Evaluation of 

The Appalachian 

Regional Commission’s 

Community CapacityBuilding Projects 

July 2004 

Study conducted by Westat 

for the Appalachian Regional Commission
Evaluation of 

The Appalachian 

Regional Commission’s 

Community CapacityBuilding Projects 

Authors: 

Brian Kleiner 

Kimberley Raue 

Gary Silverstein 

Robyn Bell 

John Wells 

July 2004 

Prepared for: 

Appalachian Regional Commission 

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 2009–1068

Prepared by: 

WESTAT 

1650 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, Maryland 20850 

NOTE: The views, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the authors and do 

not necessarily represent the official views, opinions, or policy of the Appalachian Regional Commission.
Acknowledgements

he evaluation of ARC’s community capacity-building projects involved the 

contributions of many individuals, in addition to Westat staff. We would like to 

acknowledge the ongoing support and advice of Greg Bischak, evaluation study 

director of the ARC, as well as insights and guidance from Sue Moreland and Eric 

Stockton, both ARC staff members overseeing its community capacity-building projects. 

We would also like to recognize the contributions of four experts in the field of 

community capacity building, who provided valuable feedback on the logic model 

developed for this evaluation. These include Maureen Hart, author of Guide to 

Sustainable Community Indicators; Janet Topolsky, Associate Director of the 

Community Strategies Group at Aspen Institute; Joe A. Sumners, Director of Economic 

Development Institute (EDI) at Auburn University, and; Justin Maxson, President of the 

Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED). Carol Litman, 

Sylvie Warren, and Catherine Marshall of Westat provided invaluable assistance for the 

editing and formatting of this report. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the 

cooperation and hospitality of project staff who hosted our site visits and entertained our 

questions during the fall of 2002. 

T 

iii

Foreword

n recent years, community capacity-building has generated considerable interest in 

the nation and abroad for its potential as a catalyst for community development. 

While many federal agencies recognize the worthiness of community capacitybuilding activities, it is also widely recognized that such investments require evaluation 

and solid evidence of success. There is currently broad discussion underway within the 

federal government and the nonprofit community on how such programs should be 

evaluated in order to assess their value and efficacy. However, evaluation of community 

capacity-building programs is inherently difficult. One common obstacle is the 

measurement of performance outcomes of community capacity-building activities. 

Another is the lack of an accepted conceptual framework in the field to inform a 

performance measurement system in the first place, resulting in a lack of clarity about the 

specific purposes, outcomes, and impact of community capacity-building projects. 

The ARC called for the current evaluation of its community capacity-building projects 

with some of these issues in mind: 

Since the inception of the [community capacity-building] initiative, the 

Commission, state program managers, grantees, and the convening organizations 

have all struggled with how to measure performance outputs and outcomes. State 

program managers, grantees and Commission staff focused on articulating results 

for each project, but translating these results into a common metric proved 

daunting (ARC Request for Proposals, 2002). 

This report aims in part to further the broader national debate on evaluation of 

community capacity-building programs, and to provide the ARC with a common metric 

and recommendations for evaluating its own capacity-building projects. 

I 
iv
v

ExecutiveSummary

any communities in Appalachia still do not enjoy the same overall quality of 

life as in other parts of the country, with respect to material prosperity, health, 

education, safety, recreation, and other aspects of community well-being. 

Further, there is a strong case to be made that these struggling communities are in need 

not just of external financial assistance or infusions of new industry and business, but 

also of a kind of transformation from within wherein whole communities come together 

to envision their future and awaken to their potential for collective action and 

improvement. The ultimate goal of community capacity building is to recognize and 

develop untapped resources to improve the living conditions and quality of life of people 

in communities. Community capacity building involves: 

• Purposive and planned action on the part of a representative cross-section of the 

community; 

• The mobilization and participation of a broad, diverse coalition of citizens within a 

community; 

• The generation of awareness of community issues and problems, as well as a sense of 

commitment, common purpose, and empowerment on the part of community 

members; 

• The strengthening of human capital by equipping people with the skills, know-how, 

and creativity necessary to carry out common goals; and 

• The establishment of dense collaborative networks across agencies, organizations, 

and individuals. 

Since 1995, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) has invested nearly $12.5 

million in 168 community capacity-building projects.1

 This report summarizes findings 

from an evaluation study of 100 community capacity-building projects funded by the 

ARC between 1995 and 2003. Chapters 1 and 2 provide background information about 

the study and community capacity building. Chapter 3 portrays the various community 

contexts in which the capacity-building projects were embedded, including information 

on grant recipients, community characteristics, assets, liabilities, and available resources. 

Chapter 4 presents findings on project activities and their implementation, including 

barriers encountered and how these were overcome. Chapter 5 examines project 

accomplishments and impact, and chapter 6 addresses performance measurement. The 

final chapter presents lessons learned and recommendations for ARC regarding its future 

capacity-building projects. 

 

1

 Many of the projects received additional funding from other agencies and organizations. 

M 
vi

Study Overview 

In 2003, the ARC commissioned an evaluation of its civic capacity-building program. 

The purpose of this evaluation was as follows: 

• To document the range of outputs and outcomes that capacity-building and 

community leadership projects set for themselves in their proposals to ARC and to 

assess the extent to which these projects were able to accomplish their goals; 

• To measure the extent to which these projects made progress toward the objectives2

and performance goals3

 that pertain to ARC Goal 3; 

• To document community outcomes that occurred as a result of these projects; 

• To assess the implementation of a sample of these projects, with an emphasis on 

identifying obstacles and steps taken to overcome these obstacles; 

• To identify potentially promising practices that might be adapted elsewhere; and 

• To make policy recommendations aimed at improving ARC’s efforts to monitor and 

assist its civic capacity-building and community leadership projects. 

Within this context, two important purposes of the evaluation were to assess factors 

associated with successful capacity-building projects and to recommend a wide range of 

performance measures that might be used to document the impact of successful 

initiatives. The study examines projects’ implementation and accomplishments, assesses 

the extent to which they met their own objectives, and makes policy recommendations for 

a performance measurement system. 

The evaluation of ARC’s capacity-building projects included four integrated activities: 

• A review of the literature regarding theoretical and applied perspectives on capacitybuilding and associated best practices; 

• A review of applications and final reports to gain a better understanding of the 

purpose, scope, and accomplishments of the 100 projects in the study sample; 

• Telephone interviews with a representative sample of 25 projects to obtain broad 

information about project-related activities and accomplishments; and 

• Site visits with 12 projects to obtain more detailed information about project-related 

implementation experiences, accomplishments, impacts, and performance measures. 

 

2

 The objectives for ARC Goal 3 are (1) the percentage of Appalachian residents participating in leadership development 

programs aimed at community improvement will substantially increase, and (2) all communities and community 

organizations will have access to capacity-building activities to enhance their ability to marshal resources, plan, and 

develop solutions to local problems. 

3

 The performance goals for ARC Goal 3 are (1) support 4,000 participants in leadership development and/or civic 

capacity programs, and (2) provide support to develop leadership and civic capacity programs for 10 additional counties 

per year. 
vii

Project Context 

All capacity-building projects are embedded in particular communities and, as such, must 

navigate unique contexts, factoring in interrelated sets of specific aims, assets, liabilities, 

and resources. Many of the communities in this study faced a common set of challenges: 

geographic isolation, persistent poverty, unemployment, and declining population, often 

attributed to young people moving away for educational and employment opportunities 

that do not exist in their home communities. Other problems mentioned by grant 

recipients include drug trafficking and addiction, teen pregnancy, and high rates of high 

school dropouts. 

The most common goals reported by the 100 grant recipients in the study were 

developing or expanding the pool of potential community leaders, reducing the 

community’s sense of isolation, preserving natural resources, fulfilling or improving 

municipal services, providing previously unavailable opportunities to local youth, and 

improving the economic health of their communities. Some projects reported interrelated 

goals. For example, projects geared toward youth were often described as an attempt to 

stem the exodus of young people from the community, with the community’s long-term 

economic health in mind. 

Each community had its own combination of assets and liabilities. The site visits and 

telephone interviews indicated that communities faced a variety of limitations or 

obstacles as they embarked on their capacity-building and community development work, 

such as the local political structure, lack of empowerment, fear of change, and limited 

resources. Another pervasive problem for the communities in the study was limited 

resources, most notably funding, but also including nonmaterial resources such as 

technical expertise and available staff. Even communities with resources that could be 

marshaled in the drive for change did not necessarily maintain a formal mechanism 

through which such resources could be distributed efficiently and effectively. 

Community capacity building has at its core an assets-based approach to community 

development, emphasizing the identification and mobilization of community resource 

toward shared goals. Community organizations, innovative leaders, concerned citizens, 

and natural resources are just a few examples of community assets that can be directed 

toward community improvement efforts. In particular, the importance of community 

organizations—via collaboration, innovative leaders, and concerned citizens willing to 

get involved in community projects—was a prevalent theme echoed throughout the 

telephone interviews and site visits. 

Resources are the financial, organizational, and human inputs that communities rely on to 

conduct project activities. Resources can include funding, ideas, expertise and technical 

assistance, time, materials, technology and equipment, and staff, among others. Grant 

recipients who participated in the telephone interviews and site visits often stated that 

they took advantage of existing resources in the community to facilitate project activities. 

Projects varied considerably in the amount of ARC funding they received, from a low of 

$1,137 for a recycling program in Georgia, to a high of $335,000 for the West Virginia 

Flex-E-Grant Program. This wide range of funding suggests the breadth of activities that 

ARC funded capacity-building projects comprise, and also reflects different funding 

strategies used by ARC to foster capacity building in Appalachia. Projects received 
viii

approximately $5.3 million in matching funds from federal, state, local, and other 

sources. Most projects received aid from outside organizations in the form of technical 

assistance, outreach, and/or additional funds and other resources. 

Project Implementation 

The approaches employed by the ARC-funded capacity-building projects reflect the 

diversity of the communities in which they operated. Projects conducted numerous 

activities suited to particular project goals, and used strategies attuned to the particular 

needs, assets, liabilities, and available resources of their communities. The activities 

conducted by ARC-funded community capacity-building projects were divided 

exhaustively into 11 activity types, with an other category for activities that were not 

categorized elsewhere.4

 For organizational purposes, similar activity types were grouped 

into four overall strategies: vision and direction, involvement, skills and knowledge, and 

support. 

Looking across all projects, the single most prominent activity—cited by 51 percent of 

projects—was conducting a group instructional activity such as a workshop or course 

(see table E-1). Other common activities included strategic planning (35 percent), 

meetings, conferences, and forums (28 percent), and technical assistance and consultation 

(26 percent). 

Table E-1.—Percent of projects that included various types of activities, grouped by 

project strategies 

Type of strategy and activity Percent of projects 

Vision 

Conduct strategic planning and analysis ......................................................................................... 35 

Conduct regional or local needs assessment ................................................................................... 13 

Involvement 

Organize and hold meetings, conferences, forums, etc................................................................... 28 

Conduct outreach to raise awareness of local issues....................................................................... 16 

Conduct small-scale community improvement projects requiring the participation of 

community members for completion........................................................................................ 

15 

Establish/develop a community organization, program, foundation, or association...................... 12 

Skills 

Organize and conduct group instructional activities, such as workshops and courses................... 51 

Develop, purchase, publish, and/or distribute materials ................................................................. 18 

Facilitate, organize, and conduct one-on-one instructional activities, such as mentoring, 

counseling, and teaching........................................................................................................... 6 

Support 

Provide or obtain technical assistance/consultation........................................................................ 26 

Provide technological support ......................................................................................................... 5 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

 

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of projects relied on strategies designed to enhance skills 

and knowledge—e.g., organizing and conducting group instructional activities, 

 

4

 Examples of activities categorized as other include the establishment of a 24-hour toll-free number for victims of 

domestic abuse, recycling activities, health screenings, and the renovation and expansion of a local history museum. 
ix

conducting one-on-one instructional activities, and facilitating the distribution of 

instructional materials. Most of these training programs focused on the promotion of 

leadership skills (38 projects), but other topics were also addressed—e.g., economic 

development (8 projects), civic development (5 projects), and technical issues such as 

strategic planning and grant writing (5 projects) (see table 4-4 in Chapter 4). Most (51 of 

62) projects used group instruction—and this group instruction was most frequently 

aimed at adult community members (17 projects), community and business leaders (15 

projects), and youth (14 projects) (see table 4-4). 

The problems that grant recipients encountered were generally not severe enough to 

prevent projects from implementing their approach. The most commonly cited problems 

included time and staffing constraints, attracting participant interest in the project, the 

isolation of and competition between communities, and limited resources. Projects were 

able to troubleshoot problems related to implementation, as demonstrated by the fact that 

the overwhelming majority of these projects remain active. 

Project Accomplishments and Impact 

Site visit and telephone interview findings provided significant qualitative evidence that 

the ARC-funded projects were largely successful at building capacity at different levels. 

There were three main types of capacity outcomes: individual, organizational, and 

community. At the individual level, projects enhanced the skills and knowledge of 

community members, increased awareness of community issues, and developed people’s 

sense of empowerment. Many projects benefited organizations by increasing 

collaboration and the sharing of ideas and strategies for community development, and by 

enhancing their efficiency and effectiveness, as well as their stability and growth. 

Projects also benefited communities more broadly by improving strategic planning, 

enhancing the sense of community self-reliance and pride, increasing civic and political 

participation, and improving infrastructure and educational opportunities. 

Study findings reveal that many projects had outcomes and achievements at more than 

one level of capacity, suggesting a richness and efficiency of approach on the part of 

projects with respect to capacity building. Qualitative evidence from across the site visits 

and telephone interviews support the view that many projects had far-reaching effects on 

their communities. Some involved significant changes in orientation and attitude, toward 

both communities in general and social and political duty and service in particular. Many 

projects led to greater awareness of community issues, a greater sense of community 

pride and self-reliance, and a stronger commitment to community service. Also, many 

projects were successful at convincing people of their own capacity for self-improvement 

and change. Besides these important psychological and attitudinal changes, projects gave 

rise to more concrete benefits, including the development of individual skills and 

knowledge, increased collaboration, the strengthening of community organizations and 

infrastructure, increased volunteerism, and improved planning. 

Performance Measurement 

A systematic and accurate assessment of project achievement requires a performance 

monitoring system that can be used to demonstrate that projects carried out their 
x

proposed activities, and the extent to which those activities ultimately benefited 

individuals and communities. For such a system to work effectively, activities and related 

benefits must be clearly defined and measurable. Further, projects should have realistic 

plans to obtain valid and reliable data for documenting progress toward their outcomes. 

The benefits of ARC’s community capacity-building projects to individuals, 

organizations, and communities were far reaching and significant. One could argue that 

such enhanced capacity has paved the way for longer term economic, environmental, and 

social benefits, as well as increased community assets and decreased liabilities. However, 

these conclusions about program impact are primarily based on the observations, 

reflections, and judgments of project staff and participants themselves, rather than on 

more concrete and documented forms of evidence. Claims of project success could not be 

substantiated with hard data. In some cases, the desired outcomes that projects described 

in their proposals were not sufficiently clear, specific, and measurable—and therefore 

could not provide data-based tangible evidence of project success. In other cases, 

projects did not invest in the data collection activities required to demonstrate the 

immediate or long-term impacts of the efforts. 

Moreover, the definition of clear and measurable outcomes is notoriously difficult for 

community capacity-building projects. One reason is that many of the benefits resulting 

from such efforts, such as enhanced community pride, empowerment, and community 

self-reliance, are not easily quantifiable. Further, many of the more quantifiable outcomes 

are hard to measure in a cost-effective manner. For small-scale and/or short-term 

projects with limited resources for data collection, it is even more difficult to assess 

whether the activities ultimately contributed to longer term economic, environmental, or 

social outcomes. In any event, over the long term, these obstacles will ultimately hinder 

the Commission’s ability to document the range of benefits resulting from its community 

capacity-building projects. 

Most (85 percent) of the 179 outcomes proposed by the 30 projects were capacity-based 

(i.e., individual, organizational, or community).5

 The remaining 26 outcomes 

(15 percent) were development outcomes (economic, environmental, or social), 

suggesting that most projects were setting their sights on shorter-term capacity-building 

goals (see table E-2). 

Of the 179 outcome statements, 55 (30 percent) were classified as individual, 25 

(14 percent) as organizational, and 73 (41 percent) as community outcomes. Of the 26 

developmental-based outcome statements, 11 outcome statements (6 percent) were 

economic, 7 (4 percent) were environmental, and 8 (4 percent) were social outcomes. 

Across the 179 outcome statements that we reviewed, the most commonly proposed 

included enhanced skills (22 percent), increased civic participation (15 percent), 

improved planning (11 percent), and increased collaboration (9 percent). 

 

5

 In fact, of the 30 site visit and telephone interview sites included in this analysis, only one project did not propose at least 

one capacity outcome. This particular project proposed three economic/increased employment outcomes, all involving 

an increase in new jobs for project participants. The project might have also proposed an increase in individual skills as 

an outcome, but did not. 
xi

Table E-2. 

Types and number of outcomes for the 30 case study and telephone interview sites 

Number and percent of outcomes 

(n=179) 

Type of outcome 

Number Percent 

Total.............................................................................................................................. 179 100 

 

Capacity Outcomes..................................................................................................... 153 85 

Individual.................................................................................................................. 55 30 

Enhanced skills .................................................................................................... 40 22 

Increased awareness of community issues .......................................................... 7 4 

Enhanced empowerment...................................................................................... 8 4 

Organizational ......................................................................................................... 25 14 

Increased collaboration ........................................................................................ 17 9 

Enhanced efficiency and effectiveness................................................................ 5 3 

Enhanced stability/growth ................................................................................... 3 2 

Community ............................................................................................................... 73 41 

Improved planning............................................................................................... 20 11 

Improved community self-reliance...................................................................... 14 8 

Increased civic participation ................................................................................ 26 15 

Increased political participation........................................................................... 2 1 

Enhanced community pride ................................................................................. 5 3 

Improved infrastructure ....................................................................................... 2 1 

Improved educational opportunities.................................................................... 4 2 

 

Development Outcomes.............................................................................................. 26 15 

Economic .................................................................................................................. 11 6

Increased tourism ................................................................................................. 2 1 

Increased commerce............................................................................................. 2 1 

Increased/improved employment......................................................................... 5 3 

Decreased outmigration ....................................................................................... 2 1 

Environmental .......................................................................................................... 7 4 

Improved water quality........................................................................................ 4 2 

Improved air quality............................................................................................. * * 

Improved soil quality ........................................................................................... * * 

Improved land use................................................................................................ 3 2 

Increased/improved recycling.............................................................................. * * 

Social ........................................................................................................................ 8 4 

Improved health ................................................................................................... 1 1 

Improved learning................................................................................................ 3 2 

Increased safety.................................................................................................... * * 

Improved governance........................................................................................... 2 1 

Improved community housing and structures .................................................... 2 1 

*No outcomes statements were proposed. 

Most (70 percent) of the 179 outcomes proposed by the case study and telephone 

interview projects were successfully achieved (see table 6-3). However, projects 

appeared to have difficulty obtaining data that could be used to ascertain whether an 

outcome—especially developmental outcomes—had been achieved. This mirrors our 

finding from the site visits that the evidence provided in support of project success was 

mostly anecdotal. In fact, most of the 30 case study and telephone interview projects did 

not collect any data about project implementation and impact. Interviews with project 
xii

staff revealed several reasons for this—e.g., the difficulty of collecting data, a lack of 

resources or funding for data collection activities, lack of expertise and experience in data 

collection and evaluation methods, and the belief that such data collection was not 

formally required by ARC. In addition, only a few of the projects appeared to believe 

that the collection of such data would further their own immediate interests (e.g., to 

attract future funding, improve activities), and some viewed data collection as an external 

imposition. 

Recommendations 

The weight of both the qualitative and quantitative evidence indicates that a clear 

majority of projects succeeded in achieving real results. Nevertheless, if the ARC wants 

to be in a position to demonstrate the impact of its community capacity-building projects, 

it will have to do a better job in the future of measuring, tracking, and reporting 

performance of the program. Our recommendations are designed to build upon our 

previous recommendations by identifying specific steps that ARC might take to enhance 

the application and reporting guidelines for its community capacity-building projects. 

Reinforce the ARC application materials provided to community capacity-building 

applicants. First, we recommend that ARC reinforce the general blueprint set forth in 

earlier ARC publications by developing additional materials aimed at helping applicants 

consider the range of steps required to execute their proposed approach and document the 

resulting community benefits. Exhibit E-1 presents seven guiding questions that 

community capacity-building applicants might address in their proposals. Beginning 

with project purpose, these questions are designed to help applicants consider the range 

of issues they will need to address over the life of their project—most notably the link 

between their proposed approach and the capacities they are trying to enhance, the 

community conditions they are seeking to improve, and the data they will use to 

document project success. 

Exhibit E-1 

Guiding questions for ARC community capacity-building projects 

1. What do you hope to accomplish as a result of your project? 

2. What resources—within and outside of your community—do you have at your disposal 

to conduct your project? 

3. What factors within your community are likely to affect the implementation and success 

of your project? 

4. What strategies and activities will you use to achieve your goals? 

5. How will project activities enhance the capacity of individual community members, 

organizations within your community, and/or the overall community? 

6. As a result of enhancing your community’s capacity, how will your economic, 

environmental, and/or social conditions improve? 

7. How will you know if capacity has been enhanced and conditions have improved? 
xiii

Provide prospective applicants with examples of community capacity-building 

outcomes. In an effort to help prospective community capacity-building projects 

address these questions in their proposals, we recommend that the ARC provide 

applicants with supplemental materials that demonstrate the range of outputs and 

outcomes that might be attributed to a generic community capacity-building project. The 

logic model presented throughout this report provides an example of the type of tool that 

might be posted on the ARC web site. The model, which portrays the relationship 

between a project’s intended purpose, activities, and outcomes, can be used to provide 

applicants with illustrative examples of intermediate and long-term outcomes that are 

commonly associated with community initiatives (see appendix A). 

We further recommend that the Commission work more closely with individual 

applicants to help them specify (1) the goals and outcomes that their projects are designed 

to address, (2) the numeric benchmarks against which their progress can be assessed—

and the timeframe within which these benchmark will be achieved (see exhibit E-2), 

(3) a description of the methodologies that will be used to assess whether the numeric 

benchmark was achieved (see exhibit E-3), and (4) a description of how and when the 

data will be reported to the ARC. While some of this could be accomplished by posting a 

tool like the logic model on the Commission’s web site,6

 many projects will likely benefit 

from having extended discussions with ARC staff (or other experts recommended by the 

ARC) on topics pertaining to performance measurement. 

Exhibit E-2 

Examples of community goals, outcomes, and corresponding benchmarks 

Goal Outcome Benchmark

Individual Capacity: Enhance 

skills

Increase in skills of community 

members 

20 community members who 

received training will increase 

their leadership skills in 2005 

Organizational Capacity:

Increase collaboration

Increase in number of service 

providers using input from 

community members to 

determine priorities and make 

decisions 

15 local service providers will 

report using input from 

community members to make 

decisions in 2005 

Community Capacity: Enhance 

community pride

Increase in the number of 

suggestions for community 

improvements from residents 

50 community members will 

suggest a community 

improvement in 2005 

Economic: Increase tourism Increase in hotel business Over the next 3 years, all 

community hotels will increase 

their yearly revenues by at least 

5 percent 

Environmental: Increase 

recycling

Increase in the number of local 

businesses that recycle 

Over the next 2 years, 90 percent 

of local businesses will be 

recycling 

Social: Improve quality of 

community housing

Decrease in the number of 

community homes needing major 

repair 

Over the next 2 years, there will 

be a 25 percent decrease in the 

number of community homes 

that need major repair 

 

6

 The introduction to the logic model includes an overview of how to transform goals and outcomes into measurable 

benchmarks. See the electronic attachment for a full working version of the logic model. 
xiv

Exhibit E-3 

Examples of benchmarks and corresponding data sources 

Benchmark Data Source

20 community members who received training will 

increase their leadership skills in 2005 

Pre/post survey of trainees—e.g., survey trainees 

before and after training to document improvement 

in their knowledge or skills 

15 local service providers will report using input 

from community members to make decisions in 

2005 

Interview local service providers to assess whether 

they have increased their review of input from 

community members 

50 community members will suggest a community 

improvement in 2005 

Conduct an informal survey (e.g., an open-ended 

question in a common gathering place such as a 

grocery store) to obtain suggestions from residents 

about community improvements 

Over the next 3 years, all community hotels will 

increase their yearly revenues by at least 5 percent 

Analysis of local tax records 

Over the next 2 years, 90 percent of local 

businesses will be recycling 

One-time survey of all local businesses to 

document the proportion of businesses that are 

using recycling procedures 

Over the next 2 years, there will be a 25 percent 

decrease in the number of community homes that 

need major repair 

Windshield survey of residential structures to rate 

neighborhood dwellings on a five-point scale—

should be conducted every year to document 

decreases in the number of homes in need of repair 

Provide projects with written materials on potential data collection and analysis 

practices. While collecting data can be difficult and time consuming, findings from the 

literature review and site visits suggest that some of the outcomes that projects propose 

can be addressed through analysis of easily accessible existing records—e.g., county tax 

records, school enrollment records, police reports, employment and unemployment 

statistics, organizational meeting minutes, medical records, and hotel receipts. These 

data can often be found in county offices or the local chamber of commerce, as well as 

through such state and federal agencies as the Bureau of the Census, Department of 

Education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

and Department of Commerce. By publicizing these existing sources, ARC may be able 

to help projects devise strategies for obtaining and analyzing public data that can be used 

to demonstrate improvements in a given condition (e.g., unemployment, hotel occupancy 

rates) over time. For other outcomes, projects may need to be encouraged to collect new 

data through one-time surveys, pre/post surveys and assessments (e.g., to measure 

changes in participants’ skills or knowledge), and interviews (conducted in person or 

over the phone). 

The ARC may need to help individual grant recipients develop low-cost plans for 

collecting and analyzing data. While working with individual projects—collectively or in 

a workshop setting—can be time consuming, we believe that the potential rewards are 

substantial. By their very nature, community capacity-building projects should be 

making continuous use of data to inform their consensus-building and decision-making 

efforts. As such, the Commission’s efforts to help community capacity-building projects 

make maximum use of data would represent a valuable investment with many long-term 

benefits. 
xv

Reinforce ARC’s reporting structure. If the ARC is to be in a position to identify 

innovative and successful community capacity-building practices, its staff will need to be 

able to systematically access more detailed information about the implementation and 

impact of its projects. We therefore recommend that the ARC develop uniform closeout 

report guidelines that are to be used by all of its community capacity-building projects. 

Exhibit E-4 provides an example of the topics that the ARC’s community capacitybuilding projects might be required to address in their final reports. Collected over time, 

we believe this information would enhance the ability of program staff to assess the 

implementation and impact of the Commission’s community capacity-building projects. 

While some grant recipients might continue to rely primarily on anecdotal information, 

the use of standard reporting guidelines—coupled with the requirement that projects 

report on their intermediate and long-term outcomes—would likely enhance the 

Commission’s ability to obtain consistent data that can be used to assess project and 

program success. In addition, interviews with case study respondents suggest that 

projects would actually welcome more structured reporting requirements, so long as those 

requirements are not onerous or unrealistic. 

Exhibit E-4 

Example of potential ARC guidelines for 

community capacity-building project final reports 

Background—Provide a short statement regarding the need for this project. What problems did 

you hope to solve when you applied for ARC funding? 

Activities—Describe in detail what actually happened during this grant cycle, and explain how you 

implemented the project activities. If there were significant changes to your program during the 

course of the project, or if the project was implemented differently than described in your original 

proposal, please describe those changes here. 

Description of Project Benefits—Provide a description of how your project (1) enhanced the 

capacity of individuals and/or organizations within your community and (2) contributed to 

communitywide improvements. Also, assess the extent to which your project has addressed the 

problems or needs that you identified in your original request for ARC support. 

Outcome Data—Provide any data that documents the outcomes associated with your project. Data 

will vary according to the type of project you completed, and it may be difficult to provide data at 

this time. However, it is very important to gather this kind of information so both your organization 

and ARC can document our successes. At a minimum, report on the extent to which you met the 

numeric goals that you identified in your original request for ARC support. 

Problems Encountered—What would you do differently if you were starting this project again? 

Describe any major problems that may have occurred during the implementation of your project. 

Knowing the types of difficulties you encountered and how you resolved them will be helpful to 

other technology grantees that may be interested in replicating your program. 

Program Continuation and Sustainability—This section should describe whether and how you 

intend to continue program activities after the end of the ARC grant period. Will the program 

continue with other funding, and if so, what other sources of funds have been identified? If the 

program is to be discontinued, has it served its purpose, or is there still a need to solve the problems 

you were addressing? What additional steps are being taken to obtain other resources needed to 

continue the project? 

Conclusions and Recommendations—This section summarizes your project and the lessons 

learned during its implementation. Include a review of your successes and suggest ways that your 

experiences may be helpful to others. 

Attachments—Attach any material that helps to describe your project and documents your 

success, such as photographs, news clippings, maps, videotapes, or web site addresses. Also, please 

attach copies of any written evaluations that may have been completed for your project. 

SOURCE: Adapted from the ARC Grant Administration Manual.
xvi
xvii

Table of Contents

Chapter Page 

Forward ....................................................................................................... iii 

Executive Summary............................................................................................ v 

1 Introduction.................................................................................... 1 

ARC’s Community Capacity-Building Projects............................ 1 

Study Overview ............................................................................. 3 

Structure of the Report................................................................... 6 

2 Perspectives On Community Capacity Building ........................... 7 

Community Capacity Building and Community Development 

Efforts ............................................................................... 7 

Comment Terms and Concepts...................................................... 8 

Community Capacity ........................................................ 8 

Community Development................................................. 9 

Community Capacity Building: In Theory and Practice............... 11 

Community Capacity Building and Development in 

Theory ............................................................... 11 

Community Capacity Building and Community 

Development in Practice ................................... 14 

A Framework For This Evaluation ................................................ 16 

A Logic Model for Community Capacity-Building 

Projects.............................................................. 19 

Summary........................................................................................ 21 

3 Project Context .............................................................................. 23 

Project Purpose .............................................................................. 24 

Community Characteristics............................................................ 24 

Community Liabilities ...................................................... 26 

Community Assets............................................................ 26 
xviii

Chapter Page 

Resources....................................................................................... 27 

ARC Funding.................................................................... 28 

Matching Funds ................................................................ 31 

Summary........................................................................................ 34 

4 Project Implementation.................................................................. 35 

Strategies and Activities ................................................................ 35 

Vision and Direction......................................................... 44 

Involvement ...................................................................... 46 

Skills and Knowledge ....................................................... 48 

Support ........................................................................... 51 

Implementation Issues Addressed by Projects............................... 52 

Time Constraints............................................................... 52 

Staffing ........................................................................... 53 

Attracting Participants ...................................................... 53 

Lack of Interest ................................................................. 53 

Geographical Isolation...................................................... 54 

Community Competition .................................................. 54 

Organizational Conflicts................................................... 54 

Lack of Resources............................................................. 55 

Lack of a Needs Assessment ............................................ 55 

Sustainability ................................................................................. 56 

Summary........................................................................................ 57 

5 Project Accomplishments and Impact ........................................... 59 

Impact on Individuals .................................................................... 60 

Enhanced Skills ................................................................ 61 

Enhanced Empowerment .................................................. 61 

Increased Awareness of Community Issues ..................... 63 

Impact on Organizations................................................................ 64 

Increased Collaboration .................................................... 64 

Enhanced Efficiency and Effectiveness............................ 66 

Enhanced Stability and Growth ........................................ 67 

Impact on Communities................................................................. 67 

Improved Planning............................................................ 68 

Improved Community Self-Reliance ................................ 69 
xix

Chapter Page 

Increased Civic Participation............................................ 70 

Increased Political Participation ....................................... 71 

Enhanced Community Pride ............................................. 72 

Improved Infrastructure .................................................... 72 

Longer-Term Impacts .................................................................... 73 

Summary........................................................................................ 75 

6 Performance Measurement ............................................................ 79 

Policy Context and Measurement Issues ....................................... 79 

Outcomes Anticipated by ARC-Funded Community 

Capacity-Building Projects............................................... 82 

Distribution of Project Goals and Outcomes .................... 83 

Quality of the Outcome Statements .................................. 86 

Extent To Which Case Study Projects Achieved Their 

Intended Outcomes ........................................................... 89 

Summary........................................................................................ 91 

7 Summary and Recommendations .................................................. 93 

Summary........................................................................................ 93 

Recommendations.......................................................................... 94 

Conclusion ..................................................................................... 100 

References...................................................................................... 103 

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix 

A Logic Model Matrices.................................................................... A-1 

B Introduction to Logic Model.......................................................... B-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 

3-1 Number of projects by ARC funding amounts and matching 

funds .............................................................................................. 29 

3-2 Number of projects, by state .......................................................... 30 
xx

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Table Page 

4-1 Project strategies............................................................................ 42 

4-2 Percent of projects that included various types of activities, 

grouped by project strategies ......................................................... 44 

4-3 Number of projects that held meetings, conferences, and 

forums, and frequency of participation.......................................... 47 

4-4 Number of projects that conducted training and education 

activities geared towards different groups, frequency of 

participation, and types of training ................................................ 49 

6-1 Types and number of outcomes for the 30 case study and 

telephone interview sites................................................................ 85 

6-2 Number and percent of outcome statements with and without 

numeric benchmarks for the 30 case study and telephone 

interview sites, by outcome type.................................................... 87 

6-3 Number and percent of outcomes achieved for the 30 case 

study and telephone interview sites, by outcome type................... 89 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 

2-1 Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects................ 20 

2-2 Logic Model Components ............................................................. 21 

3-1 Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: 

Project Context .............................................................................. 23 

4-1 Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: 

Project Strategies........................................................................... 36 

4-2 Definitions and Examples of Activity Types by Strategy.............. 36 

4-3 Strategy and Activity Types of Site Visit Projects ........................ 39 

5-1 Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: 

Enhanced Capacity Outcomes....................................................... 60 
xxi

LIST OF EXHIBITS (CONTINUED) 

Exhibit Page 

5-2 Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: 

Community Development Outcomes.............................................. 74 

6-1 Examples of outcomes identified by ARC community 

capacity-building projects.............................................................. 84 

7-1 Guiding questions for ARC community capacity-building 

projects........................................................................................... 95 

7-2 Examples of community goals, outcomes and corresponding 

benchmarks .................................................................................... 97 

7-3 Examples of benchmarks and corresponding data sources............ 97 

7-4 Example of potential ARC guidelines for community capacitybuilding project final reports.......................................................... 101 
xxii
1

Chapter 1 

Introduction

The whole Appalachian region of which Day County is a part has been 

of concern to churches and philanthropic enterprises for generations. But 

the main achievements, until recently, have been the surveying of the 

area... and the partial alleviation of such acute needs as hunger, ill 

health, poor clothing, and shortage of formal education. Education efforts 

have tended to drain the more promising young people out of the area, 

thus increasing the difficulties for those who remain. Little has been done 

to help people find a viable way of living and thus cultivate the 

responsibility of self-help. 

Biddle and Biddle (The Community Development Process: 

The Rediscovery of Local Initiative, 1965) 

iddle and Biddle’s seminal work on community development foresaw the need to 

support the people of Appalachia not only materially, as had been done for 

generations by charities and churches, but also by providing them with the tools 

to create a “viable way of living” for themselves. Their work recognized the 

development of human capacity and local initiative as a necessary condition for longterm community growth and well-being. 

Consistent with Biddle and Biddle’s vision, contemporary community development 

theorists and practitioners agree that long-term sustainability, economic growth, and 

improvement in quality of life in communities depend on the generation and maintenance 

of capacity for local collaborative and coordinated action toward common goals (see 

chapter 2 for definitions and discussion). 

In the nearly 40 years since the publication of Biddle and Biddle’s book, the people of the 

Appalachian region have made tremendous strides in assuming local initiative and 

improving the quality of their lives. However, many communities in the region continue 

to suffer from some of the same difficulties they faced in 1965, including outmigration of 

youth, shortage of human capital, social division, and low levels of civic participation. 

And while capacity building has certainly made impressive inroads throughout the 

region, many Appalachian communities have only just begun to develop their potential 

and “cultivate the responsibility of self-help.” 

ARC’s Community Capacity-Building Projects 

Since 1995, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) has invested nearly $12.5 

million in 168 community capacity-building projects.7

 While these projects were diverse, 

 

7

 Many of the projects received additional funding from other agencies and organizations. 

B 
2

they were linked by their reference to Goal 3 of the ARC Strategic Plan for 1997–2002: 

“The people and organizations of Appalachia will have the vision and capacity to 

mobilize and work together for sustained economic progress and improvement of their 

communities.” Designed to support a wide array of objectives (e.g., enhance 

communities’ organizational capacity to work cooperatively to address local concerns) 

and activities (e.g., leadership, strategic planning), these Goal 3 projects shared the 

ultimate goal of increasing the capacity of community stakeholders (e.g., government 

officials, businesses, residents) to collectively address their communal social and 

economic concerns. 

In October 2000, ARC created an enhanced program for distressed counties, with two parts: 

a capacity-building effort, and a telecommunications and information technology 

initiative. The capacity-building program is “designed to strengthen communities and help 

organizations fulfill their mission in an effective manner,” and includes the following 

elements: 

• A minigrant program to provide strategic planning and technical assistance so local 

communities can jump-start the process of economic development; 

• Workshops, knowledge sharing, and other activities to encourage community 

learning and leadership development; 

• ARC outreach efforts that give local communities access to other resources, 

including nonprofits, foundations, and government agencies; and 

• An online resource center for accessing information on funding, grant writing, and 

best practices. 

ARC uses three primary strategies to fund capacity-building projects. First is its Flex-EGrant program, which began in 2001 as part of ARC’s Enhanced Distressed County 

Program. The program provides small investments, usually up to $10,000, for short-term 

capacity-building projects. For example, $124,000 was awarded to Mississippi’s Flex-EGrant Program. The CREATE Foundation, acting as the project’s fiscal agent, 

distributed smaller grants to distressed counties seeking funding for activities such as 

leadership training and strategic planning. 

Second is the Appalachian Community Learning Project (ACLP). Begun in 1997, the 

ACLP consists of a series of two-day training sessions at which community teams 

develop six-month action plans for their communities and set measurable outcomes with 

which to determine their success. Community teams whose action plans are approved by 

ARC receive minigrants to begin implementing these plans. At the completion of these 

projects, grant recipients convene for a one-day training session to report their results, 

network with other grant recipients, and learn about other funding opportunities. 

Finally, a number of projects originate at the state or local level. Grant recipients include 

local development districts, government agencies, colleges and universities, and nonprofit 

organizations. For example, the West Virginia EMS Technical Support Network, a 

nonprofit organization, sought ARC funding to provide management and leadership 

training to EMS agencies, which are largely volunteer organizations and frequently lack 

these skills. Often, these projects represent collaborative efforts between multiple 

community-level organizations. 
3

About the Appalachian Regional Commission 

The Appalachian Regional Commission was created in 

1965 to promote economic and social development in 

the region. It is a federal-state partnership designed to 

foster self-sustaining economic development and 

improved quality of life. As such, it is an agency that 

functions as a catalyst, drawing upon the resources of 

the federal government, the participating states, and 

local resources. 

ARC provides financial and technical support to local, 

regional, and multistate projects through its Area 

Development Programs. The process for awarding 

these grants reflects the underlying partnership between 

the Commission and participating states, as well as the 

need to give local communities a voice in determining 

how ARC funds are to be allocated. 

Each year, the 13 states of Appalachia prepare 

individual annual strategy statements and spending 

plans. These documents contain state-level goals 

(which are aligned with ARC’s five strategic goals) and 

corresponding proposals for each of the specific projects 

that are being recommended for funding. In some 

states, these initiatives are developed to reflect state 

and/or local priorities. In others, applicants submit 

proposals based on needs identified in their local 

communities. 

Once approved by the state’s development agency, a 

state’s recommendations for project funding are 

submitted to ARC. Each proposed project is then 

reviewed by ARC project coordinators and, in most 

cases, approved by the federal co-chair. Project 

coordinators can negotiate changes to the proposed 

project with state program managers. In most cases, 

adjustments are made to timetables and budgets. More 

recently, a limited number of projects originate and are 

funded each year directly through the Commission and 

ARC set-asides. These projects are subject to the same 

policies and procedures as those funded through 

individual states. 

The activities conducted by ARC-funded 

community capacity-building projects are 

rather varied; however, these activities, 

generally, can be classified into one of 

four strategies:8

• Vision and direction—e.g., 

conducting strategic planning and/or 

regional or local needs assessments. 

• Involvement—e.g., small-scale 

projects that require the participation 

of community members, establishing 

or developing community 

organizations or associations, 

conducting outreach, and organizing 

meetings, conferences, or forums. 

• Skills and knowledge—e.g., group 

instructional activities, one on one 

instructional activities, and 

developing materials. 

• Support activities—e.g., providing 

or obtaining technical assistance, and 

providing technological support. 

Study Overview 

In 2003, ARC commissioned an 

evaluation of its civic capacity-building 

program. The purpose of this evaluation 

was as follows: 

• To document the range of outputs and outcomes that capacity-building and 

community leadership projects set for themselves in their proposals to ARC—and 

assess the extent to which these projects were able to accomplish their goals; 

• To measure the extent to which these projects made progress toward the objectives9

and performance goals10 that pertain to ARC Goal 3; 

 

8

 As is discussed in chapter 4, many of the projects conducted activities in more than one of these strategy categories. 

9

 The objectives for ARC Goal 3 are (1) the percentage of Appalachian residents participating in leadership development 

programs aimed at community improvement will substantially increase, and (2) all communities and community 

organizations will have access to capacity-building activities to enhance their ability to marshal resources, plan, and 

develop solutions to local problems. 
4

• To document community outcomes that occurred as a result of these projects; 

• To assess the implementation of a sample of these projects, with an emphasis on 

identifying obstacles and steps taken to successfully overcome these obstacles; 

• To identify potentially promising practices that might be adapted elsewhere; and 

• To make policy recommendations aimed at improving ARC’s efforts to monitor and 

assist its civic capacity-building and community leadership projects. 

Within this context, two important purposes of the evaluation were to assess factors 

associated with successful capacity-building projects and to recommend a wide range of 

performance measures that might be used to document the impact of successful 

initiatives. This report provides an examination of 100 civic capacity-building projects 

that have been funded by the Commission since 1995. The study examines projects’ 

implementation and accomplishments, assesses the extent to which they met their own 

objectives, and makes policy recommendations for a performance measurement system. 

The evaluation of ARC’s capacity-building projects included four integrated activities: 

• A review of the literature regarding theoretical and applied perspectives on capacity 

building and associated best practices; 

• A review of applications and final reports to gain a better understanding of the 

purpose, scope, and accomplishments of the 100 projects in the study sample; 

• Telephone interviews with a representative sample of 25 projects to obtain broad 

information about project-related activities and accomplishments; and 

• Site visits with 12 projects to obtain more detailed information about project-related 

implementation experiences, accomplishments, impacts, and performance measures. 

Findings of the literature review were employed in determining the definitions, 

parameters, and approaches of community capacity building as currently understood by 

both national and international theoreticians and practitioners. These findings were also 

instrumental in developing the conceptual framework of this evaluation, as reflected in a 

comprehensive logic model introduced in chapter 2 and discussed throughout this report. 

Westat reviewed the applications and final reports for all projects in the sample. Findings 

from the document review were used to create a database containing background 

information about these 100 projects. This database was used to analyze patterns that 

exist across the projects in the sample, as well as to select projects for the site visits. 

Specific variables that were abstracted as part of this analysis included project 

description, types of activities, anticipated outputs and outcomes, and accomplishments 

reported by projects in their final reports. Findings from the document review are 

integrated throughout this report. 

 

10 The performance goals for ARC Goal 3 are to (1) support 4,000 participants in leadership development and/or civic 

capacity programs, and (2) provide support to develop leadership and civic capacity programs for ten additional counties 

per year. 
5

The use of open-ended telephone interviews with a sample of 25 capacity-building 

projects enabled us to obtain detailed data on a core set of topics. In addition, by 

interviewing staff from a representative sample of projects—stratified by project type—

we were able to obtain information about the implementation and impact of “typical” 

capacity-building initiatives. The purpose of these interviews was to engage a sample of 

grant recipients in a dialogue about the implementation and impact of their projects. The 

telephone interviews were conducted with the individuals who oversaw ARC grants, with 

each interview lasting approximately 45-60 minutes. Results from the telephone 

interviews are used throughout the report as support for general findings. 

To get a firsthand look at the implementation and impact of ARC’s community capacitybuilding initiatives, Westat then conducted site visits to 12 projects. These visits allowed 

us to gather in depth information on each of the study questions, with special emphasis on 

documenting the range of outcomes that occurred as a result of the ARC grant. In 

addition, site visits were used to engage project staff and other stakeholders in 

discussions of the types of performance measures that ARC might use to document 

outcomes associated with future civic capacity-building projects. The site visits also 

focused on the following topics: 

• Context of the project, including community characteristics, characteristics of the 

grant recipient and other organizations involved and the nature of their involvement, 

target audience, and problem(s) the project was designed to address; 

• General approach of the project, goals, and objectives, including specific outputs and 

outcomes established by the project; 

• Implementation of the project, including planning processes, roles of partners and 

other stakeholders, types of activities supported, training provided, and community 

outreach; 

• Problems or obstacles to implementation, how they were resolved, and 

recommendations of ways to avoid them in the future; 

• Attainment of project goals and objectives, and impacts on target audiences and the 

broader community; 

• Lessons learned and recommendations for similar projects; 

• Plans for sustaining projects beyond the grant period and future plans; and 

• Recommendations for performance measures that might be used to document 

outcomes associated with capacity-building projects. 

In selecting these 12 projects, we focused on sites that appeared to have implemented 

innovative practices, achieved the objectives they set for themselves, and delineated valid 

and measurable performance indicators. Targeting the site visits to those projects that 

appeared to have been most successful allowed us to obtain information about best 

practices that may prove useful to other ARC capacity-building initiatives. 
6

Structure of the Report 

Chapter 2 discusses an array of definitions, issues, and approaches related to community 

capacity building, and provides a framework for the evaluation and chapters that follow. 

The remainder of the report presents the evaluation’s substantive findings. Chapter 3 

portrays the various community contexts in which the capacity-building projects were 

embedded, including information on grant recipients, community characteristics, assets, 

liabilities, and available resources. Chapter 4 presents findings on project activities and 

their implementation, including barriers encountered and how these were overcome. 

Chapter 5 examines project accomplishments and impact, and chapter 6 addresses 

performance measurement. The final chapter presents lessons learned and 

recommendations for ARC regarding its future capacity-building projects. 
7

Chapter 2 

Perspectives On Community 

Capacity Building

 review of academic research and literature from organizations that administer 

community development and community capacity programs suggests that such 

endeavors hold great promise for many communities. But the review conducted 

for this evaluation also revealed that community capacity building and community 

development is a complex and vaguely defined field. Until the field gains greater 

definition and clarity of purpose, it may be difficult to prove its effectiveness and true 

value. This chapter sorts out the terminology, delineates the scope and parameters of the 

field, and provides a framework for the evaluation of ARC’s community capacitybuilding projects. It includes definitions and discussion of issues and approaches from 

both theoretical and applied perspectives. The chapter ends with presentation of a logic 

model that synthesizes and incorporates findings from the review of research and insights 

in the field. This logic model will then serve as the framework for the evaluation and the 

data-based substantive chapters that follow. 

Community Capacity Building and 

Community Development Efforts 

Referring specifically to community capacity-building efforts in Australia, Hounslow 

(2002) noted that community capacity building is “commonly applied to disadvantaged 

communities and population groups,” although in principle it has relevance to all 

communities and to society as a whole. Further, “this is belated acknowledgement that 

the profound economic restructuring and social change of the last decades of the 20th 

century has had a very uneven impact—benefiting some individuals and communities, 

while harming others.” Ironically, community capacity building and community 

development work has been carried out internationally for many years in developed 

countries such as England, Canada, Australia, and in continental Western European 

counties. Craig (2002) notes that more recently, “Community development work itself 

has received a welcome boost in many countries, not least in the emerging democracies 

of East and Central Europe, and in many Third World countries...” 

The same point made by Hounslow applies equally to the United States and the 

Appalachian region in particular—there remain many communities that do not enjoy the 

same overall quality of life as in other parts of the country, with respect to material 

prosperity, health, education, safety, recreation, and other aspects of community wellbeing. Further, there is a strong case to be made that these struggling communities are in 

need not of external financial assistance, or infusions of new industry and business, but 

rather of a kind of transformation from within wherein whole communities come together 

to envision their future and awaken to their potential for collective action and 

improvement. Community capacity building not only entails imagining how things might 

be, but realizing what it takes to get there and then translating plans into action. It 

A 
8

involves challenge to the status quo, and in some cases, conflict with established modes 

of behavior and governance. 

Community capacity building and community development work is a growing and 

evolving discipline in the United States. It is carried out by community development 

agencies, higher education institutions, and governmental organizations such as the 

Rocky Mountain Institute, the Pew Partnership for Civic Change, the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Within the 

Appalachian region, community capacity-building programs are operated by the Brushy 

Fork Institute, the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development 

(MACED), the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, and Rural Action, among others. 

These organizations and foundations traditionally receive funding from ARC, other 

federal, state, and local government agencies, private foundations, and corporations. 

Common Terms and Concepts 

The literature review revealed considerable variation of terminology in describing similar 

and sometimes identical phenomena. This section sorts out the various terms and 

provides operational definitions that are used throughout the report. 

Community Capacity 

What is community capacity? While the field is somewhat amorphous and definitions 

vary, the literature indicated considerable overlap of common themes, and suggests 

various parameters that allow delineation of the field. 

According to the nonprofit Aspen Institute, civic and community capacity refers to “the 

combined influence of a community’s commitment, resources, and skills that can be 

deployed to build on community strengths and address community problems and 

opportunities.” To Frank and Smith (1999), community capacity is “simply the ways and 

means needed to do what has to be done. It is much broader than simply skills, people, 

and plans. It includes commitment, resources, and all that is brought to bear on a process 

to make it successful.” 

Littlejohns and Thompson (2001) define community capacity as “the degree to which a 

community can develop, implement and sustain actions which allow it to exert greater 

control over its physical, social, economic, and cultural environments.” Community 

capacity is defined by Howe and Cleary (2001) as “the ability of individuals, 

organizations, and communities to manage their own affairs and to work collectively to 

foster and sustain positive changes.” 

Many definitions of community capacity and community capacity building identify sets 

of parameters or components of capacity. For example, Goodman et al. (1998), propose 

the following dimensions of community capacity: participation, leadership, skills, 

resources, social and inter-agency networks, sense of community, understanding of 

community history, community power, community values, and critical reflection. 
9

The various definitions provided in the literature reveal community capacity building to 

have several underlying features. First, it involves purposive and planned action on the 

part of a representative cross-section of the community. It presupposes that change 

generated from within a community is most likely to be sustainable and effective. The 

actions envisioned should work toward the interests of the community as a whole, and 

not just the interests of a select portion of the community. 

Second, community capacity building involves the mobilization and participation of a 

broad, diverse coalition of citizens within a community. This includes generating 

awareness of community issues and problems, as well as a sense of commitment, 

common purpose, and empowerment on the part of community members. In this sense, 

capacity building is about changing attitudes and minds. 

Third, community capacity building involves the strengthening of human capital by 

equipping people with the skills, know-how, and creativity necessary to carry out 

common goals. This includes developing skills for leading change, as well as skills of 

interaction across lines of race, class, age, and other social barriers that too often hinder 

progress. 

Fourth, community capacity building involves establishing dense collaborative networks 

across agencies, organizations, and individuals. Ultimately, the goal of community 

capacity building is to recognize and develop untapped resources to improve the quality 

of life of all people in the community. 

It should be noted that the phrase community capacity building may not be well accepted 

in some communities, where it may be taken to imply that people are somehow lacking in 

capacity. In the literature one finds reference to civic capacity building, often used 

interchangeably with community capacity building. For the purposes of this report, we 

avoid using civic capacity building, since it implies limiting the scope of activities to 

those that build capacity related to governance and democratic participation. While these 

are certainly an integral part of community capacity, there are other aspects of capacity 

that go beyond the development of civic participation, such as organizational 

development and collaboration, community strategic planning, and physical 

infrastructure. Community capacity building has also been referred to in the literature 

variously as “empowerment” (Craig 2002; Perkins and Zimmerman 1995), “readiness” 

(Haglund, Weisbrod, and Bracht 1993), and “competence” (Eng and Parker 1994; Iscoe 

1974). 

Community Development 

Biddle and Biddle (1965) defined community development as “a social process by which 

human beings can become more competent to live with and gain some control over local 

aspects of a frustrating and changing world.” They equated development with 

improvement, where improvement is “evaluated in terms of democratic skills, 

responsibility to serve a growing awareness of a common good, ethical sensitivity, and 

willingness to cooperate.” According to Frank and Smith (1999), community 

development is “the planned evolution of all aspects of community well-being 

(economic, social, environmental, and cultural).” 
10

It is important to distinguish community capacity building from community development, 

since these distinct terms are often used interchangeably. The sense of community 

development overlaps considerably with community capacity building, but is different in 

several respects. First, community development does not necessarily involve the building 

of community capacity. The example given by Frank and Smith (1999) is of a community 

in which jobs and wealth are generated due to exclusive government and industry control 

of economic and social development, but where capacity is not strengthened in that the 

community is not subsequently better positioned to manage itself, make decisions, sustain 

long-term well-being, and so on. Similarly, there may be severely disadvantaged 

communities in which capacity is strengthened, but where no development occurs (at 

least in the short term). 

Thus, one might view community capacity and community development as 

complementary processes in a continuum where capacity feeds development, and where 

development may feed back into capacity. Both processes share the primary goal of 

improving the quality of life of people within communities. 

The concept of community development has a longer history than that of community 

capacity building. The more recent emphasis in the literature on the more restrictive 

notion of community capacity building may have been due in part to negative 

connotations of the word development, often associated with unchecked growth and 

expansion. Many practitioners struggle to dispel the notion that growth is in itself good 

for a community. They point out that the ultimate goal of community building should be 

the well-being of community members, and that economic interests must be balanced 

with social and environmental considerations. For example, MDC, a community 

development organization whose mission is to advance the interests of disadvantaged 

communities in the Southern United States, identifies six interrelated components of 

community development, only some of which pertain directly to economic interests. 

They are business development, workforce development, physical infrastructure, social 

infrastructure, cultural and environmental stewardship, and civic infrastructure (MDC 

2002). 

Another reason why some practitioners prefer to avoid using community development is 

that the expression too closely resembles economic development, which for many 

disadvantaged communities can be as harmful for some in the community as it is 

beneficial to others. Some communities see economic development as a panacea for the 

problems that they face, and, rather than pursuing more practical options, throw all of 

their efforts into business recruiting. In any event, practitioners of community building 

view economic development as just one component of community development. 

Concerns such as these have spawned the creation of alternative expressions that attempt 

to avoid the negative connotations of development. For example, many practitioners 

prefer to adjoin the term sustainable as a modifier to the word development (see Hart 

1999; Kinsley 1997). According to Hart (1999), “The primary goal of a sustainable 

community is to meet its basic resource needs in a way that can be continued in the 

future.” Thus, the word sustainable is meant to counter the assumption that expedient 

solutions will benefit communities in the long term. Kinsley, of the Rocky Mountain 

Institute, notes that “sustainable development stands in sharp contrast to conventional 

economic development strategies.” He then lists features of the sustainable development 

approach, as follows: 
11

• Redefines prosperity, weighing community values, quality of life, and the 

environment alongside economic considerations. 

• Seeks true development, in the sense of getting better, instead of expansion, which is 

merely getting bigger. 

• Advocates the long-term stewardship of community resources, ensuring that present 

actions don’t erode the basis for future prosperity. 

• Pursues self-reliance and a more democratic approach to decision-making, 

representing community-wide interests over those of an elite few. 

• Stresses diversity, resilience, and a conviction that many small efforts work better 

than a single one-size-fits-all solution. 

Community Capacity Building: In Theory and Practice 

As with other fields11 and professions, community capacity building has a theoretical 

aspect as well as an applied aspect. Theorists are interested in the varied structures, 

networks, and dynamics of communities, how these may change over time, and how they 

play a role in community development and capacity building. Practitioners are principally 

interested in what works and how they can affect change in communities in the most 

effective ways. Unlike other fields with a clear and balanced division of labor between 

theory and application, community capacity building is naturally heavily weighted 

toward practice. 

In general, insights of theoreticians and academics are informed by abstract conceptions 

of community structure and organization, human interaction, and power and governance, 

whereas the insights of practitioners are founded more on direct experience in 

implementing community work. But in actuality, there is a fine line between theory and 

practice with respect to community capacity building, and the two domains are mutually 

beneficial. Much of the work done in theoretical camps, while often somewhat abstract, 

is geared toward providing tools for the improvement of communities. Popple and 

Quinney (2002) encourage “students and practitioners to practice in a critical, systematic 

manner, informed by theory.” 

The following sections attempt to map some of the terrain of community capacity 

building from both theoretical and applied perspectives. Both perspectives help provide 

the framework, goals, and guiding principals for community capacity building, as well as 

a framework for monitoring and evaluating capacity-building programs. 

Community Capacity Building and Community Development in Theory 

Hustedde and Ganowicz (2002) note that the profession of community development 

incorporates theories from a wide range of disciplines, including work by community-

 

11The term field here is used rather loosely, since community capacity building is not as clearly defined and established as a 

formal field or discipline. 
12

development-oriented anthropologists, community psychologists, sociologists, social 

welfare professionals, and community economists, among others. They also point out that 

this balkanization of theory and the sometimes impenetrability of the language used by 

theorists leads many pragmatic-minded practitioners to conclude that theory is irrelevant 

for their purposes. Nonetheless, they outline three main areas where theory may be 

especially useful for community developers. 

The first area pertains to theoretical 

perspectives on structure, which is 

related to the concept of agency or 

capacity building, and is known as 

structural functionalism: “According 

to this theoretical framework, societies 

contain certain interdependent 

structures, each of which performs 

certain functions for the maintenance 

of society.” Structures (i.e., 

organizations and institutions) form 

the basis of the social system, but 

generally work toward their own 

interests. Understanding of structures 

in a community, their interrelationships, and how they may change or 

maintain the status quo can be of 

considerable use to practitioners. 

The second area outlined by Hustedde 

and Ganowicz has to do with the role of power and conflict in communities, that is, who 

controls or has access to resources: “If community development is about building 

capacity, then concerns about power are pivotal.” Practitioners must be aware of the 

distribution of power within a community, because very often their work involves actions 

geared toward challenge to the status 

quo and shifting of power in 

communities. According to Hustedde 

and Ganowicz, because power is 

never evenly distributed across social 

categories, conflict theory is an 

essential component of this 

perspective, where conflict is viewed 

as a necessary part of social life. 

The third key theoretical perspective 

outlined by Hustedde and Ganowicz is 

symbolic interactionism, which has to 

do with the construction and 

maintenance of shared meaning 

through interaction and language: “If 

community development is about 

building or strengthening solidarity, then practitioners must be concerned about the 

meaning that people give to place, people, and events.” Above all, community capacity 

building involves altering people’s perceptions about who they are and what they are 

Wilkinson (1972) 

Wilkinson proposed the conceptualization of 

community development within the framework of 

social field theory. Referring to his earlier work 

(Wilkinson 1970), he proposed that groups, 

organizations, communities, and other forms of social 

organization may be treated as social fields, where a 

social field is defined as “a process of interaction 

through time, with direction toward some more or less 

distinctive outcome and with constantly changing 

elements and structure.” Social fields in most instances 

are oriented toward a single interest or category of 

interests, and are sometimes linked along institutional 

interest lines. By contrast, a community field is a 

“locality-oriented social field through which actions 

expressing a broad range of local interests are 

coordinated,” such that there is generalization across 

interest lines. Community development then is 

collective action that is “purposively directed towards 

altering community field structure in a positive way,” 

where “positive” refers to the subjective notion of 

improvement. 

Gaventa (1980) 

Gaventa’s work on power and participation is revealing 

of the extent to which a theoretical perspective may be 

employed to explain aspects of human behavior. In this 

case, Gaventa’s theory of power explains the apathy, 

quiescence, and nonparticipation of disenfranchised 

groups in the face of severe inequities in an 

Appalachian community: “In this view, then, apparent 

inaction within the political process by deprived groups 

may be related to power, which in turn is revealed in 

participation and nonparticipation, upon issues and 

non-issues, which arise or are prevented from arising in 

decision-making arenas.” Gaventa notes the 

interrelationship of participation and political 

awareness and explains the emergence of dissent or 

even rebellion as the process by which relationships of 

power are altered. 
13

capable of achieving. Symbolic interactionism may benefit practitioners by helping them 

to understand how shared meaning is constructed in communities, and how to challenge, 

criticize, or modify those meanings. 

The three theoretical perspectives identified by Hustedde and Ganowicz are not mutually 

exclusive, and fruitful research and conceptual frameworks have development at the 

intersection of these areas. For example, linking Wilkinson’s interactional perspective 

with community power research and interorganizational network analysis (Aiken 1970; 

Galaskiewicz 1979; Knoke 1990; 

Laumann and Pappi 1976), Sharp 

(2001) conducted research that aimed 

to measure and evaluate the 

community field in three communities 

and relate this to the community’s 

structures and capacity for local 

action. His approach involved analysis 

of the networks among community 

actors and associations and was based 

on the belief that a community field 

consists of interaction between diverse 

social fields that “facilitates 

communitywide awareness of local 

concerns and enhances the flow of 

information and/or financial 

resources.” Further, Sharp assumed 

that the ability to manage and direct 

resources and action is influenced by 

the possession of authority or power 

on the part of one or more elements of 

the networks within the community 

field. 

Other works have explored the 

relationship between networks, power, 

and capacity for local action in 

communities. For example, Beaulieu 

and Ryan (1984) found a strong 

positive correlation between the 

position of individuals (leaders) in 

hierarchical power networks within 

communities and their position in 

hierarchical action networks that 

promote community development. 

Flora (1998) and Flora and Flora 

(1993) develop a model called 

entrepreneurial social infrastructure, 

which applies features of social capital 

theory (Putnam 1993; Coleman 1993) 

and emphasizes the role of diverse, 

inclusive, and flexible networks, legitimization of alternatives and conflict, and 

mobilization of a wide range of resources. 

Sharp (2001) 

Following work by Walton (1970) and Aiken (1970), 

Sharp identified different types of possible power 

structures within communities that form a continuum 

from centralized (pyramidal and factional) to 

decentralized (coalitional and amorphous) power 

structures. In the pyramidal structure, power is 

concentrated in the hands of a single, cohesive group of 

leaders. In a factional structure, two or more factions 

compete for power within a community. In a coalitional 

structure, actors and associations work together in fluid 

coalitions where power is not strongly concentrated. In 

an amorphous structure, power is diffuse, with little 

coalition building or centralization of leadership. Sharp 

hypothesized that the pyramidal and coalitional power 

structures would be more likely to support a 

community field than the factional and amorphous 

structures. Pyramidal power structures would support 

the community field as long as the centralized 

leadership was used to direct resources toward common 

goals of the community. Coalitional structures could be 

effective providing that there were dense network 

linkages across diverse social fields. On the other hand, 

factional structures would be less likely to unite toward 

the common interests of the community, whereas 

amorphous structures would not be able to garner the 

ties across social fields necessary to “facilitate the flow 

of information and resources that define a community 

field.” 

Sharp’s analysis of networks and power structures of 

three rural Midwestern communities reveals that indeed 

communities with pyramidal and coalitional structures 

had community fields. He concludes by suggesting 

ways in which such a theoretical framework may have 

implications for rural community research and 

community development practice. He suggests that an 

understanding of the kinds of power structures within a 

community “could help citizens and leaders to 

understand the organization (or lack of organization) of 

their community, to recognize how resources and 

information flow within the community, to determine 

who does and does not have access to these resources 

and this information, and to identify attributes of the 

local structure that enhance general capacity for local 

action.” 
14

Community Capacity Building and Community Development in Practice 

Within the camp of practitioners, there is a growing body of literature that documents and 

advocates effective practices in community development work. This section discusses 

management of community-building projects from both local and global points of view. 

Best Practices and Guiding Principles. Practitioners have compiled and published sets 

of best practices and guiding principles for successful projects and programs. Authors of 

these lessons learned note that every community is different, and that developers may 

find some guidelines more realistic, relevant, or feasible than others, depending on the 

local context. These publications suggest underlying key features of successful capacitybuilding efforts. First, successful community capacity-building endeavors are grounded 

in community goals or a common vision that is established by a widely representative 

segment of the population. Second, successful projects (i.e., those that succeed in 

building capacity) involve effective ways to enlist, educate, and motivate all community 

members to act toward those common goals. Third, successful projects create new links 

and networks across organizations and individuals within communities. Fourth, 

successful projects are realistic as well as idealistic, pragmatic as well as visionary. Fifth, 

they emphasize bottom-up, grassroots initiatives, with focus on developing latent 

potential and undeveloped resources (human and natural) from within the community. 

 

The Rocky Mountain Institute’s review of 

community development efforts revealed 10 

ingredients of “smart and sustainable 

governance”: 

• Establish genuine collaboration among 

leaders of all community sectors and people 

from all walks of life. 

• Develop and publicize a community goals or 

vision statement that sets forth economic, 

environmental, and community goals. 

• Develop and publish indicators of progress 

toward each of the goals in the vision 

statement. 

• Develop and adopt decision-making tools and 

methods. 

• Take action: choose projects and programs 

that actively strengthen the local economy, 

nurture the community, and restore the 

environment. 

• Foster community entrepreneurship. 

• Organize a business network. 

• Establish a community sustainability plan. 

• Employ continuous learning: Revisit major 

decisions and actions at predetermined dates 

following implementation. 

• Foster leadership and civic capacity. 

Howe and Cleary (2001) identified five key 

factors of success from their review of effective 

initiatives occurring across varied communities 

and circumstances: 

• Capacity building, focusing on education and 

the development of human and social capital 

and increased connectedness. 

• A linked approach, involving coordination 

across government portfolios, partnerships 

between spheres of government (local, state, 

and commonwealth), and partner-ships 

between government, business, community, 

and philanthropic sectors. 

• An emphasis on local democracy, whereby 

bottom-up initiatives take priority over 

solutions imposed from outside, and the 

importance of local identity, leadership, 

knowledge, and management are recognized 

as critical components. 

• Flexible approaches that take regard of the 

multifaceted nature of the problems that face 

particular communities and emphasize the 

importance of continuous reflection and 

development. 

• An emphasis on sustainable strategies rather 

than one-off projects, and (strategies which 

recognize the ongoing interdependency of 

social, economic, and environmental 

connectedness. 
15

Needs-Based Versus Assets-Based 

Approaches. Besides taking into 

account best practices for designing 

and implementing community 

capacity projects, agencies and 

organizations that promote community 

development must consider more 

global, programmatic issues that 

have to do with alternative approaches 

to addressing community-level 

problems. 

According to Kretzmann and 

McKnight (1993), there are two main 

approaches to community development that have been and continue to 

be employed in community-building 

enterprises. The first focuses on 

identifying and treating the needs, 

deficiencies, and problems of 

communities. In this more commonly 

employed approach, public, private, 

and nonprofit human service systems provide programs with local activities that “teach 

people the nature and extent of their problems, and the value of services as the answer to 

their problems.” The needs-based approach is closely aligned with so-called “top-down” 

community work, usually adopted and funded by local and central government agencies, 

a major theme of which is “to integrate individuals and groups into mainstream society 

and to make services and resources more sensitive to their needs, usually in running and 

organizing the projects” (Popple and Quinney 2002). 

Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) argue that this provision of services may create a 

culture of dependence, where people in the community may begin to view themselves as 

deficient and powerless to change. In addition, institutions that play a role in community 

development (i.e., governmental agencies, foundations, research institutions) focus their 

efforts on the needs and problems of communities, which can result in “a wall between 

lower income communities and the rest of society—a wall of needs which, ironically 

enough, is built not on hatred but (at least partly) on the desire to ‘help.’” 

The needs-based approach may have other negative consequences. First, it may lead to a 

breakdown of a community’s own problem-solving capabilities. Second, resources based 

on needs direct funding to service providers rather than residents. Third, this approach 

may have negative consequences for local leadership, which must attract resources by 

calling attention to the deficiencies of their communities. Fourth, it may cultivate 

relationships between community residents and external agencies, rather than between 

community members themselves, and thus contributes to the continued fragmentation of 

communities. Fifth, it makes continued funding dependant on continued failure. Sixth, 

the needs-based approach involves treating isolated individual clients, rather than 

developing a plan that is comprehensive in scope and involves the energies of whole 

communities. Finally, needs-based approaches aim at best for survival, rather than 

comprehensive long-term improvement and self-sufficiency. 

Hart (1999) outlined some common features of 

sustainable community projects: 

• Including diversity—People from all walks of life 

should be represented and included as 

participants. Aspects of this guideline include 

diverse leadership, effective outreach, and respect 

for all participants. 

• Leadership—Effective leadership is broad-based 

and inclusive of a cross-section of viewpoints in 

the community. Organizations that initiate and 

lead community change should have the resources 

necessary to be effective. 

• Outreach—Announcements about community 

meetings should be made in as many different 

ways as possible. 

• Respect for all participants—General guidelines 

should be developed that ensure that everyone is 

treated with respect and that all viewpoints are 

allowed to be expressed. 

• Format—Community meetings should be held at 

convenient times and places, and should be 

conducted in a way that attracts and promotes 

participation. 
16

According to Kretzmann and McKnight, an alternative approach that is assets-based 

recognizes the potential negative consequences of the focus on the needs and problems of 

communities, and instead emphasizes a community’s assets and untapped resources: 

“The key to neighborhood regeneration, then, is to locate all of the available local assets, 

to begin connecting them with one another in ways that multiply their power and 

effectiveness, and to begin harnessing those local institutions that are not yet available for 

local development purposes.” Such work often begins with a “map” of community 

assets,12 including description of the skills of residents, and inventory of community 

associations and formal institutions (i.e., private businesses, schools, libraries, parks, 

nonprofit institutions such as hospitals, and social service agencies). The next step, more 

difficult than a simple inventory of assets, is enlisting and mobilizing individuals, local 

associations, and institutions in the community-building enterprise. 

Clearly, community capacity building, as described in this chapter, is soundly located 

within the assets-based camp. The features that these approaches have in common are the 

focus on planning, problem-solving, strengths, resources, and potential; mobilization of 

community members toward common goals; and an internal concentration, rather than a 

reliance on external assistance. Although external forces should remain significant 

contributors to community development, assets-based approaches give primacy to 

community self-definition, self-determination, and self-control.13 Further, the work of 

Kretzmann and McKnight is heavily cited in the community capacity-building 

literature.14 

A Framework For This Evaluation 

This evaluation takes into consideration issues of accountability for Federal programs, as 

directed by the President’s Management Agenda (PMA), as well as issues related 

specifically to the evaluation of community capacity-building programs. 

In August 2001, the President announced an agenda for reforming the management of the 

government and improving the performance of federal programs. The President’s 

Management Agenda consists of five government-wide initiatives and nine programspecific initiatives. Included in the former is the Budget and Performance Integration 

initiative, which further refines GPRA requirements by aiming to enhance the quality of 

information on program results so that government can make better decisions about its 

allocation of resources. This particular initiative “stresses making budget decisions based 

on results.” 

The link between budget and performance was recently formalized with the development 

of a new instrument for assessing government programs at the federal level. The Program 

 

12Frank and Smith (1999) list the following community assets: human assets and liabilities; environmental resources; 

economic opportunities and limitations; cultural and recreational facilities, programs, and services; financial, political, 

and security systems; infrastructure in existence and needed; and communication processes. 

13Moore (2003) noted that “practitioners were cautious about ‘top-down’ directives from government or other agencies 

engaged in promoting change within the community. Loss of local control was cited as a critical concern by practitioners, 

and loss often influenced community decision-making.” 

14For example, in her review of the underpinnings of community capacity building work, Hounslow (2002) notes that “the 

assets approach challenges the paternalism inherent in many public policies and programs and in the ways that 

‘professionals’ often work with communities.” 
17

Assessment Rating Tool (PART) “evaluates a 

program’s purpose and design, planning, 

management, and results and accountability 

to determine its overall effectiveness.” The 

PART intends to determine the strengths and 

weaknesses of individual programs with a 

focus specifically on the results they produce. 

Its overall purpose is “to lay the groundwork 

for evidence-based funding decisions aimed 

at achieving positive results.” 

Craig (2002) notes that recent years have 

seen an expansion of interest in the 

evaluation of community development work 

and that the move toward evaluation has been 

driven by several factors. First, since much of 

the community development work conducted 

in advanced economies is funded from public 

taxation, there is concern that programs be 

accountable and justified, and that they meet 

their stated objectives. Second, evaluation of 

community development work may be done 

to improve practice. 

Wilkinson (1972) emphasized the importance 

of evaluation of community development work, although his discussion took place before 

the era where demonstrating accountability was a primary focus of evaluation: “The 

relationship between purposive action and actual outcomes can, however, be measured 

with some accuracy through carefully designed research. Through such research it may 

be possible to develop more realistic strategies of purposive change and more valid 

criteria for evaluating programs.” 

The significance of evaluation of community development work was noted as early as 

1965 by Biddle and Biddle (1965), who emphasized the importance of considering such 

work within the context of local values: “No scientist (social or any other kind), when he 

takes part in development, can be content with description only. He must approve actions 

and evaluate results in the light of some scheme of values towards the attainment of 

which the development is directed.” 

Baker and Teaser-Polk (1998) note that the work of researchers (namely, Goodman et al. 

1998) takes an important step toward measuring community capacity by identifying its 

main dimensions. They note further that “the next step is to create a dialogue about these 

dimensions and appropriate measurement strategies not only among experts in the field 

but also among community members and outsiders who engage with communities to 

create healthful changes.” This section and later chapters in this report aim to contribute 

to this dialogue on measurement and evaluation of community development and 

community capacity-building programs and projects. As suggested by Baker and TeaserPolk, Biddle and Biddle, Craig, and others (see, for example, Connell and Kubisch 1998), 

the framework developed here takes into account the perspectives of stakeholders, local 

context and community values, and the role of process in community development work. 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 

In the PART, strengths and weaknesses of 

programs are determined primarily through 

the use of 30 questions, which comprise the 

tool itself and consist of items that are 

applicable to all programs as well as ones 

that are tailored to a particular type of 

program. Items are divided into four 

sections, the first three of which focus on the 

program purpose, strategic planning, and 

management. The fourth section focuses on 

results and, more specifically, pertains to the 

extent of achievement of program goals. The 

results obtained in the PART culminate in a 

rating and accompanying performance 

summary for each program, which, in turn, 

provide important information to 

policymakers and other stakeholders as to 

how and where to improve programs and 

how to allocate government resources. 

Like the President’s Management Agenda, 

the PART represents a new effort at 

improving government accountability; 

therefore, important lessons regarding how to 

improve the tool are still being learned. 

Although modifications to the PART are 

ongoing, the fundamental purpose of the 

tool—making budget decisions based on 

results—remains the same. 
18

Craig (2002) offers a variety of important insights that should be considered when 

developing evaluation frameworks of community development (what he calls 

“empowerment”) programs. Several of these are noted here for their relevance to the 

evaluation of ARC’s community capacity-building projects. First, an evaluation 

framework must acknowledge that the impacts of interventions may take time to manifest 

themselves, although governments often seek quick results: “This pressure causes a 

particular tension for community development-oriented work that necessarily works at a 

slower pace than frequently is available to the political process.” 

Second, evaluations more often than not end up demonstrating the complexity of 

programs, rather than clear success or failure. Evaluation should aim to unveil the 

complexity of local community dynamics and how this influences program or project 

outcomes. Third, evaluators and social scientists are not neutral observers and must make 

their own perspectives clear during the course of the evaluation: “Nowhere is this perhaps 

more important than in the evaluation of community development with its contested goals 

and need for coalitions between workers and local activists.” Finally, evaluation is nearly 

always about questions of value and judgment: “Evaluation has to ask, ‘Whose 

assessment of the work is valued, and why and how is that value measured?’” The 

evaluation framework presented in the remainder of this section and developed further in 

chapters 3 through 7 incorporates each of these points. 

Due to the complex and dynamic nature of community work, Craig (2002) argues that the 

goals of community development evaluation should be realistic and modest, and should 

involve an engagement between the evaluator, the local community, and its organizers. 

He further argues that outcomes must be the heart of measurement within an evaluation 

of community development work (rather than outputs), and that realistic, measurable, and 

meaningful outcomes should provide the basis for ongoing monitoring: 

The key issue facing evaluation now, and this is particularly relevant to areas 

of work such as community development that seek qualitative improvements 

in people’s lives, is therefore perhaps best expressed thus: to make the 

important measurable, rather than (as is too often the case with the focus on 

performance indicators) to make the measurable important. p134 

The approach to assessing project achievement and impact adopted in the current 

evaluation of ARC’s community capacity-building projects involves balancing analytic 

tools with distinct qualitative and quantitative emphases. Craig (2002) argues that the 

complexity, fluidity, and value-laden nature of community development work requires 

that evaluation take into consideration a range of perspectives and multiple sources of 

data. He points out that mechanistic, purely quantitative approaches to performance 

measurement of community development work are limited and should be supplemented 

with qualitative analysis: “...the most important issue here is to recognize that 

quantitative and qualitative data are not in competition.... Critically, some quantitative 

data cannot be used without qualitative data supplementing it to give a more rounded 

picture....” Further, Craig notes that qualitative assessment can provide greater insight 

into the how and why of change in order to be able to transfer experience to other 

situations and ensure sustainability over time.15 

Along similar lines, Dixon (1995) advocates evaluation of community development work 

that gives primacy to community values and internal ethnographic understanding of 

 

15 He notes that for this reason, case studies are usually the best approach for evaluating community development. 
19

community dynamics. She proposes a two-pronged approach to evaluating community 

development projects. The first is a “community story” approach, which involves a 

narrative self-evaluation told primarily from the insiders’ perspective—those in the 

community directly involved in development work. The second is a traditional 

performance measurement model (with indicators, outcomes, etc.), but one with 

indicators and measures developed in consultation with community members, “to 

represent a negotiated agreement of all the stakeholders.” 

The analyses of project accomplishments and impact reported in chapters 5 and 6 of this 

report employ elements of the recommendations of Craig and Dixon. First, analyses are 

based on qualitative and quantitative data. Second, the qualitative findings are informed 

in large part by the “insiders’” perspective, as gleaned in case study and telephone 

interviews. Within this framework, chapter 5 presents the qualitative findings on 

accomplishments and impact, whereas chapter 6 examines project achievement within the 

context of ARC’s performance measurement system. 

A Logic Model for Community Capacity-Building Projects 

Two primary purposes of this evaluation are to assess factors associated with successful 

capacity-building projects and to recommend a range of performance measures that can 

be used to document the impact of successful initiatives. The latter purpose arose from 

ARC’s recognition of its need to enhance its performance measurement system: 

Since the inception of the [community capacity-building] initiative, the 

Commission, state program managers, grantees and the convening 

organizations have all struggled with how to measure performance outputs 

and outcomes. State program managers, grantees and Commission staff 

focused on articulating results for each project, but translating these results 

into a common metric proved daunting. (ARC Request for Proposals, 2002) 

To assist in arriving at such a “common metric,” Westat developed a logic model 

representing the interrelated features of community capacity-building projects. As is 

illustrated throughout this report, this logic model serves as the working framework for 

this evaluation of ARC’s community capacity-building projects. In addition, it has an 

applied purpose in that it is intended to serve as a tool for informing the design of future 

projects (see chapter 7). 

Logic models may also inform program and project design, and assist managers and 

project organizers in shaping projects that may later give evidence of results. With 

respect to community development, Craig (2002) suggests that local people be engaged 

in identifying goals and needs and selecting measures of success or effectiveness. This 

might be done by offering them menus that “can help communities identify measures that 

might be regarded as of most importance, to construct others, and to be alive to the 

possibilities of differing priorities.” As will be shown, the logic model is ideally suited 

for the sorts of menus advocated by Craig. 

Exhibit 2-1 presents a logic model based on our review of the literature on community 

development and capacity-building projects,16 as well as on data from the 100 ARCfunded community capacity-building projects included in this study. 

 

16 Most notably, the work carried out by the Aspen Institute, the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, 

and Maureen Hart, author of Sustainable Community Indicators (1999). 
20

Project 

Purpose

Enhance Skills 

& Knowledge 

of Community 

Members

Resources

Promote 

Involvement of 

Community 

Members

Individual 

Capacity

Organizational 

Capacity

Obtain 

Technical 

Support for the 

Community

Develop Vision 

& Direction 

for the 

Community

Community 

Capacity Social

Environmental

Economic

Assets

Liabilities

Project Context Project Strategies Project Outcomes

( + )

( - )

Exhibit 2-1 

Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects 
21

Although the logic model in exhibit 2-1 can accommodate a wide range of community 

capacity-building projects, it was designed specifically for the ARC capacity-building 

program. As such, it represents the various components of ARC’s community capacitybuilding projects and the relationships between those components—i.e., project purpose, 

contextual factors (assets, liabilities, and resources), project strategies/activities, and 

outcomes (including capacity and development outcomes) (see exhibit 2-2). It should be 

noted that Exhibit 2-1 shows only the first layer of the logic model. Each of the boxes 

within Exhibit 2-1 includes further structural detail (see appendix A) that will be revealed 

and discussed throughout the report. 

Summary 

This chapter attempted to define and delineate community capacity building and to 

portray issues in the field as they relate to the current evaluation. We have aimed to make 

explicit some of our assumptions about methods of evaluation, given the complexity and 

subjective elements of the community capacity-building enterprise. The themes and 

concepts addressed in this chapter are interwoven throughout this report and help provide 

the tools for evaluation and interpretation of ARC’s community capacity-building 

projects. In addition, these themes and concepts are embodied in the logic model, which 

serves as a framework or heuristic device for this evaluation and report. Chapter 3 on 

project context corresponds to the leftmost components of the logic model (project goals, 

assets, liabilities, and resources). Chapter 4 on project activities and implementation 

relate to the next components of the logic model having to do with project strategies and 

activities. Chapters 5 and 6 address project achievements, outcomes, and performance 

measurement, which correspond to the two outcome component levels of the logic model. 

The details and logic of the logic model and its components will be addressed in each of 

these respective chapters. The final chapter will argue for the logic model as a potentially 

valuable tool for project design and evaluation. 

Exhibit 2-2 

Logic Model Components 

RESOURCES

Resources are the inputs 

(e.g., financial; 

organizational; material; 

personnel) that a project 

may rely on to conduct 

activities.

CONTEXTUAL

FACTORS

Contextual factors refer to 

the community assets and 

liabilities that can affect the 

implementation and/or 

impact of a project. 

ACTIVITIES

Activities are what a project 

does with their resources to 

bring about changes or 

results.

OUTCOMES

Outcomes are what a project 

hopes to accomplish or 

change in their community 

as a result of project 

activities.

The ARC Community Capacity Logic Model is a visual representation of the resources a project has for design and implementation, the 

contextual factors that can affect the implementation and/or impact a project, the activities that are planned, and the outcomes the staff hopes 

to achieve. 

Logic models traditionally depict a process that flows from left to right—from resources to outcomes. For some projects, it may be useful to 

reverse this flow. Sometimes projects find it more useful to “work backwards,” starting with identifying anticipated outcomes and then 

determining the activities and resources that will be needed to achieve these outcomes.
22
23

Chapter 3 

Project Context

ll capacity-building projects are embedded in particular communities, and as such 

must navigate unique contexts, factoring in interrelated sets of specific aims, 

assets, liabilities, and resources (see exhibit 3-1). This chapter portrays the 

various contexts within which 100 capacity-building projects funded by ARC were 

implemented, including project goals in relation to community and grant recipient 

characteristics, community assets, liabilities, and available resources. Information about 

projects was drawn from the document review, as well as from findings from the site 

visits and telephone interviews. While this chapter begins to detail some of the 

contextual factors in communities, more extensive analyses of the complex interaction 

among these factors and their impact on project success are provided in later chapters. 

Exhibit 3-1 

Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: Project Context 

Project 

Purpose

Enhance Skills 

& Knowledge 

of Community 

Members

Resources

Promote 

Involvement of 

Community 

Members

Individual 

Capacity

Organizational 

Capacity

Obtain 

Technical 

Support for the 

Community

Develop Vision 

& Direction 

for the 

Community

Community 

Capacity Social

Environmental

Economic

Assets

Liabilities

Project Context Project Strategies Project Outcomes

( + )

( - )

For the purposes of the ARC Community Capacity Logic Model, project context encompasses four interrelated areas that 

projects need to consider as they design their initiative: project purpose, resources, community assets, and community 

liabilities. 

 Project purpose refers to the community conditions or issues that the project will be designed to address. The 

identification of project purpose drives the rest of the project. 

 Resources refers to the inputs (e.g., financial, organizational, material, personnel) that a project may rely on to 

conduct activities. Resources (e.g., funding, technical assistance, materials) may come from within (e.g., community 

members, local businesses) or outside (e.g., federal government, nonprofit organizations) of the community. 

 Community assets help to facilitate change and can enhance a community’s ability to implement its approach and 

achieve its outcomes. Examples of community assets include community organizations, innovative leaders, 

“sparkplugs,” energized citizens, and partnerships. 

 Community liabilities can inhibit community change and a project’s ability to implement activities and/or achieve 

desired outcomes. Examples of community liabilities include an entrenched political structure, a lack of 

empowerment, a fear of change, apathy, distrust, and limited resources. 

Assets and liabilities are unique to each community, and as the logic model demonstrates, communities should move in the 

direction of maximizing assets while minimizing liabilities. 

A 
24

Project Purpose 

The most common goals reported by the 100 grant recipients in the study were 

developing or expanding the pool of potential community leaders, reducing the 

community’s sense of isolation, preserving natural resources, fulfilling or improving 

municipal services, providing previously unavailable opportunities to local youth, and 

improving the economic health of their communities. Some projects reported interrelated 

goals. For example, projects geared toward youth were often described as an attempt to 

stem the exodus of young people from the community, with the community’s long-term 

economic health in mind. 

A few projects cited other less common goals. For example, the Aliceville Museum and 

Cultural Arts Museum grantee cited the revitalization of their downtown as the driving 

force behind their project. They chose to renovate and expand the local history museum 

in an effort to draw new business to the area, increase tourism, and provide residents with 

a place to honor their shared history. The Susquehanna Economic Development 

Association-Council of Governments (SEDA-COG) New Neighborhoods Project cited 

neighborhood revitalization and assumed a technical assistance role to support the 

Lewistown Monument Square Development Plan and the Sunbury City Visions Project. 

Both of these community projects sought to revitalize neighborhoods by organizing 

effective community action; cultivating leaders with the requisite skills for development; 

helping community members envision the future of the neighborhood and plan 

strategically to achieve that future; instituting neighborhood improvement organizations; 

and developing appropriate programs, projects, and services to facilitate neighborhood 

reinvestments and development. 

Other projects addressed common community issues but targeted less conventional 

participants. The West Virginia Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Leadership/ 

Management Skills Training Project provided leadership training to local EMS agency 

representatives throughout the state. The grant recipient explained that EMS agencies in 

West Virginia are largely volunteer organizations, and their staff often lacks the 

leadership and management skills needed to navigate an EMS environment that has 

become increasingly business-oriented. The program was developed to provide the 

necessary skills of leadership and management to the targeted group of participants. 

Community Characteristics

Many of the communities in this study faced a common set of challenges: geographic 

isolation, persistent poverty, unemployment, and declining population, often attributed to 

young people moving away for educational and employment opportunities that do not 

exist in their home communities. Other problems mentioned by grant recipients include 

drug trafficking and addiction, teen pregnancy, and high rates of high school dropouts. 

Although there may be a misperception that Appalachia is one homogeneous, coherent 

region, the diversity of the communities in this study is reflected in the various, often 

innovative, approaches they employed to solve community problems, the range of 
25

CONTEXT: 

NEW OPPORTUNITY SCHOOL FOR WOMEN 

The idea for the New Opportunity School for Women came about when a request for help 

reached a woman in search of a way to help. When Jane Stephenson’s friend, author Gurney 

Norman, approached her about a woman he knew who was newly divorced, had little money 

and no job skills, the wheels in her head began to turn. A well-timed call from the 

Educational Foundation of America to her husband and then-president of Berea College, 

John Stephenson, about possible projects in the community that might be worthy of outside 

funding led to a proposal. Not long after, the New Opportunity School for Women was 

born. 

The situation of this woman in need of help is not unique. Many of the women in the region 

face poverty, limited educational and employment opportunities, low self-esteem, and the 

stigma attached to low-income Appalachian women. Some also struggle with domestic 

abuse, homelessness, and depression. The New Opportunity School stepped in to fill a void 

that existed in south central Kentucky, and that exists in communities nationwide. This was 

made sadly apparent when the New Opportunity School, after receiving one of Oprah 

Winfrey’s “Use Your Life Awards” on national television, was flooded by letters from 

women across the country who didn’t know where else to turn. 

The school’s mission is “to improve the educational, financial, and personal circumstances of 

low-income, middle-aged women in Kentucky and the south central Appalachian region.” 

Toward this end, the school relies on a wide variety of resources to run its residential 

program and year-round services. It has close ties to Berea College, a unique educational 

institution that provides a free liberal arts education to low-income students and has a strong 

commitment to service learning. The New Opportunity School relies on local businesses to 

support the internship component of the residential program from which the women gain 

employment skills, recent work experience, and employer recommendations. The staff is also 

vigilant about identifying grant opportunities. The ARC funding, in particular, was crucial to 

their ability to extend leadership development efforts to women in eight distressed counties 

in the region. Of course, the sheer dedication of the small staff and the volunteers, many of 

whom are graduates of the school, is vital. 

There are also numerous cultural barriers to women in the region who are seeking to 

improve their lives. The staff described mothers who admonish their daughters for wanting 

to attend the school, telling them that “you’re getting above your raising.” They also 

recounted husbands who felt insecure about their wives leaving home, returning to school, 

and finding a job. Some women have been told by their husbands, “You’re not going. If you 

do, I won’t be here when you get back.” Many of these women have been taught not to set 

their aspirations too high. Moreover, their families, which rely on them so heavily, can be 

threatened when the women learn new skills, develop new interests, build their self-esteem, 

and assume leadership roles in the community. 

The school’s success is rooted in their ability to draw upon community assets including 

strong leaders (most notably Mrs. Stephenson and the school’s Board of Directors) who have 

guided the success of the school, other organizations in the community with whom they’ve 

been able to establish beneficial ties and rely upon to support the school’s activities and the 

women’s progress (for example, Berea College), and the community’s involvement and 

commitment to the school over 17 years. 
26

community assets they brought to bear on the issues, and the challenges they faced in the 

process. Each community had its own combination of assets and liabilities.17 

Community Liabilities 

The site visits and telephone interviews indicated that communities faced a variety of 

limitations or obstacles as they embarked on their capacity-building and community 

development work, such as the local political structure, lack of empowerment, fear of 

change, and limited resources. 

For several projects, the structure of the local political system fueled negative attitudes 

about the legitimacy of local decisionmaking and community members’ ability to be a 

part of the political process. Corruption was an extreme example; more common was an 

implicit understanding among the community at large that access to the decision-making 

process through political avenues was reserved for a select, powerful few. More 

commonly cited as a liability during the site visits were “negative norms,” which 

suppressed community involvement and civic engagement, including a general fear of 

change or resistance to it, passivity, and apathy. Some of these communities had seen 

similar projects promise to bring forth change, only to conclude with disappointing 

results or fail outright. As a result, some communities display a certain level of distrust 

and suspicion about project intentions and efforts. 

One grant recipient described people in the distressed counties of his project as 

“distressed in their attitudes.” This was echoed in sentiments expressed by other grant 

recipients. Grant recipients talked about participants who feel they don’t deserve better 

than what they have, or if they do feel they deserve better, that there is nothing they can 

do to change things. Sometimes attitudes expressed by others in the community work to 

repress participation in project activities. For example, one grant recipient described 

participants being shamed into not seeking out better opportunities through the project, 

who are told by their families, “You’re getting above your raising.” 

Another pervasive problem for the communities in the study was limited resources, most 

notably funding, but also including nonmaterial resources such as technical expertise and 

available staff. Even communities that did have resources that could be marshaled in the 

drive for change did not necessarily maintain a formal mechanism through which such 

resources could be distributed efficiently and effectively. 

Community Assets 

As discussed in chapter 2, community capacity building has at its core an assets-based 

approach to community development, emphasizing the identification and mobilization of 

community resources toward shared goals. Community organizations, innovative 

 

17In previous evaluations of ARC programs, Westat conducted mail or telephone surveys that provided quantitative data on 

project communities such as metropolitan status, economic status, and the characteristics of the intended beneficiaries. In 

the evaluation of ARC-funded capacity-building projects, telephone interviews were used instead, in conjunction with 

site visits, to gather more in-depth knowledge of project activities, implementation, and outcomes. As a result, 

quantitative data about community characteristics are not available for the 100 projects in the study sample; rather, 

information about project communities is drawn from the site visits and telephone interviews. 
27

leaders, concerned citizens, and natural resources are just a few examples of community 

assets that can be directed toward community improvement efforts. In particular, the 

importance of community organizations via collaboration, innovative leaders, and 

concerned citizens willing to get involved in community projects was a prevalent theme 

echoed throughout the telephone interviews and site visits. 

Collaboration among community organizations is effective for its cost efficiency; the 

range of experience, expertise, and opinions it brings to the table; and, under the best 

circumstances, the forum it creates for a vibrant exchange of diverse ideas. Distributing 

responsibilities and costs across organizations that share an investment in the project’s 

success can also add stability and enthusiasm to the life of a project. Members of Hurley 

Community Development, which led an environmental cleanup effort in Southwest 

Virginia, had never heard of ARC until they began working with People, Inc., a local 

community action agency that brought community members together to start Hurley 

Community Development. Their connection to another community organization proved 

to be a key starting point for action. 

Numerous grant recipients also indicated that having the right leader, with the ability to 

motivate others, was extremely important, especially during the initial stages of the 

project. As one grant recipient stated, having a “sparkplug” person to get the project 

started ultimately made an enormous difference to their project. A strong leader can play 

an influential role in cultivating the interest and personal investment of community 

members in the project. Community involvement is essential, whether community 

members are involved as project staff, volunteers, or beneficiaries. Several grant 

recipients referred specifically to Americorps’ Volunteers in Service to America 

(VISTA), a national program that recruits individuals for community service across the 

country. More frequently, grant recipients emphasized the importance of volunteers 

drawn from the very communities the project was created to serve. 

Another positive force for change is the social capital among small, tight-knit 

communities. Putnam (1993) defined social capital as the “features of social organization 

such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for 

mutual benefit.” Several grant recipients attested to the fact that working in communities 

where everyone knows everyone else facilitated project work. For example, publicizing 

the project can be easier, with word of mouth often noted as an effective way of 

promoting community participation. Moreover, there often exists a sense of obligation 

and trust among community members that share a long history and close relationships 

with one another. 

Resources 

Resources are the financial, organizational, and human inputs that communities rely on to 

conduct project activities. Resources can include funding, ideas, expertise and technical 

assistance, time, materials, technology and equipment, and staff, among others. Grant 

recipients who participated in the telephone interviews and site visits often stated that 

they took advantage of existing resources in the community to facilitate project activities. 

The Foundation for Appalachian Ohio, for example, was created to provide a formal 

mechanism to build philanthropic assets in the 29 counties that compose Appalachian 

Ohio. The Foundation promotes collaboration among community organizations in the 
28

region and serves as a neutral convenor in an attempt to demonstrate to local projects 

how they can use the resources they have more efficiently by becoming aware of 

resources already available in the community and developing collaborative relationships. 

The Foundation itself is working with the Ohio University Extension Service, an 

educational network in the state, to integrate elements of its mission into the workshops 

convened by the Extension Service. 

Extension Services were cited by several projects as a valuable resource. The Spark 

Community Leadership Program, which sought to improve the environmental quality of 

the Chattahoochee River basin and develop youth leadership skills, worked through the 

Heard County Extension Service because of its ongoing presence in the schools and its 

expertise in leadership instruction. The West Virginia University Extension Service 

provided technical assistance to the Big Ugly Family Education project, which was 

designed to provide education programs for youth and families in underserved, typically 

isolated, communities. These three examples show how the use of a similar resource was 

strategically tailored to fit the particular needs of a project or community. 

Other grant recipients provided similar examples of how resources, both financial and 

non-financial, can be used creatively and strategically. The New Opportunity School for 

Women relies on businesses in the community to provide unpaid internship opportunities 

to the school’s participants. The women receive valuable work experience as well as a 

current professional reference that they can use on their resumes. School staff members 

said that very rarely has a business owner turned down their request for an internship, and 

some internships have led directly to employment. Project Jump Start turned to local 

tradesman in the community to serve as mentors for summer internships. As a result, the 

students learned a skilled trade, the tradesman benefited from the employment services of 

the students and a greater pool of skilled workers from which to hire, and the community 

addressed a shortage of skilled workers in particular fields. 

ARC Funding 

Funding, of course, is one of the most critical and talked about resources. The document 

review provided data on ARC’s financial inputs to capacity-building projects, specifically 

grant amounts and funding by state. Projects included in this review were funded from 

1995 through 2004. During this period, the 100 projects were funded for a total of 

roughly $7 million in ARC grants. 

Projects varied considerably in the amount of ARC funding they received (table 3-1). 

The wide range of funding, from a low of $1,137 for a recycling program in Georgia, to a 

high of $335,000 for the West Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program, suggests the breadth of 

activities in ARC-funded capacity-building projects, and also reflects different funding 

strategies used by ARC to foster capacity building in Appalachia. For example, ARC’s 

Flex-E-Grant program provides states with a pool of money to be distributed as smaller 

minigrants of $10,000 or less for short-term capacity-building projects. In addition to the 

West Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program, the sample includes three programs: the Virginia 

Enhanced Distressed Counties Flex-E-Grant Program, the Alabama Flex-E-Grant 

Program, and Mississippi’s Flex-E-Grant Program for Distressed Counties. As a result, 

one seemingly large grant actually comprises many smaller grants, which are funneled to 

community-based organizations. 
29

Table 3-1 

Number of projects by ARC funding amounts and matching funds 

Funding level Number 

ARC funding amount 

$50,000 or less................................................................................... 53 

$50,001 - $100,000 ............................................................................ 24 

$100,001-$200,000 ............................................................................ 18 

$200,001 or more............................................................................... 5 

Matching funds 

$50,000 or less................................................................................... 67 

$50,001 - $100,000 ............................................................................ 17 

$100,001-$200,000 ............................................................................ 10 

$200,001 or more............................................................................... 6 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

The median grant amount for ARC’s community capacity-building projects was 

$50,000.18 The majority of projects received grants of $50,000 or less (53 percent), while 

24 percent received grants between $50,001 to $100,000, 18 percent received grants 

between $100,001 and $200,000, and 5 percent received more than $200,001. 

Through the telephone interviews and site visits, it was clear that ARC funding was a 

strong determinant in project implementation. Most of the grant recipients indicated that 

while their projects would have been conducted on some level without ARC-funding, the 

projects would have taken much longer to be implemented and been scaled down 

considerably. Meanwhile, several grant recipients stated unequivocally that their projects 

would not have existed at all without ARC funding. The grant recipient for the 

Southwest North Carolina Distressed Counties Scattered Site Housing, which used 

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) hardware and software to survey land in two 

counties as the first step in developing a comprehensive program to address affordable 

housing shortages in both counties, stated that there was not enough money locally for 

GIS mapping, nor was there much money from private foundations for projects that 

center around this relatively new technology. The grant recipient for the Elkhorn 

Watershed Association Project, through which the Watershed Association was created, 

also stated that without ARC funding, the project would not have had the initial funding 

necessary to get off the ground. 

ARC funding was distributed across the 13 states of Appalachia, with a greater 

concentration of capacity-building projects in a select number of states.19 Forty-six 

percent of the projects were in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Alabama. Kentucky had 

the greatest number of ARC-funded capacity-building projects with 19, with West 

Virginia and Alabama following closely with 15 and 12 projects, respectively. 

 

18 Because many of the larger grants are awarded as Flex-E-Grants, to be distributed as smaller minigrants, the median, 

rather than the mean, is reported here to reflect this funding strategy. 

19 Only South Carolina was not represented in the project sample. 
30

Table 3-2 

Number of projects, by state 

State Number of projects 

Kentucky...................................................................................................... 19 

West Virginia............................................................................................... 15 

Alabama....................................................................................................... 12 

Ohio ............................................................................................................. 9 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................................ 9 

Multistate ..................................................................................................... 7 

New York..................................................................................................... 7 

Virginia ........................................................................................................ 5 

North Carolina ............................................................................................. 5 

Georgia ........................................................................................................ 4 

Mississippi ................................................................................................... 4 

Tennessee..................................................................................................... 3 

Maryland...................................................................................................... 1 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

CONTEXT: 

HURLEY COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 

The small community of Hurley (population 5,261 in 1990), located in the coalfields of 

southwest Virginia, has been “plagued with high unemployment” and has suffered from a 

declining population, a polluted river, geographic isolation, and persistent poverty. Some 

Hurley residents are forced to leave the community in order to find work. And many of the 

remaining community members feel that they have been forgotten by the region’s political 

and business leaders. 

In 1995, a Hurley resident began to address some of these issues by meeting with other 

community members, rather informally, on a park bench in the town’s only park. The 

purpose: to encourage residents to remain in Hurley by increasing employment opportunities 

in the community. This was the unofficial beginning of Hurley Community Development 

(HCD). As it became too cold to meet outdoors, the group of community members began 

holding meetings in a local office building on the edge of town. Through phone calls, flyers, 

and word of mouth, the organizers brought as many community members together as 

possible—with some resident “sparkplugs” serving as a tremendous asset to the project and 

community by volunteering 30-50 hours per week. 

Another critical asset to the effort was a local community action agency. This agency 

officially brought Hurley community members together to form Hurley Community 

Development. In addition to helping HCD with start-up and formation, in 1997 the agency 

brought HCD’s attention to the opportunity to participate in an ARC Appalachian 

Community Learning Project (ACLP). In fact, the members of HCD had not even heard of 

the ARC until this opportunity was presented to them. 

Five Hurley community members attended an ACLP meeting, after which HCD was 

awarded $3,800 to conduct a 25-mile river and road cleanup. This decision to clean up the 

river reflected, in part, discussions with a local politician about the need to cleanup the river 

before attempting to attract outside employers into the community. HCD had also been told 

that the small community was lacking things industry would want (e.g., public water) to 

relocate to Hurley. The successful cleanup, which depended largely on the efforts of 

community volunteers, would be the first step to improving on the community’s natural 

assets and reaching the larger goals of attracting employers and decreasing the out-migration 

of community members. 
31

Matching Funds 

Projects received approximately $5.3 million in matching funds from federal, state, local, 

and other sources. Most projects (67 percent) received $50,000 or less in matching funds 

(see table 3-1). Only 5 of the 100 projects in the document review did not report having 

some matching funds. Moreover, some grant recipients noted that they were able to 

leverage ARC funds to elicit funds from other sources, because ARC funding signals to 

other funding entities the value and legitimacy of a particular project to the community. 

The timing of funding seems to be a salient factor. As mentioned above, ARC provided 

the initial funding necessary to get some projects in motion. In other cases, ARC funding 

came at a time during the process that helped grant recipients gain other funding. The 

Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED), the grant 

recipient for the Sustainable Communities Initiative, stated that although the project 

would have been conducted without the ARC grant, ARC funding arrived at key times 

and MACED was able to use it to leverage funds from other entities.

Grant Recipient Experience and Expertise. Experience and expertise are two other 

resources that projects can marshal for project activities. As described above, the 

majority of projects received grants of $50,000 or less (53 percent), with many of those 

projects receiving $10,000 or less. As a result, the value of nonfinancial inputs such as 

staff experience and expertise should not be underestimated. Some grant recipients had 

extensive experience in carrying out similar projects in the past, while others’ experience 

was limited. In some cases, the project represented an entirely new type of activity for 

grant recipients. In fact, a few of the grant recipients were established specifically for the 

purposes of conducting the project. The Leadership East Kentucky Foundation, for 

example, was created to implement the project of the same name. While it was 

established by and affiliated with the statewide Leadership Kentucky Foundation, it 

operated – with the exception of initial technical assistance—independently, and would 

not have been created otherwise. 

Of the site visit grant recipients, very few described their projects as an entirely new type 

of project to their organizations. Many had experience in community development, but 

noted that the ARC grant provided them their first opportunity to develop a new 

leadership program or incorporate a leadership component into an existing program. For 

example, the Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development (COAD) is a communitybased nonprofit organization with more than 30 years experience representing 17 

community action agencies in eastern and southern Ohio. With the ARC grant, they 

established the Appalachian Leadership Academy, through which they provide 

professional development opportunities for mid-level managers employed in community 

action, local government, or nonprofit agencies. 

Some grant recipients hired staff members with the necessary experience or collaborated 

with other organizations that had experience relevant to the project. COAD, for example, 

enlisted the assistance of the Institute for Local Government Administration and Rural 

Development (ILGARD) at Ohio University, given ILGARD’s experience providing 

leadership training to government agencies and development organizations. 

In addition, the majority of telephone interview and site visit projects indicated that at 

least one person on their staff had substantial experience in conducting the type of project 

they were engaged in or, at the very least, had knowledge and expertise in economic, 

community, or leadership development in general. Experience is an invaluable resource 
32

to projects. If project staff or the organization has a positive history with the community, 

the result can be a sense of trust among community members and a network of 

community connections that project staff can work through to implement activities more 

easily. Experienced staff members also have numerous resources—other organizations 

doing similar work or materials that can be used for carrying out project activities—on 

which they can rely. 

In most cases, the number of staff was relatively small (i.e., fewer than five full-time 

persons, sometimes just one), and a major trend among the projects was that the project 

leader or director had relevant experience and, in some cases, advanced degrees in the 

areas of civic and community development. Although this was the case for the project 

leadership, those persons often relied on volunteers and others not necessarily skilled or 

experienced in the specific areas to help carry out activities. As one grant recipient 

explained, while they have several support positions, the only programmatic position is 

that of project director. 

CONTEXT: 

ALABAMA FLEX-E-GRANT 

The six distressed counties covered by the Alabama Flex-E-Grant youth leadership program 

(Hale, Pickens, Fayette, Bibb, Franklin, and Macon) are plagued by high unemployment and 

poverty. Given the shortage of employment opportunities in the region, many young people 

leave their home communities in search of employment after high school and college 

graduation. In addition, many of these young people do not have the relevant skills, 

awareness of community issues, or sense of empowerment needed for building the capacity 

of their communities. The primary purpose of the Alabama Flex-E-Grant youth leadership 

program was to equip young people in the region to lead local action. 

The Flex-E-Grant recipient was the University of Alabama’s University Center for Economic 

Development (UCED), founded as an umbrella organization that draws from the resources 

of the University of Alabama to support the state’s public and private economic development 

initiatives. The Center facilitates this support by providing access to university technical 

resources and the specialization of faculty and professional staff. A major emphasis of the 

UCED is community development. 

The Alabama Flex-E-grant program was a collaborative effort by several organizations that 

had worked together in the past. This included the Program for Rural Services and Research 

(PACERS), the Auburn Center for Architecture and Urban Studies, and the Central Alabama 

Water and Conservation Council. Each of these organizations is focused on community 

capacity development and economic development. 

The Youth Leadership Initiative was UCED’s second effort of this type aimed at young 

people. It is based on “Youth Your Town,” a similar youth leadership program emphasizing 

planning, priority setting, and community projects. The Youth Your Town program was in 

turn based on Alabama’s “Your Town” leadership program for adults, which has enjoyed 

tremendous success and is still in progress. 

Elements of resistance within communities noted by project staff include fear of change, 

hardened ways of thinking, lack of exposure to alternatives, a power-brokerage system, and 

self-defeating attitudes (e.g., “We’re at the bottom,” “We don’t deserve it,” and “This is the 

best we can do”). Community assets across the region include “unselfish leaders,” concerned 

and committed citizens, promising young people, natural beauty, and a diverse ecosystem. 

Project Partners. Most projects received aid from outside organizations in the form of 

technical assistance, outreach, and/or additional funds and other resources. For example, 

Step by Step, Inc., in administering the Big Ugly Family Education Program, received 

assistance from three organizations for three different purposes. The West Virginia 
33

University Extension Service provided technical assistance, the Save the Children 

Foundation provided additional funding and resources, and the local Lincoln County 

Public School System provided logistical support and help with outreach, primarily by 

encouraging and facilitating parent and student involvement in the project. 

The example of the Big Ugly Family Education Program highlights a common project 

partner: educational institutions. Projects serving youth often relied on K-12 public 

schools as explicit or implicit partners. However, the majority of site visit projects 

identified at least one institution of higher education as a partner. 

As noted previously, another common project partner was that of the County Extension 

Service. This was often because the Extension Service staff developed a trusting 

relationship with the community, and through that experience is savvy about the 

community and knowledgeable about community resources, assets, and liabilities. 

CONTEXT: 

BIG UGLY FAMILY EDUCATION 

Prior to receiving their grant from the ARC, the Big Ugly Creek community suffered from an 

overwhelming, perhaps unparalleled, lack of resources. It lacked what most communities, 

even in distressed areas of Appalachia, take for granted. One good indication of this level of 

desperation was that there were no public facilities whatsoever. Compounding this problem 

was that the severe geographic isolation of the community made it extraordinarily difficult to 

access facilities and other resources in surrounding areas. 

Located in Lincoln County, one of the three poorest in West Virginia, Big Ugly Creek also 

lacked the financial and organizational resources that are usually necessary in seeking to 

improve self-sufficiency. Fortunately, the community did have a select group of individuals 

who had both the creativity and the energy to find the wherewithal to reduce the 

community’s sense of isolation. 

The Big Ugly community received from $19,540 from the ARC, well below the median grant 

amount of $50,000. Nonetheless, what the project lacked monetarily was made up in human 

capital. This is best illustrated by the project director, who not only possessed both an 

educational background and considerable experience in community development, but had 

been a dedicated resident of the community for nearly a decade. With technical assistance 

from the West Virginia University Extension Service and supplemental funds from the Save 

the Children Foundation, he and his staff were able to overcome several unsuccessful prior 

attempts at securing resources for the community and to create new opportunities for 

residents. 

The project faced additional challenges during its implementation. For example, several 

consecutive years of job losses and other events in the immediate area led to increasing rates 

of poverty in a region already at the bottom with respect to household income. These events 

culminated in an increasing sense of hopelessness and pessimism, which was reflected on 

several occasions during the initial stages of the grant period, when project leaders were 

forced to confront significant resistance to change and jealousy among individual community 

members. 
34

Summary 

This chapter described the varied contexts within which ARC-funded community 

capacity-building projects existed. A document review of 100 projects demonstrated a 

wide range in ARC funding for capacity-building projects from a low of $1,137 to a high 

of $335,000, with the median grant amount at $50,000. Information drawn from in-depth 

telephone interviews and site visits highlighted the characteristics of the grant recipients, 

including their experience and expertise, project goals, and project partners. Common 

themes emerged regarding community assets that facilitate change, such as community 

organizations and concerned citizens, committed individuals and partner organizations, as 

well as community liabilities that hinder change, such as negative norms and limited 

resources in the community. 
35

Chapter 4 

Project Implementation

he aim of community capacity-building projects is to promote change and develop 

individual, organizational, and community capacities from within communities 

themselves. It is not surprising then that the approaches employed by the ARCfunded capacity-building projects reflect the diversity of the communities in which they 

operated. Projects conducted numerous activities suited to particular project goals and 

used strategies attuned to the particular needs, assets, liabilities, and available resources 

of their communities. Even projects that implemented similar activities such as 

leadership skills training did so in ways that were responsive to the characteristics and 

problems of their communities. 

Strategies and Activities 

The activities conducted by ARC-funded community capacity-building projects were 

culled from the document review of 100 projects, reviewed, and divided exhaustively into 

11 activity types, with an other category for activities that were not categorized 

elsewhere.20 For organizational purposes, similar activity types were grouped into four 

overall strategies: vision and direction, involvement, skills and knowledge, and support 

(see exhibit 4-1). Activity types, with definitions and corresponding examples, are 

presented by strategy in exhibit 4-2. Exhibit 4-3 presents the strategies and activities for 

the site visit projects. 21 It is important to note that these four categories of strategies are 

a construct of the study and, as such, were not considered by the grant recipients 

themselves as they designed or implemented their projects. 

 

20 Examples of activities categorized as other include the establishment of a 24-hour toll-free number for victims of 

domestic abuse, recycling activities, health screenings, and the renovation and expansion of a local history museum. 

21 Strategies were assigned to projects based on activities culled from the document review. During telephone interviews 

and site visits, additional activities were detailed by grant recipients that were not accounted for in categorizing projects 

by strategy. The result is that some projects may have included additional activities that are not reflected in the strategy 

assigned to them from the document review, or conversely, they may have dropped an activity that was reflected in the 

strategy assigned to them from the document review. 

T 
36

Exhibit 4-1 

Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: Project Strategies 

Project 

Purpose

Enhance Skills 

& Knowledge 

of Community 

Members

Resources

Promote 

Involvement of 

Community 

Members

Individual 

Capacity

Organizational 

Capacity

Obtain 

Technical 

Support for the 

Community

Develop Vision 

& Direction 

for the 

Community

Community 

Capacity Social

Environmental

Economic

Assets

Liabilities

Project Context Project Strategies Project Outcomes

( + )

( - )

Activities are what a project does with its resources to bring about changes or results. The range of activities commonly 

associated with community capacity projects has been organized into four overall strategies: vision and direction, 

involvement, enhanced skills and knowledge, and technical support. (See exhibit 4-2 for examples and definitions of 

activity types by strategy.) While some projects will implement activities from only one strategy, often projects will 

implement activities from multiple strategy categories. 

Exhibit 4-2 

Definitions and Examples of Activity Types, by Strategy 

Strategy Activity Definition Examples 

Conduct strategic 

planning and analysis 

Assessing a community’s 

current status, developing a 

strategic plan for community 

or economic development, 

and determining solutions to 

solve current community 

problems. 

• Create and implement a 

community action plan 

• Hold vision 

development meetings 

with multiple 

representatives from the 

community 

• Review other 

communities’ strategic 

agendas and models 

Vision and Direction 

Conduct regional or 

local needs assessment 

Conducting a regional or 

local needs assessment for a 

community(s) or 

organization. 

• Conduct a community 

survey of needs 

• Conduct one-on-one 

interviews with 

community members 

• Conduct site visits to 

other communities 
37

Exhibit 4-2 

Definitions and Examples of Activity Types by Strategy 

(continued) 

Strategy Activity Definition Examples 

Conduct small scale 

community 

improvement projects 

requiring the 

participation of 

community members 

for completion 

Conducting any small-scale 

community improvement 

project that involves the 

participation of community 

members. 

• Restore a building 

• Improve a park 

• Volunteer community 

clean-ups 

• Create a community 

recycling program 

Establish/develop a 

community 

organization, program, 

foundation, or 

association 

Establishing or developing an 

organization, foundation, 

program, or association. 

• Create a watershed 

association 

• Establish a commission 

to provide community 

strategic planning 

Conduct outreach to 

raise awareness of 

local issues 

Publicizing or publishing 

information to inform 

community members of or 

raise awareness about a local 

issue. 

• Publish a monthly 

community newsletter 

• Hold special events to 

promote awareness 

• Distribute 

announcements/ 

placements/flyers 

• Hold a press conference 

• Make community 

meeting agendas 

available through 

various media 

Involvement 

Organize and hold 

meetings, conferences, 

forums, etc 

Organizing and/or facilitating 

events held for administrative 

purposes such as planning, 

collaborating, and 

communicating. Audience 

and frequency (average hours 

of participation for the 

average participant) vary by 

project. 

• Conduct bimonthly 

town meetings 

• Hold a public 

information session 

• Regular Chamber of 

Commerce breakfasts 

• Church socials 
38

 

Exhibit 4-2 

Definitions and Examples of Activity Types by Strategy 

(continued) 

Strategy Activity Definition Examples 

Organize and conduct 

group instructional 

activities, such as 

workshops and 

courses 

Organizing and conducting 

group instructional activities 

including organizing, 

planning, and/or facilitating 

instructional workshops, 

courses, etc. Audience, 

frequency (average hours of 

participation for the average 

participant), and type 

(leadership, technological, 

economic development, etc.) 

of instructional activity vary 

by project. 

• Leadership and 

economic development 

workshop for local 

elected officials 

• Classroom training in 

water testing for 5th

graders 

• Instruction on use of 

high-tech equipment 

• Scholarships for key 

leaders to attend formal 

workshops 

Facilitate, organize, 

and conduct one-onone instructional 

activities, such as 

mentoring, 

counseling, and 

teaching 

Facilitating, organizing, 

and/or conducting one-onone guidance, rather than 

group instruction, from an 

expert. Audience and 

frequency (average hours of 

participation for the average 

participant) vary by project. 

• Career counseling for 

low income women 

• Establish a mentormentee relationship 

between local business 

owners and high school 

students 

Skills and Knowledge 

Develop, purchase, 

publish, and/or 

distribute materials 

Researching and developing 

or purchasing paper 

resources such as 

curriculums, resource guides, 

or handbooks for 

practitioners. It is assumed 

that activities such as 

publication and distribution 

are included in the 

developing or purchasing of 

materials. 

• Develop a resource 

directory for local 

elected officials 

• Purchase books/videos 

on leadership 
39

Exhibit 4-2 

Definitions and Examples of Activity Types by Strategy 

(continued) 

Strategy Activity Definition Examples 

Obtain or provide 

technical assistance/ 

consultation 

Obtaining and/or providing 

technical assistance including 

the hiring of a consultant 

and/or providing information 

or a skill. 

• Hire a consultant to 

identify key issues 

facing a community 

• Hire a consultant to 

oversee and assure 

successful completion 

of community projects 

Support 

Obtain technological 

support 

Obtaining and/or providing 

technological support 

including overseeing, 

developing, and/or 

purchasing of computer 

software, hardware, and/or 

facility. These activities can 

be performed by a 

community member. This 

does not include computer 

training. 

• Oversee the use of a 

new computer facility 

• Develop a community 

database and network 

• Establish an informative 

community website 

Exhibit 4-3 

Strategies and Activity Types of Site Visit Projects 

Project State Strategy Activities 

Ohio-West 

Virginia YMCA 

Youth Leadership 

WV Involvement 

and skills 

Targeting ARC-designated distressed counties in 

West Virginia, high school students were recruited 

to form community-based student leadership groups. 

The students attended a 6-day residential 

leadership/service training camp to help them build 

self-confidence, develop their leadership, 

communication, and teamwork skills, and identify 

community needs. Leadership groups then returned 

to their communities to implement community 

improvement projects. 

Sustainable 

Communities 

Initiative 

OH Skills The Mountain Association for Community 

Economic Development (MACED) received grants 

from ARC and the Kellogg Foundation to fund 

grassroots sustainable community development 

projects. MACED provided technical support to the 

Owsley County Action Team and the Letcher 

County Action Team. As a result of their efforts, 

dozens of community projects were planned and 

implemented by the action teams, following a model 

based on the 3 Es of sustainability: ecology, equity, 

and economy. 
40

 

Exhibit 4-3 

Strategies and Activity Types of Site Visit Projects 

(continued) 

Project State Strategy Activities 

Big Ugly Family 

Education 

WV Involvement 

and skills 

Since 1988, Step by Step has worked with youth, 

families, and economically challenged communities 

to develop local education programs, regional 

collaborations, and social policy. Specific project 

activities focused on four areas: parent involvement 

in family education activities, continuing education, 

welfare to work support for higher education, and a 

community time bank to encourage volunteerism. 

New 

Neighborhoods 

Project 

PA Other SEDA-COG provided technical assistance to the 

Lewistown Monument Square Development Plan 

and the Sunbury City Visions Project. Both of these 

community projects sought to revitalize 

neighborhoods by organizing effective community 

action; cultivating leaders with the requisite skills 

for development; helping community members 

envision the future of the neighborhood and plan 

strategically to achieve that future; instituting 

neighborhood improvement organizations; and 

developing appropriate programs, projects, and 

services to facilitate neighborhood reinvestments 

and development. 

Foundation for 

Appalachian Ohio 

Organizational 

Development 

OH Involvement The Foundation for Appalachian Ohio serves as a 

formal mechanism for tapping into local 

philanthropic resources. Its activities include 

building philanthropic capital for regional 

improvement, convening diverse stakeholders 

around priority issues of common concern in the 

region, and developing and funding strategic 

initiatives to address identified needs in the region. 

Appalachian 

Leadership 

Academy 

OH Skills As a response to the increasing shift of program 

responsibilities from the federal and state level to the 

local level, the Appalachian Leadership Academy 

provided community organization and agency staff 

with a year-long sustained professional development 

program. Participants convened on a monthly basis 

to attend lectures and workshops designed to 

develop leadership skills. Most sessions provided 

considerable time for hands-on, small group work, 

and topics included communication, negotiation, and 

financial management. 
41

 

Exhibit 4-3 

Strategies and Activity Types of Site Visit Projects 

(continued)

Project State Strategy Activities 

Hurley 

Community 

Revitalization 

OH Involvement Hurley Community Development focused their 

efforts on environmental cleanup. Their initial river 

clean-up was extremely successful and led to 

additional, expanded activities such as an 

environmental education program in the community 

schools to raise students’ environmental awareness. 

They also campaigned for and won small, 

mandatory fees on power and telephone bills that 

would fund trash collection and thereby help prevent 

trash disposal in the river and surrounding areas. 

Alabama Flex-EGrant AL Skills The Alabama Flex-E-Grant program was based on 

the state’s Youth Your Town program. Students 

from six distressed counties in the region were 

offered three 1-day leadership workshops and took 

part in an experiential hands-on training. Students 

were guided through the process of identifying 

assets in their communities, developing a master 

plan based on these assets and their ideas for 

community improvement, and strategizing about 

projects related to plan goals. Students then 

presented their plans to local officials. 

The Hale Bopp 

Comets 

AL Skills The Hale BOPP project was designed to develop the 

leadership skills of selected 11th grade students in 

the county. Students met throughout the year for 

field trips to places like the Moundville 

Archaeological Park, the Challenger Learning 

Center at the McWane Center, and the University of 

Alabama. They were exposed to a wide range of 

topics including problem solving, entrepreneurship, 

and teamwork building and took part in several 

cultural activities such as a tour of the Birmingham 

Museum of Art and the Civil Rights Museum. 

East Kentucky 

Leadership 

Network Youth 

Leadership 

Program 

KY Involvement 

and support 

With the Youth Leadership Program, the East 

Kentucky Leadership Network specifically sought to 

address young people’s lack of engagement in civic 

life. Students attended several conferences 

throughout the year and participated in the Kentucky 

Youth Assembly, a mock legislature. Students were 

also expected to attend meetings of local boards 

such as the school board and the tourism board. 

The New 

Opportunity 

School for Women 

KY Skills Participants in the New Opportunity School for 

Women took part in a 3-week residential program 

designed to provide women with a broad range of 

skills related to all facets of personal development 

such as career and self-esteem. The ARC grant 

facilitated the introduction of specific leadership 

skills to the residential program and afforded the 

school the opportunity to offer many more women 

leadership development through outreach 

workshops. 
42

 

Exhibit 4-3 

Strategies and Activity Types of Site Visit Projects 

(continued)

Project State Strategy Activities 

West Virginia 

Flex-E-Grant 

Program 

WV Support The West Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program has 

administered several hundred thousands of dollars in 

grant money to develop leadership in the state’s 27 

distressed counties. Minigrants are awarded to local 

projects to increase leadership skills and promote 

economic and community development. 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees.

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of projects employed a skills-related strategy, while 47 

percent conducted an involvement-related strategy (see table 4-1). It is worth noting that 

39 percent of projects focused exclusively on a single strategy type (most notably skills), 

while 55 percent employed activities that cut across two or more strategy types. This 

finding suggests that the majority of ARC’s community capacity-building projects relied 

on multiple broad strategies to achieve their aims. 

Table 4-1 

Project strategies

Project strategies Percent of 

projects 

Skills..................................................................................................................................... 62 

Involvement.......................................................................................................................... 47 

Vision ................................................................................................................................... 36 

Support ................................................................................................................................. 28 

Project dimensionality 

(number of strategies) 

Single strategy only 

Total ..................................................................................................................................... 39 

Skills only......................................................................................................................... 25 

Support only ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Involvement only.............................................................................................................. 5 

Vision only ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Two strategies 

Total ..................................................................................................................................... 36 

Involvement/Skills............................................................................................................ 14 

Involvement/Vision.......................................................................................................... 8 

Skills/Vision ..................................................................................................................... 5 

Involvement/Support........................................................................................................ 3 

Skills/Support ................................................................................................................... 3 

Vision/Support.................................................................................................................. 3 

Three strategies 

Total ..................................................................................................................................... 14 

Involvement/Skills/Vision................................................................................................ 5 

Involvement/Vision/Support............................................................................................ 4 

Involvement/Skills/Support.............................................................................................. 3 

Skills/Vision/Support ....................................................................................................... 2 

Four strategies 

Total ..................................................................................................................................... 5 

Other 

Total ..................................................................................................................................... 6 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees.
43

IMPLEMENTATION: 

NEW OPPORTUNITY SCHOOL FOR WOMEN 

The New Opportunity School’s activities center on the skills and knowledge strategy. Twice 

year, the school offers an intensive 3-week residential program, which targets middle-aged, 

low-income women in Appalachian Kentucky. Session topics include how to write a resume 

and conduct a job search, business etiquette, stress management, self-esteem building, public 

speaking, public policy-making, community participation, and leadership. For example, the 

staff facilitates discussions among the women about problems in their home communities, 

how they can address those problems, and how they can become involved politically. 

The personal development courses broaden the women’s educational and employment 

horizons and help them develop the skills they need to prepare for and take advantage of the 

range of opportunities available to them. The school makes the connection between the 

women’s educational and employment opportunities and the leadership roles and 

opportunities for community involvement present in the community. 

Because the school is limited in the number of women that can served through the residential 

program, the school also offers year-round counseling and outreach sessions to women 

throughout the region. ARC funding was used for the school’s outreach workshops and 

financed leadership development in particular. Mrs. Stephenson noted that the school has 

always emphasized building women’s self-esteem, and leadership development was a perfect 

fit. Her thinking was, “while building self-esteem, let’s teach them how to be leaders.” 

The school struggles with many of the issues that other capacity-building projects do. At the 

top of the list are staffing and funding limits. Because the school is so successful, the staff 

grapples with well-intentioned pressure to expand the residential program and reach more 

women. Given the school’s small staff and finite resources, however, expansion would be 

risky. In addition, there is a concern that expanding the program would change its nature. 

The women benefit from the intimate, small-group environment in which they receive highly 

individualized attention. Trying to serve too many women could detract from the current 

atmosphere in which women feel a sense of security—and which is conducive to the holistic 

approach that the school takes to self-improvement. 

The school must also work to overcome the cultural barriers that prevent women from 

participating. As mentioned in the previous chapter, families rely on these women for so 

much that the prospect of them being away from home for 3 weeks can be overwhelming. 

Additionally, the women come away from the program with a sense of empowerment and 

new ambitions for themselves that can be threatening to those who depend on them or who 

are jealous of their personal development. 

There is also the stigma of poverty and isolation. Some of the women have never been to 

Berea or even on the Interstate. Some are afraid to come inside for fear that they won’t be 

liked by the other women. After being accepted to the residential program, one woman who 

had second thoughts initially told staff members she couldn’t come because her sister was 

sick. In reality, she didn’t have a suitcase: “I wasn’t going to bring my stuff down there in a 

paper bag.” Overcoming the women’s personal fears and the cultural resistance embedded in 

the community presents a continual challenge. 
44

Even projects that fell within a particular strategy generally relied on different tactics 

within that strategy. For example, Hurley Community Development conducted several 

involvement strategies (e.g., small-scale community improvement projects and public 

outreach), while the Foundation for Appalachian Ohio combined the development of a 

foundation with regional conferences to promote collaboration. Looking across all 

projects, the single most prominent activity—cited by 51 percent of projects—was 

conducting a group instructional activity such as a workshop or course (see table 4-2). 

Other common activities included strategic planning (35 percent), meetings, conferences, 

and forums (28 percent), and technical assistance and consultation (26 percent). 

Table 4-2 

Percent of projects that included various types of activities, by project strategies 

Type of strategy and activity Percent of projects 

Vision 

Conduct strategic planning and analysis ................................................................................... 35 

Conduct regional or local needs assessment ............................................................................. 13 

Involvement 

Organize and hold meetings, conferences, forums, etc............................................................. 28 

Conduct outreach to raise awareness of local issues................................................................. 16 

Conduct small scale community improvement projects requiring the participation of 

community members for completion ................................................................................... 15 

Establish/develop a community organization, program, foundation, or association................ 12 

Skills 

Organize and conduct group instructional activities, such as workshops and courses............. 51 

Develop, purchase, publish, and/or distribute materials ........................................................... 18 

Facilitate, organize, and conduct one-on-one instructional activities such as mentoring, 

counseling, and teaching....................................................................................................... 6 

Support 

Provide or obtain technical assistance/consultation.................................................................. 26 

Provide technological support ................................................................................................... 5 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

Vision and Direction 

Over one-third (36 percent) of projects in the study conducted at least one of the activities 

(e.g., strategic plan or needs assessment) associated with a vision and direction strategy. 

These activities were generally conducted in conjunction with another strategy type—i.e., 

only four projects were designed to focus solely on the development of a strategic plan or 

needs assessment (table 4-1). One project that concentrated exclusively on vision and 

direction activities was the Southwest North Carolina Distressed Counties Scattered Site 

Housing project, which mapped approximately 9,000 parcels of land in the Graham and 

Swain counties using Geographical Information Systems (GIS) hardware and software. 

The grant recipient plans to use the GIS maps to inform the development of a 

comprehensive program to address the affordable housing shortages in both counties. 

Thirty-two of the grant recipients conducted strategic planning and/or a needs assessment 

in conjunction with one or more other project strategies. For example, the Sustainable 

Communities Initiative worked with two action teams—in Letcher and Owsley 

Counties—to address community development and build social capital. Both action 

teams conducted strategic plans to identify community issues, identify solutions to those 

issues, and discuss community values and principles that should direct their efforts. 
45

IMPLEMENTATION: 

HURLEY COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 

With the $3,800 ACLP I grant, Hurley Community Development (HCD) focused its efforts 

on an involvement activity, a 25-mile road and river cleanup. The ARC funding was used to 

hire four low-income Hurley teenagers to do trash pick-up, provide lunch for volunteers, and 

cut down trees in the creek that were collecting debris. With the help of community 

volunteers (e.g., Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and HCD family members), the project was 

responsible for the pick-up of 126,000 pounds of trash over a 6-month period. 

To identify the 25 miles of road and river to be cleaned, the project implementers started in 

the center of Hurley and went out in three directions. While there was no real community 

opposition to conducting the project, there was initial disagreement about which 25 miles of 

river and road should be targeted for cleanup. Naturally, most Hurley residents wished to 

have their property included in the selected 25 miles. In addition, there was some skepticism 

voiced about the project—comments such as “What do you want to pick up trash for?” 

“Why do you want to pick up other people’s trash?” “Why don’t you use the money for 

something else?” were not uncommon. 

Convincing residents that this was a worthwhile project was an easier task than persuading 

some community members to change their habits. At one point during the cleanup, while 

youth were picking up litter, people were driving by and throwing more litter out of their 

vehicles. When volunteers approached police officers about this problem, the officers said 

they have no time to write a ticket and besides, the county had no litter control ordinance. 

Additionally, many residents were not utilizing the trash collection service. Rather than 

paying an optional $7 for trash pick-up, community members were using their yards and the 

river for trash disposal. In order to get residents to start using curbside pick-up, after the 

ACLP I grant concluded, HCD campaigned for a mandatory $1.50 charge on power bills and 

an additional $1.50 charge per month on phone bills for trash collection. The mandatory 

charge was imposed, which caused some residents to reconsider their trash disposal habits. 

In the words of one volunteer, residents began to decide that “if I’m paying for trash 

collection, I’m going to use it!” 

Due to the success of the initial Hurley Community Development road and river cleanup, 

HCD was awarded a second, $17,500 ACLP grant. HCD used the ACLP II grant to re-clean 

the original 25 miles of road and river—and to remove large, heavy objects from the river 

such as cars and major appliances. In addition to continuing their cleanup efforts, HCD 

included such other involvement activities as the establishment of an environmental 

education program in the community schools. The program was developed to raise 

environmental awareness and generate interest among community youth to become involved 

in environmental initiatives. With the second ACLP grant, HCD also held a second Annual 

Community Pride Day and purchased three park benches to be placed around the 

community. HCD had also proposed the installation of a streetlight, which was never 

installed, because the cost of the electric bill was not included in the budget. 

More than 8 years since residents of the Hurley community began meeting at a Hurley park 

bench, HCD continues to operate today. While the road and river cleanup is an annual 

event, the environmental education program has been discontinued due to a lack of time and 

resources. However, the organization has expanded its activities to include home repair. In 

addition, the office serves as a food pantry and hosts crafts lessons. Thus, while some ACLP 

activities were not sustained, the organization continues to serve as a valuable resource to the 

community. 
46

Reflecting the individual needs of their communities, the two action teams took different 

approaches. Letcher County initially focused on opening up the local political process 

and getting community members involved, while Owsley County directed its initial 

efforts at increasing local employment opportunities. In addition to strategic planning, 

the Sustainable Communities Initiative also used numerous activities that fell under the 

skills and knowledge strategy. 

Another project—the Carroll/Harrison/Jefferson Leadership Program—conducted its 

needs assessment prior to ARC funding. With the ARC grant, the grant recipient 

developed a 14-month leadership program that was open to all residents in the three 

participating counties who were 18 years or older and had an interest in community 

issues and leadership. While the grant recipient did not conduct a needs assessment 

during the timeframe of the project, the project itself was a result of a needs assessment 

that indicated a lack of leadership skills in the region and introduced training program in 

the area to remedy that void. 

The Spark Community Leadership Program used funding from a previous ARC grant to 

conduct a community-wide survey to identify issues that were of the greatest concern or 

priority for the residents. The survey demonstrated the community’s desire for more 

community programs targeting youth, as well as its support for greater protection of the 

environment. Combining these two identified needs, the Spark Community Leadership 

project was created to develop leadership skills among youth while engaging them in 

improvement projects intended to improve the health of the river. 

Thirteen of the 30 projects participating in the telephone interviews and site visits 

conducted a needs assessment as part of their ARC-funded project. Methods used to 

conduct these needs assessments included focus groups, community-wide surveys, 

surveys that targeted specific stakeholders (e.g., elected officials), and a review of 

existing data (e.g., graduation rates, employment statistics, and environmental quality 

testing results). For some grant recipients that directly served their target population, 

need was established through day-to-day contact. For example, the West Virginia EMS 

Technical Support Network and the West Virginia Municipal League both routinely 

responded to technical assistance requests from their constituency, and in the process 

were able to identify where there was a need for new programmatic efforts. 

Involvement 

Involvement strategies comprise activities that promote the involvement of residents in 

community affairs, including: 

• Conducting small-scale projects requiring the participation of community members 

for completion; 

• Establishing and/or developing a community organization, program, foundation, or 

association; 

• Conducting outreach to raise community awareness of local issues; and 

• Organizing and holding meetings, conferences, and forums. 
47

Forty-seven projects used activities related to this strategy type—with 28 percent 

conducting meetings, conferences, and forums. Adult community members and 

community and business leaders were the most frequently targeted participants for 

meetings, conferences, and forums—with 16 projects directing these activities toward 

adult community members and 12 aiming their activities at community and business 

leaders (table 4-3). Many of the activities in this category were short term and offered as 

a way to inform participants about community issues. They also provided residents the 

opportunity to discuss these issues and network with one another to promote 

collaborative efforts. 

Table 4-3 

Number of projects that held meetings, conferences, and forums, 

and frequency of participation 

Meetings, conferences, forums, etc. (n = 28) 

Number of 

projects 

Audience 

Community members (adults) ....................................................................................................... 16 

Community and business leaders .................................................................................................. 12 

Elected and government officials .................................................................................................. 7 

Targeted groups (e.g., women, low income, elderly).................................................................... 3 

Youth.............................................................................................................................................. 2 

Economic development professionals........................................................................................... 1

College students............................................................................................................................. 0 

Cannot determine........................................................................................................................... 2 

Other .............................................................................................................................................. 3 

Frequency (average hours of participation for the average participant) 

One time......................................................................................................................................... 6 

Short term ...................................................................................................................................... 8 

Long term....................................................................................................................................... 7 

Cannot determine........................................................................................................................... 7 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 

One project that included meetings, conferences, and forums was the Northeast Alabama 

Development Forum. Project taskforce meetings and conferences brought together 

community members and community and business leaders in an effort to foster a regional 

approach to economic development, help develop an understanding of regional needs 

related to economic development, and encourage the development of grassroots and selfhelp organizations. Conference themes included education and the workforce, 

infrastructure, quality of life, the environment, and regional cooperation. 

The East Kentucky Leadership Network’s (EKLN) Youth Leadership Program also used 

conferences as part of its project activities, in this case as a way to encourage young 

people’s civic engagement. Students participate in four conferences over the course of a 

year, including the EKLN’s annual conference, which focuses on leadership development 

issues. Youth Leadership participants now account for 25 percent of the attendees of the 

EKLN conference. While activities related to this strategy were generally not directed at 

youth, the grant recipient described the importance of bringing youth to the table with 

adults and cultivating an atmosphere where young people are recognized as valuable 

contributors to the community. Conferences provided an effective avenue toward this 

goal. 
48

While five projects focused exclusively on involvement-related activities (see table 4-1), 

this approach was most commonly used in conjunction with other strategies. As 

discussed above, projects generally chose to integrate different strategy-related activities 

to create a multifaceted approach to project implementation and therefore address often 

interrelated factors in capacity building. The two projects below serve as examples of the 

ways in which projects linked different strategies in a cohesive way to better serve the 

community and achieve project goals: 

• The Elkhorn Creek Watershed Association was established to provide environmental 

training and education to students and community members, and to raise awareness 

about the importance of clean water and the role of community members in 

environmental protection. Toward this end, they conducted skills and knowledge 

activities, namely providing training in water testing and monitoring, as well as 

environmental education more generally. They also developed educational materials. 

Because the goal was not just to educate community members, but also get them 

involved in environmental protection efforts, they incorporated such activities as 

holding community forums, distributing the educational materials they developed to 

the local community, and requiring project participants to conduct community 

improvement projects. 

• The CREATE Foundation combined involvement-oriented activities with vision and 

direction-oriented activities in the establishment of the Commission on the Future of 

Northeast Mississippi. The goal of the Commission was to assess where they were as 

a region, examine key issues affecting the quality of life in the region, and determine 

strategies for addressing those issues. Needs assessment and strategic planning are at 

the heart of the project’s activities, helping inform the direction in which they want 

the region to head. Considering the region as whole brought together multiple 

stakeholders and their resources, including skills and ideas, and allowed them to 

understand how the various communities share a common future. To strengthen their 

needs assessment and strategic planning efforts, they also incorporated involvementrelated activities. They created task forces to address such issues as economic 

development, education, and infrastructure, and convened hearings with experts that 

have evolved into quarterly meetings by the Commission. 

 

Skills and Knowledge 

Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of projects relied on strategies designed to enhance skills 

and knowledge—e.g., organizing and conducting group instructional activities, 

conducting one-on-one instructional activities, and facilitating the distribution of 

instructional materials. Most of these training programs focused on the promotion of 

leadership skills (38 projects), but other topics—e.g., economic development (8 projects), 

civic development (5 projects), and technical issues such as strategic planning and grant 

writing (5 projects)—were also addressed (table 4-4). Evidence from the telephone 

interviews and site visits suggests that projects tailored their efforts to the needs and 

priorities of their communities. For example: 

• Project Jump Start initiated internships to help high school juniors and seniors in the 

community learn skilled trades. The project, designed to address the community’s 
49

shortage of workers and businesses in skilled trades, used local tradesmen to mentor 

the students. 

• The Southern Tier West (STW) Regional Planning and Development board built 

upon its history of providing technical assistance to local governments in New York 

State. STW facilitated the strategic planning and community improvement work of 

Community Action Committees (CAC) in Alleghany, Cattaragus, and Chautauqua 

counties. While it was always the intent of STW to provide training to the CACs, 

project communities expressed more interest in having STW help them determine the 

best way to implement their community improvement projects than in training. As 

the project developed, participants requested training in personal and professional 

leadership skills. STW responded to the feedback of the communities and 

implemented the project accordingly. 

Table 4-4 

Number of projects that conducted training and education activities geared towards 

different groups, frequency of participation, and types of training

Audience, frequency, and type of training and education Number of projects 

Audience 

Community members (adults)....................................................................................................... 17 

Community and business leaders.................................................................................................. 15 

Youth ............................................................................................................................................. 14 

Elected and government officials.................................................................................................. 5 

Economic development professionals........................................................................................... 3

Targeted groups (e.g., women, low income, elderly) ................................................................... 3 

Cannot determine .......................................................................................................................... 2 

College students ............................................................................................................................ 1 

Other.............................................................................................................................................. 5 

Frequency (average hours of participation for the average participant) 

0-8 hours........................................................................................................................................ 2 

9-24 hours...................................................................................................................................... 8 

25+ hours....................................................................................................................................... 17 

Cannot determine .......................................................................................................................... 24 

Type 

Leadership ..................................................................................................................................... 38 

Economic development................................................................................................................. 8 

Civic development......................................................................................................................... 5 

Technical (e.g., grant writing, strategic planning)........................................................................ 5 

Environmental ............................................................................................................................... 3 

Technological (computer related) ................................................................................................. 3 

Train the trainer............................................................................................................................. 0 

Other ............................................................................................................................................. 12 

Cannot determine .......................................................................................................................... 1 

SOURCE: Document review of ARC grantees. 
50

IMPLEMENTATION: 

ALABAMA FLEX-E-GRANT 

The Alabama Flex-E-grant program consisted of three full-day leadership workshops for 

high school students across six distressed counties in northern Alabama. The workshops 

involved youth in “experiential” hands-on training, including interactive exercises in 

planning, investigating, and communicating. Students were selected from grades 9 though 

12, in public and private schools, based on their “community spirit,” as determined by school 

guidance counselors, principals, and librarians. Students within the county groups were 

divided by community. 

Day one included a lecture on the value of small towns and rural areas, assets-based 

planning, and the potential to build on assets to improve communities and lessons in how to 

identify assets. Students were assigned the tasks of listing the assets in their communities, 

creating a wish list of things they’d like to see in their community, and interviewing people 

(e.g., family, teachers) to determine their list of assets and wishes. Students were also given 

cameras to take pictures of their communities, including the things they could identify as 

assets and liabilities. 

On day two of the workshop, students were asked to draw map(s) of their communities. 

Then the groups were asked to compare all the lists of assets and dreams. Students were 

presented with an introduction to planning methods and asked to create a master plan for 

their community. Students were asked to identify projects and relate them to their master 

plan. Then they were to go around their communities and consider their proposed projects, 

as well as think about other possible projects. 

On day three of the program, students reported on their projects and ideas. They then had to 

prioritize the projects that they identified and decide on one project to propose to the mayor 

and city council. This involved discussing strategies for accomplishing their goals (i.e., 

thinking about whose help they would need, costs, impact, etc.). On that day or later, 

students then presented their ideas to local officials. Based on feedback, they revised their 

plans. 

According to project staff, several lessons were learned about the implementation of youth 

leadership initiatives: 

• It is important to secure local support. 

• Local adults should be part of the process. 

• Leadership programs should be continuous over years. 

• Training should be hands-on, interactive, and collaborative. Students should feel as if 

they are parts of something larger, and they should feel connected to each other and 

their communities. 

• Students should get to meet and interact with students from different schools within 

their region. 

• Dynamics will be different from one county/community to the next. You have to allow 

room for differences in the way the leadership training is implemented. 

• Prevent students from falling into usual roles—one aim of the training is to get students 

to see themselves and their communities in new ways. 

• The curriculum should focus on helping students to understand what’s good where they 

live, and should be devoted to giving students a sense of empowerment that they can 

make a difference. 

• There will always be a range of resistance levels among adults, from the naysayers to the 

enthusiasts. 

• Design the curriculum to be rigorous—get students to rise to a higher level. 

• Give praise—young people don’t get enough of it, and many have a negative opinion of 

their capacity. Student projects should be ambitious, but not overly so. 
51

Most (51 of the 62 projects) projects used group instruction—and this group instruction 

was most frequently aimed at adult community members (17 projects), community and 

business leaders (15 projects), and youth (14 projects) (table 4-4). Only six grant 

recipients used one-on-one instruction as part of their project activities, but it was an 

important component of their projects. Examples include the Lake Cumberland Regional 

Justice and Victims Advocacy Project, which provided counseling to victims of domestic 

abuse, and the Alabama Sheriffs’ Youth Ranches Leadership Program, which provides 

long-term placement to abused, neglected, and abandoned children. For this program, 

counseling and tutoring are offered as part of an effort to educate young people in the 

program and prepare them to be self-sufficient, productive adults. 

Findings from the telephone interviews and site visits indicate that many grant recipients 

directed their training efforts toward young people in the community. This often 

reflected the recognition of the important role young people can play in community 

affairs. For example, the Spark Community Leadership Program began when those 

involved with a previous ARC grant decided that a youth leadership program would be a 

great vehicle for teaching young people in the community important leadership skills, 

while encouraging their involvement in cleanup of the Chattahoochee River. Toward that 

end, the program combined leadership development with training in environmental 

quality assessment techniques, and students participated on average between 9 and 24 

hours. Other projects focused on adults in the community. The Sustainable 

Communities Initiative was created to help community residents gain a voice in the local 

policymaking process. Local residents were trained in leadership development and 

training extended over a 4-year period with sessions held every other month. 

Almost half of the grant recipients conducting instructional activities did not specify in 

their project proposals the frequency of such activities (23 projects). Most of the 

remaining grant recipients provided project participants with more sustained exposure to 

instruction—with 17 providing participants 25 or more hours of instruction, 8 providing 9 

to 24 hours of instruction, and 2 providing 8 or fewer hours. 

Not all projects that focused on enhancing skills and knowledge conducted training. For 

example, the West Virginia Municipal League developed, produced, and distributed the 

Municipal Handbook for Elected Officials. This document was designed to serve as a 

guide for local municipal officials who often lacked formal training before taking 

office—and for whom there were previously no readily accessible guidelines on local 

government issues. The project was initiated when the West Virginia Municipal League 

realized there was a more efficient way to address the day-to-day inquiries of elected 

officials, for whom administration included public finance, economic development, 

planning, and effective service delivery. 

Support 

Support strategies typically involved generalized technical assistance and/or consultation 

or technological support. This strategy was generally used in conjunction with other 

types of activities. For example, the New Neighborhoods Project, SEDA-COG (a 

regional nonprofit development organization that provides leadership, expertise, and 

services to communities, organizations, and individuals in central Pennsylvania) provided 

technical assistance to the communities of Lewistown and Sunbury. The purpose was to 

help communities revitalize neighborhoods through community action, strategic 
52

planning, and program and service development. Community outreach was also an 

important part of the project as the grant recipient sought to encourage citizen 

involvement in revitalization efforts through public meetings. 

Another example is Southern Tier West, which provided technical assistance and 

consultation to communities embarking on planning and development activities. Given 

Southern Tier West’s expertise in community development and their long history 

providing technical assistance, facilitating communities’ capacity-building efforts was a 

natural role. They guided communities through the process of conducting needs 

assessment, strategic planning, and community development and improvement activities, 

while avoiding taking control of development and implementation efforts that were 

intended to be completed by the communities themselves.

Implementation Issues Addressed by Projects 

During the telephone interviews and site visits, respondents were asked to identify any 

barriers or problems that they encountered—and steps that were taken to overcome them. 

As is discussed below, the problems that grant recipients encountered were generally not 

severe enough to prevent projects from implementing their approach. The most 

commonly cited problems included time and staffing constraints, attracting participant 

interest in the project, the isolation of and competition between communities, and limited 

resources. 

Time Constraints 

A few projects found it difficult to carry out all of their planned activities in the time 

allotted. For example, the Youth Leadership Initiative cited time constraints as a 

significant barrier, noting that they were behind from the beginning and always trying to 

catch up. However, the project was able to conduct the full range of activities it had 

planned, and achieved the outcomes it had set for itself. In fact, the general pattern 

among ARC capacity-building projects that participated in the telephone interviews and 

the site visits was that they were willing and able to be flexible in project implementation 

to address unanticipated barriers. 

Other projects considered time constraints to be a slightly less important problem and 

simply regretted that they had many activities they wanted to carry out, but simply did 

not have enough time. For example, the Foundation for Appalachian Ohio stated that 

they were seeking to create an entirely new foundation with a very small staff. The 

amount of time and resources involved was considerable, and they felt that early efforts 

should have focused more exclusively on developing the organizational infrastructure 

rather than trying to do everything at once. As such, they had to scale back planned 

activities as they prioritized what they wanted to accomplish. For example, they did not 

provide as much technical assistance to philanthropic donors as they had initially 

planned. As the Foundation became more established, they were able to reexamine 

activities that had been deferred at the beginning of the project. Both these examples 

suggest a greater technical assistance role for the ARC in guiding projects toward more 

realistic expectations of what can be accomplished in a given time period, and what 

factors contribute to or hinder implementation of project activities. 
53

Staffing 

Although community members may value the benefits of a project, engaging their active 

support can be difficult. One project participant lamented that “we’ve moved from a 

society that is community-oriented to a society that’s self-oriented,” while another noted 

that service to the community through projects like these does not come naturally but, 

rather, must be cultivated. A strong leader can certainly play a powerful role in this 

cultivation. Numerous grant recipients indicated that having a leader with the ability to 

motivate others was extremely important, especially during the initial stages of the 

project. As one grant recipient stated, having a “sparkplug” person to get the project 

started ultimately made an enormous difference. 

The importance of such a leader throughout the project cannot be underestimated. In this 

and previous ARC studies, staff turnover has been consistently raised as an obstacle to 

successful project implementation. Some project staff described their role as “a job for 

life,” and expressed concern about the direction of the projects if they were to leave. 

Particularly in an uncertain financial environment, it is difficult finding skillful, 

charismatic leaders to take on a project for which funding is a constant struggle. 

Attracting Participants 

A few of the projects encountered difficulty attracting participants for their activities. For 

example, the West Virginia EMS Leadership/Management Skills Training Project found 

that their training activities coincided with at least two other EMS trainings in the area in 

which more than 250 people participated. Although project staff was not aware of the 

other events at the time they were scheduling their own training, the simultaneous 

offering ultimately reduced attendance. 

In addition, some of the training projects (most notably leadership projects) found that 

passing costs onto participants reduced the number of people who could participate. 

While more than one project cited this problem, it was a relatively minor one that most 

projects were able to overcome. For example, Leadership East Kentucky was forced to 

charge $750 for tuition. While this amount prevented some individuals from 

participating in the program, the project had enough funds to offer a limited number of 

scholarships, and most other participants were able to get their employers or someone 

else to pay all or most of their tuition. 

Lack of Interest 

Several projects cited a general lack of interest in the community as a barrier to 

implementation. For example, Project Jump Start indicated it was difficult to attract 

students, and that young people in their particular community tended to enter the same 

occupations as their parents, were resistant to change, and thus were reluctant to enter the 

project’s internship program. The same project also referred to residents’ general 

passivity and lack of willingness to participate in other community initiatives. In some 

cases, this lack of participant interest was attributable to distrust and suspicion about 

project intentions and efforts. As a remedy, grant recipients emphasized the need for 

local ownership of the project. Moreover, respondents noted that when projects represent 
54

collaborative efforts between local grassroots organizations and other entities from 

outside the community, a delicate balance must be achieved to promote the trust and 

support of community members—e.g., taking steps to obtain their input about the needs 

of the community and how best to address those needs. 

Geographical Isolation 

Geography, particularly a sense of isolation, was another barrier encountered by projects. 

The Sustainable Communities Initiative, for example, stated that many of its participants 

were far removed from the grant recipient, and it was difficult to manage the project from 

other parts of the state. Related to the issue of isolation was the difficulty of finding 

reliable transportation for prospective participants. For example, participants in some 

communities had difficulty getting to locations where activities were being held—and 

these problems were often compounded by such factors as inclement weather. The site 

visits, in particular, confirmed the isolated nature of the communities that received ARC 

support and the distances that residents had to travel to participate in project activities. 

Projects like the Sustainable Communities Initiative were able to lessen the impact of this 

obstacle, however, largely through the use of technology (e.g., the Internet and video 

conferencing). 

Community Competition 

More than one grant recipient referred to competition between communities and/or 

resistance to regionalism as a barrier to implementation. For example, the Commission on 

the Future of Northeast Mississippi indicated that people involved in the project “had to 

get past the football rivalries,” and were not initially willing to think on a regional level. 

The project overcame this barrier by including an equal number of leaders from each 

community in the project. Similarly, the Northeast Alabama Development Forum 

indicated that its most significant barrier was resistance from local politicians to the 

notion of regionalism. Project staff felt that many of their politicians were beholden to 

their own constituents, making them inherently protective of the interests of their 

respective communities. This, in turn, complicated cooperation across community 

boundaries—especially across state boundaries. 

Organizational Conflicts 

The majority of telephone interview and site visit grant recipients cited collaborative 

relationships with community organizations as a crucial element in affecting change. 

While extolling the benefits of collaboration, grant recipients also described lessons 

learned regarding such relationships. For example, several respondents cited the 

importance of assuring that the collaborating organizations share similar goals—and that 

the commitment level of the participating organizations be at a similar level (or that the 

organizations be in a similar position to benefit from the project). Respondents noted that 

if a project is not as high of a priority for a key partner, the resulting imbalance can affect 

the work of others on the project. One project, in particular, faced delays in 

implementation for this very reason. Such delays can effectively halt a project’s 

momentum, which may be difficult to restore. 
55

Some respondents also noted that working relationships between organizations inevitably 

changed over time due to staff turnover, shifting organizational or individual priorities, 

and conflicts over responsibilities. One grant recipient noted that “the organizational 

buy-in [of a project partner] was not as great as the individual buy-in.” When the mission 

of that key partner shifted away from leadership, they lost that partner’s participation in 

the project. As such, they concluded that if similar efforts were going to be successful, 

the partners must be willing and able to respond effectively to changes in collaborative 

relationships. 

Lack of Resources 

Limited resources (e.g., funding, expertise, time, and staff) severely constrained the 

efforts of some projects. However, as discussed in chapter 2, every community has 

resources that can be tapped into, even though, as one grant recipient noted, these 

resources “are not easily visible in the most distressed rural communities.” The project 

director of the Foundation for Appalachian Ohio, which seeks to build philanthropic 

capital for regional improvement, asserted that substantial amounts of wealth and 

philanthropic resources exist in virtually every community, despite the high level of 

poverty or low level of average household income. While these resources may exist on a 

smaller scale, when pieced together they can provide an effective foundation for what a 

project is seeking to accomplish. Nevertheless, many projects were unable to maintain a 

formal mechanism through which such resources could be accessed and distributed 

efficiently and effectively. Establishing a relationship with a community organization 

that has more experience attracting funding is one solution. Less formal networking 

relationships can also provide much needed assistance in identifying local resources to 

leverage on behalf of a project. 

Lack of a Needs Assessment 

Ensuring that needs assessments elicit feedback from the appropriate community groups 

is vital. A few grant recipients whose projects were geared toward young people in the 

community acknowledged that youth were either not included in their needs assessment 

or were underrepresented. For one project, that exclusion had an impact on project 

implementation. In that case, the grant recipient developed a project that directed student 

activities toward an issue identified by adult community members as a priority; however, 

the students participating in the project expressed interests in a different direction. The 

grant recipient made mid-course adjustments in the project activities to respond to student 

feedback, but emphasized that students’ opinions should have been used to inform the 

project from its inception. One project emphasized the connection between a good needs 

assessment and project sustainability. The grant recipient, whose project was inactive at 

the time due to a lack of funds and community passivity, recommended that future 

grantees conduct a community survey to assess needs and willingness to participate, as 

well as to establish grassroots support. These examples underscore the value of 

accurately assessing the needs of the community as identified by the community 

members themselves, and the necessity of continually gauging community needs to 

reflect changing community priorities. 
56

Sustainability 

Grant recipients were asked about the current status of their projects during telephone 

interviews and site visits. An overwhelmingly number of those grant recipients stated 

that their projects were still operational—with nearly four times as many active as 

inactive projects. Some were conducting activities and serving beneficiaries that are 

essentially the same as when they first began, while others have expanded the scope of 

their activities and the participants that they serve. Others had adapted their activities to 

fit the changing priorities of their communities, which demonstrates one advantage of 

community capacity-based projects rooted in the community. 

IMPLEMENTATION: 

BIG UGLY FAMILY EDUCATION 

In its efforts to build community capacity, the Big Ugly Family Education project conducted 

a range of instructional activities, designed to make improvements at the community level 

and on an individual basis. Primary activities included the transformation of a dilapidated old 

school building into a community center, in which activities designed to encourage greater 

parental involvement in education, continuing education and welfare-to-work support 

activities for adults, and volunteer activities aimed at encouraging youth and adults were 

offered. 

In implementing these and other activities, the project encountered several barriers that 

collectively, show a community that is not accustomed to working together. First, getting 

people to participate in the early stages of the project was probably the most significant 

problem. While people were more than willing to sign up or otherwise express interest in 

participating, some did not remain committed. This was especially important with respect to 

volunteers, whose shifting workload in turn meant that fewer people ended up doing larger 

amounts of work. 

In addition, many community members expressed impatience with respect to how project 

funds could be spent and the difficulties involved in obtaining permission for funds to be 

spent on particular areas. People knew that grant money was received and that money 

existed, but failed to understand why they could not, for example, simply go to a store and 

write a check for supplies. 

A third problem with respect to implementation was that there were instances in which 

people in the community talked behind the backs of project leaders and others who played a 

significant role in the project. There was resentment among some residents (not many but 

enough to cause problems or be a nuisance) when others ascended to leadership positions or 

took active, visible roles in the community. 

Although no longer receiving grant funds from the ARC, the Big Ugly Creek community 

center remains open and holds similar activities on an ongoing basis. The center now relies 

primarily on private donations and fundraising. Costs are minimal, essentially involving only 

paying for staffing and operating (e.g., utilities) the center. The center relies heavily on 

VISTA and AmeriCorps members. 

Although still very much in operation, no specific steps have been taken to expand the scope 

of the project. Project staff believe that they already have the capacity to serve anyone and 

everyone in the community, due to the relatively small size of the community. Nevertheless, 

the revenue streams that support the center are by no means stable. Therefore, according to 

the project director, securing enough funds and resources to sustain the project is difficult 

enough and takes priority over any plans for expansion. 
57

The most fundamental reasons cited by grant recipients for being able to sustain their 

projects were the abilities to attract funding from a wide variety of funding sources and to 

have project costs absorbed into stable community institutions, like local chambers of 

commerce, schools, or governmental agencies. The latter signifies local ownership of the 

project and encourages greater commitment and responsibility for the project’s viability. 

Grant recipients conducting leadership or civic development activities also reported a 

growing reliance on user fees or tuition. In general, these fees have not been prohibitive 

to participation, because participants turn to local organizations for sponsorship. 

Several grant recipients also cited that projects are most difficult to maintain during the 

initial start-up phase, but operating costs diminish and become more manageable over the 

course of the project. This situation does not seem specific to any certain type of 

capacity-building project, as grant recipients commenting on this aspect of sustainability 

were conducting adult leadership projects, youth civic and leadership projects, and 

community improvement projects. This finding does not, however, minimize the 

continual effort required to maintain a viable funding stream. In fact, at least one grant 

recipient that has received considerable national attention for the project’s work noted 

that success can deter some potential donors, who may feel that the project no longer 

needs their financial support. A number of the grant recipients have been highly 

proactive in seeking out additional funding opportunities, but there are grant recipients 

who explain that private money can’t find them and they can’t find private money. 

Having a staff member who is familiar with grant writing and can navigate the process 

can make an important contribution to a grant recipient’s ability to secure additional 

funding. As a case in point, one grant recipient attributed the current project’s inactive 

status to the fact it no longer has someone in a grant-writing position. Moreover, a large 

number of grant recipients stated that technical assistance in the area of grant writing 

would be extremely helpful in their efforts to find new and varied sources of funding. 

Our findings suggest that another danger of success lies in the push for expansion. 

Several grant recipients stated that the success of their projects had led individuals and 

organizations external to the grantee organization to push for the grantee to serve more 

people and offer more services. Many grant recipients fought this natural inclination to 

expand upon their success, citing the need to protect the success of the project already in 

place and to consider long-term funding viability. Rather than find themselves 

overextended in a funding environment not conducive to expansion, they are cautiously 

weighing any intended benefits from expansion with the exigencies of their current 

projects. 

Summary 

The range of activities employed by ARC-funded capacity-building projects closely 

reflects the distinct needs of the communities from which the projects originated and 

which they hoped to address. The most common activities used by grant recipients were 

related to the skills and knowledge and involvement strategies. Activities related to the 

vision and direction and the support strategies generally played a more supplemental role. 

Despite the diversity of the communities and the projects, there were common barriers to 

implementation among them, including staff commitment, participant interest, 

geographic isolation, and negative norms. Projects were able to trouble shoot 

implementation-related problems, however, as demonstrated by the fact that the 

overwhelming majority of these projects remain active. 
58
59

Chapter 5 

Project Accomplishments 

and Impact

ssessing the impact of the diverse set of community capacity-building projects 

funded by ARC is a considerable analytic challenge due to the panoply of 

interrelated and changing players, forces, and interests within the complex social 

systems of communities. Further, because of this complexity, it is difficult to attribute 

large-scale effects (e.g., higher per capita income, decrease in poverty rates) to project 

activities with absolute certainty. It is even more difficult to comment on longer term 

systemic changes within communities as a result of project work. 

Review of the case study and telephone interview projects revealed that many of the 

ARC-funded community capacity-building projects, regardless of the ambitiousness of 

their aims, involved challenge to the status quo and efforts to alter people’s ordinary 

modes of behavior and thinking. Naturally, small-scale short-term projects of the sort 

funded by ARC are limited in the extent to which they can affect profound changes 

within communities bounded by tradition and established norms. We can, however, more 

modestly identify with reasonable confidence some tangible changes in individuals, 

organizations, and communities as a whole that were most likely the result of project 

activities (see exhibit 5-1). It will be shown that there is substantial evidence that the 

ARC-funded projects made impressive inroads toward building the capacity of 

communities and altering individual and organizational norms of behavior and thinking.22 

 

22Findings presented in this chapter are based on a subset of the 100 ARC-funded community capacity-building projects—

the 12 case study projects, and the telephone interviews with 25 projects (7 projects were interviewed by telephone and 

were also the subject of case studies). The findings may not, therefore, be representative of all 100 ARC-funded 

community capacity-building projects. 

A 
60

Exhibit 5-1 

Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: 

Enhanced Capacity Outcomes 

Project 

Purpose

Enhance Skills 

& Knowledge 

of Community 

Members

Resources

Promote 

Involvement of 

Community 

Members

Individual 

Capacity

Organizational 

Capacity

Obtain 

Technical 

Support for the 

Community

Develop Vision 

& Direction 

for the 

Community

Community 

Capacity Social

Environmental

Economic

Assets

Liabilities

Project Context Project Strategies Project Outcomes

( + )

( - )

Goals are a broad-based description of an intended outcome; therefore, each goal in the logic model is linked to an example 

set of outcomes. (See appendix A for examples of outcomes that pertain to each goal.) The example outcomes are 

intended to aid projects in identifying their own outcomes and projecting measurable benchmarks. 

The capacity goals and outcomes on the ARC Community Capacity Logic Model are organized into three broad categories: 

individual, organizational, and community. 

 Individual capacity goals encompass improvements that are realized by individual community members—e.g., 

enhanced skills, enhanced empowerment, and increased awareness of community issues.

 Organizational capacity goals include improvements that are realized within and across community organizations—

e.g., increased collaboration, enhanced efficiency and effectiveness, and enhanced stability/growth.

 Community capacity goals refer to improvements that are realized at the community level—e.g., improved 

planning, improved community self-reliance, increased civic participation, increased political participation, enhanced 

community pride, improved infrastructure, and improved educational opportunities. 

While all of these goals and outcomes are treated as distinct in the logic model, in practice they are interrelated. For 

example, projects that aim to enhance skills (an individual goal) may find that their efforts also result in increases in 

community pride or civic participation (community goals). 

Impact on Individuals 

Many of the ARC-funded capacity-building projects had project activities geared toward 

building individual capacity. For example, many projects incorporated group 

instructional activities, mentoring, and counseling. Analyses indicate that individuals 

benefited in three main ways from project activities: enhanced skills, greater sense of 

empowerment, and increased awareness of community issues. 
61

Enhanced Skills 

The case studies and telephone interviews provided evidence from project staff and 

participants that the activities carried out by many projects enhanced and developed the 

skills and knowledge of individuals in communities. Specific skills included problem 

solving, investigating, planning, and organizing. Also included were communication and 

collaboration skills, management skills, personal skills, and public speaking skills. Many 

projects also were successful in educating individuals about local governance, local 

history, and community structure and organization. 

For example, the Hale BOPP project is a leadership program designed to develop the 

leadership skills of selected 11th and 12th grade students throughout Hale County, 

Alabama. Through educational and enrichment activities, student leaders are encouraged 

to “take a proprietary approach to their home community and ownership of the 

responsibility for building a better Hale County for the future.” Site visit interviews 

revealed that students developed a variety of important skills through participation in 

project activities. Chief among these was collaboration—students attested to having 

learned how to work constructively together toward common goals. Several mentioned 

the profound effects of their visit to the Challenger Learning Center in Birmingham, 

where they participated in a 2-hour space flight simulation project that was intended to 

build teamwork and problem-solving skills. 

In addition, the Hale BOPP project focused on enhancing students’ knowledge of local 

history, culture, and governance. For example, through slides, television, and drama, 

students were introduced to “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men,” James Agee and Walker 

Evans’ portrayal of tenant farming in Hale County during the Great Depression. At 

another time, they took an overnight trip to Montgomery where they visited both houses 

of the State Legislature and took a tour of the State Capitol Building. On other days, 

students were introduced to various aspects of local culture, including music, dance, and 

theatre performances. Students reported an expanded knowledge and appreciation of 

their communities and of the world around them as a result of the project’s innovative 

activities. One student noted: “It opened a whole new world to me...I saw that there are 

so many different things going on in life!” 

Enhanced Empowerment 

There is considerable evidence that many project activities led to increased confidence 

and sense of empowerment among individuals—many people interviewed professed the 

realization that they can make a difference, in the lives of other people within their 

communities, as well as their own. For example, according to project staff and 

participants, the most significant accomplishment of the Appalachian Leadership 

Academy, conducted by the Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development (COAD), 

was the increased number of people in the community who have not only the competence 

necessary to fill leadership positions, but, more importantly, the confidence and 

willingness to serve as a leader. Many participants joined the program with a degree of 

reluctance only to graduate from it with a sincere desire to aspire to higher positions and 

positions of leadership within their communities. 
62

IMPACT: 

NEW OPPORTUNITY SCHOOL FOR WOMEN 

The New Opportunity School takes a holistic approach to its program, addressing multiple 

aspects of women’s lives: their education, employment, self-esteem, leadership potential, and 

community involvement. At the level of individual outcomes, the school seeks to enhance 

women’s skills and sense of empowerment and increase their awareness of community issues. 

For the women who attend the residential program or outreach workshops, these goals are 

accomplished through sessions on career and leadership skills, such as public speaking. The 

women in the residential program also participate in internships through which they gain 

valuable work experience, as well as in activities such as museum trips and dinners sponsored 

by the American Association of University Women that help to reinforce their new skills. 

For women attending the residential program, staff members discussed the significance of 

holding the sessions on the campus of Berea College as a way to empower women to further 

their educations and careers. Staff members described a general feeling among the women, 

at least initially, that “college is for young people.” Being on a college campus for 3 weeks 

acclimates them to the environment, gets them comfortable, and lets them see firsthand that 

they are capable of learning, learning is exciting, and they aren’t out of place there. It also 

gives them ready access to information about courses, financial aid, and how to navigate the 

college process. 

At the level of community-based outcomes, the school seeks to increase women’s civic and 

political participation by giving them the information, skills, and confidence necessary to 

participate in community affairs and take on leadership roles. The school encourages many 

facets of community involvement from volunteerism to participation in local board meetings 

to running for public office. 

Of course, as noted earlier in the text of this chapter, these outcomes are interrelated. While 

most of the immediate work of the school is focused on the improvement of individual 

women’s lives, by extension, the school seeks to improve the broader community. Helping 

women develop the skills and experience needed to find employment does not just impact 

the women themselves; their active participation in the community benefits the community 

as whole. As one staff member said, “When you educate the mother, you educate the 

children. It’s a great influence the women have.” The women that they serve are “untapped 

resources” that have great contributions to make to their communities, and by nurturing their 

potential, “the program has benefited the region as a whole.” 

The power of the school is demonstrated by the stories of the women whose lives have 

changed as a result of attending the school. There is George Ann, the first woman in her 

family to get a college degree, who received a bachelor’s degree in social work at the 

University of Kentucky in Lexington and currently is earning her master’s degree in social 

work there. Her daughter is also getting her college degree. George Ann searched for the 

right word in describing the program’s impact on her, choosing “recognized. They made us 

know we are important.” 

There is also Carol, depressed after her mother’s death, who saw the school’s ad in the 

newspaper. Since attending the program, she has become a published author and joined a 

poetry guild. She gives back to the school that gave her so much by donating her time to 

organize the clothes closet they run for women who need professional and other kinds of 

clothes. She talked about the way the school helps women who “didn’t think they had 

potential at all” see themselves in a new light. For her, “it literally saved my life.” 

The Ohio-West Virginia HI-Y (high school YMCA) youth leadership camp provides 

leadership training for teenagers at Camp Horseshoe in the mountains of West Virginia’s 

Monongahela National Forest. Activities revolve around building skills in problem 

solving, planning, and organizing, with focus on community service. Participants learn 

by doing, working in teams, and developing problem-solving skills by planning and 
63

implementing local community projects. Participants then apply the lessons learned at 

camp to other areas of their lives. According to an HI-Y advisor, the camp provides a 

kind of idealized community that serves as a model to the young people that attend: 

“They don’t have [back home] what we’re offering here. They don’t have the sense of 

community, the friendships. WE create our own community here. It’s an unreal world in 

a way, a world we’d love to see. It gives them some type of vision.” According to the 

camp director, they see changes in participants after the first week of the camp session, 

changes “in attitude, in self, and as they relate to the broader community....Some of the 

kids do go home and do something. They start their own HI-Y group and some pull it off 

in spite of the roadblocks.” 

Besides the skills acquired through leadership training and activities, teenagers acquired a 

new sense of their place within their communities: “When they leave the program, they 

never look at the world in the same way. They realize they have obligations too, to a 

purpose beyond self.” The HI-Y youth leadership camp thus seems to have been highly 

successful in transmitting values of personal empowerment and responsibility. 

The development of young people’s self-confidence and individual capacity for service is 

of considerable benefit to the communities in which they live. Projects carried out by one 

group of teenagers have included visiting with and planning activities for the elderly, peer 

tutoring, and organizing to raise money for Christmas trees, decorations, and gifts for 

poor families. Another group helped build and now maintain a community playground 

and collected 60 pounds of soda can tabs that they donated to the Ronald McDonald 

House, which recycles them for cash. Another group conducted a blood drive, a coat 

drive, a stuffed animal drive, and trick or treating for canned goods that they donated to a 

local food pantry. In addition to the good done by these activities, several respondents 

noted that the community’s views of its young people are becoming more positive, thanks 

to HI-Y participants. The project director noted that the changes occurring in individuals 

at the youth leadership camp will have both short-term and long-term payoff in 

communities as these participants grow older. 

Increased Awareness of Community Issues 

There are strong indications that project activities led to greater awareness of local 

community issues among participants and other community members. Many individuals 

touched by the ARC-funded community capacity-building projects became more aware 

of local issues and experienced an awakening to their own potential and the need for 

action in their communities. For example, the East Kentucky Leadership Network project 

(EKLN) aims to engage teens and adults in the civic life of their communities. Young 

people attend conferences and serve on local public boards to learn about community 

issues and the political decision-making process. The project director noted that the most 

important outcome of the project at the individual level is increased awareness of both the 

salient issues facing the community and how to address them. 

While the individual impacts of enhanced skills, enhanced empowerment, and increased 

awareness of community issues were discussed separately above, it should be noted that 

they were often interrelated in practice, especially with respect to leadership training 

projects. In sum, taken as a whole, many of the capacity-building projects set into motion 

profound changes within individuals, affecting how they view their communities and how 

they understand their roles within them. Perhaps more importantly, there are indications 
64

that these changes are leading individuals toward more proactive roles with respect to 

improving their own lives as well as the quality of life in their communities. 

Impact on Organizations 

Besides the impact of ARC-funded community capacity-building projects on individuals, 

many projects were successful at developing and enhancing the capacity of organizations 

within communities. Organization is defined here as an aggregate of individuals who 

work cooperatively and systematically toward a common set of goals under common 

guidelines. The types of organizations that benefited from community capacity-building 

projects included community development organizations, governmental agencies, 

chambers of commerce, businesses, and schools. Findings from the site visits, telephone 

interviews, and document review indicate that organizational capacity was built in a 

variety of ways, including increased collaboration, the enhancement of organizational 

efficiency and effectiveness, and enhanced stability and growth (each represented in the 

organization outcomes component of the logic model). These aspects of impact on 

organizational capacity are treated in turn below. 

Increased Collaboration 

Collaboration across organizations within communities is a key condition for building 

capacity. Communities that generate the involvement of organizations that pool (often 

limited) resources are able to work more effectively toward common goals. Also, the 

organizations and agencies of smaller communities are often critical nexuses of power 

and influence, and their cooperation, support, and involvement is essential to 

coordinating and carrying out community action. Further, collaboration between 

organizations and agencies not only helps to strengthen communities, but also builds the 

capacity of the organizations involved. 

Findings suggest that many ARC-funded community capacity-building projects were 

effective in galvanizing the support of community organizations and agencies. Many 

projects received aid in the form of technical assistance, outreach, or additional funds and 

other resources from outside organizations. For example, the Big Ugly project (West 

Virginia) successfully assembled a team of individuals from various organizations to 

carry out project activities: the West Virginia University Extension Service provided 

technical assistance; the Save the Children Foundation provided additional funding and 

resources; and the Lincoln County Public School System provided logistical support and 

help with outreach, primarily by encouraging and facilitating parent and student 

involvement in the project. The Elkhorn Creek Watershed project (New York) served as 

a catalyst for many new partnerships between organizations in the region that 

subsequently brought to bear necessary resources for the protection and understanding of 

the watershed (e.g., a $20,000 study of fish habitat conducted by the state conservation 

agency). 

In addition, many of the community capacity-building projects generated new links and 

lines of communication between organizations and the subsequent sharing of ideas and 

alignment of community-oriented goals. In some cases, collaboration and exchange 

occurred across organizations within an entire region. For example, ARC funds helped to 
65

establish the Foundation of Appalachian Ohio (FAO), a community development 

organization centered in Nelsonville, Ohio, that assumes the mission to “provide a 

leadership role to promote collaboration” and serve as a neutral convenor of 

organizations and individuals in the region. Through its partnership with organizations 

such as the Ohio University Extension Service, and the Institute for Local Government 

Administration and Rural Development (ILGARD), and the Ohio Association of 

Nonprofit Organizations, FAO has delivered workshops and training on a number of 

topics for various target audiences across the region. One important by-product of these 

regional meetings is networking and the sharing of ideas and information. To take 

another example, the Northeast Alabama Development Forum project was successful in 

establishing new networks and avenues for cooperation in its efforts to raise awareness 

about the need for regional cooperation among community leaders. 

IMPACT: 

HURLEY COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 

The original goal driving Hurley Community Development (HCD) was to decrease the 

exodus of community members by promoting conditions for local economic growth. The 

decision to use ACLP funds to clean up the local river and nearby roads was based on the 

idea that a cleaner community would be the first step in attracting employers to the area. 

According to project staff, Hurley is now 90 percent cleaner than it was prior to ACLP 

funding. Although cleanup efforts have not resulted in local economic growth, the quality of 

life for Hurley’s residents has improved. In addition, the net result of HCD’s activities has 

contributed to increases in the capacity of individual residents and community organizations. 

At the individual level, the two ACLP projects increased the community’s awareness of 

important community issues. For example, the environmental education program that was 

implemented at the community schools helped to raise students’ awareness about litter, litter 

prevention, recycling, and environmental issues. Parents, through their children, also learned 

the importance of taking responsibility for the environment and the community in which 

they live. 

HCD’s capacity to effectively and efficiently serve the community was also enhanced. First 

and foremost, the agency was incorporated and gained 501(c)(3) status. Their nonprofit 

status has helped them to “stand alone as a self-sustaining community organization.” In 

addition, HCD’s capacity to provide home repair assistance—from minor structural repairs 

to replacing roofs—increased to 294 volunteers in 2003. Another new activity, the food 

pantry, grew out of a need to provide assistance to local families that do not meet eligibility 

requirements for (or receive inadequate supplies from) existing food banks. While the 

program began with an HCD member distributing frozen dough from her home, the 

organization currently has a fully stocked pantry run out of the HCD building. At one point, 

the distribution program served as many as 275 local families. 

Perhaps most importantly, ACLP efforts helped to increase Hurley’s community capacity. 

Civic participation increased considerably as residents of all ages have become involved with 

community improvement activities. Without the help and volunteer hours of community 

members, thousands of pounds of trash would have stayed in the river and on the roads, 

hundreds of individuals would not have benefited from the food pantry, and many local 

families would have homes in need of major repair. In addition to increased participation, 

there are visible signs of increased community pride. For example, over 300 local community 

members attended the Second Annual Community Pride Day, and Hurley received second 

place in Keeping America Beautiful Day. 
66

Enhanced Efficiency and Effectiveness 

In addition to promoting various types of collaboration among organizations, findings 

suggest that some ARC-funded community capacity-building projects helped develop the 

efficiency and effectiveness of specific organizations. For example, the West Virginia 

Municipal League (WVML) realized that there was a more efficient way to address the 

ongoing day-to-day queries of the 233 represented municipalities regarding aspects of 

local government. WVML was receiving too many calls and overlapping requests for 

assistance, especially from newly elected officials who had no formal training before 

taking office. In some cases, due to the high volume of requests for assistance, responses 

were delayed. The main problem addressed was the inefficiency of this system for 

addressing the problems/questions of elected officials. Also, it might be said that newly 

elected officials did not have a readily accessible set of guidelines for making daily 

decisions. As a result, the ARC-funded project on conducted by WVML produced the 

Municipal Handbook for Elected Officials, a valuable resource for elected officials. Now, 

rather than requesting information from WVML (and sometimes waiting for a response), 

officials need only pull the handbook from the shelf for the information they are seeking. 

According to the project director, this added considerable efficiency to WVML as an 

organization, freeing up staff time for other responsibilities. 

The West Virginia EMS Leadership/Management Skills Training Project serves as 

another example of a project that increased organizational efficiency and effectiveness. 

The need for these skills was identified through the West Virginia EMS Technical 

Support Network’s daily contact with EMS agencies in its role as technical assistance 

provider, and was corroborated by the National Association of State EMS Directors’ 

2000 national survey “Challenges of Rural Emergency Medical Services, Opinion Survey 

of State EMS Directors.” The project director explained that EMS agencies in the state 

are largely voluntary, and often family run, with many struggling to navigate increasingly 

complex health care regulations. Given the essential services that EMS agencies provide, 

the West Virginia Technical Support Network provided a comprehensive, focused 

training opportunity, along with much-needed financial support to EMS agencies to 

strengthen their business operations and management. Forty-three of West Virginia’s 

counties were represented at the training, and there was at least a 7.6 percent increase in 

the number of EMS agencies that had management points in their licensure files, thereby 

demonstrating the broad reach and success of the project. 

 

Findings from the site visits show that in several cases, ARC funding was used to build 

the capacity and effectiveness of organizations devoted specifically to community 

development, and that has led to dramatic results. For example, staff of the Foundation of 

Appalachian Ohio noted that without the ARC grant, it would have been very difficult to 

accomplish what they have in the short time this organization has been in existence. 

According to one respondent, it takes some foundations 20 years to establish themselves 

the way FAO has in 5. FAO has already awarded $500,000 in grants for economic and 

community development projects and has built up a $2 million endowment. ARC 

provided the seed money that has already harvested impressive rewards for this region of 

Ohio. 
67

Enhanced Stability and Growth 

Related to enhanced efficiency and effectiveness, many ARC-funded community 

capacity-building projects benefited organizations by contributing to their stability and 

growth. In many cases, the organizations that benefited were community development 

organizations that, because of ARC funding, were able to ensure their continued 

operation and expand the scope of their efforts and even spawn spinoff organizations. 

One non-community-development organization that grew as a result of ARC funding was 

the Elkhorn Creek Watershed Association. The Elkhorn Creek Watershed Project was 

funded to improve McDowell County’s water resources through testing, monitoring, and 

education. With the grantee’s assistance, multiple partners, including local schools and 

government, recreational groups, and homeowners, established the association to resolve 

the problems and address the needs of the watershed. The nonprofit organization still 

operates today, more than 7 years later. 

Some organizations were able to expand the scope of their community development 

activities, in part as a result of ARC-funding. For example, the Appalachian Leadership 

Academy, conducted by the Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development (COAD), 

has been expanded to the statewide level. COAD now operates the original Appalachian 

Leadership Academy, designed for and open to those in the 29-county Appalachian Ohio 

region, as well as the statewide Community Action Leadership Academy, designed for 

and open to anyone working for a community action agency in the state of Ohio. 

As stated earlier, ARC-funding contributed to the generation of spinoff organizations and 

groups that contribute to community development and the building of social and 

economic capacity. For example, the work of MACED and the Owsley County Action 

Team helped create other nonprofits within Owsley County, including the Owsley 

County Fund for Excellence (devoted to increasing high school graduation rates), the 

Eastern Kentucky Goat Producers Association, and the Vegetable Producers Association. 

According to one respondent, “Both MACED and the Action Teams have learned that 

creating and nurturing ‘spin off’ organizations from its projects can be a powerful way of 

building social capacity and increasing the flow of resources to a community.” 

Impact on Communities 

While individual and organizational impacts involve changes to circumscribed 

populations within communities, the third type of impact identified in this evaluation 

involves larger scale changes to communities as a whole. The types of impact on 

community capacity documented in this section are broader in reach and reflect profound 

changes in the ways in which communities think collectively about their capabilities, 

aims, and future, as well as in how they are able to mobilize citizens toward the common 

good, develop infrastructure, and advance educational opportunities. The achievements 

of ARC-funded community capacity-building projects are summarized below, with 

respect to these community-level capacity outcomes. 
68

Improved Planning 

Findings from site visits, telephone interviews, and the literature review conducted for 

this evaluation make clear that many community development practitioners and experts 

believe that a community strategic plan is a critical first step and necessary condition of 

capacity building. In addition to providing a blueprint for the future of a community, the 

strategic planning process serves as a catalyst for new partnerships and constructive, 

collaborative thinking and problem-solving among diverse segments of a community’s 

population. 

Study findings suggest that communities with ARC-funded projects specifically geared 

toward strategic planning were successful at galvanizing diverse participation, identifying 

assets and liabilities, and collaboratively generating well-constructed plans. The scope of 

planning varied from one project to the next—some projects worked toward broad 

community-wide or regional strategic plans, while others focused on narrower domains 

within communities, such as downtown revitalization, housing, and environmental 

resources. 

The Lewisburg New Neighborhood Project (Pennsylvania) involved, with the technical 

assistance of the Susquehanna Economic Development Association-Council of 

Governments (SEDA-COG), strategic planning for the downtown revitalization of the 

communities of Lewistown and Sunbury. The project was successful at gaining feedback 

and suggestions from community members by way of well-attended community 

meetings. The project achieved its goal of identifying 30 stakeholders for planning teams 

in both communities and identifying 30 neighborhood advocates and constituents for 

strategic planning. The project director indicated that as a result of this project’s ongoing 

work, there are already more businesses in downtown Lewistown, and there are more 

inquiries from investors from inside and outside the community, specifically as a result of 

efforts to help restore several buildings in the downtown area. One example is the 

restoration of the recently vacant Embassy Theater in Lewistown, which now serves as an 

unofficial community center where activities and events are offered on a weekly basis. 

The Southern Tier West Leadership and Civic Development Initiative (New York) 

project expected participating communities to conduct fairly sophisticated needs 

assessments to identify problems locally, “supporting the notion that a community which 

can identify its problems can usually bring about its own solutions.” An aspect of the 

needs assessments was “asset mapping,” that is, raising awareness of local available 

resources. According to findings from the telephone interview, the facilitation process 

that directed project participants to think independently about local needs, problems, and 

assets, was highly successful. Evidence of this outcome is “the adoption and 

implementation of strategic plans in these communities, and implementation of 

components of those plans.” 
69

IMPACT: 

ALABAMA FLEX-E-GRANT 

Up to 30 students from each of the six distressed counties participated in the youth 

leadership workshops. The workshops aimed to develop skills in investigation, planning, 

strategy, communication, and implementation of plans. The knowledge component of the 

workshops consisted of introducing new concepts that helped students to understand their 

communities and how they function. Participating students who were interviewed noted that 

many of these concepts were new to them and helped them to understand not only their own 

communities, but also how those communities differed from others. 

Groups of students collaboratively planned community projects (e.g., putting up new road 

signs, downtown beautification, establishing a youth community center) based on their 

researched assessments of community assets and liabilities. Once groups devised their 

projects, they were taught about local leadership and governance and encouraged to 

implement their plans by approaching and working through local city counsels. 

The skills component of the Alabama Flex-E-grant program involved the acquisition and 

development of skills related to observation, investigation, weighing alternatives (judgment), 

and collaboration as these pertain to community development. Students interviewed noted 

that the workshops were different from school in that they worked interactively in teams and 

conducted much of their investigation in the field. They liked the independence, and they 

gained greater confidence in their own judgment as a result. 

Some of the groups’ projects were implemented, while others were turned away as too 

ambitious or costly. In one case, students were told by the city counsel to first conduct a 

community-wide needs assessment with respect to a proposed youth community center. In 

any event, students reported an increased understanding of local governance, leadership, and 

power. Project staff noted that participating students were being educated for the first time 

about how their communities work (and how they sometimes fail to work). 

In the interviews, students also revealed an enhanced awareness of issues in their 

communities and an awakening to their own abilities and potential to affect change. One 

student noted that “We see our community from a new perspective.” Another student said 

“We see the good and the bad now,” and another said “We appreciate more what we have.” 

(The site visitor noted the interesting repeated use of the first person plural “we” by students, 

reflecting perhaps their sense of group identity and cohesiveness.) Several other students 

reported having a greater sense of belonging to a community and being tied to others. The 

case study of the Alabama Flex-E-grant program indicated that many of the students who 

participated were significantly changed by the experience and plan to continue to apply their 

new skills, knowledge, and awareness to the benefit of their communities. 

Improved Community Self-Reliance 

One important outcome of many ARC-funded community capacity-building projects, 

whether intended or not, was an increased sense of community self-reliance. Site visit 

and telephone interview findings revealed that many projects led to a renewed sense of 

independence and the belief that the community itself is the best shepherd of its own 

resources and direction.23 

The Big Ugly Creek Community is routinely left out of the surrounding areas when it 

comes to receiving benefits and services. The site visit to the Big Ugly Family Education 

 

23The outcome of improved community self-reliance is viewed here as a psychological orientation, where a community 

discovers that it can take control of its resources and provide direction and guidance from within. The actualization of 

community self-reliance manifests itself in many other outcomes represented in the logic model (e.g., enhanced 

stability/growth, enhanced political and civic participation, and improved planning). 
70

project (West Virginia) revealed that the ARC grant brought recognition in the 

community that local organized efforts could be effective. The single most important 

accomplishment cited by project staff was that their efforts “left a legacy of what people 

themselves could do rather than waiting for others.” This project helped the community 

members realize they did not have to idly wait for benefits and services, but that they 

could provide them—albeit on a smaller scale—themselves. 

Given the prevalent sense of powerlessness and passivity in many Appalachian 

communities, the development of the sense of self-reliance and independence is a 

significant achievement. Speaking of the MACED Sustainable Communities Initiative 

project (Kentucky), the project director noted: “Residents in both communities that 

participated in the project tell us that the Action Team has brought a new sense of 

optimism about the community’s future and its own capacity to control that future. While 

hard to quantify, this cannot be underestimated in communities that have become cynical 

in the face of over a century of exploitation and poverty.” The MACED project resulted 

in “strong, independent...action teams, with their own boards, that have become leading 

agents in the community for comprehensive community development.” 

Increased Civic Participation 

Perhaps the most common outcome of ARC-funded community capacity-building 

projects was increased civic participation. Many projects were successful at generating 

and maintaining the participation of diverse populations in a variety of community-based 

efforts, including individuals who had never volunteered for community service in the 

past. 

For example, the Lewisburg New Neighborhoods project successfully involved 

community members in the strategic planning process. The site visitor noted that the 

single most important accomplishment 

of the project is that “it has led to more 

people getting involved and realizing 

that they have a stake in their 

community.” The Ohio-West Virginia 

YMCA Youth Leadership project 

included activities such as visiting with 

and planning activities for the elderly in 

the community, peer tutoring, and 

organizing a Christmas tree program. 

The project director noted: “When 

[students] leave our program, they 

never look at the world in the same 

way. They realize they have obligations 

too, to a purpose beyond self.” 

One aspect of civic participation is the 

cultivation of a sense of obligation to 

one’s community. Many of the ARCfunded projects, especially those with 

leadership components, were successful 

Ohio-West Virginia YMCA Youth Leadership 

Project 

The project director told the story of some students 

who decided to do a clean-up of a little park in their 

community. Some gentle-men from the Lions Club 

came by and asked them what they were doing. The 

kids told them they were cleaning up the area, and 

the Lions Club members said they would help. 

Then some ladies from the local garden club came 

by and also asked what they were doing. The kids 

told them, and the ladies said they would help too. 

The result wasn’t just a beautiful place in the 

community, but that 16-year-olds were working 

along side 70- and 80-year-olds. “That’s an 

invaluable result, the connection of those 

generations doing something together.” He extolled 

this idea of civic life, that someone asks “what are 

you doing?” and then says, “I’ll help.” 
71

at transmitting this value, not only to project participants, but also to those within 

communities touched by project activities. 

In addition, participation in many cases helped break down social barriers between 

racial/ethnic groups, age groups, and social classes within communities. For example, the 

Hale BOPP project (Alabama), a leadership program for high-achieving high school 

students, included a wide range of public service and community improvement activities. 

Many students who were interviewed noted that the most profound effect of their 

participation was getting to interact with and understand students from different parts of 

Hale County, a region historically segregated along racial/ethnic lines. The project’s final 

report included several telling journal entries from participating students: “It makes me 

feel good to know that there are some people, like this group of teenagers, who can get 

together and forget about race and gender differences. And it is good to know that we can 

read about the history of Blacks and Whites and realize from our own experience that a 

change has come.” Another student wrote: “When we first met as a group, we were 

strangers with a name tag for identification. Now, all of us are connected by this 

experience. Every single one of us is now more culturally diverse along with being more 

prepared to be leaders.” 

Increased Political Participation 

One aspect of community capacity is a citizenry that is politically active and familiar with 

the functions and workings of government. Several ARC-funded community capacitybuilding projects were successful at promoting political involvement and educating 

community members about local governance. For example, the East Kentucky 

Leadership Network project encouraged young people to serve on local public boards and 

introduced them to various facets of local and state governance. One feature of the 

project was shedding light on the political process and building the confidence of young 

people to encourage their participation. The project director gave the example of a 

student named J, who received a scholarship to attend a White House conference in 

Washington, DC. “He walked right up and introduced himself to Hal Rogers, 

Congressman of Kentucky’s 5th District. He even managed to get a meeting with the 

Secretary of HHS. He called one of the project staff members and said ‘Hey R, I’m up 

here in DC. I have a meeting with Tommy Thompson in 30 minutes, what do you want 

me to say?’” 

Another project successful at promoting political involvement was MACED’s 

Sustainable Communities Initiative. The Letcher County Action Team, funded through 

this initiative, established “Fiscal Court TV,” a public access broadcast of the county 

fiscal court meetings. Letcher County faced a multitude of problems that led to low 

levels of community political participation. In an effort to begin to combat this problem, 

the Action Team televised the county’s fiscal court meetings. Not only did community 

members begin to watch and become interested in the fiscal court meetings, but 

attendance at the meetings went from 5 or 6 to 40 to 50 community members. 

The Carroll/Garrison/Jefferson Leadership Program was designed to “provide potential 

leaders with the knowledge, skills, and experiences which would enable them to provide 

leadership in their community” and “increase the ‘pool’ of available leadership in the 

three counties.” The Ohio State University Extension, which conceived of and 

implemented the program, saw a need for a program for people who are in leadership 
72

positions but have not been trained how to be leaders. This also extended to community 

members as a whole who have the potential to take on leadership roles in the community, 

but who perhaps do not have the skills needed to be an effective leader. Moreover, the 

Extension “wanted [community members and leaders] to know how government 

influences their lives.” As part of the program, participants learned about public 

policymaking, public speaking, community development, and community service. They 

also traveled to Washington, DC, to learn about the federal government, preparing ahead 

of time by reviewing the congressional schedule and talking to legislative aides about 

important community issues. Participants were given a 6-month follow-up survey to 

discuss what they learned, how they had applied that new knowledge to their lives, and 

what changes they had made personally and professionally. One participant, who was a 

candidate for local office, noted how much he benefited from the lessons on public policy 

and public speaking. A member of the County Commission who participated had never 

been to Washington, DC, and said that learning about how the federal government works 

was valuable to his work. Another participant, who had never held any type of office 

before the program, had become the president of his union. All of the survey respondents 

indicated they were either volunteering in the community had plans to do so. 

Enhanced Community Pride 

Although it is difficult to assess the extent to which a project may lead to enhanced 

community pride, there is anecdotal evidence that ARC-funded community capacitybuilding projects had this effect in many communities. Site visit and telephone interviews 

repeatedly provided testaments to a new sense of pride in communities as a result of 

project activities. For example, the Aliceville museum project (Alabama) involved 

needed renovations and led to an increase in visitors both from inside and outside of the 

community. The project director noted that local community residents would come back 

to visit the museum: “Some come back and talk about my history and can see the town 

from their own families’ perspective.” Pride is demonstrated in local letters to the editor, 

community members providing both monetary (membership) and physical donations to 

the museum, informal conversations, and local families bringing out of town family 

members to visit the museum. 

Many of the ARC-funded leadership projects enhanced community pride. One common 

reflection, especially of young people who had participated in leadership programs, was 

that people were able to appreciate the uniqueness and value of their communities in a 

new way. For example, the Hale BOPP project (Alabama) included activities specifically 

geared toward raising awareness of the assets of Hale County, aiming to persuade 

talented young people to settle locally after college. Many of the students who were 

interviewed said that they had greater pride in their county and communities as a result of 

their participation in the project and indicated that they intended to return to Hale County 

after finishing college. 

Improved Infrastructure 

Another aspect of community capacity is infrastructure, defined here as the basic 

facilities, services, and installations needed for the functioning of a community. This 

includes transportation and communications systems, water and power lines, and public 

institutions such as schools, post offices, recreation centers, and prisons. While many 
73

ARC-funded projects aim to enhance infrastructure in communities, these are generally 

under the purview of other ARC programs (e.g., telecommunications, transportation). 

However, site visits and telephone interviews reveal that some ARC-funded community 

capacity-building projects did improve infrastructure in various ways. 

For example, the Owsley County Action Team, as part of the MACED Sustainable 

Communities Initiative, purchased and established Action Place, a community center, 

offering meeting space and a computer lab for such purposes as college classes, school 

work, youth training, and preparation of income taxes. The computers allow access to 

programs that community youth might not have at home or elsewhere. One respondent 

noted that a community member used an Action Place computer to prepare a resume that 

helped her to get a job. Other results of the work of the Owsley County Action Team 

include new street lighting on a local highway and the addition of a police officer, which 

has resulted in decreased vandalism in the community. 

Longer Term Impacts 

The discussion of the impacts and achievements of the ARC-funded projects has been 

limited to those involving the development of capacity at various levels. However, the 

ARC-funded community capacity-building projects benefited communities in ways that 

go beyond enhanced capacity. These include outcomes that one would expect to follow 

eventually from built capacity, such as increased employment and commerce, improved 

water quality and land use, and improved health and safety. These outcomes are 

categorized in this report and in the logic model as long-term economic, environmental, 

and social outcomes (Exhibit 5-2). 
74

Exhibit 5-2 

Logic Model for ARC’s Community Capacity Projects: 

Community Development Outcomes 

Project 

Purpose

Enhance Skills 

& Knowledge 

of Community 

Members

Resources

Promote 

Involvement of 

Community 

Members

Individual 

Capacity

Organizational 

Capacity

Obtain 

Technical 

Support for the 

Community

Develop Vision 

& Direction 

for the 

Community

Community 

Capacity Social

Environmental

Economic

Assets

Liabilities

Project Context Project Strategies Project Outcomes

( + )

( - )

Goals are a broad-based description of an intended outcome; therefore, each goal in the logic model is linked to an example 

set of outcomes. (See appendix A for examples of outcomes that pertain to each goal.) The example outcomes are 

intended to aid projects in identifying their own outcomes and projecting measurable benchmarks. 

The community developmental goals and outcomes on the ARC Community Capacity Logic Model are organized into 

three broad categories: economic, environmental, and social. 

 Economic goals refer to improvements in the economic well being of the community—e.g., increased tourism, 

increased commerce, increased/improved employment, and decreased outmigration of community members. 

 Environmental goals include improvements to the environmental conditions within the community—e.g., improved 

water quality, improved air quality, improved soil quality, improved land use, and increased/improved recycling. 

 Social goals refer to improvements to the social well-being of the community—e.g., improved health, improved 

learning, increased safety, improved governance, and improved community housing and structures. 

The Aliceville Museum and Cultural Arts Center Renovation, an ACLP continuation 

grant, continued previous efforts to renovate and expand a local history museum and 

revitalize downtown Aliceville, an area that had many old buildings that “were real 

eyesores.” The project cited several community capacity outcomes such as increased 

community pride and participation, but they also anticipated such economic outcomes as 

increased tourism and increased commerce. 

With the help of ARC funding and community volunteers, this project was able to create 

an attraction that successfully brought tourists of all age groups into the Aliceville 

community. During the grant period, six tour buses came to Aliceville with the specific 

purpose of visiting the museum, a highly visible sign of improved tourism. Not only did 

museum attendance improve, but the increased tourism improved the sales and revenues 

of the community businesses, especially the downtown restaurant. The increase in 

visitors to the community also gave downtown business owners a reason to improve the 

appearance of their storefronts. 
75

One project achieving economic, social, and environmental outcomes was the Elkhorn 

Creek Watershed Association Project. Before ARC funding, there were no sewage 

treatment systems in the watershed and few residents had septic systems, meaning that 

human waste was piped directly into Elkhorn Creek. Prior to the onset of this project, the 

grantee also saw that many community members were continuing to litter and pollute the 

creek, thereby negating their efforts to do a major clean up. At that point, they saw the 

need for environmental education and selected and trained six youth “crew members” to 

do water quality testing and raise the environmental awareness level of community 

residents. The crew members went into the community and educated and solicited the 

support of homeowners, local government, schools, and other community groups. Those 

groups and individuals came together to form the Elkhorn Creek Watershed Association 

to resolve the problems and address the needs of the watershed. 

This project and the association have helped to improve the water quality of Elkhorn 

Creek, improve the health and well-being of community members, and increase tourism 

to the community. More than 7 years later, the association is still working to improve the 

water quality in the region. In addition to bringing much needed attention to the region’s 

poor water quality, the association has worked to make laws requiring septic systems in 

all new homes/buildings and to enforce stricter building codes, which have contributed to 

the improvement of the water quality. Community members’ health has improved, not 

just because the water is cleaner, but because they are more aware of diseases that may 

occur as a result of coming into contact with contaminated water sources. The improved 

water quality has and will also continue to help the region economically because it will 

attract fishermen to the area. 

While ARC-funded community capacity-building projects certainly gave rise to various 

economic, environmental, and social changes, evidence in most cases is largely anecdotal 

and nonsystematic. Many site visit and telephone interview respondents noted anticipated 

benefits, but understood that such benefits to their communities would take time to 

manifest and were beyond the scope of their work. These longer term development 

outcomes will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.

Summary 

Site visit and telephone interview findings provided significant qualitative evidence that 

the ARC-funded projects were largely successful at building capacity at different levels. 

Project outcomes were viewed as falling into three main types of capacity outcomes—

individual, organizational, and community. At the individual level, projects enhanced the 

skills and knowledge of community members, increased awareness of community issues, 

and developed people’s sense of empowerment. Many projects benefited organizations 

by increasing collaboration and the sharing of ideas and strategies for community 

development, and by enhancing their efficiency and effectiveness, as well as their 

stability and growth. Projects also benefited communities more broadly by improving 

strategic planning, enhancing the sense of community self-reliance and pride, increasing 

civic and political participation, and improving infrastructure and educational 

opportunities. 
76

Study findings reveal that many projects had outcomes and achievements at more than 

one level of capacity, suggesting a richness and efficiency of approach with respect to 

capacity building. Qualitative evidence from across the site visits and telephone 

interviews support the view that many projects had far-reaching effects in communities. 

Some of these effects involved significant changes in orientation and attitude, toward 

both communities and social and political duty and service. Many projects led to greater 

awareness of community issues, a greater sense of community pride and self-reliance, 

and a stronger commitment to community service. Also, many projects were successful at 

convincing people of their own capacity for self-improvement and change. Besides these 

important psychological and attitudinal changes, projects gave rise to more concrete 

benefits, including the development of individual skills and knowledge, increased 

collaboration, the strengthening of community organizations and infrastructure, increased 

volunteerism, and improved planning. 

IMPACT: 

BIG UGLY FAMILY EDUCATION 

In many respects, a community can be thought of as a group of individuals; therefore, the 

capacity of a community is enhanced by improving the skills and knowledge of, and bringing 

about a greater sense of empowerment among, its individual members. The Big Ugly Family 

Education project was no exception. 

For example, the transformation of a dilapidated school building into a community center 

provided a location to which children could go on a daily basis—after school, on weekends, 

or during the summer—to read books, use computers, or engage in constructive activities 

under the supervision of adults. While the computers and other resources provided at the 

center could not be considered state of the art, they were a vast improvement over what 

existed just a few years prior, which was next to nothing. As a result, according to project 

staff and parents, the children’s skills and knowledge were enhanced and they had exposure 

to subjects that they otherwise might not have had. 

While it can be said that the project had a series of accomplishments, most did not come 

easily. The project encountered numerous obstacles along the way, especially in its initial 

stages, as described in prior chapters. Nevertheless, the optimism displayed by the project’s 

leadership, according to one project participant, spread throughout the community in an 

unprecedented way and ultimately led to a greater sense of empowerment in the community 

as a whole. In the minds of numerous community members—even those who were the least 

pessimistic—the idea that individuals could successfully collaborate in rebuilding or 

enhancing their own community would have been unimaginable a few years ago. This 

unprecedented sense of empowerment continues to underlie project activities. 

Although this increased sense of empowerment was not necessarily specified as a desired 

outcome at the outset, it was ultimately the single most important outcome cited by project 

staff. The fact that the project left, in the words of the project director, “a legacy of what 

people themselves could do rather than waiting for others” is more important than any 

outcome provided to any one individual or group of individuals. It is precisely this mindset 

that will continue to have a positive effect well into the future. 
77

It should be noted that the individual, organizational, and community levels are highly 

interrelated. For example, benefits to individuals may also benefit communities, and 

benefits to community capacity may also increase organizational capacity. It could be 

argued that none of the specific outcomes described in this chapter would, in and of 

themselves, be sufficient to affect long-lasting change in communities. The fact that 

many ARC-funded community capacity-building projects were multidimensional in their 

outcomes, and impacted individuals, organizations, and communities at once, argues for 

their utility and value. 
78
79

Chapter 6 

Performance Measurement 

s shown in the previous chapter, the ARC-fund community capacity-building 

projects were successful in building various types of capacity in many 

communities within the Appalachian region. The benefits of these projects to 

individuals, organizations, and communities were far reaching and significant. One could 

argue further that such enhanced capacity has paved the way for longer term economic, 

environmental, and social benefits, as well as increased community assets and decreased 

liabilities. 

It should be noted, however, that our conclusions about program impact are primarily 

based on the observations, reflections, and judgments of project staff and participants 

themselves, rather than on more concrete and documented forms of evidence. As is 

discussed throughout this chapter, while many of the anticipated outcomes delineated in 

proposals to the ARC appear to have been achieved, claims of project success could not 

be substantiated with hard data. In some cases, this is because the desired outcomes that 

projects described in their proposals were not sufficiently clear, specific, and 

measurable—and therefore could not provide data-based tangible evidence of project 

success. In other cases, projects did not invest in the data collection activities required to 

demonstrate the immediate or long-term impacts of the efforts. Over the long term, these 

two problems will ultimately hinder the Commission’s ability to document the range of 

benefits resulting from its community capacity-building projects. 

 

The chapter addresses project impact within the context of ARC’s performance 

measurement system. Specifically, it examines whether projects achieved their stated 

goals and focuses on the extent to which projects identified clearly defined, specific, and 

measurable outcomes. The analyses are based exclusively on the 30 case study and 

telephone interview projects.24 

Policy Context and Measurement Issues 

Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), even a fully implemented 

project cannot be considered successful until it provides tangible evidence that it 

benefited the individuals and communities it served. A systematic and accurate 

assessment of project achievement requires a performance monitoring system that can be 

used to demonstrate not only that projects carried out their proposed activities, but also 

the extent to which those activities ultimately benefited individuals and communities. For 

such a system to work effectively, activities and related benefits must be clearly defined 

 

24 There were 12 site visits for case studies, and 25 telephone interviews with projects, with overlap between these groups 

of projects. Of the 12 case study projects, 7 also participated in telephone interviews. 

A 
80

and measurable. Further, projects should have realistic plans in place to obtain valid and 

reliable data that can be used to document progress toward their outcomes. 

There are two broad types of data that federal grant projects can collect and disseminate. 

Output data provide information on the type and level of services provided to 

participants—e.g., “The project will serve 60 participants in a leadership training 

program.” Outcome data document the condition or circumstance of program participants 

after a service has been provided—e.g., “The project will increase tourism-related 

revenue in the community by 25 percent.” Prior to 1993, many federal agencies 

primarily relied on output data to quantify the types of services they were providing. 

However, under GPRA, federal programs must also use outcome data to demonstrate 

improvements that have occurred as a result of their services. Until the institution of 

GPRA in late 1990s, there were few ARC guidelines in place promoting the inclusion of 

outcomes in applications and final reports. In 1998, this situation changed when the 

Commission developed application guidelines that were oriented toward GPRA and 

designed to improve the quality and consistency of the proposals submitted to ARC. 

Under these new guidelines, applicants are required to describe the objectives of their 

proposed project, provide an explanation of how the effort pertains to one or more of the 

Commission’s five strategic goals, and offer a rationale for their proposed approach. 

They must also describe the “output and outcome benefits to be derived from the 

project—with particular emphasis on the extent to which the benefits to the area being 

served by the project will be realized on a continuing rather than a temporary basis.”25

The new guidelines also encourage applicants to provide numeric benchmarks that 

specify the number of individuals or organizations that will receive services and benefit 

from the ARC-funded activities. The use of numeric benchmarks provides the 

Commission and its projects with specific targets against which immediate and long-term 

progress can be measured. As such, the delineation of numeric benchmarks represents a 

critical cornerstone of ARC’s evolving performance monitoring strategy. It should be 

noted that because of this shift, the community capacity-building projects included in this 

study were subject to different reporting requirements. For example, of the 30 case study 

and telephone interview projects discussed throughout this chapter, 12 were initiated 

before the new 1998 application guidelines (and were therefore not required to quantify 

how their participants would benefit from their proposed activities), 7 were initiated at 

the time these guidelines were introduced, and 11 were initiated after the guidelines were 

in place. 

ARC is not unique in its efforts to come to terms with performance measurement—many 

agencies and organizations are struggling with similar accountability issues and taking 

steps toward installing stronger measurement systems. For example, several federal grant 

programs have established application and reporting procedures that are designed to 

establish links between project goals, activities, outcomes, and measurable outcome 

indicators. ARC has demonstrated considerable interest in and commitment to 

continuing to improve and enhance program accountability as evidenced by the 

commission of this evaluation, which was directed to focus in particular on the strengths 

and weaknesses of ARC’s current performance measurement system. 

 

25ARC Project Application Workbook. 
81

MEASUREMENT: 

NEW OPPORTUNITY SCHOOL FOR WOMEN 

Outcomes proposed by the New Opportunity School were capacity based and focused 

primarily on the individual level, and to a lesser extent, the community level. From its 

inception, the school has collected considerable information from the women who 

participate in the school’s activities, particularly those in the residential program. It collects 

baseline data such as information on income, public assistance, and health insurance. The 

school also administers short pre- and post-tests, session evaluations, a 6-month follow-up 

survey, and a biennial follow-up survey that tracks women’s progress after the program. 

The school puts a premium on the quantitative data they collect about the number of women 

who are employed, enrolled in school, or both after completing the program and set the 

following numerical benchmark for this outcome: “Of the residential participants 20 (70%) 

are expected to get a job or return to school.” A recent follow-up survey has shown that 

76 percent of the school’s graduates achieved this goal. 

The school also sets numerical benchmarks for participation in its programs. Outcome 

statements on participation include the following: “Regional leadership workshops will be 

held in 8 ARC counties; overall attendance is expected to be 140” and “28 women will attend 

residential sessions.” The school’s web site is used to publicize the school’s reach among 

women in the community. It notes that since being founded in 1987, more than 400 women 

have graduated from the residential program; in 2003, nearly 800 women were served by at 

least one of the school’s programs, including the outreach workshops and the counseling 

services offered at the school. 

Other outcomes proposed by the school were broader and more difficult to measure as a 

result. Examples include “increased awareness of community leadership opportunities in 

rural Appalachia” and “increased awareness of leadership abilities and changes in leadership, 

academic, and career self-efficacy.” Rather than relying solely on anecdotal information to 

document outcomes such as these, however, the school uses the pre- and post-tests and 

follow-up surveys to collect information. In addition, they collect qualitative data by 

documenting women’s stories in their own words through letters and comments included on 

the evaluation forms that express what the school has meant to them. The narratives provide 

a compelling testament to the impact that the program has had on the lives of the women 

who have participated in the school’s programs. 

Staff members described the importance of the data they collect in their fundraising efforts 

because the data demonstrate to potential funders the success the women have after leaving 

the program. The staff also uses feedback from the session evaluations to guide program 

development and implementation. While the baseline data are collected as a required part of 

the application process, follow-up data necessary to documenting the school’s achievement 

of outcomes has been more difficult to collect because of the considerable time commitment 

needed by the staff. For example, after the biennial surveys are sent out by mail, the staff 

tries to conduct telephone follow-up to increase the response rates. There have been times 

when the telephone follow-up has not been pursued as aggressively as they would like, 

however, because of the limited number of staff available to do it. 

Staff discussed other factors that hinder the follow-up data collection. The school has been 

in existence for 17 years, and it becomes increasingly difficult with the passage of time to 

keep current contact information on graduates, particularly women who graduated from the 

program. In addition, “circumstances” have often prevented the women from accomplishing 

the goals they set for themselves after they graduate from the program. Specifically, healthrelated problems including depression can have debilitating effects, particularly for women 

who have not had the benefit of adequate health care. Health-related issues have prevented 

some of the women from returning to school or seeking employment, and were also cited as 

a reason why some women have had to withdraw from the program after they’ve been 

accepted. As a result, some women are not eager to complete the survey. As a staff member 

explained, “We all want to talk about our successes—but not our failures.” 
82

ARC is in the midst of a strategic planning process to evaluate and improve its programs 

and activities. Much of the focus of this process will be a reevaluation of its current 

performance measurement system, so that the agency will, in the future, be able to 

demonstrate clearly the results of its work and show that the nation’s investment in 

Appalachia through ARC is worthwhile. Much of this reevaluation will involve 

consideration of the role of the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) in 

assessing program and project impact within ARC’s performance measure system. 

Outcomes Anticipated by ARC-Funded 

Community Capacity-Building Projects 

In order for a performance measurement system to work effectively, various criteria must 

be satisfied. First, the outcome statements put forward by projects must be clear, relevant, 

and measurable (Craig 2002; Hart 1999). Second, projects must have the means and 

methods available to measure specific outcomes, and these must be employed 

appropriately. This section examines the content, clarity, and measurability of the 

outcomes proposed by ARC-funded community capacity-building projects. In order to 

assess the outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of the proposals submitted by the 

30 case study and telephone interview sites. (As part of this review, we also identified 

outcomes contained in the ARC memorandums that were prepared for these 30 projects.) 

The purpose of the review was to evaluate the content, clarity, and measurability of the 

original outcomes proposed by these projects, as well as to assess the extent to which 

they achieved their anticipated outcomes. Our familiarity with these projects was helpful 

in categorizing the outcomes by type, in determining whether or not the outcomes were 

actually achieved, and in assessing the extent to which projects were able to measure and 

document their proposed outcomes. For these reasons, we did not include the other 70 

capacity-building projects in this analysis.26 

It should be noted that the distinction between outputs and outcomes is often blurred with 

respect to community capacity-building efforts because capacity, like outputs, may be 

viewed as a means toward further ends or benefits. That is, many outcomes that involve 

the building of capacity do not directly involve benefits to individuals, organizations, or 

communities in the traditional sense—rather, they generally increase the potential of 

individuals, organizations, and communities to lead to some benefit at a later point in 

time. For example, one proposed outcome for a strategic planning project was that “the 

project will determine the long-term (20-40 years) needs and potential of the region.” 

While one could argue that such an outcome indeed enhances a community’s capacity for 

future develop, it is hard to see how it directly benefits the community. For these 

reasons, we refer to all such outcome and output statements in the following sections as 

“outcomes.” 

In addition, the definition of clear and measurable outcomes is notoriously difficult for 

community capacity-building projects. One reason is that many of the benefits resulting 

from such efforts are not easily quantifiable, such as enhanced community pride, 

empowerment, and community self-reliance. Further, many of the more quantifiable 

outcomes are hard to measure in a cost-effective manner. For small-scale and/or short-

 

26 Since the 25 telephone interview projects were selected at random, it may be the case that findings presented are 

representative of the entire study sample (100 projects), although this cannot be stated with certainly. 
83

term projects with limited resources for data collection, it is even more difficult to assess 

whether the activities ultimately contributed to longer term economic, environmental, or 

social outcomes. For these reasons, the identification and measurement of clear and 

relevant outcomes is a considerable challenge for community capacity-building projects. 

Distribution of Project Goals and Outcomes 

In order to gain a better understanding of the types of outcomes put forward by projects, 

we culled 179 outcomes from proposals and ARC memorandums among the 30 site visit 

and telephone interview sites. These outcomes were first classified into one of the six 

enhanced capacity (i.e., individual, organizational, community) and developmental (i.e., 

economic, environmental, social) goals represented in the logic model. Within each goal, 

the outcome statements were then coded by type—for example, outcome statements for 

the individual capacity goal were coded as enhance skills, enhance empowerment, and 

increase awareness of community issues (see exhibit 6-1 for examples of outcomes by 

goal type). If the wording of an outcome did not clearly suggest a particular category, we 

considered the outcome in light of the project’s fuller context—i.e., efforts were made to 

capture the intent of the project (based on project documentation and site visit and 

telephone interview notes) without extrapolating too far beyond the literal phrasing of the 

outcome statement. Also, some of the statements were pulled from the “benefits” section 

of the ARC memorandums, and so may not have been intended as formal outcomes. 

Despite these caveats, the coding of outcomes into types provides considerable insight 

into what projects expected to achieve as a result of their activities. 
84

Exhibit 6-1 

Examples of outcomes identified by ARC community capacity-building projects 

Individual 

 Provide potential leaders with knowledge, skills, and experiences which would enable them to 

provide leadership in their community organizations (enhanced skills). 

 Better educate and enlighten children and adults about the history and culture of our cotton based 

economy (increased awareness of community issues). 

 Changes in leadership, academic, and career self-efficacy (enhanced empowerment). 

Organizational 

 Encourage the interaction among businesses, community groups, government, and schools (increased 

collaboration). 

 Develop CAP’s institutional capability to provide youth training by developing a curriculum, 

demonstrating a model of organizing and training youth (enhanced efficiency and effectiveness). 

 No less than 30% increase in museum attendance and membership (enhanced stability/growth). 

Community 

 The project will determine the long term (20-40 years) needs and potential of the region (improved 

planning). 

 STW will assist interested communities in gathering committed individuals and help them gain the 

knowledge and experience needed to address their own problems (improved community selfreliance). 

 Involve at least 60 Creek residents in community volunteer activities (increased civic participation). 

 Participants will be encouraged to become more involved in local government and run for public 

office (increased political participation). 

 Organize the second annual community pride day—attract 600 people and provide free food and 

entertainment for all (enhanced community pride). 

 Improve the downtown business district—Add 3 street lights and 1 bench (improved infrastructure). 

 The project will provide the opportunity for local community college students to learn about the 

diversity of existing leadership styles and opportunities (improved educational opportunities). 

Economic 

 Draw students and out of town visitors to the community and prompt more commercial 

redevelopment (increased tourism and increased commerce). 

 Within 4 years, at least 25 percent (5) of interns [will be] established in their own trade business 

(increased employment and increased commerce). 

 If the sewage problem was resolved, angling recreational use would increase and contribute 

significant dollars to the local, depressed economy (increased tourism). 

 These neighborhood planning and organizing efforts will...demonstrate the methods and means for 

fostering new growth and investment and help attract regional interest to each participating 

community (increased commerce). 

 In the long term, participants will be more likely to return to Hale County and make personal 

investment in the community (decreased outmigration).

Environmental 

 Improve the local environment—clean 25 miles of river, maintain 26 miles of recently cleaned river, 

and remove 3 dumpsites (improved water quality and improved land use). 

 Nearly 18,000 parcels of land in the two counties will be examined and classified (improved land 

use). 

Social 

 At least $600,000 of housing assistance (potential CDBG program funds) will be targeted for housing 

assistance over the next four years in these two counties (improved housing). 

 Project will educate and provide much needed technical assistance and resources to local leaders 

throughout the state (improved governance). 

NOTE: Examples were taken from project proposals and memorandums. 
85

As shown in table 6-1, most 

(85 percent) of the 179 outcomes 

proposed by the 30 projects were 

capacity based (i.e., individual, 

organizational, or community).27 

The remaining 26 outcomes (15 

percent) were development outcomes (economic, environmental, 

or social), suggesting that most 

projects were setting their sights 

on shorter term capacity-building 

goals. However, discussed later, 

this finding also suggests that 

projects were focusing on 

enhancing their short-term 

capacity without considering how 

their efforts could ultimately 

benefit the economic, environmental, and social conditions of 

their communities. 

Of the 179 outcome statements, 

55 (30 percent) were classified as 

individual, 25 (14 percent) as 

organizational, and 73 (41 

percent) as community outcomes. Of the 26 developmental 

outcome statements, 11 (6 

percent) were economic, 7 (4 

percent) were environmental, and 

8 (4 percent) were social 

outcomes. Across the 179 

outcome statements that we 

reviewed, the most commonly 

proposed were enhanced skills 

(22 percent), increased civic 

participation (15 percent), 

improved planning (11 percent), and increased collaboration (9 percent). These 

statements align well with the types of project activities described in chapter 4—i.e., 

skills training, strategic planning, and holding meetings, conferences, and forums. 

 

27In fact, of the 30 site visit and telephone interview sites included in this analysis, only one project did not propose at least 

one capacity outcome. This particular project proposed three economic/increased employment outcomes, all involving 

an increase in new jobs for project participants. The project might have also proposed an increase in individual skills as 

an outcome, but did not. 

Table 6-1 

Types and number of outcomes for the 30 case 

study and telephone interview sites 

Type of outcome Number Percent 

Total......................................................................... 179 100 

 

Capacity Outcomes................................................ 153 85 

Individual............................................................. 55 30 

Enhanced skills ............................................... 40 22 

Increased awareness of community issues ..... 7 4 

Enhanced empowerment................................. 8 4 

Organizational .................................................... 25 14 

Increased collaboration ................................... 17 9 

Enhanced efficiency and effectiveness........... 5 3 

Enhanced stability/growth .............................. 3 2 

Community .......................................................... 73 41 

Improved planning .......................................... 20 11 

Improved community self-reliance................. 14 8 

Increased civic participation ........................... 26 15 

Increased political participation...................... 2 1 

Enhanced community pride ............................ 5 3 

Improved infrastructure .................................. 2 1 

Improved educational opportunities ............... 4 2 

 

Development Outcomes......................................... 26 15 

Economic ............................................................. 11 6 

Increased tourism ............................................ 2 1 

Increased commerce........................................ 2 1 

Increased/improved employment.................... 5 3 

Decreased outmigration .................................. 2 1 

Environmental ..................................................... 7 4 

Improved water quality ................................... 4 2 

Improved air quality........................................ * * 

Improved soil quality ...................................... * * 

Improved land use........................................... 3 2 

Increased/improved recycling......................... * * 

Social ................................................................... 8 4 

Improved health .............................................. 1 1 

Improved learning........................................... 3 2 

Increased safety............................................... * * 

Improved governance...................................... 2 1 

Improved community housing and 

structures ........................................................ 2 1 

*No outcomes statements were proposed. 
86

MEASUREMENT: 

HURLEY COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION 

Although the Hurley Community Development (HCD) tackled a wide range of community 

improvement initiatives, the resulting impact on the region’s economy and overall quality of 

life went undocumented. For example, the project used photographs and testimonials to 

document the 25 miles of road and river that was cleaned, but did not document the resulting 

environmental and social impacts (e.g., decrease in chemical pollutants, increase in number of 

persons using the river for recreational purposes). And while they obtained a count of the 

number of individuals that attended Community Pride Day, they did not measure the effect 

of their participation on overall community pride. 

In spite of the fact that HCD did not collect any outcome data, the interviews with HCD 

volunteers elicited several practical and innovative ideas on the type of data that they might 

have collected to assess project impact. For example, one volunteer suggested tracking the 

number of complaints made by residents about local conditions to assess increased 

community empowerment. The volunteer reasoned that an increase in complaints could 

serve as a proxy for an increase in the number of community members who desire change 

and feel empowered to make that change happen. Another suggestion for assessing 

increased community pride was to post an open-ended question (e.g., how do you feel about 

your community?) in a common gathering place (such as a grocery store or post office). By 

leaving a paper tablet and box by the question, the volunteer indicated the project could have 

compared monthly comments to determine increases or decreases in community pride. 

HCD did use a “windshield survey” to (1) document the physical layout of the community; 

(2) obtain a basic understanding of existing social, economic, housing, and environmental 

resources in the community; and (3) explore physical factors that might limit Hurley’s future 

planning and growth. To administer this survey, a VISTA volunteer and several other 

individuals spent a week in June 1998 driving by each physical structure in the community—

including houses, businesses, bridges, creek banks, and road sides. Each structure was rated 

on a five-point scale (i.e., excellent, good, fair, poor, abandoned). According to the survey, 

70 percent of the 1,714 residences in Hurley were single family dwellings, 29 percent were 

mobile homes, and less than 1 percent were multiple family dwellings. In addition, 65 

percent of the dwellings were in good or better condition, 20 percent were in fair condition, 

and 10 percent were in poor shape. The results of this windshield survey were used to 

document the need for a coordinated effort to improve the physical condition of the 

community’s dwellings. However, because the volunteer left the community, there has been 

no further efforts to re-administer the survey to document the current conditions of 

community homes resulting from the HCD home repair program. 

Quality of the Outcome Statements 

One important purpose of a performance measurement system is to assess systematically 

the impact of project activities across an entire program. However, performance 

measurement systems are only as good as the actual outcomes contained within them. 

Outcomes must be relevant, clear, specific, and measurable. One common method for 

achieving clarity in outcome statements is to provide benchmarks or numeric goals that 

can be used to assess whether a target has been met. The use of numeric outcomes 

enables an assessment of both the extent and impact of a particular service. If the 

outcomes proposed by projects do not satisfy these criteria, performance measurement 

may be compromised. 

Our review indicated that most of the 179 outcome statements did not satisfy these 

criteria. First and foremost, only 37 percent of the outcome statements involved a 

numeric benchmark that could be used to determine the scope of the intended impact and 
87

assess whether the outcome had been achieved (see table 6-2).28 As a result, many of the 

outcome statements were overly broad and difficult to measure in a meaningful way, as 

illustrated by the following examples: 

• “Increase the extent to which participating communities use sustainable principles 

when making community development decisions.” 

• “Develop leadership, problem solving, communication and organizational skills 

among a broad cross section of promising Appalachian youth.” 

• “Help instill a sense of pride and community awareness (for youth participants).” 

• “Establish an effective environment and process in which regional consensus can 

occur.” 

• “The initiative will equip the region’s future leaders with the leadership skills 

necessary to guide Ohio Appalachia through change and into a viable future.” 

Table 6-2 

Number and percent of outcome statements with and without numeric benchmarks 

for the 30 case study and telephone interview sites, by outcome type 

With numeric 

benchmarks 

Without numeric 

Type of outcome Total benchmarks 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Total................................................................................. 179 45 37 134 63 

Capacity Outcomes........................................................ 153 99 35 54 65 

Individual..................................................................... 55 34 38 21 62 

Organizational ............................................................ 25 19 24 6 76 

Community .................................................................. 73 46 37 27 63 

Development Outcomes................................................. 26 13 50 13 50 

Economic ..................................................................... 11 4 64 7 36 

Environmental ............................................................. 7 4 43 3 57 

Social ........................................................................... 8 5 38 3 62 

Certainly all of these proposed outcomes are laudable and relevant in their aims—and 

may have occurred as a result of ARC funding. However, each was insufficiently 

specific and failed to indicate how it would be determined if the outcome was ultimately 

achieved. This lack of specificity was prevalent in many of the outcome statements we 

reviewed, thereby hindering the Commission’s ability to systematically document the 

success and impact of its investment in community capacity-building activities. 

 

28Six of the 30 projects did not provide any numeric benchmarks in their proposals. However, four of these six projects 

were initiated before 1998, the year in which ARC revised its application and reporting guidelines. The other two were 

Flex-E-Grant projects that oversaw smaller projects presumably with number benchmarks—in these cases, the outcomes 

proposed were fairly general in order to encompass a wide range of outcomes covered by the projects subsumed by the 

Flex-E-Grant. 
88

Several factors may have been responsible for this lack of specificity. First, many of the 

outcome (and output) statements were crafted before ARC’s revised 1998 application and 

reporting guidelines. Thus, less emphasis may have been given at that time to the quality 

and measurability of statements of impact (both outputs and outcomes) in project 

applications. Similarly, it is possible that before 1998, grantees and project coordinators 

treated many output and outcome statements as qualitative in nature and had not 

determined how to measure them effectively. 

Second, given the nature of community capacity-building endeavors, crafting meaningful 

and measurable outcome statements can be challenging—especially in the absence of a 

conceptual framework of what such projects can be expected to accomplish. For 

example, what sorts of measures can appropriately reflect increased awareness of 

community issues, enhanced empowerment, or improved planning? As is discussed in 

chapter 7, the logic model we have developed is designed to address this issue. 

Third is the inherent difficulty of developing numeric benchmarks for many of the 

benefits associated with community capacity building projects. For example, 13 of the 

26 outcome statements pertaining to increased civic participation included a benchmark 

(e.g., “Each local youth leadership group will have completed at least 100 hours of actual 

service designed to improve their community”). However, only 3 of 14 outcome 

statements pertaining to improved community self-reliance—and 1 of 7 outcomes for 

increased awareness of community issues—included a benchmark. Thus, while some 

types of capacity-building outcomes are relatively easy to quantify, others are difficult to 

measure—especially if projects are not in a position to invest additional resources in data 

collection activities. This finding ultimately has implications for how future capacitybuilding projects select benchmarks, since they may feel pressured to specify outcomes 

that are convenient to measure rather than those that faithfully represent the full scope of 

their impact and achievement. 

MEASUREMENT: 

ALABAMA FLEX-E-GRANT 

The following outcomes were proposed for the Alabama Flex-E-Grant program: 

1) At least 180 youth from six distressed counties will participate in the Youth Leadership 

workshop, modeled after Youth Your Town; 

2) A model curriculum will be created for high school students that emphasizes community 

visioning, planning, priority setting, and implementation; 

3) At least 180 youth from six distressed counties will initiate and complete six small 

community projects; 

4) At least six larger scale community project ideas will be developed for funding, each with 

targets/outcomes; 

5) Increased number of youth taking on leadership roles within communities and counties; 

6) Increased number of youth participating in community capacity-building projects. 

While we refer to these statements as outcomes, they might all better be described as outputs. 

Three of the six statements involved numeric benchmarks. The last two statements were not 

sufficiently specific, in that no numeric benchmarks were included. Since the program was 

not yet completed at the time of the site visit, it was not possible to determine whether all of 

the six outputs were successfully achieved. It appeared at the time of the site visit that each 

of these goals would be attained, although the last two could not be easily measured. 
89

Extent To Which Case Study Projects 

Achieved Their Intended Outcomes 

Most (70 percent) of the 179 outcomes proposed by the case study and telephone 

interview projects were successfully achieved (table 6-3). Of the remaining 53 outcomes, 

16 were not achieved, 17 were proposed by projects that were still open (and therefore 

could not yet be categorized as successful or unsuccessful) and 20 lacked information 

regarding level of attainment. Excluding the two open projects, each of the projects 

included in this analysis achieved at least one outcome. 

Table 6-3 

Number and percent of outcomes achieved for the 30 case study and telephone 

interview sites, by outcome type 

Yes No 

Unable to 

determine Open Type of outcome Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

 

Total........................ 179 126 70 16 9 20 11 17 9 

 

Capacity Outcomes 153 114 75 12 8 15 10 12 8 

Individual............ 55 43 78 5 9 3 5 4 7 

Organizational ... 25 18 72 1 4 3 12 3 12 

Community ......... 73 53 73 6 8 9 12 5 7 

 

Development 

Outcomes................ 26 12 46 4 15 6 23 4 15 

Economic ............ 11 3 27 3 27 4 36 1 9 

Environmental .... 7 4 57 1 14 2 29 0 0 

Social .................. 8 5 63 0 0 0 0 3 37 

NOTE: Percents may not add to 100 because of rounding. 

The attainment of outcomes was higher for capacity outcomes than for developmental 

outcomes (75 and 46 percent, respectively). While this observation is of interest, the 

small number of developmental outcomes makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions 

about this pattern. However, it is worth noting that projects appeared to have difficulty 

obtaining data that could be used to ascertain whether an outcome—especially 

developmental outcomes—had been achieved. This mirrors our finding from the site 

visits that the evidence provided in support of project success was mostly anecdotal. In 

fact, most of the 30 case study and telephone interview projects did not collect any data 

about their implementation and impact. Interviews with project staff revealed several 

reasons for this—e.g., the difficulty of collecting data, a lack of resources or funding for 

data collection activities, lack of expertise and experience in data collection and 

evaluation methods, and the belief that such data collection was not formally required by 

ARC. In addition, only a few of the projects appeared to believe that the collection of 

such data would further their own immediate interests (e.g., to attract future funding, to 

improve activities), and some viewed data collection as an external imposition. 
90

MEASUREMENT: 

BIG UGLY FAMILY EDUCATION 

The Big Ugly Family Education project was fairly typical in the sense that, as a community 

capacity building project, many of its intended benefits were not easily quantifiable. In fact, 

none of the project’s stated outcomes sought to capture the impacts the project had on 

community capacity. 

However, the project did set an extensive set of unambiguous, numeric benchmarks with 

respect to participation. Virtually the entire set of stated outcomes pertained to participation 

levels, i.e., the number of persons who participated in a particular activity. The benchmarks 

for participation established by the project at the outset were relatively high considering the 

small population of the community and, according to project records, all of these 

benchmarks were met without exception. 

Outcomes such as these were very important to a project of this nature, since one of its 

fundamental goals was to encourage participation among community members who had 

never participated in such activities before. Nevertheless, the project director repeatedly 

emphasized how useful it could have been to collect information on “more meaningful” 

outcomes. Although the figures with respect to participation were important, the 

performance measurement conducted by the project consisted essentially of “bean 

counting.” The intent of this project was to build community capacity by enhancing the skills 

of individual community members; therefore, meaningful in this context would have consisted 

of measurements that determine not only how many persons participated in a particular 

activity, but the impact that participation had on an individual’s knowledge or skills as well. 

For example, in addition to counting participants, the true impact of the project could have 

been determined in part through such measures as functional literacy rates. Since the project 

emphasized family education activities and the development of basic skills among community 

members, the project director felt it would have been useful to compare functional literacy 

rates among individuals prior to and following their participation in the project. 

Although the project director had other, similar ideas with respect to enhancing performance 

measurement, the project did not have the resources to conduct such measurements. The 

project director himself, as a result of his education in the field of community development, 

had a working knowledge of performance measurement, but he could not have conducted 

such measurements on his own. Neither did he have the staff to designate persons to a task 

such as this. Moreover, even if the project had had funds necessary to hire an outside 

evaluator, it would not have been cost-effective to have done so due to the limited size and 

scope of the project. Although he fully acknowledged the importance of performance 

measurement, the project director felt it was crucial that in a project that was this limited in 

size and scope, and in a community that was so distressed, it was even more important to 

devote every dollar and every effort to providing new opportunities. 

Among the few projects that did collect data, their activities consisted of surveying 

program participants at the conclusion of the program (usually leadership training). The 

Youth Leadership Initiative measured some indicators of change, such as school dropout, 

poverty, and college enrollment rates, but did so only during the year the grant was 

awarded. Staff felt it was more useful to use the funding for the purposes of program 

continuation rather than data collection or evaluation, which is consistent with what many 

other projects suggested. Due to their relatively small amount of funding, they believed it 

was necessary to invest every dollar in the program itself, even at the expense of data 

collection and evaluation. 

While several leadership training projects indicated that they would have liked to conduct 

follow-up surveys with program participants, others felt that collecting data to assess 
91

their impact would have been difficult, if not impossible. For example, one project 

indicated that it had no ideas about how one would measure increases in such outcomes 

as community pride, which is a typical objective of projects. One project noted that 

without specific requirements from ARC, they did not feel obligated to demonstrate 

impacts in a formal way. 

More than one project believed that it would not have been worthwhile to collect data or 

conduct an evaluation of the program unless it was done by professionals or experts. For 

example, the Leadership East Kentucky project stated that although its members were 

familiar with evaluation, they did not know precisely what types of data would be needed 

to conduct such an assessment, nor how such data could be collected properly. This 

project felt that data collection and evaluation was too big of a task to merely receive 

guidance on, and that more than that was needed. They noted that hiring professional 

evaluators would have been useful, but at the same time felt that it was unrealistic. 

Summary 

Our review of 30 ARC-funded community capacity-building projects indicates that many 

of the outcome statements put forward by projects were not sufficiently specific and 

measurable, and most were not associated with numeric benchmarks. Also, most projects 

did not invest in data collection and documentation of the benefits associated with their 

efforts. This may have been due to several factors. First, many of ARC’s community 

capacity-building projects were initiated before 1998, the year in which GPRA began to 

exert its influence on ARC’s application and reporting requirements. Second, there is an 

inherent difficulty in crafting outcome statements for community capacity-building 

projects. Third, project staff often lacked the resources, know-how, and funding for data 

collection activities. Many also did not view data collection as a formal requirement by 

ARC. 

Nonetheless, the Commission’s system for monitoring, documenting, and measuring 

project performance will need to be revised if it is to support the collection of meaningful 

data on the impact of its community capacity-building projects. It is our contention that a 

more viable performance measurement system would require more carefully crafted 

outcome statements, along with additional guidance and support from ARC to projects on 

collection and measurement issues (see chapter 7 for detailed recommendations). 

Moreover, these findings should not be taken to imply that the ARC-funded community 

capacity-building projects were not actually successful in achieving their goals. On the 

contrary, from the perspective of project staff and the current evaluator, most of the 

proposed outcomes were achieved. And as was shown in chapter 5, many projects were 

highly successful at building capacity in their communities at various levels. 
92
93

Chapter 7 

Summary and 

Recommendations 

Summary 

ince 1995, the ARC has invested nearly $12.5 million in 168 community capacitybuilding projects. This evaluation examined the context within which these 

projects were implemented, documented the range of activities they conducted, and 

examined the outcomes that resulted from their efforts.29 Special emphasis was placed on 

the extent to which projects were able to achieve the outcomes they had delineated in 

their proposals to the ARC—and the impact these projects had on the quality of life in the 

affected communities. 

With respect to implementation ̧ projects conducted numerous activities suited to 

particular project goals and used strategies attuned to the particular needs, assets, 

liabilities, and available resources of their communities. Looking across all projects, the 

single most prominent activity—cited by 51 percent of projects—was conducting a group 

instructional activity such as a workshop or course. Other common activities included 

strategic planning (35 percent), meetings, conferences, and forums (28 percent), and 

technical assistance and consultation (26 percent). Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of 

projects relied on strategies designed to enhance skills and knowledge—e.g., organizing 

and conducting group instructional activities, conducting one-on-one instructional 

activities, and facilitating the distribution of instructional materials. The problems that 

grant recipients encountered were generally not severe enough to prevent projects from 

implementing their approach. The most commonly cited problems included time and 

staffing constraints, attracting participant interest in the project, the isolation of and 

competition between communities, and limited resources. 

The weight of both the qualitative and quantitative evidence indicates that a clear 

majority of projects succeeded in achieving real results. Many projects were successful 

in enhancing the skills, sense of empowerment, and awareness of individuals, affecting 

how people view their communities and their own place within them. These changes in 

modes of thinking and behavior are leading individuals toward more proactive roles with 

respect to improving their own lives and the quality of life in their communities. Many 

projects developed and enhanced the capacity of organizations within communities, 

increasing collaboration, and enhancing efficiency, effectiveness, stability, and growth. 

And others had broader impacts on communities as a whole, affecting the ways in which 

communities think collectively about their assets, their aims, and how they are able to 

mobilize citizens toward the common good. Projects successfully implemented activities 

 

29Most of the findings were based on data collected from 25 telephone interviews and 12 site visits to projects (many of the 

site visit projects also participated in telephone interviews). Some of the findings were drawn from a document review of 

100 of ARC’s community capacity-building projects. 

S 
94

promoting improved strategic planning, community self-reliance, and increased civic and 

political participation. 

Quantitative analysis shed some light on project aims and outcomes. Most (85 percent) of 

the 179 outcome statements pulled from the proposals of 30 case study and telephone 

interview projects were capacity based (i.e., individual, organizational, or community). 

The remaining 26 outcomes (15 percent) were development outcomes (economic, 

environmental, or social), suggesting that most projects were setting their sights on 

shorter term capacity-building goals. Of the 179 outcome statements, 55 (30 percent) 

were classified as individual, 25 (14 percent) as organizational, and 73 (41 percent) as 

community outcomes. Across the 179 outcome statements, the most commonly proposed 

included enhanced skills (22 percent), increased civic participation (15 percent), 

improved planning (11 percent), and increased collaboration (9 percent). Further, most 

(70 percent) of the 179 outcomes proposed by the case study and telephone interview 

projects were successfully achieved, according to project staff. 

Despite these positive quantitative and qualitative findings, the ARC will have to do a 

better job in the future of measuring, tracking, and reporting performance of the program. 

While many of the projects that we examined had clearly contributed to community 

improvements, these contributions were rarely documented in a systematic manner. This 

lack of hard evidence of community impacts can be attributed to several interrelated 

factors. First, many projects never delineated the longer term measurable outcomes that 

would occur as a result of their efforts. As a result, the outcomes that they reported to the 

ARC focused primarily on the types of activities conducted and the number of persons 

served—as opposed to the tangible benefits that resulted from these services. Second, 

even projects with clearly specified outcomes lacked the resources and expertise to 

collect and analyze the level of data that would be required to demonstrate their success. 

Third, many of the project staff we interviewed intuitively knew that their projects had 

made a positive impact on the surrounding community—and therefore did not consider 

expending additional resources to document that impact. Finally, absent a requirement 

from the ARC, most projects lacked the incentive to collect and report outcome data. 

However, while the collection of such data might seem inconsequential to local 

stakeholders (especially given the resources required to collect and analyze reliable 

outcome data), such evidence would clearly facilitate the ARC’s efforts to demonstrate 

the impact its projects have made at the community level. 

In spite of this concern, we believe that there is substantial qualitative evidence that the 

ARC-funded projects made impressive inroads toward the building of capacity at 

different levels within communities. Further, given its focus on and success in generating 

the conditions and the prerequisites for community development and long-term economic 

growth (e.g., leadership skills, organizational collaboration, citizen participation, strategic 

planning), the ARC’s capacity-building program clearly represents a unique and essential 

component of the Commission’s continuing efforts to enhance the quality of life of the 

people of Appalachia. 

Recommendations 

In previous studies, we have recommended that the application and reporting guidelines 

for the ARC’s individual project areas (e.g., education, vocational education, 
95

telecommunications) be revised. Specifically, we have advised that the Commission 

develop separate guidelines (or supplemental materials) that provide customized 

application and reporting instructions, as well as examples of outcomes for a particular 

issue area. We have also suggested that the Commission facilitate projects’ access to 

information about how to collect and analyze data. The following discussion is therefore 

designed to build upon our previous recommendations by identifying specific steps that 

ARC might take to enhance the application and reporting guidelines for its community 

capacity-building projects. 

Reinforce the ARC application materials provided to community capacity-building 

applicants. The Commission has developed a wide range of materials designed to 

provide prospective applicants with generic guidance on what constitutes a successful 

proposal, as well as specific examples of the types of community capacity-building 

activities it is looking to support. For example, in 1998, the Commission published an 

application workbook designed to improve the quality and consistency of the proposals 

submitted to ARC. Under these generic guidelines, applicants were urged to describe the 

objectives of their proposed project and describe the output and outcome benefits to be 

derived from their efforts. A second publication, Preparing a Grant Proposal: Five 

Steps in the Proposal Writing Process, describes steps that organizations can take to 

develop successful grant proposals, including (1) identifying a problem that can be 

addressed through grant funding, (2) describing expected outcomes, (3) devising a 

proposed approach, (4) locating funding sources, and (5) writing a proposal. While this 

guide is designed to provide generic advice for securing grant funding from a wide range 

of sources, its principles can be applied to the development of ARC proposals. 

We therefore recommend that ARC reinforce the general blueprint set forth in these 

publications by developing additional materials aimed at helping applicants consider the 

range of steps required to execute their proposed approach and document the resulting 

community benefits. Exhibit 7-1 provides seven guiding questions that community 

capacity-building applicants might address in their proposals. Beginning with project 

purpose, these questions are designed to help applicants consider the range of issues they 

will need to address over the life of their project—most notably the link between their 

proposed approach and the capacities they are trying to enhance, the community 

conditions they are seeking to improve, and the data they will use to document project 

success. 

Exhibit 7-1 

Guiding questions for ARC community capacity-building projects 

1. What do you hope to accomplish as a result of your project? 

2. What resources—within and outside of your community—do you have at your 

disposal to conduct your project? 

3. What factors within your community are likely to affect the implementation and 

success of your project? 

4. What strategies and activities will you use to achieve your goals? 

5. How will project activities enhance the capacity of individual community members, 

organizations within your community, and/or the overall community? 

6. As a result of enhancing your community’s capacity, how will your economic, 

environmental, and/or social conditions improve? 

7. How will you know if capacity has been enhanced and conditions have improved? 
96

While this framework could be applied to other ARC project types, these questions are 

especially salient for those community capacity-building projects that are struggling to 

articulate how their enhanced capacity will ultimately contribute to their community’s 

economic, environmental and/or social well-being. In fact, the very nature of the 

Commission’s Goal 3 initiatives suggests that these questions would help projects launch 

the needs assessment process that is inherent to most community capacity-building 

efforts. By addressing these seven questions in their proposals, applicants would provide 

ARC with a better sense of whether the proposed project meets the Commission’s 

definition of community capacity-building. The use of this framework would also 

promote continuity across projects in terms of the emphasis that is placed on developing a 

longer term vision of what community capacity-building initiatives are intended to 

achieve. 

Provide prospective applicants with examples of community capacity-building 

outcomes. The Commission clearly recognizes the need for its applicants to use their 

proposals to set realistic, achievable, and measurable outcomes. In Preparing a Grant 

Proposal: Five Steps in the Proposal Writing Process, organizations are encouraged to 

focus on how their efforts will benefit participants and the broader community: “As a 

result of your intervention or activity, what will occur? How will things change? What 

will the world—or your community—look like once you fix the problem or change the 

situation?” 

However, only 45 of the 179 outcome statements that we identified in the case study 

proposals contained a numeric benchmark—and even these tended to focus on the 

number of persons who would participate in an event or activity. While all of the 

numeric benchmarks that we reviewed were necessary and useful, they failed to address 

many of the capacity and community well-being outcomes that can be associated with 

community capacity-building projects. 

In an effort to help prospective community capacity-building projects address these 

questions in their proposals, we recommend that the ARC provide applicants with 

supplemental materials that demonstrate the range of outputs and outcomes that might be 

attributed to a generic community capacity-building project. The logic model presented 

throughout this report provides an example of the type of tool that might be posted on the 

ARC web site. (Appendix B provides the introductory screen shots for the logic model. 

The electronic attachment contains a full working version of the logic model.) The 

model, which portrays the relationship between a project’s intended purpose, activities, 

and outcomes, can be used to provide applicants with illustrative examples of 

intermediate and long-term outcomes that are commonly associated with community 

initiatives (see appendix A). These examples—organized by capacity outcomes (i.e., 

individual, organizational, community) and community development outcomes (i.e., 

economic, environmental, social)—could be used to provide prospective projects with a 

common point of reference for selecting relevant and meaningful outcomes linked to 

project activities. They could also help the Commission assess whether a given project 

has considered all of the immediate and longer term outcomes that might result from its 

intended design. 

We further recommend that the Commission work more closely with individual 

applicants to help them specify (1) the goals and outcomes that their projects are designed 

to address, (2) the numeric benchmarks against which their progress can be assessed—

and the timeframe within which these benchmark will be achieved (see exhibit 7-2), (3) a 
97

description of the methodologies that will be used to assess whether the numeric 

benchmarks was achieved (see exhibit 7-3 and the discussion on data collection methods 

that follows), and (4) a description of how and when the data will be reported to the 

ARC. While some of this could be accomplished by posting a tool like the logic model 

on the Commission’s web site,30 many projects will likely benefit from having extended 

discussions with ARC staff (or other experts recommended by the ARC) on topics 

pertaining to performance measurement. In fact, the experiences of the Hurley 

Community Development Project suggest that such guidance (provided at an ACLP 

meeting) can greatly enhance a project’s focus by helping local stakeholders develop 

realistic and measurable benchmarks for their ARC grant. 

Exhibit 7-2 

Examples of community goals, outcomes, and corresponding benchmarks 

Goal Outcome Benchmark

Individual Capacity:

Enhance skills

Increase in skills of community 

members 

20 community members who received 

training will increase their leadership 

skills in 2005 

Organizational 

Capacity: Increase 

collaboration

Increase in number of service 

providers using input from 

community members to determine 

priorities and make decisions 

15 local service providers will report 

using input from community members to 

make decisions in 2005 

Community Capacity: 

Enhance community 

pride

Increase in the number of 

suggestions for community 

improvements from residents 

50 community members will suggest a 

community improvement in 2005 

Economic: Increase 

tourism

Increase in hotel business Over the next 3 years, all community 

hotels will increase their yearly revenues 

by at least 5 percent 

Environmental:

Increase recycling

Increase in the number of local 

businesses that recycle 

Over the next 2 years, 90 percent of local 

businesses will be recycling 

Social: Improve quality 

of community housing

Decrease in the number of 

community homes needing major 

repair 

Over the next 2 years, there will be a 25 

percent decrease in the number of 

community homes that need major repair 

Exhibit 7-3 

Examples of benchmarks and corresponding data sources 

Benchmark Data Source

20 community members who received training 

will increase their leadership skills in 2005 

Pre/post survey of trainees—e.g., survey trainees before 

and after training to document improvement in their 

knowledge or skills 

15 local service providers will report using 

input from community members to make 

decisions in 2005 

Interview local service providers to assess whether they 

have increased their review of input from community 

members 

50 community members will suggest a 

community improvement in 2005 

Conduct an informal survey (e.g., an open-ended question 

in a common gathering place such as a grocery store) to 

obtain suggestions from residents about community 

improvements 

 

30 An introduction to the logic model includes an overview of how to transform goals and outcomes into measurable 

benchmarks. 
98

Exhibit 7-3 

Examples of benchmarks and corresponding data sources (continued) 

Benchmark Data Source

Over the next 3 years, all community hotels 

will increase their yearly revenues by at least 5 

percent 

Analysis of local tax records 

Over the next 2 years, 90 percent of local 

businesses will be recycling 

One-time survey of all local businesses to document the 

proportion of businesses that are using recycling 

procedures 

Over the next 2 years, there will be a 25 

percent decrease in the number of community 

homes that need major repair 

Windshield survey of residential structures to rate 

neighborhood dwellings on a five-point scale—should be 

conducted every year to document decreases in the number 

of homes in need of repair 

Provide projects with written materials on potential data collection and analysis 

practices. Most of the sites that participated in the telephone interviews and case studies 

did not make good use of data to assess whether their outcomes had been achieved. 

Rather, projects relied on anecdotal evidence, used imprecise data collection methods, or 

failed to collect follow-up data that could be used to track progress over time. Like the 

previous ARC projects that we evaluated, several factors contributed to this lack of 

data—e.g., the difficulty of collecting data on the impact of community capacity-building 

efforts, a lack of financial resources, a lack of expertise regarding evaluation techniques, 

a lack of understanding about how locally collected data could be used to document 

success and improve future activities, and lack of a requirement by the ARC to collect 

and analyze data. 

While collecting data can be difficult and time consuming, findings from the literature 

review and site visits suggest that some of the outcomes that projects propose can be 

addressed through analysis of easily accessible existing records—e.g., county tax records, 

school enrollment records, police reports, employment and unemployment statistics, 

organizational meeting minutes, medical records, and hotel receipts. These data can 

often be found in county offices or the local chamber of commerce, as well as through 

such state and federal agencies as the Bureau of the Census, Department of Education, 

Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 

Department of Commerce. By publicizing these existing sources, ARC may be able to 

help projects devise strategies for obtaining and analyzing public data that can be used to 

demonstrate improvements in a given condition (e.g., unemployment, hotel occupancy 

rates) over time. 

For other outcomes, projects may need to be encouraged to collect new data through onetime surveys, pre/post surveys and assessments (e.g., to measure changes in participants’ 

skills or knowledge) and interviews (conducted in person or over the phone). In addition 

to these formal methods, several case study respondents provided practical suggestions 

for obtaining project-related data, including the following: 

• Shotgun surveys. One ARC project suggested using informal surveys to obtain 

basic feedback from residents. For example, to assess whether community pride is 

increasing, a project might post an open-ended question (e.g., How do you feel about 

your community?) in a common gathering place (e.g., a grocery store). By leaving a 
99

paper tablet and box by the question, projects can collect informal data that can be 

analyzed on a periodic basis. 

• Windshield surveys. This survey, commonly administered from an automobile while 

driving around a neighborhood, can be used to assess the physical condition of all 

residential structures in a community. Specifically, the survey is used to rate each 

dwelling in a geographic area on a five-point scale. Conducting the same survey on 

annual basis enables project staff to determine if there has been a decrease in the 

number of homes in need of repair. 

• Counts of participants. A simple way to collect basic program data is to obtain an 

accurate count of all persons who are participating in an activity or event. If 

individuals are willing to provide contact information (e.g., through a sign-in sheet), 

the resulting list can serve as the basis for a follow-up survey. 

The ARC may need to help individual grant recipients develop low-cost plans for 

collecting and analyzing data. While working with individual projects—collectively or in 

a workshop setting—can be time consuming, we believe that the potential rewards are 

substantial. By their very nature, community capacity-building projects should be 

making continuous use of data to inform their consensus-building and decision-making 

efforts. As such, the Commission’s efforts to help community capacity-building projects 

make maximum use of data would represent a valuable investment with many long-term 

benefits. 

Even if the ARC is not in a position to offer such assistance to all of its grant recipients, 

we believe that simply encouraging grantees to invest the time and resources required to 

document their impact, and making available information about appropriate data 

collection methods, is likely to be helpful. While a few of the respondents that we 

interviewed expressed concern that time spent collecting and analyzing data could better 

be used providing direct services, others expressed a desire to make decisions that are 

data driven—and to collect the type of data that could be used to attract additional 

funding sources. During several site visits, an extended discussion about potential data 

collection strategies prompted grant recipients to conclude that they had missed a 

promising opportunity to document the impact of their initiative. For example, one site 

that had used a low-cost survey to assess the need for a given intervention did not readminister the same survey at a later date. This failure to repeat the survey had less to do 

with a lack of resources and more to do with project staff never considering that a 

comparison of pre- and post-intervention data could be used to demonstrate the efficacy 

of their approach. In this case, a timely suggestion by the ARC would have likely 

resulted in the collection of data that would have ultimately helped the Commission 

demonstrate the impact of its portfolio of community capacity-building projects. 

Reinforce ARC’s reporting structure. If the ARC is to be in a position to identify 

innovative and successful community capacity-building practices, its staff will need to be 

able to systematically access more detailed information about the implementation and 

impact of its projects. Other federal agencies and programs (e.g., National Science 

Foundation, Star Schools Program, Technology Opportunities Program) have imposed 

new requirements that significantly enhanced the quality of final reports that projects 

submit at the end of their grant. While ARC grant recipients are currently required to 

submit a final narrative and financial report when they complete their project, findings 
100

from our document review suggest that a lack of mandated uniform reporting 

requirements has resulted in an uneven quality to these closeout reports. 

A final report submitted by the Sustainable Communities Project to the W.K. Kellogg 

Foundation (which provided the grant recipient with supplemental funding for the 

Sustainable Communities Project) demonstrates the range of findings and insights that 

community capacity-building projects might be able to share with Commission staff. 

Specifically, this report addressed key evaluation questions31 and described specific 

accomplishments that resulted from the project’s investment in two communities. 

Equally important—and especially useful for other communities seeking to adapt the 

sustainable community development model—the final report includes a candid 

description of challenges that the project encountered, an in-depth discussion of lessons 

learned, and an assessment of whether the overall approach could be replicated 

elsewhere. 

We therefore recommend that the ARC develop uniform closeout report guidelines that 

are to be used by all of its community capacity-building projects. Exhibit 7-4 provides an 

example of the topics that the ARC’s community capacity-building projects might be 

required to address in their final reports. Collected over time, we believe this information 

would enhance the ability of program staff to assess the implementation and impact of the 

Commission’s community capacity-building projects. While some grant recipients might 

continue to rely primarily on anecdotal information, the use of standard reporting 

guidelines—coupled with the requirement that projects report on their intermediate and 

long-term outcomes—would likely enhance the Commission’s ability to obtain consistent 

data that can be used to assess project and program success. In addition, interviews with 

case study respondents suggest that projects would actually welcome more structured 

reporting requirements, so long as those requirements are not onerous or unrealistic. 

Conclusion 

Many Appalachian communities still lack the basic prerequisites for sustained long-term 

economic growth and well-being, including the various types of individual, 

organizational, and community capacity outlined in this report. The community capacitybuilding projects funded by the ARC between 1995 and 2003 made significant inroad 

towards laying the groundwork for the long-term development of the communities in 

which they operated. Perhaps more importantly, they spurred far-reaching changes in 

modes of thinking and behaving that may have repercussions across the region for years 

to come. It is these changes from within, as well as the collective, concerted, and 

conscious effort to advance communities, that will, in the long-run, allow all of the 

people of Appalachia to enjoy the same quality of life as Americans in other regions of 

the country. 

 

31 (1) Have we increased the social capacity of communities where we are working? What are the organizational, problemsolving and group process skills gained by local citizens? (2) In what ways have the action teams and spinoff groups 

been incorporated into the public policy-making process? 
101

Exhibit 7-4 

Example of potential ARC guidelines for 

community capacity-building project final reports 

Background—Provide a short statement regarding the need for this project. What problems did 

you hope to solve when you applied for ARC funding? 

Activities—Describe in detail what actually happened during this grant cycle, and explain how 

you implemented the project activities. If there were significant changes to your program during 

the course of the project, or if the project was implemented differently than described in your 

original proposal, please describe those changes here. 

Description of Project Benefits—Provide a description of how your project (1) enhanced the 

capacity of individuals and/or organizations within your community and (2) contributed to 

communitywide improvements. Also, assess the extent to which your project has addressed the 

problems or needs that you identified in your original request for ARC support. 

Outcome Data—Provide any data that documents the outcomes associated with your project. 

Data will vary according to the type of project you completed, and it may be difficult to provide 

data at this time. However, it is very important to gather this kind of information so both your 

organization and ARC can document our successes. At a minimum, report on the extent to which 

you met the numeric goals that you identified in your original request for ARC support. 

Problems Encountered—What would you do differently if you were starting this project again? 

Describe any major problems that may have occurred during the implementation of your project. 

Knowing the types of difficulties you encountered and how you resolved them will be helpful to 

other technology grantees that may be interested in replicating your program. 

Program Continuation and Sustainability—This section should describe whether and how you 

intend to continue program activities after the end of the ARC grant period. Will the program 

continue with other funding, and if so, what other sources of funds have been identified? If the 

program is to be discontinued, has it served its purpose, or is there still a need to solve the 

problems you were addressing? What additional steps are being taken to obtain other resources 

needed to continue the project? 

Conclusions and Recommendations—This section summarizes your project and the lessons 

learned during its implementation. Include a review of your successes and suggest ways that your 

experiences may be helpful to others. 

Attachments—Attach any material that helps to describe your project and documents your 

success, such as photographs, news clippings, maps, videotapes, or web site addresses. Also, 

please attach copies of any written evaluations that may have been completed for your project. 

SOURCE: Adapted from the ARC Grant Administration Manual.
102
103

References

Aiken, M. (1970). The Distribution of Community Power: Structural Bases and Social 

Consequences. In The Structure of Community Power, edited by M. Aiken and 

P.E. Mott, 487-525. New York: Random House. 

Baker, E., and Teaser-Polk, C. (1998). Measuring Community Capacity: Where Do We 

Go From Here? Health Education and Behavior 25: 279-283. 

Beaulieu, L., and Ryan, V.D. (1984). Hierarchical Influence Structures in Rural 

Communities: A Case Study. Rural Sociology 49(1), 106-116. 

Biddle, W., and Biddle, L. (1965). The Community Development Process. New York: 

Holt Rhinehardt and Winston. 

Coleman, J.S. (1993). The Rational Reconstruction of Society. American Sociological 

Review 58: 1-15. 

Connell, J., and Kubisch, A. (1998). Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the 

Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Interventions. In New Approaches to 

Evaluating Community Initiatives: Volume 2: Theory, Measurement, and Analysis,

edited by K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. Kubisch, and J. Connell, 15-45. Washington, 

D.C.: The Aspen Institute. 

Craig, G. (2002). Towards the Measurement of Empowerment: The Evaluation of 

Community Development. Journal of the Community Development Society 33(1): 

125-146. 

Dixon, J. (1995). Community Stories and Indicators for Evaluating Community 

Development. Community Development Journal 30(4): 327-336. 

Eng, E., and Parker, E. (1994). Measuring Community Competence in the Mississippi 

Delta: The Interface Between Program Evaluation and Empowerment. Health 

Education Quarterly 21(2): 199-220. 

Flora, J.L. (1998). Social Capital and Communities of Place. Rural Sociology 63(4), 481-

506. 

Flora, C.B., and Flora, J.L. (1993). Entrepreneurial Social Infrastructure: A Necessary 

Ingredient. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 

529: 48-58. 

Frank, F., and Smith, A. (1999). The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to 

Build Community Capacity. Available online at: http://www.hrdcdrhc.gc.ca/community. 
104

Galaskiewicz, J. (1979). Exchange Networks and Community Politics. Beverly Hills, CA: 

Sage. 

Gaventa, J.L. (1980). Power and Politics: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian 

Valley. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. 

Goodman, R.M., Speers, M.A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., 

Rathgeb-Smith, S., Sterling, T.D., and Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and 

Defining the Dimensions of Community Capacity to Provide a Basis for 

Measurement. Health Education and Behaviour 25(3): 258-278. 

Hart, M. (1999). Guide to Sustainable Community Indicators 2nd ed. North Andover, 

MA: Hart Environmental Data. 

Hounslow, B. (2002). Community Capacity Building Explained. Stronger Families 

Learning Exchange Bulletin 1: 20-22. 

Howe, B., and Cleary, R. (2001). Community building: Policy issues and strategies for 

the Victorian Government, Report commissioned by the Victorian Department of 

Premier and Cabinet, Melbourne, Australia. 

Hustedde, R.J. and Ganowicz, J. (2002). The Basics: What’s Essential About Theory for 

Community Development Practice? Journal of the Community Development 

Society 33(1): 1-19. 

Iscoe, I. (1974). Community Psychology and the Competent Community. American 

Psychologist 29: 607-613. 

Kinsley, M.J. (1997). The Economic Renewal Guide. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain 

Institute. 

Knoke, D. (1990). Political Networks: The Structural Perspective. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Kretzmann, J.P., and McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: 

A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community’s Assets. Chicago, IL: 

ACTA. 

Laumann, E.O., and Pappi, F.U. (1976). Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on 

Community Influence Systems. New York: Academic Press. 

Littlejohns, L.B., and Thompson, D. (2001). Cobwebs: Insights into Community 

Capacity and its Relation to Health Outcomes. Community Development Journal

36(1): 30-41. 

MDC (2002). The Building Blocks of Community Development. Available online at: 

http://www.mdcinc.org/pdfs/buildingblocks.pdf. 

Moore, A.B. (2002). Community Development Practice: Theory in Action. Journal of the 

Community Development Society 33(1): 20-32. 
105

Perkins, D.D., and Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Empowerment Theory, Research, and 

Application. American Journal of Community Psychology 23: 569-579. 

Popple, K., and Quinney, A. (2002). Theory and Practice of Community Development: A 

Case Study from the United Kingdom. Journal of the Community Development 

Society 33(1): 71-85. 

Putnam, R. D. (2002). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American 

Community. New York: Touchstone. 

Putnam, R. D. (1993). The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life. The 

American Prospect 13: 35-42. 

Sharp, J. (2001). Locating the Community Field: A Study of Interorganization Network 

Structure and Capacity for Community Action. Rural Sociology 66(3): 403-424. 

Walton, J. (1970). A Systematic Survey of Community Power Research. In The Structure 

of Community Power, edited by M. Aiken and P.E. Mott, 443-464. New York, NY: 

Random House. 

Wilkinson, K.P. (1972). A Field Theory Perspective for Community Development: 

Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Rural Sociology 37: 43-

52. 

Wilkinson, K.P. (1970). The Community as a Social Field. Social Forces 48: 311-22. 
106
A-1 

APPENDIX A: 

LOGIC MODEL MATRICES 
A-2 
A-3 

ENHANCED CAPACITY GOALS & OUTCOMES 

Goal Outcome Enhance Skills 

• Increase in the number of community members taking advantage of training activities 

• Increase in the skills of community members (e.g., technology, water quality monitoring, grant writing, home repair) 

• Increase in the leadership capabilities of community leaders (or potential community leaders) 

Enhance Empowerment 

• Increase in the number of community members who file complaints about government services 

• Increase in the number of community members who feel they are in a position to affect change within their communit• Increase in the number of community members who report the confidence necessary to fulfill a leadership position 

• Increase in the number of community members who participate in self-improvement activities for the first time (e.g., E

INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY Increase Awareness of Community 

Issues 

• Increase in the number of community members who are familiar with community issues (e.g., education environment

• Increase in the number of community members who are aware of how their actions effect the community • Increase in number of community members who have defined a role for themselves in improving their community 

• Increase in number of letters to the editor that focus on community issues 

Increase Collaboration 

• Increase in the number of community organizations that co-sponsor events, activities, and projects 

• Increase in the number of prominent community organizations (e.g., largest employer in the region) that participate in • Increase in the number of community organizations that are represented on the board of directors of other organization• Increase in the number of service providers using input from community members to determine priorities and make de• Increase in the number of collaborative efforts to obtain a common goal 

• Increase in the number of organizations that have established formal referral procedures with other community agenci

Enhance Efficiency and Effectiveness 

• Increase in the number of services/training programs provided by community organizations 

• Decrease in the number of duplicated public services offered across community organizations • Increase in the number of eligible individuals receiving services provided by community organizations • Increase in the number of community organizations that use data to inform decision making • Increase in the number of community members who are satisfied with the quality of services provided by community 

• Increase in the number of organizations that have established formal referral procedures with other community agenci

ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY Enhance 

Stability/Growth 

• Increase in the number of community organizations that expand their membership 

• Increase in the number of community organizations that expand their intergenerational participation/leadership 

• Increase in the amount of funding raised by grants, special events and community sources 

• Decrease in the number of community organizations requiring outside funding to sustain their operations 
A-4 

ENHANCED CAPACITY GOALS & OUTCOMES 

Goal Outcome Improve Planning 

• Increase in the use of community needs assessments and feasibility studies to inform strategic planning 

• Increase in the number of visits by community members/organizations to study successful planning procedures in oth

• Increase in the number of elected officials (or their representatives) attending community planning sessions • Increase in community efforts to assess progress towards goals 

• Increase in the number of community decisions that are made based on a community vision statement/plan 

Improve Community SelfReliance 

• Increase in community expertise to tackle specific problems 

• Decrease in the reliance on external sources to address community issues • Increase in external investment in the community 

• Increase in the number of local donations towards community development efforts 

Increase Civic Participation 

• Increase in the number of community members who attend public meetings or participate on local boards 

• Increase in the number of volunteers at community events • Increase in number of hours donated by volunteers • Increase in the number of individuals participating in community events for first time 

• Increase in the number of youth participating in community events for first time 

• Increase in the number of community members participating in a neighborhood watch group 

Increase Political Participation 

• Increase in the number and diversity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) of community members running for public office 

• Increase in the diversity (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity) of elected officials • Increase in the number and diversity of community members who are registered to vote • Increase in the number and diversity of registered voters participating in primary and municipal elections 

• Increase in the number of campaign contributions from local individuals 

• Increase in the number of local ballot measures initiated by community members 

Enhance Community Pride 

• Increase in the number of community members who express pride in their community 

• Increase in the number of suggestions for community improvements from residents 

• Increase in the number of community members who take pride in their homes (e.g., plant gardens, remove trash, deco

Improve Infrastructure 

• Improved conditions of community roads and bridges 

• Improved quality of and access to public transportation • Increase in the number of community members with reliable/well-functioning cars • Increase in the number of recreational facilities (e.g., basketball courts, playgrounds) 

• Increase in the availability of public meeting space (e.g., parks, community clubhouse) • Increase in the number of households with computers/internet access • Increase in the number of businesses with computers/broadband internet 

• Increase in the number of law enforcement officers 

COMMUNITY CAPACITY 

Improve Educational Opportunities 

• Increase in the skills and knowledge of community K-12 teachers 

• Increase in the recruitment/retention of K-12 teachers • Increase in the number of students taking advantage of educational opportunities provided by community organization

• Increase in access to technology (e.g., in the classroom, public access sites) • Increase in the number of environmental education programs 
A-5 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS & OUTCOMES 

Goal Outcome Increase Tourism 

• Increase in the number of individuals visiting community attractions 

• Increase in hotel business (e.g., number of guests, monthly revenues) • Increase in restaurant business (e.g., number of patrons, monthly revenues) • Increase in the number of community members employed as a direct or indirect result of tourism • Increase in the number of community attractions that are aligned to a community vision statement/plan 

Increase Commerce 

• Increase in the number of community businesses • Increase in the diversity of community businesses • Increase in local business activity (sales/revenues) • Increase in the number of businesses owned locally • Increase in the number of community businesses that are aligned to a community vision statement/plan 

Increase/Improve Employment 

• Increase in the number of jobs available within the community • Increase in the diversity of jobs available within the community • Increase in the number of local residents who are employed • Increase in the wages earned by community members • Decrease in the community unemployment rate • Decrease in the number of miles community members commute to work • Increase in the number of community members who are satisfied with their occupational status 

ECONOMIC 

Decrease Outmigration of Community Members 

• Increase in the number of community members who choose to remain in the community • Increase in the number of community members who are able to remain in the community • Increase in the number of youth who remain in the community • Increase in the number of returning residents (e.g., college graduates) 
A-6 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS & OUTCOMES 

Goal Outcome Improve Water Quality 

• Decrease in the number of complaints of poor water taste, appearance, and/or smell 

• Decrease in the levels of bacteria, amoebae and microbes in the water • Increase in the percent of streams that community members can drink from • Increase in the number of local water sources that community members can swim/fish in • Improvement in the health of fish found in local water sources 

Improve Air Quality 

• Decrease in the number of complaints about air quality 

• Increase in the number of days that air quality standards are met 

Improve Soil Quality 

• Decrease in the area of land affected by soil erosion • Decrease in the area of land affected by salinity 

Improve Land Use 

• Decrease in the amount of development occurring in environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands, flood plains, prime fa

ENVIRONMENTAL • Increase in the amount of development occurring within five minutes of stores, transit, schools, etc. 

Increase/Improve Recycling 

• Increase in the number of pounds of refuse recycled • Increase in the number of local businesses that recycle • Increase in the number of community neighborhoods that recycle • Increase in the number of community members who recycle 
A-7 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOALS & OUTCOMES 

Goal Outcome Improve Health 

• Decrease in the number of work/school days missed • Increase in use of free or reduced cost health care and clinics • Decrease in the number of community members using illicit drugs 

• Decrease in the infant mortality rate • Decrease in the number of uninsured individuals 

• Increase in the number of children with immunizations 

Improve Learning 

• Increase in graduation rates • Increase in GED attainment • Increase in literacy rates • Increase in the number of AP courses successfully completed • Increase in the average GPA for K-12 students • Increase in college admission rates 

Increase Safety 

• Increase in the number of crimes reported in the community • Decrease in the number of crimes committed in the community (e.g., crimes related to domestic violence, drugs, assau• Decrease in the number of traffic deaths (e.g., alcohol-related traffic deaths) 

• Decrease in average 911 response time 

Improve Governance 

• Increase in the number of community members who are satisfied with their elected leaders • Increase in the number of community members who perceive that their elected officials share their values and concern• Increase in the number of community members who feel they have a say in local, state, and national governance • Increase in the visibility of local issues at the county, state, and national levels • Increase in the responsiveness of elected officials 

SOCIAL 

Improve Community Housing and Structures 

• Increase in the number of homes that are owner-occupied • Decrease in the number of community homes/buildings/schools needing renovation/major repairs 

• Decrease in the number of homes with failed septic systems 

• Increase in the number of new homes that are built energy-efficient 
A-8 
B-1 

APPENDIX B: 

SCREEN SHOTS FROM THE 

LOGIC MODEL INTRODUCTION 
B-2 
B-3 
B-4 
B-5 
B-6 
B-7 
B-8 
B-9 
B-10