Citizen Development

Indicators and Tools for Evaluation
Susan Jakes and Lisa Cassidy

Citizen development involves programming efforts to build individuals' capacity to impact their community and to mobilize individual citizens to participate in community building and development.

Indicator Areas

	Citizen Capacity Building / Human Capital: cognitive skills, knowledge, training, and other personal skills and resources
	Environmental Capital: the social and organizational context in which the individual or collaborative group exists and functions
	Citizen Empowerment: perception of control over factors to improve one's community
	Desire: perception of importance of activities and seriousness of community problems
	Motivation: incentive for taking action
	Citizen Participation: citizen involvement in the community

The following is a guide to evaluating citizen development. Each of the six particular components of Citizen Development can be evaluated by assessing the indicators listed under each area.

Human Capital: Improvement in individuals' cognitive skills, knowledge, training, and other personal skills and resources to improve the community

Indicator: Community members will show an increase in knowledge, awareness, and skills to bring about change in the community. Specifically, the extent to which citizens have learned the following skills:

Gather information relevant to issues
      develop a survey
      conduct a survey
      assess resources

Collaborative problems solving
      facilitate a group discussion
      negotiate in conflict situations
      decision making
      consensus building

Influence over the community
       leadership
       communication

Plans to take action
       Grantwriting
        time management

Measure: Survey or interview citizens to determine which skills they have acquired since program implementation
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999) (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)
Tool: Evaluation of Citizen Action Training (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)

Indicator: Community members will show an increase in knowledge, awareness, and skills to bring about change in the community. Specifically, the extent to which citizens have learned the following skills:

1. Gather information relevant to issues
a. develop a survey
b. conduct a survey
c. assess resources

1. Collaborative problems solving
a. facilitate a group discussion
b. negotiate in conflict situations
c. decision making
d. consensus building

1. Influence over the community
a. leadership
b. communication

1. Plans to take action
a. Grantwriting
b. time management

Measure: Survey or interview citizens to determine which skills they have acquired since program implementation
Tool: Mobilization Survey (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)
Tool: Evaluation of Citizen Action Training (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)


Environmental Capital: Improvement in the social and organizational context in which the collaborative group exists and functions.

Indicator: Increased access to needed technical assistance from external resource systems will result in greater ability to meet community need Measure: A numerical tally of the number and duration of visits from different state/federal, and/or international agencies to the communities based on a content assessment of agency trip reports.
Measure: An interview or survey assessment of presenters meeting of community need.

Indicator: Residents of the community perceive their community as a collectivity. (Rossi)
Measure: Record number of community members who perceive themselves as sharing a significant set of interests with other residents
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999) (in Adobe Acrobat PDF)

Indicator: The extent to which there exist opportunities for public discussion within an organizational and/or structured setting.
Measure: Content analysis of local papers, newsletters, or meeting announcements. Time given at local meetings for public input into decision making process

Indicator: The extent to which a wide variety of related organizations come together to co-sponsor events, activities or projects
Measure: Numerical count and analysis of meeting minutes

Indicator: The purposes of the local organization meet the community's needs
Measure: Community survey of organizational awareness, involvement, and perception of needs being met in community.
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)

Indicator: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR. These documents must explicitly focus on enhancing the work of a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Timely information via PCs, Internet, other communication devices, etc. will be available and/or affordable.
Measure: Survey by phone and personal interview. Logs of site connectivity computer use.

Indicator: All members of the group are informed of the actions of the group.
Measure: interview, Distribution lists
Tool: Network Analysis Questionnaire Source: Linney & Wandersman (1991). Prevention Plus III. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Pg. 413.

Indicator: Meetings will be well planned and executed.
Tool: collaboration Structure Meeting Questionnaire
Source: Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the Journey, St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Tool: Meeting Questionnaire Source: Dombro, A. L., O'Donnell, N.S., Galinsky, E., Malcher, S.G., & Garber, A. (1996). Community Mobilization: Strategies to Support Young Children and Their Families, New York: Families and Work Institute.
Tool: Evaluation of Citizen Action Training
See also: Where the Answers Live: Team Decision Making in Zenger, J. H., Musselwhite, E., Hurson, K., Perrin, C. (1994). Leading Teams: Mastering the New Role. Homewood, IL: Zenger-Miller.

Indicator: Increased access to needed technical assistance from external resource systems will result in greater ability to meet community need Measure: A numerical tally of the number and duration of visits from different state/federal, and/or international agencies to the communities based on a content assessment of agency trip reports.
Measure: An interview or survey assessment of presenters meeting of community need.

Indicator: The extent to which there exist opportunities for public discussion within an organizational and/or structured setting.
Measure: Content analysis of local papers, newsletters, or meeting announcements. Time given at local meetings for public input into decision making process Indicator: The extent to which a variety of related organizations come together to co-sponsor events, activities or projects Measure: Numerical count and analysis of meeting minutes

Indicator: The purposes of the local organization meet the community's needs
Measure: Community survey of organizational awareness, involvement, and perception of needs being met in community.

Indicator: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR. These documents must explicitly focus on enhancing the work of a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Timely information via PCs, Internet, other communication devices, etc. will be available and/or affordable.
Measure: Survey by phone and personal interview. Logs of site connectivity computer use.


Citizen Empowerment: Increased perception of control over factors to improve one's community

Indicator: the extent to which local citizens reflect attitudes and /or values positions suggesting belief that they can make a difference
Measure: Survey or Interview
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)
Indicator: Local citizens display empowerment through increased pursuit of leadership roles in community activities
Measure: Meeting minutes - personal interview testimonials

Desire: Increased awareness of importance of community activities and seriousness of community problems

Indicator: Citizens will have a greater awareness of problems in the community
Measure: Survey or interview
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)

Indicator: Citizens will have a greater perception of the importance of community programs
Measure: Survey or interview
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)

Indicator: Local citizens display an interest in community activities
Measure: Survey or interview
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)

Indicator: Local citizens display a desire to take positive action
Measure: Survey or interview
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)


Motivation: Increased willingness and intent to take action

Indicator: Citizens will express a greater intent to participate
Measure: Survey or interview
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)

Indicator: The extent to which people are willing to continue after experiencing failures or setbacks in carrying out an activity
Measure: attendance logs, meeting minutes, town records, etc.


Citizen Participation: Increased citizen involvement in the community

Indicator: Community educator will increase the level of citizen involvement practices in community programming
Measure: Level of opportunities for participation moves from low level of participation opportunities towards greater opportunities for participation. For example, representative citizens go from serving on boards, to planning the programs, to initiating the programs, to controlling the programs
Tool: Jakes, (1998). Citizen Participation Scale.

Indicator: Community Members initiate community programming activities (utilizing Extension resources if they are applicable)
Measure: The chart developed by Jakes (1998) depicts increasing levels of citizen participation. Rate the community program using this chart pre and post community development activities. Program levels of citizen participation should fall within a specific category below. Indicators for each level could be randomized and put into Likert scale to give participant to assess perceptions of encouragement of participation.

Indicator: Community members will become mobilized to work to improve their community
Measure: Increased mobilization of community members
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)
Measure: Levels and dispersion of participation rates
Tool: Asset mapping: Mobilizing an entire community (assessing type, quality, and availability of assets)
Source: Kretzmann and McKnight (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out. Chicago: ACTA Publications. Pg. 345-354

Indicator: Local citizens will display involvement in local activities (FROM ROSSI ARTICLE)
Measure: Document the existence of locality-oriented media (local newspapers, magazines, etc.)
Measure: Document existence of locality-oriented and based voluntary associations (political clubs, civic associations, neighborhood protective associations, etc.)
Measure: Document membership and participation in locality-oriented voluntary associations

Indicator: The extent to which local citizens reflect attitudes and /or values positions suggesting individual's linkages with association, public institutions, and the private sector
Measure: Pre - post Individual Linkages Maps (Evaluation Collaboration); Membership lists - I belong to the following groups

Indicator: The extent to which citizens participate in the community's actions (For indicators targeting participation by minority or under represented groups specifically - see Process Development - Key Stakeholders)

Indicator: The extent to which citizens, including minority individual, participate in the community's actions
Measure: Survey or interview or document review of membership rosters including data on stakeholder population the member represents
Tool: Mobilization Survey (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)

Indicator: Change in stakeholder involvement
Measure: Survey, interview, or document review of membership rosters including data on stakeholder population the member represents
Tool: Collaboration structure
Source: Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the journey. St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Tool: Network Analysis Questionnaire Source: Linney & Wandersman (1991). Prevention Plus III. US Department of Health and human Services. Pg. 413
Tool: Change Agent Diversity Worksheet
Source: White, Lynn (1998). Collaboration: Tools, techniques, and processes for success. NNCO.
Tool: Diversity Awareness Continuum Source: NNCO, Adapted from The managing diversity survival guide: A complete collection of checklists, activities, and tips. By L. Gardenswartz & A. Rowe (1994)

Indicator: the extent to which local citizens continue to participate through project completion - Are people willing to hang in for the long haul? (For turnover with positive program outcomes see next indicator)
Measure: time series membership rosters

Indicator: The extent to which there occurs productive turnover among leaders/officers of established community groups
Measure: Documentation review, survey, interview
Indicator: Community members will show increased use of available community services and facilities.
Measure: Activity sign-up logs, client portfolios

Literature Review		Evaluation Example	Essay on Citizen Participation	Sources and Annotations
| Citizen Development |
| Program Outcomes for Communities |
| NOWG Home |