Working Together to Assess Community Capacity

1. Working Together to Assess Community Capacity Kathie Cram Community Development Consultant Public Health Services Saskatoon Health Region Saskatchewan, Canada Community Development Society “Communities That Click: Individuals, Families and Organizations That Work Together” 38th Annual Conference St. Louis, June 2006

2. Can tools developed to assess community capacity be applied in a way that has meaning and is useful to grassroots anti-poverty work? “Has meaning” refers to the interpretation by the participants about the extent to which the project and the application of the tool affected them and impacted on their relationships with one another. “Useful” refers to how it influenced the work of their organization in terms of practices, decisions and planning.

3. Based on a case analysis of the efforts of the Saskatoon Anti-Poverty Coalition (SAPC) to understand their capacity

4. Philosophical meaning of the strawberry: Heart-shaped Connotates healing, passion and purity Smell, taste, looks, how it makes us feel when we eat it Way it sends out runners symbolic of community renewal and outreach Tied to “100 Years of Heart” history of Province of Saskatchewan, Canada Celebrate ancient heart of the land Symbol of resolve to work towards change by balancing support with justice work

5. Uses the ten- (10) dimensions of community capacity discussed by Goodman et al are used, in collaboration with the Coalition, to analyze their work.

6. Skills Leadership Resources Participation Networks Critical Reflection Community Feeling Community Values Community History Community Power The Ten Dimensions

7. In summary, the project showed that: • one particular tool to measure community capacity can have meaning to the participants, and be useful for identifying both strengths and areas for development • the meaning comes from the opportunity to spend time reflecting on the dimensions in an atmosphere of trust, fun, and where everyone is given voice • usefulness comes from connection to planning (around Poverty Awareness Week) and as a tool to discuss conflict

8. The people: • small 6 person group called "C- 8": Creative, Cool, Committed, Classy, Clever, Community, Capacity, Collective” • clear they wanted to have fun in the process, learn something useful and wanted to work with a consensus based decision making model • an ad hoc group of people from SAPC, who were to guide the project and act as a "proxy" for SAPC members • two (2) members were living on social assistance, two (2) members were working with supportive agencies, one (1) member acted as the facilitator; and one (1) member was the group's "methods consultant"

9. The method1. Group Sets Goals • learn about Goodman et al community capacity tool • analyze & critique the tool based on their experiences with SAPC • adapt the tool for SAPC • link the tool to planning

10. In between an applied community based research approach and a "project". Reasons were: negative experiences members had with formal research processes contributed to them feeling exploited by the researcher/s desire of the group to control their techniques and who was writing what about the process need to integrate some of the best parts of community based research, and their own positive experiences of this, into the project. 2. Group Develops Philosophy

11. solution was to work with a "methods consultant", who volunteered her time, and ensured that the group paid attention to ethical processes of research and sound methods of recording discussions and decisions • Use principles of community based research articulated by Minkler and Wallerstein (2003); participatory, cooperative, engaging community members and researchers in a process where both contribute equally, co-learning process, involves systems development and local community capacity building, empowering process in which participants can increase control over their own lives, attempts to achieve a balance between research and action.

12. 3. Process • Process was facilitated, records were kept, consent forms signed • Use of metaphors at beginning, end and in rating system (spidergram) • Read out loud portions of the Goodman et al article • Discussed 1 or 2 of the dimensions as it related to their experience • Developed a working definition of each of the dimensions • Choose the order of discussion around each according to what might be most useful at the time given the current realities and issues the group was facing. (eg: conflict in skills dimension; power).

13. Interplay between dialogue, analysis and action is 1 example of how the principles of community based research was being used. • Focus group to engage other people who had been involved in the earlier years of the Coalition. Group wanted a “then and now” comparison. • Closure and final reflection gathering.

14. Labour intensive (met 12 times for 2.5 hours each time)

15. Rating • Rated each of the dimensions separately. • 4 = very high (understanding of what their group would “be like” if the dimension was at its optimum); 1 = very low (understanding of what there group would be like if the dimension was totally absent) • Glenn Lavarack’s (2005) spidergram technique

16. Discovery: What We Found Out

17. Grappling with the Definition Choose/adapt one of: " An approach to the development of sustainable skills, organizational structures, resources, and commitment to health improvement in health and other sectors, to prolong and multiply health gains many times over "(Hawe et al 1999). "The increase in community groups' ability to define, assess, analyze data and act on health (or an other) concerns of importance to their members" (Labonte and Laverack 2001).

18. "Characteristics of a community that affect their ability to identify, mobilize and address social and health problems, and the cultivation and use of transferable knowledge, skills, systems and resources that affect community and individual level changes consistent with public health-related goals and objectives." (Goodman et al 1998)

19. Group choose Goodman et al definition: • Definition Resonates • embraced the first of these 2 aspects of the definition, but did not want to tie any definition to public health goals they might not understand; • adapted definition of community capacity is: “building upon the characteristics of a community that affect their ability to identify, mobilize and address social health problems”. • Engaging Process • process used by Goodman was based on a broad engagement of people from different disciplines who had experience in the field had worked with people who were marginalized.

20. 3. Dimensions Made Sense • agreed that each dimension was important to their work • there was nothing of real substance missing • wanted to add some additional elements to each dimension • especially struggled with “sense of community” • several sessions trying to articulate the element of “soulfulness” in building a sense of community.

21. although many of the other dimensions were common amongst all the authors, Goodman offered one dimension that dealt with community history that people found important. 4. Practical Value • believed that using the tool from Goodman et al would have some practical value • it was understandable and could be used to help with future planning.

22. C8 Group: Dimensions, Definitions and Ratings: Now and Then

26. The Meaning of the Project: “Good Medicine” • process had been a meaningful learning experience • they had deepened their relationships with one another • it was worthy of celebration (fun barbeque) and deeper reflection (collage exercise) • learning could be integrated into planning for the future • visual images group members chose to represent their feelings about the project and symbolize the meaning the project held for them varied

27. Getting our ducks in a row

28. Planting seeds for future growth

29. The discussions came from the heart

30. We all have wisdom, have more wisdom together, wisdom was valued

31. At the beginning this was unknown, sometimes it was chaotic, new questions were good for development

32. Lessons Learned • Useful tool for collective reflection • Wisdom in room, help create atmosphere of trust, mutual respect, quietness and silence • Builds relationships if done with respect • Tool to create safe place to talk about conflict and need for improvement with judgement or blaming individuals • Labour intensive • Must be linked back into ongoing work (will be used in planning and monthly meetings)