A presentation made by Dr.Norman Walzer and Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha to the PASCAL 2012 Conference on University Outreach and Engagement in Brest, France (October 29-31, 2012).

1. Community Strategic Visioning Programs*
Approaches and Outcomes
Norman Walzer and Tatchalerm Sudhipongpracha
Presented to
“Role of Higher Education in Local & Regional Social & Economic Development”
PASCAL Conference
Brest, France
October 29‐31, 2012
*Financial Support for Survey was Provided by the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development

2. Presentation Overview
• Institutional Arrangements for Programs
 Host Agency
 Topics Covered
• Measuring Outcomes and Evaluation
• Program Successes and Reasons
• Lessons Learned
2

3. Community Strategic Visioning Programs
(Surveyed Spring 2010)
Sample Programs, combined,
served:
•
•
•
•
338 cities
287 non‐profit organizations,
175 counties, and
30 regional economic
development agencies.
3

4. Program Format
• Where Has the City Been?
• What Do Participants Want in Future? (Vision)
• How Can the Participants Get There?
• How to Maintain the Momentum?
• Evaluation and Modification of Plans
4

5. Agencies Delivering Program
(Mainly Based in Non‐metro Areas)
Responses
Agency
Total No.
%
University‐Based (Not Extension)
3
15%
Extension Service
13
65%
State Agency
1
5%
Private Business
1
5%
Other
2
10%
Total Number of Responses
20
100%
5

6. Materials Included In Sessions
Materials
Response (s)
Total No.
%
Evaluation Approaches Or Tools
13
19%
“Best Practices” In Other Communities
12
18
Leadership Examples Or Models
12
18
Meeting Management Guides Or Assistance
11
16
Data Books Or Reports Analyzing Trends
10
15
Alternative Organizational Structures
5
7
Fund‐raising Guides
4
6
Total No. of Responses
67
100%
6

7. Topics Covered
Issue
Number of
Respondents
Percentage Rating
Issue As
“Not Important Or
Percentage Rating
Issue As
Slightly Important”
“Important Or Very
Important”
Average
Response*
Local Job Creation
19
24%
71%
3.8
Job Retention
19
24
71
3.7
Entrepreneurship
19
18
65
3.7
Downtown Development
19
18
53
3.6
Stimulate Private Investment
19
24
47
3.4
Finance Public Infrastructure
19
29
59
3.4
Housing Issues
19
24
47
3.3
Expand Internet Access
19
41
12
2.6
Health Care Access
19
53
18
2.5
Public Transportation
19
59
6
1.3
Note: *Responses Range From 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Very Important)
7

8. Main Approaches Used
Number of Respondents
Method(s)
Percentage Of
Percentage Of
Respondents Reporting Respondents Reporting
Technique As High In
Technique As Low In
Importance
Importance
Total No.
Percentage Of
Respondents
Using Technique
Appreciative Inquiry
20
70%
43%
7%
Needs Assessment
20
100
18
47
Asset‐Based Approach
20
75
47
33
8

9. Assessing Community Preparedness
(Important or Very Important)*
• Established Group Exists
39%
• Informal Group Meets Regularly
28
• Responses to Pre‐Program Survey
36
• Pre‐Session Visit to Community
58
• “Reputation” of Community for Taking Action
36
• Financial Support by Businesses and Groups
30
• Commitment by City Administration
50
• Ability of Host Group to Raise Funds
36
*Percent of Respondents Reporting Item as Important or Very Important.
9

10. Program Participant Involvement
Participant Group
Community Volunteers
Civic Organizations
Cooperative Extension Service
Economic Development Group
Retired Or Elderly Residents
Professional Groups
Business Owners
Higher Education Institution
Youth In The Community
Bankers Or Financial Groups
Chamber Of Commerce
Farmers Or Agricultural Groups
City Council
State Agency Representative
Mayor
Planning Board
Local Clergy
Conservation Committee
League Of Women Voters
Total No.
of Respondents
17
18
17
17
17
17
18
18
17
17
18
17
18
17
18
18
17
18
17
Percentage of
Respondents Rating
Participant as
“Not Very Active or
Minimum Activity”
0%
0
12
12
12
12
22
22
29
29
33
29
33
35
28
44
41
56
82
Percentage of
Respondents Rating
Participant as “Active or
Very Active”
Average
Response*
76%
78
65
71
47
47
33
44
41
41
39
29
33
41
22
39
18
22
6
4.9
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.0
1.4
Note: *Responses range from 1 (Not Important) to 5 (Very Important)
10

11. Criteria for Evaluating Successful Outcomes
Criteria
Not Important Or
Slightly Important
Important Or Very
Important
Average
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Number Of Active Participants
1
7%
2
14%
11
79%
Jobs Created
7
50
4
29
3
21
Jobs Retained
7
50
4
29
3
21
Business Starts
7
47
6
40
2
13
Program Projects Completed
2
13
0
0
14
88
Media Coverage Or Accounts
5
36
5
36
4
29
Expanded Web Site
8
57
3
21
3
21
Acres of Land/Sites Conserved
7
50
6
43
1
7
Facilities/Services Developed
4
27
1
7
10
67
Grant Dollars/Resources
2
14
4
29
8
57
Client Satisfaction Surveys
2
14
2
14
10
71
Number Of Program Requests
3
18
3
18
11
65
11

12. Community Characteristics
(As a Result of Program Delivery)
• Goal Achievement
 Ability to Complete Short And Long‐term Goals
• Decision‐making Ability
 Community Able to Reach Consensus in Solving Problems
• Flexibility
 Willingness or Ability to Choose Different Approaches
• Skill Development
 Programs to Educate and Train Community Members
• Team Work
 Cooperative Efforts to Achieve Common Goals
• Resiliency
 Ability to Respond to Adversity
• Accountability
 Mechanisms Allowing Stakeholders Input into Community Decisions
12

13. Session Topics and Success
Session Topic
Correlation
Data Analysis/Presentation
‐.0850
Deriving a Community Vision
0.685*
Other Strategic Planning Exercises
0.287*
Building Leadership Skills
0.459*
Bringing in Resource Personnel
0.285*
Involving Community Members
0.663*
Pursuing Level 5 Leadership
0.261
(Since the sample size is small, these correlations are exploratory only)
13

14. Community Characteristics
Characteristics of Participating Community
Participating Communities With
Characteristics That Achieve Goals in 2
Years
Goal Achievement
7 (38.9%)
Decision Making
8 (44.4%)*
Flexibility
8 (44.4%)
Developing Skills
5 (29.4%)
Teamwork
7 (38.9%)
Resiliency
7 (38.9%)
Accountability
6 (33.3%)**
* Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
14

15. Government Agency Engagement
Agency or Group
Programs with Active Government
Agencies That Achieve Goals in 2 Years
Mayor
4 (22.2%)
City Council
7 (38.9%)
Planning Board
9 (50.0%)
Conservation Committee
5 (27.8%)
Cooperative Extension Service
13 (72.2%)
State Agencies
9 (50. 0%)
* Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
15

16. Engagement by Business/Professional Groups
Business/Professional Groups
Programs with Active Bus/Professional Groups and
Goal Attainment in 2 Years
Economic Development Agency
13 (76.5%)
Chamber of Commerce
8 (44.4%)
Business Owners
7 (38.9%)
Professional Groups
10 (55.6%)
Farmers or Agricultural Groups
7 (38.9%)**
Bankers or Financial Groups
9 (50.0%)
* Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
16

17. Engagement by Social Agencies
Agencies and Groups
Civic Organizations
League of Women Voters
Higher Education Institutions
Youth in Community
Retired or Elderly Residents
Local Clergy
Community Volunteers
Programs with Active Social Agencies
and Achieve Goals in 2 Years
14 (77.8%)
1 (5.9%)
10 (55.6%)
8 (44.4%)**
10 (55.6%)**
5 (27.8%)**
15 (83.3%)**
* Significant at the 0.1 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
** Significant at the 0.05 significance level (Kendall‐Tau C Test)
17

18. Lessons Learned
(Based On Small Sample and Non‐metro Areas)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most Programs are Provided by Extension Service
Asset‐Based and Appreciative Inquiry are Often Used
Attention is Paid to Community Preparedness
Job Creation and Retention are Most Important Issues
44% of Programs Report 50% or More Communities Achieve
Goals within Two Years
Decision‐making Ability is Important to Program Success;
Accountability has a Negative Sign
Community Volunteers, Civic Organizations are Most Active
Specialized Groups are Correlated with Success
Government Programs are Not Significantly Related to Success
18

19. Next Steps
• Identify Other Programs to Expand Coverage of Agencies
Surveyed (Thailand May Replicate Survey)
• Conduct More Intensive Interviews With Providers About Key
Elements and Ways to Measure Outcomes
• Identify Promising and Effective Delivery Systems
• Examine Roles Played by Governmental Agencies
• Research Longer‐Term Outputs and Outcomes From Programs
• Explore Innovative Ways to Measure Community Change
• Contribute to the Body of Knowledge About Visioning
Practices in Community Change
19

20. For Further Information
Norman Walzer
Senior Research Scholar
nwalzer@niu.edu
Center for Governmental Studies
Northern Illinois University
De Kalb, IL 60115
815‐753‐1907
www.cgs.niu.edu