December 2006 // Volume 44 // Number 6 // Ideas at Work // 6IAW2
 |  |
 |
Using a Multi-Phase Community Assessment to "Chart the Course" of Communities in Southern Ohio
Abstract
Extension must be responsive to the communities it serves in order to remain relevant. A multi-phased community assessment process was designed to acquire a holistic understanding of communities and perceptions of residents regarding broad issues within 16 counties in southern Ohio. This process has helped us better understand these communities and has served as a conduit to increase community awareness of Extension, build stronger and more efficient Extension teams, foster new and enhance existing partnerships, and stimulate positive change.
Introduction
Charting Our Course Through Community Assessments represents an 18-month project in 16 counties of the Ohio State University Extension's South District designed to acquire a holistic understanding, including the perceptions of residents, of a broad range of issues affecting our communities. A community assessment was designed to identify resources, capacities, and opportunities as well as challenges and needs facing communities, individuals and families.
A steering committee of Extension specialists, administrators, county agents, and a partnering agency led the development of a comprehensive community assessment. After studying a variety of assessment approaches (Ayre, Clough, & Norris, 2000; Hinckley et al., 2001; North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, 2001; Samuels, Ahsan, & Garcia, 1995), a three-phased assessment comprised of a Snapshot, Resident Survey and Focused Group Discussion was designed.
The Phases of the Assessment
Snapshot
The Snapshot phase represents a basic collection and presentation of facts, figures, and statistics relying on existing secondary data sources and informal information gathering to establish base line data for analysis. The snapshot phase was designed so OSU Extension staff within each county could work together to compile existing information for the assessment. The county snapshots were formatted as stand-alone references for community distribution and were included in the final assessment reports.
Resident Survey
The Resident Survey consisted mainly of 35 forced-choice statements (Likert Scale) dealing with an array of topics focusing on: 1) Civic Infrastructure and Community Planning; 2) Economic Development, Business and Jobs; 3) Education and Workforce Training; 4) Family and Community Services; 5) Natural Resources and Environment; and 6) Outside Assistance, Leveraging and Burdens. Previously tested surveys from the University of Washington (Bauen, Baker, & Johnson, 1996), the University of Illinois Extension Community and Economic Development (2005) and the National Center for Service Integration (Bruner, Bell, Brindis, Chang, & Scarbrough, 1993) were consulted to develop a list of potential survey questions.
A stratified random sample of 400 individuals per county was drawn from registered voters from the 2000 General Election. Each county compared survey respondent profiles with 2000 U.S Census data. Samples of convenience were recommended for under-represented populations. Over 75% of the surveys were deliverable, with a mean of 316.4 (SD=26.4) per county. A total of 1,497 completed surveys were returned from the 16 counties for a response rate of 29.4%. Data was entered into SPSS Version 11.5 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) and formatted to facilitate analysis at the county, multi-county, district, and regional levels. This process was supported by District operating funds, with a direct cost of less than $1,000 per county.
Three open-ended questions allowed residents to voice additional opinions about: 1) What are the best things your community offers your family? 2) What are the most important challenges facing your family? 3) What are the most important challenges facing your community? Most respondents provided comments that verified the findings of the Likert-Style questions. Some statements brought new issues to light.
Focused Group Discussion Sessions
Focused Group Discussions provided a transition between data collection and action. Counties hosted a forum comprised of community members; civic, business, and community leaders; organization and agency representatives; elected and appointed officials; and current and potential clients of OSU Extension. The standard format for discussion sessions began with the SWOT tool for analyzing the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of their community. Participants discussed the Snapshot and Resident Survey, analyzed and interpreted findings, and identified action strategies to approach the challenges and opportunities highlighted in all three phases of the county's community assessment.
Selected Assessment Findings
The following three examples of the key findings illustrate the assessment's usefulness for Extension and other organizations.
Students in school districts in Ohio's Appalachian counties consistently perform poorly on standardized tests, yet 66% of respondents believe that schools do a good job of preparing youth to succeed.
Obesity and tobacco use are prevalent in Appalachian Ohio and are recognized as major health threats. However, over 70% report they engage in lifestyle activities that enhance their health.
Thirteen of the 16 surveyed counties are federally defined as Appalachian, yet only 9% of respondents self-identified as Appalachian. This is significant for cultural-based programming and funding opportunities.
Implications for Extension
Beyond the basic findings and results of this assessment, the over-all awareness of Extension as an asset for community capacity building was heightened.
The assessment results are being used as a foundation for local Extension planning and programming. It is assisting us in developing programming more responsive to the communities we serve.
It encouraged the building of effective county Extension teams that brought community members together to form new and stronger partnerships that acted as a catalyst for planning and implementation
This process provides OSU Extension opportunities to share assessment results with other organizations. It gives us research-based information to bring to the table and helps us to be a more valuable partner. It provides key information that will help leverage limited resources within our communities.
The assessment elevated recognition of Extension's capability to facilitate and carry out planning with organizations, communities and initiatives. This process has already resulted in significant cost recovery and partnership opportunities for Extension.
Significant Impacts
Specific outcomes that can be directly attributed to this assessment process include the following.
Invited to submit a proposal, which was subsequently funded to facilitate a county's economic development priorities plan.
Asked to meet with six organizations in as many counties to help design an assessment or planning process. This resulted in two significant cost-recovery projects for Ohio State University Extension, which helped build the capacity of two local non-profit organizations.
Shared County Assessment Reports with Ohio's Appalachian Task Force; its leadership inquired about conducting this assessment in 16 additional Appalachian counties.
Provided county assessment reports to regional partners to substantiate grant proposals.
Served as "talking points" for a local government official and is credited with an increase in that county's Extension budget when most other Ohio counties received level or decreased funding.
References
Ayre, D. Clough, G., & Norris, T. (2000). Facilitating community change. San Francisco, CA: Community Initiatives Inc. & The Grove Consultants International.
Bauen, R., Baker, B., & Johnson, K. (1996). Sustainable community checklist, first edition. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Northwest Policy Center, Graduate School of Public Affairs.
Bruner, C., Bell, K., Brindis, C., Chang, H., & Scarbrough, W. (1996). Charting a course: assessing a community's strengths and needs. Des Moines, IA: National Center for Service Integration.
Hinckley, C., Randolph, M., Achter, S., Haverkampf, K., Cooper, P., Vuckovich, G., & Gardner, D. (2001). Creating an effective resource team program building stronger rural communities–why do community assessments. Paper presented at The Times They Are A-Changing Summit, Duluth, MN.
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. (2001). Community assessment. In G. P. Green & T. O. Borich (Eds.), Vision to action: Take charge too. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Ohio State University South Centers. (2003). South Centers report: Charting our course through community assessments. Piketon, OH. (Available at: http://southcenters.osu.edu/)
Samuels, B., Ahsan, N., & Garcia, J. (1995). Know your community: A step-by-step guide to community needs and resources assessment, Revised 2nd Edition. Family Resource Coalition of America.
University of Illinois Extension. (2005). Conduct a survey in your community. Community Development Learning Laboratory. Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved June 12, 2005, from http://www.communitydevelopment.uiuc.edu/commsurvey