Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Assessing the Capacity of Community Coalitions to Advocate for Change

523 views

Published on

Research has shown that high-capacity coalitions are more successful in effecting community change. While a number of coalition assessment tools have been developed, documentation is scarce regarding how they are implemented, how the results are used, and whether they are predictive of coalition success in collaborative community change efforts. Developed for a health promotion initiative of a major health foundation, this tool is designed to assess coalition progress in eight key areas across twelve different community coalitions, over the course of a three year initiative.

On May 21, 2013, Veena Pankaj, Kat Athanasiades, Ann Emery, and Johanna Morariu gave a presentation titled "Assessing the Capacity of Community Coalitions to Advocate for Change." The panel was hosted by the Advocacy Planning and Evaluation Program (APEP) at the Aspen Institute in Washington, DC.

The session focused on a coalition assessment tool that was designed by Innovation Network to assess changes in coalition capacity over time. Presenters shared lessons learned from the first year of the initiative about developing and deploying the assessment tool, as well as what these tools can--and can't--tell you about a coalition's capacity in conducting community change work. In addition presenters shared how information collected from this assessment can be communicated back to the coalitions using data visualization approaches to effectively communicate the data.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Assessing the Capacity of Community Coalitions to Advocate for Change

  1. 1. Veena PankajKat AthanasiadesAnn EmeryJohanna MorariuAssessing the Capacityof Community Coalitionsto Advocate for ChangeAdvocacy Evaluation Breakfast SeriesHosted by the Aspen InstituteWashington, DCMay 22, 2013
  2. 2. Veena PankajDirector vpankaj@innonet.orgKat AthanasiadesAssociate kathanasiades@innonet.orgAnn EmeryAssociate aemery@innonet.orgJohanna MorariuDirector jmorariu@innonet.orgwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATevalAbout Us
  3. 3. #CATeval@InnoNet_Eval@KatAthanasiades@AnnKEmery@J_MorariuLet’s Connectwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  4. 4. What’s the first thing to cometo mind when you hearadvocacy evaluation?www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  5. 5. What’s the first thing to cometo mind when you hearcoalition assessment?www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  6. 6. How does this session relate toyour work and interests?www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  7. 7. Agenda1 Background2 Development & Implementation3 Reporting to Stakeholders4 Strengths & Challenges5 Summary & Applicationswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  8. 8. Agenda12 Development & Implementation3 Reporting to Stakeholders4 Strengths & Challenges5 Summary & ApplicationsBackgroundwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  9. 9. Agenda12 Development & Implementation3 Reporting to Stakeholders4 Strengths & Challenges5 Summary & ApplicationsBackgroundwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  10. 10. SnapshotsDevelopedImplementedReportAug2012Sept2012Jan2013Development & Implementation2Oct2012www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  11. 11. Seven categories of CATBasic Functioning andStructureAbility to Cultivate andDevelop ChampionsCoalition LeadershipAbility to Develop Allies andPartnershipsDevelopment & Implementation2Reputation and VisibilityAbility to Learn from theCommunitySustainabilitywww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  12. 12. Vetting processKansas Health FoundationstaffGEO Place-BasedCommunity of PracticeKansas Advisory CommitteeDevelopment & Implementation2Healthy CommunitiesInitiative Technical AssistanceteamCoalition memberswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  13. 13. Development & Implementation256 coalition members12 TA providers68 total responseswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  14. 14. Agenda12 Development & Implementation3 Reporting to Stakeholders4 Strengths & Challenges5 Summary & ApplicationsBackgroundwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  15. 15. Reporting to Stakeholders3Memoswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  16. 16. Overall ScoresReporting to Stakeholders329%40%55%64%66%68%69%70%77%79%80%81%Community 6Community 4Community 9Community 8Community 2Community 11Community 7Community 12Community 3Community 5Community 10Community 1www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  17. 17. Reporting to Stakeholders31-pageCommunitySnapshotswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  18. 18. Reporting to Stakeholders3Memoswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  19. 19. Reporting to Stakeholders384%77%75%72%70%69%52%70%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Basic Functioning and StructureAllies and PartnershipsChampionsReputation and VisibilityLearn from CommunityCoalition LeadershipSustainabilityOverallCommunityMemberswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  20. 20. Reporting to Stakeholders353%55%54%51%38%47%35%47%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Basic Functioning and StructureAllies and PartnershipsChampionsReputation and VisibilityLearn from CommunityCoalition LeadershipSustainabilityOverallTAProviderswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  21. 21. Reporting to Stakeholders384%53%77%55%75%54%72%51%70%38%69%47%52%35%70%47%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Basic Functioning and StructureAllies and PartnershipsChampionsReputation and VisibilityLearn from CommunityCoalition LeadershipSustainabilityOverallCommunityMembersTAProviderswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  22. 22. Reporting to Stakeholders3ReportRegion?Time in coalition?Time in community?Engagement?Number of members?Number of new members?www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  23. 23. Reporting to Stakeholders3More timein coalitionMore coalitionmembersHigherscoreswww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  24. 24. Agenda12 Development & Implementation3 Reporting to Stakeholders4 Strengths & Challenges5 Summary & ApplicationsBackgroundwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  25. 25. This survey is too long for busypeople.—Coalition memberStrengths & Challenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  26. 26. I hadn’t thought about us collectingfeedback on whether the communityis satisfied with our work becausewe are so busy doing the work…Very interesting question.—Coalition memberStrengths & Challenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  27. 27. The initial mission, vision, and valuesare defined but under development.—Coalition memberStrengths & Challenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  28. 28. Our monetary resources are limitedto the planning grant monies.—Coalition memberStrengths & Challenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  29. 29. These questions… are good questionsfor us to have as a guide for our work.—Coalition memberStrengths & Challenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  30. 30. Realistically, many of these pointscannot be accomplished within ayear, but it is a goal to strive towards.—Coalition memberStrengths & Challenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  31. 31. a. Integrate multiple perspectivesb. Show change over timec. Contextual data about policy changesd. Aggregate and community-level datae. Tool & evaluation = interventionStrengths4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  32. 32. a. Integrate multiple perspectivesb. Show change over timec. Contextual data about policy changesd. Aggregate and community-level datae. Tool & evaluation = interventionStrengths4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  33. 33. a. Integrate multiple perspectivesb. Show change over timec. Contextual data about policy changesd. Aggregate and community-level datae. Tool & evaluation = interventionStrengths4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  34. 34. a. Integrate multiple perspectivesb. Show change over timec. Contextual data about policy changesd. Aggregate and community-level datae. Tool & evaluation = interventionStrengths4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  35. 35. a. Integrate multiple perspectivesb. Show change over timec. Contextual data about policy changesd. Aggregate and community-level datae. Tool & evaluation = interventionStrengths4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  36. 36. a. Ratings are opinionsb. Self-awareness low at firstc. Languaged. Focus changes over timeChallenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  37. 37. a. Ratings are opinionsb. Self-awareness low at firstc. Languaged. Focus changes over timeChallenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  38. 38. a. Ratings are opinionsb. Self-awareness low at firstc. Languaged. Focus changes over timeChallenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  39. 39. a. Ratings are opinionsb. Self-awareness low at firstc. Languaged. Focus might change over timeChallenges4www.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  40. 40. Agenda12 Development & Implementation3 Reporting to Stakeholders4 Strengths & Challenges5 Summary & ApplicationsBackgroundwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  41. 41. Materialswww.innonet.orgWhere We’ve Beenwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval
  42. 42. Assessing the Capacityof Community Coalitionsto Advocate for ChangeVeena PankajDirector vpankaj@innonet.orgKat AthanasiadesAssociate kathanasiades@innonet.orgAnn EmeryAssociate aemery@innonet.orgJohanna MorariuDirector jmorariu@innonet.orgwww.innonet.org | @InnoNet_Eval | #CATeval

×