the success of community models is difficult to measure, there do appear to be some common themes in those community models with positive outcomes. Models that focus on the individual developing his or her potential appear to hold promise. A good example of this is the success of the micro-enterprise programs with approximately 90% of businesses still in operation after 31 months, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.⁶ This notion of personal empowerment puts a significant amount of responsibility on the individual to capitalize on opportunities created by community, state, or federal initiatives. Clearly, opportunities have to also be available to all who wish to be economically self sufficient, which calls upon local or federal programs to promote an environment conducive to opportunity. In this vein, society also has a responsibility to initiate programs that provide individuals the opportunities to escape from poverty.

Looking more broadly to the community, models that go beyond income statistics and focus on the various facets of quality of life tend to meet with greater success. The trend in the last couple of decades has been to incorporate the many variables that comprise socio-economic status and quality of life, including individual and/or family economic viability, education, housing, employment and wage rate environment, neighborhood safety, community engagement, family support structures, and the individual's and society's commitment to the alleviation of poverty. Since few programs incorporate all of these dimensions, it is even more important for communities to come together to coordinate these efforts and gain synergies from the implementation and the outcomes. Hence, all significant parts of the community must be engaged from both the public and private sectors.

Engaging the Community and Developing Local Leadership

Engaging a community to come together as a unit to affect change is a formidable task. There are often varying opinions, cultures, agendas and available resources within a community, which can challenge even a universally-accepted goal of poverty alleviation. Yet there is a growing consensus that mobilizing a community can be an effective and sustainable way to improve the quality of life of its citizens.

Community engagement entails the legitimization of common goals for the betterment of a neighborhood or other geographic area with set boundaries.

Community engagement attempts to provide a venue for residents, businesses, educational institutions, and even government to discuss, collaborate, and implement changes that aim to improve the community as a whole. Implicit in these endeavors is the empowerment of individuals and groups of individuals (including businesses) to navigate many aspects of their immediate environment.

This environment includes important short and long term policies affecting education, housing, crime reduction, employment, social capital, and family support mechanisms.

Successful community-based coalitions, and organizations of any type, are most successful when there is a clear vision of what the organization aspires to be and what its goals are. When communities define their own needs and goals, there is a sense of identity and buy-in for the course of changes that will occur. Engaged and successful communities often capitalize on some pivotal event, whether it is favorable or unfavorable. These communities often take account of what comparative advantages or assets they already have, and what challenges they face. They are inclusive of all socio-economic, racial, and ethnic groups across all generations.

Engaged communities are comprised of many stakeholders that are willing to work across many sectors. Effective community engagement includes those with authority, those in need of assistance and a voice, and those with expertise in the process of coalition-building and community mobilization. Successful community coalitions seek out technical assistance in the methodologies and examples of "best practices" in community, economic and workforce development. Engaged communities usually have some funds dedicated to the capacity building of the coalition and work towards strategies for perpetual sustainability. Strong, visionary leadership that respects many voices and operates with great integrity is also a key element of successful community endeavors.

One could argue that leading a community-based coalition is more challenging than leading a company or single-entity organization. The simple aim of pulling together varying individuals' interests and achieving consensus is an art.

Effective leaders and their staff have to possess the ability and patience to maintain a sense of hope and momentum, while also being charismatic.

Planning and action must also be balanced carefully. Effective leaders usually need to develop buy-in from at least one significant political player or level of government, and they usually have to have sufficient tenure to obtain the support they need. Effective leaders know how to celebrate successes with the community members, and they know how to give voice and credit to staff or other members of the coalition.

From an operational perspective, good leaders must possess an array of competencies including the following abilities:

1. To communicate effectively - orally, visually, and written.
2. To translate the overall vision into measurable goals and objectives.
3. To gather and analyze data and use the information wisely.
4. To understand and internalize the goals for each person or group in the community.
5. To listen, and convince various members or interest groups that there is a mutually beneficial outcome to the various actions or policies under consideration.
6. To motivate participants.
7. To provide recognition and rewards.
8. To assess the available resources and use them judiciously.
9. To work towards long term benefits and outcomes.

There are various initiatives world-wide to develop more effective leaders. Good leadership is very difficult to find, but an essential component to successful community building or community development.

Community Asset Mapping and Other Indicators

Community asset mapping is a process of gathering, analyzing, and reporting information about the capacities or strengths of a specific area or community. It can include a mapping of the skills and commitment of citizens, the dedication of community organizations, the social capital, and the resources of formal institutions in the community. Community assessment is a somewhat broader concept that includes an inventory of assets, but also gathers information about the needs in a community. The ability of a community to define its own assets and needs, and develop strategies to productively integrate its assets and needs, is a key element to long term community success.

Various indicators are used to measure the health of a community. They fall into broad social categories, including:

• Economic well-being
• Wellness and safety
• Nurturing, inclusive environment
• Demographics
• Educational preparedness
• Community participation
• Transportation

The National Association of Planning Councils (NAPC) is one of the national leaders in measuring the characteristics of communities. More specifically, the NAPC model includes a Deprivation Index, a Child Well-being Index, and a Health and Social Descriptive. Each category has various quantitative parameters that define each index or indicator.

The United Way has also created a quality of life barometer that incorporates 35 indicators including measures of financial security, health, education, safety, charitable giving, volunteerism, civic engagement, and the natural environment (http://national.unitedway.org/stateofcaring/). Local communities are creating their own United Way State of Caring indicators using the methodology of the federal index.⁷

Kids Count is a measure of the health of a community developed by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. It is a national and state-by-state effort to track the status of children in the United States. Children's health is often a good indicator of the overall health of a community, and it is a group that all agree needs prioritization and an active voice. One of the most useful aspects of these indices is that they are accompanied by narrative essays (available online) that give customized information by state, county, city and community. This can be particularly useful for comparative and prioritization/planning purposes (www.aecf.org/cgibin/cliks.cgi).

The Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)⁸ has also identified key characteristics of "smart neighborhoods." All of these tools and similar ones can be useful to communities in assessing their strengths and weaknesses. They can be used as diagnostic tools that lead to vision and action. In fact, having access to such key information can also serve as a very powerful tool to educate community members about their own environment and the living conditions of the citizens. With this compelling information, it is more likely that community coalitions will have similar priorities about which unique strengths should be built upon and what challenges should be addressed first.

Developing a Plan

Community planning processes can vary greatly. There are, however, categories or models of community planning that can be identified. These may be useful to coalitions that are beginning to form given that some models have met with more success than others.

The managerial model is a more traditional model used by many community coalitions, most closely resembling the strategic planning models seen in the private sector. These models are "top down" and follow fairly rigid processes.

Given that successful community-based coalitions need broad stakeholder participation, it is not surprising that the managerial model is not usually a very efficacious one.

The legislative model is the second most widely used model. This model includes the development of an agenda, the fostering of community acceptance of the agenda, and the legitimization of decisions made by the community's governing team. These models may succeed if they are very inclusive and if other key "success" factors (e.g., good leadership) are present.

The limited community participation model involves a subset of citizens that create a committee, task force, or commission focused upon a very specific agenda and goal. After the citizens' committee completes a report and presents it to some governing body, formal planning and decision-making is then handed over to another governing body. These models may suit the purpose of a short-term goal and may be "successful" in this right. However, for broader agendas, participation must be more inclusive of the various players in the community.

The community empowerment process model is built around extensive community participation. This model serves as a tool to empower community members to navigate the course of their immediate social and economic surroundings. Residents have a high level of participation in these models over a long period of time. Given the heavy investment of time and resources by many stakeholders, these models are highly sustainable.

It is important to note that those community planning processes that develop a formal structure to monitor progress and delegate responsibilities are also more likely to succeed. This can involve a delicate balance since too much of a hierarchic structure can also be detrimental. As stated above, it is also important to have a clear vision, plan of action, implementation strategy, and plan for sustainability.

Research on Effective Community-Based Models

The Urban Institute has researched the key traits to successful community building.⁹ They have found that systematic approaches to community building have been more successful than the narrower neighborhood programs of the past. Their seven key themes for successful community building include:

1. Focusing around very specific improvement initiatives that embody the values of the community and that build upon existing social and human capital.
2. Being community driven with broad resident involvement from the various sectors.
3. Adopting a comprehensive, strategic, and entrepreneurial approach.
4. Identifying and leveraging assets of the community - being asset based -rather than focusing upon the problems or negative aspects of the community.
5. Keeping actions specific and sufficiently tailored to the scale of the neighborhood such that impact will be observable and measurable.
6. Collaboratively linking to the broader society to capitalize on other resources and enhance outside opportunities for residents.
7. Making a conscious effort to remove institutional barriers and racism.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, United States Department of Health and Human Services (ASPE)¹⁰ also conducted research and developed a list of seven key attributes of successful community-based initiatives:

1. Most of the coalitions took advantage of a catalytic event early in their development.
2. The coalitions tended to be flexible and organic in their mission and actions as needs and opportunities arose.
3. There was visible impact of community efforts that defined some community-based signature outcome(s).
4. Most initiatives studied had charismatic leaders with either an entrepreneurial bent or an ability and willingness to hire such individuals.
5. Alliances were formed between autonomous organizations.
6. There was a strong presence of a solid working class population base.
7. Adequate, stable, and flexible financing was secured.

Implementing Whole Community Strategies

One of the relatively new and key themes in any discussion about effective community building is social capital. Social capital can be difficult to measure; it involves a sense of trust, an ease of (candid) communication, and a respect for all members' opinions. These attributes form the norms and networks that enable collective action. If social capital is high, it is easier to implement whole community strategies that embrace the free market, government, private entities, and all citizens or citizen groups.

Starting from the individual or micro-level, whole community initiatives look at the well-being of the individual and/or family structure. Broad social challenges are often brought to the forefront of community, local, state or federal attention because of how they impact individuals and/or families. These social challenges are usually intertwined with challenges faced within family structures. Social problems involve a web of reciprocal cause and effect between the many facets of the community. Often, the persistent negative effects of poverty cause broader social dilemmas (e.g., crime) that, in turn, perpetuate detrimental norms within homes (e.g., drug or alcohol abuse). An effective whole community approach acknowledges that individuals and families should be given resources to affect change within their homes as well as outside their homes. This can involve anything from making health care accessible, to drug rehabilitation, to education about healthy parenting skills (to name a few).

At the neighborhood or community level, whole community initiatives try to reach out to the various constituents of a community to create a level of understanding for each others' life circumstances. In doing so, they embrace the many types of community members and attempt to put a face on poverty to create understanding and support for those in need. Whole community initiatives do not make value judgments about certain racial/ethnic or economic groups. They make the problems they face part of the agenda for change.

At the planning level, whole communities aim to understand the aforementioned complex interaction between individuals, families, neighborhoods and the challenges they face. Once the specific dynamic is well understood, a holistic approach to alleviating the problems is within reach. These holistic approaches not only involve all the stakeholders and community members, they also implement actions and policies that include housing, jobs, health care, education, and crime. This often entails bringing together community organizations that in the past have been separate. This is a tall order and many community-based coalitions are limited in their reach.

However, if there is true community involvement that is highly inclusive, many of the critical components of the community can be positively affected over time.

As stated above, implicit in such successes is the assumption that other vital community building attributes are in place (e.g., strong leadership, access to effective methodologies for community building, the recognition of successes, working across racial/ethnic groups). Monitoring and evaluating programs is also an integral part of what whole communities do. They want to know if they are achieving their goals and they want to be able to prove their efficacy to their community members and to potential funders.

The Hispanic Community in Montgomery County, Maryland mobilized a "whole community" approach to try and solve its very high educational dropout rate, over crowded housing problem, and high percentage (85%) of families without health insurance. The Hispanics formed a coalition called the Montgomery County Consejo Latino (MCCL) group and it acknowledged the interrelated nature of poverty, overcrowded housing, low educational attainment, and poor health. Community centers are now in the planning phase; they will have a goal to provide many of the needed services (e.g., bilingual health center, educational, and other social services). Many private corporations have dedicated money or other resources to help launch these centers and the county has agreed to match funds. This increases the likelihood that the plans will materialize and that the wide scope of the "whole community" approach will be feasible.

A comprehensive overview of the characteristics of promising community efforts can be found in the PEW Foundation publication Smart Communities authored by Suzanne Moore. This book gives in-depth examples of many of the defining characteristics discussed in this paper. Specifically, six high-leverage points are identified as critical to community change. These include:

1. Investing right the first time.
2. Working together.
3. Building on community strengths.
4. Practicing democracy.
5. Preserving the past.
6. Growing leaders.

Sustainability. What is Sustainability?

Sustainability involves a longer term outlook on the viability of the community coalition and the community itself. True sustainability embraces a holistic view of the community, including all those facets that affect poverty: education, housing, employment and wage rate environment, neighborhood safety, social capital, and individual/family support structures. Implicit in this broad view is the engagement of individuals, businesses, and both public and private entities. Sustainability also looks at economic, environmental, and social indicators in a highly comprehensive manner. For example, instead of using the traditional indicator of median income for a given community, a "sustainability indicator" might measure the number of hours of paid employment at the average wage rate required to support the basic needs of a person or family.

These deeper reaching indicators can serve not only as markers for the climate of a community; they can also be used as prioritization tools for those communities that have many social issues they want to tackle.

How to Achieve Sustainability

At the community resident level, securing the involvement of citizens is key to sustainability. Leadership and staff of a community coalition may find it easier to engage and retain citizen involvement if members feel that their efforts are worthwhile. This can involve both short term gains, such as increased networking and business or employment opportunities, and long term gains such as an improved overall community environment that is visible and concrete.

Similarly, citizens should feel that it is easy to participate in the community coalition. Leadership and staff should provide multiple entry points for participation and should reach out to members of the community who might otherwise not participate. It may also be helpful to provide a social environment that is conducive to recreational events that create friendships and a sense of collegiality. A sustainable community initiative also has the culture that all members have a sense of responsibility, that the tasks towards action and improvement must be spread as evenly as possible across the coalition. This way there is not a sense of reliance on specific members who may or may not be with the community for the long term. Also, board members, staff, and volunteers should be members of the community itself. They are more likely to have legitimacy from other members and they are more likely to participate in a manner that understands the nuances of that particular community.

As mentioned above, there are several crucial elements that are necessary for any community coalition to have, whether they are relatively new and in their agenda-forming stage or whether they are established and looking to future sustainability. These include: strong leadership; partnerships with businesses, nonprofits and government; high and inclusive community participation; technical assistance; and a holistic approach that embraces all sectors of the community.

Evaluation and Sustainability

Evaluation of community endeavors is notoriously difficult because of the multiple variables involved in what comprises a community. Attributing a success (or failure) can be very difficult when there are multiple causes. For example, if one looks to a massive educational effort in an impoverished neighborhood for improved childhood asthma rates and sees decreased emergency room or hospitalization rates, it is possible that those rates are a result of the school-based education, the physician education, the media campaigns, or the free Saturday clinics. However, the reduced rates can also be the result of reduced emissions, which were not part of the intervention, or they could even be a cohort effect (a coincidental group of youngsters who have a lower incidence of asthma than the previously measured group). Likewise, the impact of systemic, broad community policies and actions can take a long time to reveal themselves - even decades. And some goals can involve very subtle concepts like building social capital, which also makes evaluation difficult.

It is also true that relatively few communities have the technical capacity to effectively evaluate their efforts on an ongoing basis. This is one primary reason why it is often suggested that community-based coalitions should partner with higher academic institutions. Universities and/or colleges often have faculty that specialize in evaluation, and they are often willing to partner to both assist in affecting positive change in the community and to research (publishable) topics of interest.

For those coalitions that have established the expertise and that recognize the importance of evaluation, attention and impact from their efforts can be more assured if they do the following:¹¹

1. Produce frequent public reports and fact sheets for key stakeholders and decision-makers (e.g., government),
2. Conduct face-to-face briefings with these audiences to keep major stakeholders and policy makers abreast of what the community is doing and what findings are emerging.
3. Release findings to liaison or intermediate organizations that can distribute them to the appropriate stakeholders and others who should be engaged.
4. Make information available electronically.
5. Use the news media and research papers to share findings with broader audiences.
6. Hold meetings with interested stakeholders about controversial findings to avoid surprises and find ways for the negative findings to inspire productive action.
7. Keep focus on the issues and not on people or personalities - keep things professional.

Even small community initiatives should have a dedicated evaluation member or team that constantly maintains, summarizes and presents data. Effective evaluation is not post hoc or conducted on an as needed basis. Findings should always be used as a continuous quality improvement tool. Findings can also be used to help solidify future funding from foundations, local, state or federal sources.

Conclusion

In sum, community building is a means to achieving healthy communities, including the alleviation or amelioration of poverty. Given the complex nature of communities, the scope of community building can be far-reaching and therefore extremely ambitious. However, there is a growing consensus that successful communities have a positive view of community building, and they believe in it as a means to improve their immediate environment and the lives of its citizens.

Community-based coalitions have a strong sense of ownership on the part of its citizens and citizen groups (including business and government). Indeed, individuals, businesses, and policy makers now recognize engaged communities as the key to an improved society. This point of view is usually subscribed to by stakeholders of varying political affiliations and of varying socio-economic, cultural, and ethnic composition. This alone can serve as the necessary common ground or foundation for the initiation of coalitions that seek community-based solutions to poverty.

Sources

"Building Community with Social Capital: Chits and Chums or Chats with Change," William R. Potapchuck, Jarle P. Crocker, William H. Schechter Jr., National Civic Review, 1997.

From the Bottom Up: A Report on the NAPC Social Indicators Project, National Association of Planning Councils, May 2002.

United Way State of Caring Index (http://national.unitedway.org/stateofcaring/)

Sustainable Measures www.sustainablemeasures.com/Indicators/TraditionalVsSustainable.html

"Information, Models, and Trends for Community Developers," Local Initiatives Support Corporation, April 2002 (www.lisc.org/resources/2002)

Models of Community Planning, Donald P. Lacy, Ohio State University, Michael John Dougherty, West Virginia University, Pamela D. Gibson, Virginia Tech, National Community Resources and Economic Development Conference, February 2002.

National Survey of Urban Economic and Community Development Models, Local Initiatives Support Corporation.

Reintegrating Disadvantaged Communities into the Fabric of Urban Life: The Role of Community Development, Avis C. Vidal, New School for Social Research, Housing Policy Debate, Volume 6, Issue 1, Fannie Mae, 1995.

Microenterprise Works: Success Stories from Across the Nation, Maria Hein, John Else, and Christine Pigsley of the Institute for Social and Economic Development, Association for Enterprise Opportunity

Participating in a Place-Based Employment Initiative: Lessons from the Jobs-Plus Demonstration in Public Housing, Linda Yuriko Kato, MDRC, November 2003.

Revisiting the Critical Elements of Comprehensive Community Initiatives, Bruce Gray, Angela Duran, Ann Segal, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, United States Department of Health and Human Services, February 1997.

"Evaluating Comprehensive Community Change," Annie E. Casey Foundation, www.aecf.org/publications/evaluation/part2c.htm

"Community Residents and Foundations Team Up to Change the System," Smart Library, http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/

"Back to the Future: Comprehensive Approaches to Alleviating Urban Poverty," Smart Library, www.children.smartlibrary.org

Review of Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives, Jennifer Turnham, Jessica Bonjorni, Abt Associates, Inc., February 2004

Community Based Solutions Research Brief, November 2004 21 "Model Projects," Brownsfields for Global Learners, www.brownfield.org

Residential Mobility and Opportunities: Early Impacts of the Moving to Opportunity Demonstration Program in Chicago, Emily Rosenbaum (Fordham University) and Laura E. Harris (Urban Institute), Housing Policy Debate, Volume 12, Issue 2, Fannie Mae Foundation, 2001.

"Bethel New Life - Towards a Healthy Sustainable Community," Smart Communities Network, www.sustainable.doe.gov/success/bethel_new.shtml

Working Together: Building Capacity for Community Development, Nancy Nye (Community Development Consultant) and Norman J. Glickman (Rutgers University), Housing Policy Debate, Volume 11, Issue 1, Fannie Mae Foundation, 2000.

The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development, James DeFilippis, King's College, London, Housing Policy Debate, Volumbe 12, Issue 4, Fannie Mae Corporation, 2001.

Community Impact through Neighborhood Partnerships, United Way of America, 1997.

United Ways' Community Capacity Building Stories, Curt Johnson and Jim Morrison, United Way of America, 1996.

Community Building Comes of Age, G. Thomas Kingsley, Joseph B. McNeely, and James O. Gibson, Urban Institute, May 1997.

Community Action and Community Action Agencies, National Community Action Foundation, April 9, 2004, www.ncaf.org/cacaa.html

The Historical Origins and Causes of Urban Decentralization in the United States, Alexander von Hoffman and John Felkner, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, January 2002.

Building Community with Social Capital: Chits and Chums or Chats with Change, William R. Potapchuk, Jarle P. Crocker, William H. Schechter, Jr., Building Community with Social Capital, National Civic Review, 1997.

"Social Capital" from the Civic Dictionary, Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland, Civc Practices Network, www.cpn.org/tools/dictionary/capital.html

Race, Politics, and Community Development in U.S. Cities, Herb Fayer, Robert Pearson, and James Jennings, Tufts University, Annals, AAPSS, Volume 594, July 2004.

The Atlanta Project: A Community-Based Approach to Solving Urban Problems, Giles, Michael W., National Civic Review, Fall, 1993

Community Based Solutions Research Brief, November 2004 22

Building Community, Leiterman, Mindy and Joseph Stillman, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), 1993

Rural Challenges: Barriers to Self-Sufficiency, April Kaplan, Welfare Information Network Issue Notes, September 1998

East Side Neighborhood Development Company Case Study, CSI, June, 2004 Livable Places Profile: Community by Design, Bruce Liedstrand, Kristen Paulsen http://www.scag.ca.gov/livable/download/pdf/cathedral.pdf [PDF, 4.10MB].

On Ethnic Diversity in Rural Minnesota, Jack M. Geller, Ph.D., Center for Rural Policy and Development, August 2001

Community Development Dynamic Neighborhoods: Synchronizing Services and Strategies with immigrant Communities, Catherine Fernandez, Fellowship Program for Emerging Leaders in Community and Economic Development, October 2003

Integrating TANF and WIA Into a Single Workforce System: An Analysis of Legal Issues Mark Greenberg, Emil Parker, Abbey Frank, February 2004

Review of Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives, Jessica Bonjorni, Jennifer Turnham Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, February 2004

Hispanic Youth Dropping out of US Schools, Measuring the Challenge, Richard Fry, June 2003

Administration for Children and Families U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Collaborating With Your Community, April 2004

Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Redefining Community Development, Winton Pitcoff, January 1998

A Guide to Strategic Planning for Rural Communities, USDA Rural Development Office of Community Development, March 1998

Building Bridges to Self-Sufficiency Improving Services for Low-Income Working Families, Jennifer Miller, Frieda Molina, Lisa Grossman, Susan Golonka, National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, March 2004

Edna McConnell 2003 Annual Report, Edna Clark McConnell Foundation, 2003

The Effects of Living Wage in Baltimore, Christopher Niedt, Economic Policy Institute, 1999

Telecommuting: Possible Futures for Urban and Rural Communities, Ray Quay, McQuay Technologies, 1995

National Governors Association Growth Tool Kit. http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/1,1188,C_ISSUE_BRIEF%5eD_2487,00.html

Living Wage Issue Guide, Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute, 2000

Community Based Solutions Research Brief, November 2004 23

Transforming State Workforce Development Systems: Case Studies of Five Leading States , Evelyn Ganzglass, Martin Jensen, Neil Ridley, Martin Simon and Chris Thompson, July 2001

The Role of Partnerships in Economic Development and Labor Markets in the United States, Randall W. Eberts and George Erickcek, Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, January 2002

Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S., William Fulton, Rolf Pendall, Mai Nguyen, and Alicia Harrison, July 2001

¹ World Bank [back]
² "Review of Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives" [back]
³ "Review of Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives" [back]
⁴ "Community Action and Community Action Agencies" [back]
⁵ NGA Center for Best Practices [back]
⁶ Need footnote? One is not provided in the research paper (p. 58) [back]
⁷ United Way State of Caring Index [back]
⁸ Information, Models and Trends for Community Developers [back]
⁹ "Community Building Coming of Age" [back]
¹⁰ Evaluating Comprehensive Change [back]
¹¹ "Evaluating Comprehensive Change" [back]