Title: Conceptualization and Measurement of Community Capacity

Investigator Name: James (Jim) Frankish, Ph.D.

Project Completion Date: August 2003

Research Category: Synthesis

Institution: University of British Columbia

Project Number :6795-15-2001/4440006

Help on accessing alternative formats, such as PDF, MP3 and WAV files, can be obtained in the alternate format help section.

Summary

"Community capacity" has been widely recognized as an interesting and potentially useful concept. However, what "community capacity" is, and how it can be measured, remains elusive. The first step toward some answers is a synthesis and analysis of the current status of research and evidence related to this concept. What is the available knowledge on theoretical frameworks, statistical analyses and the evidence base on measuring community capacity? What indicators of community capacity have been tested, and where are the gaps? The research was based on two main data collection methods, a review of the existing evidence base (documents) and three focus groups (February - April 2003). In addition, we produced an annotated review of resources such as guidebooks and tools that people could use to understand and build "community capacity." In an effort to promote discourse on community capacity, we also convened a community forum on this topic in December 2002. This was an exploratory descriptive study, and therefore no statistical analyses (e.g., hypothesis testing) were performed.

We developed a framework of community capacity based on our document review and focus groups. Our framework encompasses characteristics of community capacity at one of three levels (individual, organization and community) across four dimensions of the theories of change approach (context, resources, activities and outcomes). Our framework shows that community capacity has been broadly conceptualized overall. A total of eighty-three specific characteristics of community capacity were identified in the documents. The characteristics were grouped into themes. Some themes were present across all four dimensions of the theories of change (context, resources, activities and outcomes), including: public participation (individual level); normal organizational operations not specific to community capacity (organizational level); and community infrastructures and shared interests and working together towards common goals (community level). Other notable themes that appeared across three dimensions were knowledge and skills (individual level), and a general orientation towards community capacity (organizational level). At the individual level, the characteristic that was conceptualized most frequently in the documents was the outcome of an increase in, or application of, knowledge and skills (n=29). At the organizational level, the most frequently conceptualized characteristic (n=41) was the activity of investing in human resource development in staff and/or community members. At the community level, the most frequently conceptualized characteristic (n=44) was the outcome of increased health, social conditions, well-being and/or quality of life.

In our document review, fourteen of the sixty-five documents (22%) were found to include indicators of community capacity. A wide variety of indicators have been proposed or used to measure community capacity. Some of the indicators appear to be "borrowed" from other areas of interest, such as social capital, sense of community and organizational or collaborative capacity. Although a wide variety of indicators have been used, some were used to measure different characteristics throughout our framework. For example, people's participation in elections were proposed or used to measure individual-level context, activities and outcomes, as well as a proxy measure of an increase in the quality of life in the community.

The data from the focus groups were superimposed onto the data from the document review, to observe the degree of overlap between the two sets of data. A total of thirty-seven (45%) of the eighty-three characteristics identified in the document review were also observed in the focus group data. No apparent pattern or trend, in terms of either dimension or level or theme, was observed among these thirty-seven characteristics. Only four characteristics identified in the focus groups were not found in the document review: an understanding of the roles of formal structures, organizational development and the media were identified as a resource; and information availability and discourse were identified as a context. Over one half (54%) of the thirty-seven characteristics had overlapped with data from one focus group, while under one third (30%) had overlapped with data from two focus groups. Six characteristics had overlapped with data from all three focus groups. Five of these six characteristics were outcomes, both individual-level (increased public participation and increased awareness understanding of community issues) and community-level (increased health, social conditions, well-being and/or quality of life, ability of the community to focus on and work collaboratively to resolve issues or towards common goals, and increased resources or resource mobilization). The other characteristic that overlapped with data from all three focus groups was information dissemination and advocacy relevant to community capacity at the organizational level.

The number and variety of participants that attended the community forum showed a wide interest in community capacity in our local area. Some themes emerged the discussions groups at the forum: community assets and strengths, participation, consensus, and community ownership. These themes were similar to those found in our document review and in the focus groups.

At the end of this report, we discuss the implications of our research findings. Community capacity is often discussed as to whether it is an end or a means to an end. Although a program may include the building of community capacity as an objective (an end), community capacity is more often thought of as a means to better quality of life and healthier communities. In our document review this was the most prevalent outcome specified for community capacity at the community-level. Community capacity appears to be a process that is re-iterative and cyclical. There is no actual end because communities are not static entities. The re-iterative nature of community capacity was mentioned by participants in the focus groups, revealed in our framework where a theme spanned more than one dimension of the theories of change, and revealed in our compilation of indicators where one indicator was proposed or used to measure more than one characteristic of community capacity.

At this point in time, the framework is exploratory and descriptive, rather than descriptive or predictive. The framework can be used to look at examples of what resources or activities contribute to community capacity. We do not purport to understand or know the interactions between the different characteristics of community capacity or any of its intended outcomes. The framework needs to be developed further and tested for validity and for its usefulness as a tool in aiding in the conceptualization and measurement of community capacity. In addition, relationships between different characteristics and what influences the intended outcomes need to be elucidated. Our document review showed that a broad range of different types of indicators have been proposed or used to measure community capacity. No clear conclusion can be made about indicators of community capacity, except that there is no consensus on what indicators should be used. We emphasize that our research is exploratory and that the list of the types of indicators we present are descriptive and exploratory. The list is not prescriptive, and should only be interpreted as examples of the types of indicators that have been proposed or used to measure community capacity. The concept of a core set of characteristics and indicators of community capacity needs to be explored. Based on our document review and the focus groups, we found several themes to be prominent in people's conceptualization of community capacity. These include knowledge and skills, public participation, functional organizations, community infrastructure, and collaboration. Are these themes more "important" than others in building community capacity and contributing to the intended outcomes? Are they "necessary" towards the building of community capacity?

Several other points can be made regarding the need to strengthen our understanding and appropriate use of the notion of community capacity. Ideally the building of community capacity would allow communities to initiate their own initiatives or research, or work more equitably with government and/or academic partners. Our framework includes strategies, i.e., activities, which have been proposed or used to build community capacity. Who is responsible for building community capacity? Based on the prominent themes of public participation and collaboration found in the literature on community capacity, and on the different levels (individual, organizational, community) identified in the literature, in the focus groups and by the research team, it may be concluded that we are all part of the process. The organization of the framework suggests that individuals and organizations can play a role in building community capacity.

We suggest three major strategic directions and next steps around the conceptualization and measurement of community capacity and its use in population health efforts. First, there is a need for a national-level effort to validate the constructs of community capacity to achieve a core, consensus definition and "core" indicators of community capacity as it relates to federally-funded projects. Second, there is a need to fund demonstration projects that can reliably collect data on the above "core" indicators of community capacity. Finally, federally-funded projects that purport to use a community-capacity approach (as either a process or a significant outcome) should be subjected to an "evaluability" assessment.

Efforts to build and evaluate community capacity have often involved various key constituencies, i.e., academics, service providers, practitioners, policy makers, funders and lay persons. The outcome of interest is often better quality of life and healthier communities. Building and sustaining community capacity will require three things: 1) changing knowledge, attitudes and beliefs to motivate people to engage in community-capacity initiatives; 2) enabling motivated individuals or groups to take action on building (and measuring) community capacity by building skills and providing supportive environments and resources; and 3) rewarding or reinforcing practitioners, policy makers and funders who engage in capacity-building.

The notion of community capacity has a long and respected position in relation to community development and health promotion initiatives. However systematic and rigorous process and/or outcome evaluations of capacity building efforts are lacking. This is not a condemnation of community capacity as an immensely important concept in community-based, population health initiatives. Rather, this represents a challenge to both the proponents and critics of capacity building. Funders, policy makers and community partners would be better served if they agreed, a priori, on a smaller bounded set of measurable indicators, if communities were given the needed resources and support to achieve the desired outcomes, and if communities were held accountable for measuring the identified outcomes.

The views expressed herein do not
necessarily represent the views of Health Canada

In addition to the above Summary, the full report can be accessed in the following ways:

• The print version of the full report can be obtained in the language of submission from the Health Canada Library through inter-library loan.
• An electronic version of the report in the language of submission is available upon request from Health Canada by contacting the Research Management and Dissemination Division.

This research has been conducted with a financial contribution from Health Canada's Health Policy Research Program. For permission to reproduce all or part of the research report, please contact the Principal Investigator directly at the following address: frankish@interchange.ubc.ca.

The Health Policy Research Program (HPRP) funds research that provides an evidence base for Health Canada's policy decisions. The HPRP is a strategic and targeted program with a broad socio-economic orientation and connections to national and international endeavours. The research can be primary, secondary or synthesis research, a one-time contribution to a developing research endeavour, or a workshop, seminar or conference.