California's healthy cities: Governance in action

Health Promotion International

Painter

Twiss

et al. 2009

As part of an evaluation of the California Healthy Cities and Communities (CHCC) program, we evaluated resident involvement, broad representation and civic engagement beyond the local CHCC initiative. The evaluation design was a case study of 20 participating communities with cross-case analysis. Data collection methods included: coalition member surveys at two points in time, semi-structured interviews with key informants, focus groups with coalition members and document review. Participating communities were diverse in terms of population density, geography and socio-demographic characteristics. Over a 3-year period, grantees developed a broad-based coalition of residents and community sectors, produced a shared vision, conducted an asset-based community assessment, identified a priority community improvement focus, developed an action plan, implemented the plan and evaluated their efforts. Local residents were engaged through coalition membership, assessment activities and implementation activities. Ten of the 20 coalitions had memberships comprised of mainly local residents in the planning phase, with 5 maintaining a high level of resident involvement in governance during the implementation phase. Ninety percent of the coalitions had six or more community sectors represented (e.g. education, faith). The majority of coalitions described at least one example of increased input into local government decision-making and at least one instance in which a resident became more actively involved in the life of their community. Findings suggest that the Healthy Cities and Communities model can be successful in facilitating community participation.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation findings on community participation in the California Healthy Cities and Communities program

Health Promotion International

Painter

Twiss

et al. 2009

“…The major tasks associated with a healthy city initiative include establishing an intersectoral committee or coalition; conducting visioning, assessment, and planning activities; engaging in good models of practice that promote public participation and creative collaboration; assessing progress with the goal of continuous quality improvement; and creating linkages with other participating cities. 1,7 The Healthy Cities movement has much in common with other community-level health promotion initiatives. Both the Healthy Cities movement and other communitybased approaches acknowledge the importance of societal and cultural contexts to health, take advantage of existing community structures, and actively involve community members in an effort to build ownership, pool resources, and enhance institutionalization.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 Detailed descriptions of city-specific accomplishments have been published elsewhere. 7 Participating cities have addressed a wide range of issues, many beyond the scope of traditional public health programs. These issues include quality-oflife indices, food security, youth development, literacy, mentoring, crime reduction, youth violence prevention, intergenerational assistance, and neighborhood beautification.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Communities engaged in a Healthy Cities effort stress community involvement, a systems approach to solving problems, organizational and policy reform, and intersectoral partnerships. [6][7][8] Hancock and Duhl 9 define a healthy city as one that is continually creating and improving those physical and social environments and strengthening those community resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all the functions of life and achieving their maximum potential. (p. 24) In keeping with this process orientation, cities identify problems or issues to address based on their own needs and assets, rather than from funding-driven directives.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 For example, cities interested in participating in the California Healthy Cities Project must obtain a city council resolution supporting participation in the project. 7 The Healthy Cities movement also emphasizes a community-building process over specific health outcomes, 1,5 although improved community health outcomes are the longer term goal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Twiss²,

Look³

2000

Health Educ Behav

More than 40 cities have participated in the California Healthy Cities Project since its inception in 1988. Because Healthy Cities efforts are community driven, these cities address diverse health and social issues using a wide variety of strategies. This complexity, in addition to the usual difficulties associated with evaluating community interventions, creates many challenges for evaluation. Given the community building and process orientation of Healthy Cities, it may be most appropriate to measure intermediate community changes that have been linked to health outcomes in previous research or, at a minimum, theoretically. The California Healthy Cities evaluation framework conceptualizes change at five levels: individual, civic participation, organizational, interorganizational, and community. The framework, developed collaboratively with Healthy Cities participants, attempts to synthesize current thinking and practice on evaluation of community projects by applying concepts from community capacity/competence, social ecology, and urban planning.

Achieving organizational change: findings from case studies of 20 California healthy cities and communities coalitions

Health Promotion International

Norton

Aronson

2008

As part of an evaluation of the California Healthy Cities and Communities (CHCC) Program, we assessed the extent to which coalitions implementing the healthy cities and communities model demonstrated capacity to leverage financial resources, expand programs and influence organizational policies. The evaluation design was a multiple case study of 20 participating communities with cross-case analysis. Participating communities spanned the state's diverse geographic regions and ranged from remote areas within rural counties to neighborhoods within large cities. Data included: semi-structured interviews with coordinators and community leaders, focus groups with coalition members and document review. Many CHCC coalitions were able to leverage significant financial resources across a diverse array of funding sources, including federal, state, county and city governments. In addition, all CHCC coalitions developed at least one new program, most commonly focused on youth development, civic capacity-building or lifelong learning. Changes in policies, reported by 19 of the 20 coalitions, were consistent with healthy cities and communities principles and were implemented in community-based organizations, county and city governments, and school districts. Typical changes included an increased willingness to collaborate, increased emphasis on engaging diverse parts of the community, greater responsiveness to community needs and more opportunities for resident input into decision-making. Our findings suggest the healthy cities and communities model has the potential to strengthen the organizational infrastructure of communities to promote health.