community strategic visioning programs: approaches and outcomes

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 ConferenceBrest, 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)

AgencyResponses

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

MaterialsResponse (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 ofRespondents

Percentage Rating Issue As

“Not Important Or Slightly Important”

Percentage Rating Issue As

“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

Method(s)

Number of RespondentsPercentage Of

Respondents Reporting Technique As High In

Importance

Percentage Of Respondents Reporting Technique As Low In

ImportanceTotal 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 Total No. of Respondents

Percentage of Respondents Rating

Participant as“Not Very Active or Minimum Activity”

Percentage of Respondents Rating

Participant as “Active or Very Active”

Average Response*

Community Volunteers 17 0% 76% 4.9Civic Organizations 18 0 78 4.7Cooperative Extension Service 17 12 65 4.5Economic Development Group 17 12 71 4.4Retired Or Elderly Residents 17 12 47 4.1Professional Groups 17 12 47 4.0Business Owners 18 22 33 3.8Higher Education Institution 18 22 44 3.8Youth In The Community 17 29 41 3.8Bankers Or Financial Groups 17 29 41 3.8Chamber Of Commerce 18 33 39 3.7Farmers Or Agricultural Groups 17 29 29 3.7City Council 18 33 33 3.6State Agency Representative 17 35 41 3.6Mayor 18 28 22 3.5Planning Board 18 44 39 3.4Local Clergy 17 41 18 3.4Conservation Committee 18 56 22 3.0League Of Women Voters 17 82 6 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

AverageImportant Or Very

Important

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

• FlexibilityWillingness 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

• AccountabilityMechanisms Allowing Stakeholders Input into Community Decisions

12

Session Topics and Success

Session Topic CorrelationData 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

Characteristics of Participating CommunityParticipating 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)

Community Characteristics

14

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%)


Government Agency Engagement

15

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%)


Engagement by Business/Professional Groups

16

Agencies and Groups Programs with Active Social Agencies and Achieve Goals in 2 Years

Civic Organizations 14 (77.8%)

League of Women Voters 1 (5.9%)

Higher Education Institutions 10 (55.6%)

Youth in Community 8 (44.4%)**

Retired or Elderly Residents 10 (55.6%)**

Local Clergy 5 (27.8%)**

Community Volunteers 15 (83.3%)**


Engagement by Social Agencies

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

Center for Governmental StudiesNorthern Illinois University

De Kalb, IL 60115815‐753‐1907

www.cgs.niu.edu

Norman WalzerSenior Research Scholar

[email protected]