 |
 |
 |
 |
    |
 |
 |
|
Process
Development
I. Strengthening Existing Linkages
Once community groups have been formed, a systemic intervention might
show need for improvement in group functioning and efficiency. The following
are the primary process components of strengthening existing community
groups:
1. Leadership Development - Developing leadership to best meet
the needs of the group will enable group leaders to represent the stakeholders,
effectively respond to community members' needs, and create productive
groups.
Goal: Leadership within the linkage will show improvement in type, quality
and availability which will allow for the most effective group development
and function.
Indicator: Leadership promotes team growth and productivity
Measure: Survey or interview. Due to the idiosyncratic nature of leadership
needs, tools will have to be designed to meet individual group's needs.
Tool: Leadership assessment question samples Source: Zenger, JH, Musselwhite,
E., Hurson, K., Perrin, C. (1994). Leading Teams: Mastering the New
Role. Homewood, Ill: Zenger-Miller. pp. 16, 41, 57, 76, 90, 110, 126.
Indicator: Assessing Roles - Roles of members in linkage will fit with
the needs of the group.
Tool: Member involvement in the community group survey (Question 4. part
II) Source: University of Wisconsin- Cooperative Extension (1998). Evaluating
Collaboratives: Reaching the Potential. pg. A4 Can be found at http://cf.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3658_8.PDF
Indicator: The extent to which there occurs turnover among leaders/officers
of established community groups
Measure: Documentation review, survey, interview
2. Communication Development - Promoting clear and open communication
both within the group and with those external to the group will ensure
that all information is disseminated to everyone involved and that all
decision-makers are informed.
The community linkage will have communication practices that optimize
system functioning. This communication will need to be strong both internally
and externally. "Collaborative efforts are dependent upon open and clear
communication. Collaboration Framework, p. 11 - Communication)
2a. Internal communication Goal: Communication within the community linkage
will be more effective.
Indicator: Decisions will be jointly made by the stakeholders
Measure: Document review of meeting minutes that show decisions made by
consensus
Tool: Spider-web Analysis,
Source: Borden, L. & Perkins, D. (1998). Collaboration Framework Interactive
Training Package . National Network for Collaboration.
Tool: Triangle of Vision
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: 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: Network Analysis Questionnaire
Source: Linney & Wandersman (1991). Prevention Plus III. US Department
of Health and Human Services. pg. 413
Indicator: All members of the group are informed of the actions of the
group.
Measure: Interview, Distribution lists
Indicator: Decisions will be made by a consensus of the stakeholders "One
of the major responsibilities for leadership is to assure that appropriate
members have been brought to the collaboration. A diverse membership should
encompass potentially impacted groups and individuals." Collaboration
Framework, p. 12 - Leadership
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.)
See also: Where the Answers Live: Team decision Making in Zenger, JH.
Musselwhite, E., Hurson, K., Perrin, C. (1994). Leading Teams: Mastering
the New Role. Homewood, Ill: Zenger-Miller.
2b. External Communication Goal: Communication between the community linkage
and the greater community, as well as with their home organization will
increase in quality and quantity.
Indicator: The extent to which newspaper space is devoted to public issues
and community actions
Measure: Recorded number of inches in print and the location of articles
in local papers.
Indicator: The extent to which TV and radio time is devoted to public
issues and community actions
Measure: Recorded number of minutes on the air
Indicator: Whether or not a community directory exists and is updated
regularly.
Measure: Survey or interview
Indicator: The extent to which community members give testimony to local,
state or national legislatures.
Measure: Numerical tally of the number of times community members speak
before legislative groups.
Indicator: Groups and stakeholders in the community report being timely
informed of linkage decisions and activities.
Measure: Survey or interview
Indicator: The extent to which the community holds rallies and public
gatherings for the purpose of communication
Measure: Record the number of public gatherings
Indicator: The extent to which collaboration members maintain strong communication
with their home organizations.
Measure: Survey or interview
3. Research and Evaluation - Ongoing assessment to evaluate and
refine the programming efforts will allow community groups to maintain
awareness of current research and refine programs as needed.
Goal: Community linkages will perform ongoing assessment of program processes,
outcomes, and core foundation components making adjustments to maintain
optimal functioning and impact. (Ideally this involves the use of participatory
action research or empowerment evaluation research methodologies)
Tools: Tracking of actions logs.
Source: Goodman, R.M., Wandersman, A., Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Morrissey,
E. (1996). An ecological assessment of community-based interventions for
prevention and health promotion: Approaches to measuring community coalitions.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 24 (1), 33-61.
Tools: Process Assessment Worksheet. Source: Linney, J.A., & Wandersman,
A. (1991). Prevention Plus III. US Department of Health and Human
Services.
Tools: Summary Report of Collaborative Work.
Source: Linney, J.A. & Wandersman, A. (1996). Empowering community groups
with evaluation skills. The Prevention Plus III Model. In Empowerment
evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability.
(Pp. 259-276). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Tool: Evaluation Procedures
Source: Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration Handbook: Creating,
Sustaining, and Enjoying, the Journey, St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder
Foundation.)
4. Sustainability - Developing structures to continue community group
and programming efforts to completion will allow community groups to sustain
their efforts over time.
Goal: Membership and financial resources will be available which allow
the interagency group process to continue to completion. (See also The
Sustainability Study)
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, etc. See The
National Youth at Risk Program Sustainability Study (Mancini and Marek,
1998).
Tool: Member involvement in the community group survey
Source: University of Wisconsin- Cooperative Extension (1998). Evaluating
Collaboratives: Reaching the Potential. pg. A4 Can be found at http://cf.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3658_8.PDF
5. Resources - Increasing the integration, accessibility, and usage of
available resources will enable others to benefit from the group's findings.
While Integration, accessibility, and usage of resources is a process
development issue, these indicators and measures will be linked here,
but reviewed with the resource outcome piece. Both sections 1) Increasing
resources and 2) Improving resource usage, make up the current Resource
Development section which will be reviewed as a whole)
Overall Process Development Tools |
|||
| Program Outcomes for Communities | |
|||
| NOWG Home | |
|||