Assessing Community Change at Multiple Levels: The Genesis of an Evaluation Framework for the California Healthy Cities Project

Kegler, Michelle C.; Twiss, Joan M.; Look, Vivian

doi:10.1177/109019810002700610

Cited by 59 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(97 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus far, it has been very difficult to document that broad participation and collaboration actually strengthen the ability of communities to improve the health and well-being of their residents. 17,[22][23][24][25][26] Without evidence showing that community engagement works-or for which kinds of problems it works-participatory approaches to civic problem solving have not been taken seriously by many policymakers. 2,27,28 Why are we in this predicament?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Broadening Participation in Community Problem Solving: a Multidisciplinary Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research

Lasker

Weiss

2003

Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine

407

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Broadening Participation in Community Problem Solving: a Multidisciplinary Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research

Lasker

Weiss

2003

Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine

407

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, much of the current research on councils has focused on formative ''outcomes'' (Kegler et al 2000) including, for example, the quality of council action plans (e.g., Kumpfer et al 1993) and member satisfaction (e.g., Kegler et al 1998). However, such formative ''outcomes'' may not gauge the areas of change that councils are well-positioned to facilitate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Qualitative Study of the Activities and Outcomes of Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils

Allen

Watt

Hess

2008

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to promote systems change frequently involve the creation of councils, coalitions, and other collaborative settings. However, research, to date, reports limited empirical evidence that they achieve desired outcomes (Roussos and Fawcett, Annu Rev Public Health 21:369-402, 2000). The precise nature of this evidence base has received less attention. In particular, formal investigations into council effectiveness (a) rarely highlight the specific nature of collaborative efforts; (b) emphasize fairly distal markers as the "gold standard" for effectiveness; (c) focus largely on formative "outcomes" (e.g., action plan quality); and (d) utilize primarily quantitative research approaches. The current study extends previous research by employing a qualitative approach to investigate the particular activities and proximal outcomes of 41 domestic violence coordinating councils. Study findings suggest that councils engage in six primary activities: discussing issues, sharing information, identifying weaknesses in the system's response, providing training for key stakeholders, engaging in public/community education, and lobbying key stakeholders who are not council members. Three proximal outcomes were consistently identified in council efforts: the promotion of knowledge, relationships, and institutionalized change. Attending more directly to proximal outcomes and concrete activities in our research has important implications for conceptualizing and researching the effectiveness of councils and collaborative settings.

show abstract

“…Different individuals and groups evaluate situations differently, which leads to different actions. Everyone's views are heavy with interpretations, biases and prejudices, and this implies that there are multiple possible descriptions of any real world activity (Kegler, Twiss & Look 2000). It was therefore important to avoid reducing the question of stakeholder representation to the notion of a generic community upon which policy-making can be based.…”

Section: The Case Study: Research Design and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality partnerships: The community stakeholders' view

Netshandama

2010

Gateways

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1997 universities in South Africa have been encouraged to be responsive to the needs of communities, to encourage broader participation and to address issues of access in higher education (Department of Education 1997). This transformative agenda was found to be especially compelling in the case of rural-based South African universities, which often serve historically disadvantaged black populations in areas that are both under-resourced and underdeveloped (Nkomo & Sehoole 2007, pp. 235–36). In 2006 the traditional leadership of a local community approached the University of Venda to propose a partnership. This prompted the researcher to conduct a qualitative study, which sought to explore and describe community members’ views of what they understood to be a quality partnership. Thirty-seven community representatives were engaged in individual as well as focus group interviews. These representatives were identified first through a stakeholder analysis procedure that sought to determine who in the community would have valuable input for the university-community partnership. As a point of departure, the following two questions were asked consecutively: What are your needs and expectations of a partnership with the university and what would you regard as a quality partnership between the HEI and the community? The sample selection was purposive, utilising the snowball technique. Data was transcribed and analysed using Tesch’s eight-step method (Tesch 1990, in Creswell 1994, p. 155). Interview data and field notes were co-coded, crosschecked and triangulated. Feedback workshops were conducted with the community to confirm the findings. A consensus was reached that four main requirements emerged from the data: —Balance the partnership objectives of both parties —Ensure an unexploitative partnership —Share power and control in the partnership —Maintain and monitor the partnership. This article provides a brief overview of the national and regional context to university-community engagement and considers what it means to partner with communities facing urgent and pressing needs. It then looks in detail at what the study revealed about community members’ understanding of quality partnerships with a Higher Education Institution, and provides some thoughts on how to facilitate a quality partnership in a similar context. Key words: Community, stakeholders, quality partnership

show abstract

Assessing Community Change at Multiple Levels: The Genesis of an Evaluation Framework for the California Healthy Cities Project

Cited by 59 publications

References 62 publications

Broadening Participation in Community Problem Solving: a Multidisciplinary Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research

Broadening Participation in Community Problem Solving: a Multidisciplinary Model to Support Collaborative Practice and Research

A Qualitative Study of the Activities and Outcomes of Domestic Violence Coordinating Councils

Quality partnerships: The community stakeholders' view

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About