page 23

Community Involvement 

in Program Planning

Identify and Engage Stakeholders

Community Asset Mapping

Coalition Building and Maintenance

Analyze and Share Relevant Data

Protocols for Assessing Community Excellence in 

Environmental Health (PACE-EH) 

Building Consensus on Program Priorities

Environmental Justice

The Community’s Long Term Role

2
page 24 Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 25

Developing partnerships is essential to the holistic approach that defines healthy homes programs. In addition to the importance of 

collaborating with multiple organizational partners, engaging the community most 

affected by health and housing problems is particularly crucial to long-term success 

and sustainability. 

Involving community members and organizations 

not only enhances understanding of and by the 

target population, it is fundamental to identifying 

the best way to meet the community’s needs. 

Healthy homes programs may be located in 

housing departments, health departments, 

community-based agencies or non-governmental 

organizations. Regardless of where they are 

based, program designers can benefit from 

the insights provided by public health planning 

models on how to develop partnerships, create 

a community vision, and establish priorities for 

action.1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Model programs have several features in 

common including:

• Identification and engagement of 

stakeholders;

• Investment in coalition building and 

maintenance;

• Analysis of and sharing relevant data; and

• Building consensus on program priorities.

Key Messages

• Efforts to develop partnerships are 

important since healthy homes programs 

encompass activities that cross traditional 

organizational boundaries that separate 

health and housing service systems, 

resources, and policies. 

• Involvement of multiple agencies and 

disciplines is important to the success and 

sustainability of healthy homes programs. 

• Partnership development should be 

viewed as an ongoing activity beginning 

at the program design stage and 

continuing throughout implementation 

and evaluation. 

• Engagement of the community most 

affected by health and housing problems 

is particularly important to program 

effectiveness and long-term success.

2

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 26

Identify and Engage 

Stakeholders

Healthy homes programs require the 

collaboration of housing agencies and policies. 

Successful programs require knowledge of 

behavioral change, structural conditions of 

housing, and social and economic conditions. To 

ensure this capacity, healthy homes programs 

require multiple partners. Many communities 

accomplish needed collaboration through 

coalitions in which trusting relationships are 

developed and decisions are made by consensus.

An Evaluation of HUD’s Healthy Homes Initiative: 

Current Findings and Outcomes (FFY 1999–2004) 

reported the involvement of multiple partners in 

healthy homes program activities based on community 

assets and program goals and objectives.6 Health 

departments, housing departments, academic 

institutions, and community-based organizations were 

most likely to form partnerships, while advocacy, faithbased organizations, schools, and hospitals/health 

centers were also involved, but to a lesser extent.

If strong community partnerships already exist 

or healthy homes program and policy assets are 

readily identifiable, partnership development and 

asset mapping do not have to become exhaustive 

processes. Sometimes an opportunity presents 

itself—stakeholder interest, political will, funding—

that can be capitalized upon while at the same time 

assuring community participation.

Community Asset Mapping

When establishing or modifying a program 

to incorporate healthy homes issues, a 

comprehensive inventory of community 

interests and resources can provide important 

insights, especially if members of the vulnerable 

and underserved populations are engaged. 

Community-asset mapping defines an “asset” as 

anything that improves the community’s quality 

of life.7 All sectors of community life—both 

individuals and organizations—have resources 

that can be leveraged: 

• Human resources: an organization’s staff, 

board of directors, programs, membership, 

and target population including individual 

expertise, talent, and training skills; 

• Physical resources: a geographic location 

that is accessible to the target population and 

provides public space and meeting rooms;

• Informational resources: formal and informal 

networks of communication and participation 

in formal and informal associations;

• Political resources: constituencies of elected 

officials and public/private institutions that 

advocate for resources and policy changes; 

and, 

• Existing intervention resources: lead hazard 

control programs, home visiting services, 

building and/or housing code service systems 

can be leveraged or integrated into a healthy 

homes program.

Encouraging groups to identify their common selfinterest and examine their members’ strengths 

enables programs to broaden community 

participation outside their normal comfort zones, 

and identify where resources do or do not exist to 

advance health and housing within a target area. 

Appendix 2.1 identifies potential healthy homes 

stakeholders and their assets.

To start the process, program planners can conduct 

focus groups or stakeholder interviews to assess 

the knowledge, hear the concerns, and learn 

from key individuals who are either active in the 

neighborhood, affected by the problems associated 

with hazardous housing, or will have a role in 

addressing problems. These can be conducted as 

a part of the needs assessment before convening 

formal partnership meetings. When discussions 

focus on assets, program planning can emphasize 

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 27

My Community

Source: Kretzmann, McKnight, Dobrowolski, and 

Puntenney, 2005, p. 15.8

Rental property associations

Realtors associations

Lead Task Forces

Asthma Coalitions

Neighborhood groups

Block clubs

Parent groups

Environmental groups

Advocacy organizations

Tenant groups

Bar association (Legal)

Teachers union

Faith-based organizations

Associations

Community agency offices

Public meeting spaces

Libraries

Community gardens

Physical Space

Parents of asthmatics

Parents of lead poisoned children

Community leaders

Elected officials

Non-elected officials

Doctors

Activists

Students/Interns

Older adults

Researchers

Evaluators

Lawyers

Individuals

Government health departments

Government housing programs

Government code enforcement 

programs

Public housing

Hospitals & health systems

Medical clinics

Child care programs

Community based organizations

Social service agencies

Academic institutions

Fire departments

School systems

Weatherization and energy 

efficiency programs

Philanthropic foundations

Media

Institutions

Housing developers

Health insurance payers

Insurance companies

Banks/mortgage brokers

Hardware stores

Community development 

corporations

Job centers

Pest management companies

Lead abatement contractors

General contractors

Handymen

Environmental health and safety 

trainers

Cleaning companies

Radon mitigation companies

Local Economy

Figure 2.1 Sample Inventories of Community Assets 

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 28

strengths rather than limitations. 

Advocates of community-asset mapping 

recognize the benefits of a map of a geographic 

area with resources clearly identified as a tool 

to build consensus. A map provides all planning 

participants with a visual depiction of assets and 

can facilitate communication with the media, 

residents of the target area, and public officials.

Asset mapping starts with an inventory 

of categories of assets—associations, 

institutions, the local economy, public spaces 

and individuals—in the community. Once 

inventoried, the type of activities in which 

organizations are engaged can be identified 

and the links that can be built or increased 

explored. Seek assistance from community 

leaders to serve as conduits to resources inside 

and outside the target community. Engage the 

community in visioning and planning how assets 

can be mobilized to address community needs.

Coalition-Building and 

Maintenance

While identifying program partners and 

stakeholders is an important step in building a 

successful health-related community coalition, 

effective coalition building and maintenance 

require several other activities (Figure 2.2). 

Based on the experience of the seven coalitions 

in the Allies Against Asthma initiative funded by 

the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Clark et 

al defined a successful coalition as one that:

...(a) serves a defined community 

(usually having a common location or 

experience) recognized by those within it 

as a community, (b) is purposeful and its 

duration is time specific, (c) exists to serve 

the broader community, (d) is viewed by 

community residents as representing and 

serving them, (e) reflects the diversity 

evident in the community, (f) addresses 

Figure 2.2 Critical Factors in Coalition Building

• A general climate of public support for the 

coalition or the issue it seeks to address.

• A respected community leader—either a 

person or agency—to convene the meetings.

• An existing coalition that can be expanded to 

address new issues/members.

• Positive past collaborative experiences among 

members.

• Initial consensus on a mission/vision. Refining a 

coalition’s mission is a normal part of coalition 

growth but failure to achieve a common view 

indicates a fundamental problem with coalition 

dynamics.

• Decision styles and operating procedures that 

can be developed quickly enough to initiate 

program activities and achieve some initial 

successes. Public and private institutions 

may have different decision-making styles 

and methods of achieving success, but their 

procedures—regardless of differences—

should be understood by all participants. 

• In-house leadership capacity that is developed 

over time.

• Shared responsibility for such daily activities 

as staff, communications, and service delivery.

• Flexibility in the level of member involvement 

needed to achieve goals. However, there 

must be some continuity of participants 

over time and a core group who can activate 

engagement by others when needed.

• A mechanism that records coalition decisions 

(such as meeting minutes or a policy and 

procedure manual) to avoid revisiting and 

reanalyzing past decisions.

• Members’ perceived return on their investment 

in time, monetary commitment, and 

compatibility with their organization’s goals.

• A transparent and representative decisionmaking process that avoids the appearance of 

bias.

Sources: Butterfoss, 2009; Center for Managing Chronic Disease, 2007; Durch et al., 1997; EPA, 2008; Sofaer, 2004

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 29

the problem(s) systematically and 

comprehensively and (g) builds community 

independence and capacity.9

Awareness of the self-interest of your 

program partners is central to establishing 

and maintaining collaborations. Maintaining 

partnerships depends on fulfilling individual 

or agency needs, and demonstrating that the 

partnership and program are beneficial to 

them. Simply put, there needs to be a return 

on member investments of time and resources 

expended in healthy homes program activities.

Analyze and Share 

Relevant Data

Identifying the target population and priority 

geographic area are important components of 

program planning. This process also promotes 

community understanding, engagement, and 

ownership fundamental to program design. Begin 

with a review of the easily accessible national, 

Figure 2.3 Philadelphia’s Healthy Homes for Child Care

Family or home-based child care providers 

are responsible for a large portion of the child 

care in low-income neighborhoods. However, 

the providers themselves often have the same 

problems with deferred home maintenance as 

the rest of their neighbors. Since they serve 

a large number of young children, the risk of 

children’s exposure to poor indoor air quality or 

deteriorated lead-based paint is high, and many 

of these exposures are not assessed through the 

licensing process. 

Coalition-building and data collection for the 

Philadelphia Healthy Homes for Child Care 

Demonstration grant began more than one year 

before the grant application was submitted. 

Discussions began in March 2004, building on the 

National Center for Healthy Housing’s 2003–2005 

Lead Elimination Action Program (LEAP) model 

Home-Based Child Care Lead and Safety Program 

and the City of Philadelphia’s prior Healthy 

Homes grant collaborations with the National 

Nursing Consortium. Representatives from 

these programs, child care licensing and referral 

agencies, private funders such as the Nonprofit 

Finance Fund, advocacy organizations such as 

the Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, 

and others began to meet quarterly to convene 

working groups on education, outreach and fund 

development. Throughout 2004 and into 2005, 

staff from the Philadelphia Department of Health 

served as the resource managers, assembling 

community profiles that included maps of lead 

poisoning cases, asthma and injury rates for 

high-risk neighborhoods, and the numbers of 

licensed home-based child care providers in 

these communities. As planning began to solidify, 

organizations working directly with the child care 

community collaborated with child care providers 

to identify additional educational service needs. 

The funding working group also prioritized needs 

for additional funding, such as what might be 

needed in a relocation unit if it was to serve as a 

child care site during the period of intervention. 

Prior to applying for the Healthy Homes Grant, 

the program began to secure commitments from 

private funders and the YMCA for Philadelphia 

and Vicinity. By the time the Healthy Homes 

NOFA was announced, the advisory group had 

many of the design and funding commitments 

already in place.

state, or local data, and broaden information 

gathering as needed to learn specific health and 

housing indicators including residents’ priorities. 

This comprehensive approach takes advantage of 

each participant’s unique expertise. The data can 

be qualitative and quantitative (Figure 2.3). 

Appendix 2.2 provides examples of where to 

obtain these data at the federal, state, local, and 

neighborhood levels, as well as resources for 

best practices and model programs.

Data to review during the planning process 

include:

• Socioeconomic and demographic 

characteristics of potential target 

populations. These data are generally 

available from the U.S. Census by zip 

code or census tract and include ethnicity, 

age, income, educational attainment, and 

unemployment rates. The number and 

proportion of individuals, children and seniors 

living in poverty, single parent and female head 

of household families, and those without health 

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 30

insurance are commonly used to describe a 

target population. The Census also provides 

general data on the number and proportion 

of groups that may have difficulty gaining 

access to community services (e.g., migrants, 

homeless, and non-English speakers). Program 

planners are encouraged to consult with local 

organizations serving the target population 

to identify specific needs. These data can be 

compared by neighborhood to the city at large, 

similar size cities, the state, and the nation.

• Health status. For healthy homes programs, 

data include the prevalence and severity of 

childhood asthma, childhood lead poisoning, 

and age-adjusted injury rates. Local fire 

departments can provide information on 

fire incidence and location, and hospitals 

can provide information on injuries such as 

falls, carbon monoxide poisoning and other 

poisonings. Common sources of data include 

CDC’s National Environmental Health Public 

Tracking Network and the Behavioral Risk 

Factor Surveillance Survey, state-level Healthy 

People 2010 reports, reportable conditions 

registries, the National Association of Counties 

Healthy Counties database, and EPA’s Toxic 

Release Inventory. Other health data include 

asthma hospitalization and death rates, 

infant mortality rates, data on chronic health 

conditions such as obesity, immunization 

status, tobacco use rates, and identification 

of geographic areas that do not meet state or 

federal air and water quality standards.

The Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act (HIPAA) should not impede 

the ability to obtain important health data. 

The Privacy Rule (45 CFR §164.512 (b)) permits 

disclosure without patient authorization “to 

prevent or lessen a serious and imminent 

threat to the health or safety of a person or the 

public.” This authority should only be used as 

a last resort. The Alliance for Healthy Homes 

has produced a guidance document, titled 

“Overcoming Barriers to Data Sharing Related 

to the HIPAA Privacy Rule”(www.cehrc.org/

aboutus/pubs/HIPAA_CLPPP_June_2004.pdf).

• Health care consumption. Expenditure 

data include per capita Medicare and 

Medicaid spending for asthma and injury 

and the number and/or rate per 100,000 for 

emergency department visits, hospitalizations, 

and urgent care visits for asthma, injuries, 

and poisonings. This data is available at the 

state level from the Agency for Health Care 

Research and Quality, as well as from state 

regulatory and insurance agencies. Some 

local hospitals, health systems and insurance 

companies can also provide this information.

• Self-Reports of Functional Status and Quality 

of Life.10 This includes such issues as special 

health care needs, mental health status, and 

caregiver stress. America’s Children: Key 

National Indicators of Wellbeing, available 

through www.childstats.gov, provides this 

information at a national level, while the Annie 

E. Casey’s Kids Count report provides this 

information on state, county, and local levels.

• Characteristics of Housing Stock. A 

description of housing stock includes 

information on age, vacancies, and ownership 

status (rental versus owner-occupied) and 

is available through the Census on a zip 

code and census tract basis. The American 

Housing Survey documents housing defects 

in owner-occupied and rental units for over 

40 communities and may serve as a basis for a 

more local assessment. Foreclosure rate data 

are available on the HUD website and through 

local tax assessor databases where information 

on assessed housing value is also available. 

The EPA Map of Radon Zones can be used 

to assess the radon potential for jurisdictions 

(www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html). Regional 

and local Consolidated Plans for the use of 

federal rehabilitation funds provide data on atrisk neighborhoods and efforts to serve them. 

Figure 2.4 Multnomah County 

Health Department, Oregon 

Multnomah County used the PACE-EH 

program to assure a comprehensive and 

community-driven planning and needs 

assessment process rooted in a vision 

of environmental justice and targeting 

health and housing disparities. One of 

the results of the planning process was 

the establishment of OPAL (Organizing 

People—Activating Leader) a new nonprofit 

501(c)3 organization dedicated to working 

for environmental justice in Portland.

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 31

Program planners can also conduct windshield 

surveys or access governmental building 

inspection/code enforcement data to identify 

common housing defects.

State, county, or city lead elimination plans 

may contain valuable information on health 

status and housing characteristics.

• Neighborhood characteristics. These data 

include information on transportation, access 

to employment, parks, schools, emergency, 

other public services, and public safety. 

This information may be available from local 

planning departments as part of a community 

comprehensive plan.

Protocols for Assessing Community 

Excellence in Environmental Health 

(PACE-EH) 

If data are not readily available, a number of 

resources are available to help plan a program. 

CDC and the National Association of County and 

City Health Officers (NACCHO) have developed 

Protocols for Assessing Community Excellence 

in Environmental Health (PACE-EH) that include 

model surveys, visual assessments, and other 

tools easily adapted to local conditions. PACEEH’s approach emphasizes that all community 

assessments pair data collection with efforts to 

engage the community.11

Build Consensus on 

Program Priorities 

Community involvement in program planning 

requires additional time and activities. In the 

long run, failure to address community priorities 

may jeopardize the success of the project since 

programs need to be valued by the affected 

community to ensure they are meaningful 

and sustainable. Program planners should 

have experience in partnership and coalition 

development. Skill in dispute mediation, 

especially when groups have competing selfinterests or a history of feeling ignored, may 

be needed if consensus cannot be reached in a 

reasonable amount of time. Methods for setting 

priorities range from visioning exercises, focus 

groups, stakeholder interviews, brainstorming 

followed by ranking, and iterative formal ratings 

systems such as Delphi techniques (an approach 

to group problem solving). Strategic planning 

takes time; it is important that program planners 

and participants value the process. 

Environmental Justice

EPA defines environmental justice as “the 

fair treatment and meaningful involvement of 

all people regardless of race, color, national 

origin, culture, education, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations and policies.“ 

Many vulnerable populations such as lowincome, minority, elderly and disabled 

communities live in areas with an increased 

prevalence of environmental hazards as a result 

of cultural, social, and economic conditions. 

Environmental justice asserts that no group bear a 

disproportionate burden of harmful environmental 

hazards. Environmental injustice occurs when 

environmental hazards disproportionately affect 

a segment of the population and/or when those 

communities are not a part of the decision-making 

process. Commitment to environmental justice 

identifies and addresses environmental inequalities 

to reduce the effects of harmful exposure. 

The EPA definition of environmental justice 

includes the concept of meaningful involvement 

of all communities to participate in partnership 

with government in the environmental decisionmaking process. Collaborative partnerships and 

engaging community members in all phases of 

the research, planning, design, implementation, 

enforcement, and evaluation process includes:

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 32

• Identifying the environmental justice 

community; 

• Creating meaningful involvement and 

empowering the community by involving 

residents early in the process;

• Collaborating with the community to create 

awareness;

• Educating, training, and prioritizing actions 

and policy needs;

• Measuring health impacts in order to develop 

and implement necessary actions;

• Creating official partnership agreements; and

• Establishing organizational responsibility in 

the pursuit of environmental justice goals. 

Resources and support for proactive involvement are essential for disproportionately affected communities to fulfill an active role in healthy 

homes initiatives and environmental justice. 

Community-Based Participatory Research: One 

way to involve the community most affected 

is by adopting the principles of communitybased participatory research (CBPR), which 

seeks to create a project design that is “of 

the community,” rather than imposed from 

the outside. CBPR tenets can be applied to 

program planning, management, and evaluation 

without conducting formal research. The key is 

to engage community members in all phases of 

an initiative—from identification of problems 

through program design, implementation, and 

evaluation. CDC’s Preventative Research Center 

(PRC) describes CBPR’s key steps as:

1. Engaging community members;

2. Employing local knowledge in the 

understanding of health problems and the 

design of interventions;

3. Investing community members in the 

processes and products of research or 

programming; and

4. Investing resources in the dissemination and 

use of research findings to improve community 

health and reduce health disparities.12

The Community’s LongTerm Role 

Community Involvement in Program Planning
page 33

Figure 2.5 The Power of a 

Coalition, Baltimore, Maryland

The Coalition to End Childhood Lead

Poisoning has altered the landscape of 

lead poisoning in Maryland by providing 

technical assistance to community-based 

organizations and government agencies. 

Their success has been accomplished 

through:

• Identifying and working with community 

assets.

• Listening to clients, and recognizing that 

their feedback is the best form of quality 

control.

• Hiring people from the community and 

providing competitive wages, benefits, 

and training.

• Tracking specific outcomes and sharing 

them with staff as tangible proof that 

their efforts are meaningful.

• Working with families as partners.

• Encouraging government agencies to 

open themselves up to the community 

and listen to feedback.

• Conducting follow up with families within 

the context of a relationship. Nothing 

can replace in-person services and a 

genuinely caring connection.

• Teaching advocacy skills.

• Understanding that government agencies 

are not usually set up to do community 

work effectively. Build community capacity 

through contracts and financial assistance 

to community based organizations.

A program’s vision statement serves as a basis 

for evaluating the merit of future activities and 

speaks to the conditions that will be changed if 

the project achieves its objectives. Community 

participation in program planning in general 

and development of the vision statement 

specifically sets the stage for sustainability, and 

is often part of a strategic planning process. 

Healthy homes program planners and leaders 

are encouraged to establish a strategic planning 

process with broad and meaningful community 

involvement. Whatever process is used, partners 

should reevaluate vision and mission statements 

periodically to be certain that project activities 

continue to be consistent with long-term goals.

The University of Kansas’ Community Tool 

Box recommends that vision statements be 

understood, shared, broad enough to include 

diverse perspectives, inspiring and uplifting, and 

easy to communicate. Mission statements, on 

the other hand, generally speak to a project’s 

specific purpose, how it is accomplished, key 

populations served, and the values underlying 

the services provided. Mission statements 

should be concise and outcome-oriented.13

HUD’s Healthy Homes Strategic Plan illustrates 

the difference between a vision and a mission 

statement:

Vision: To lead the nation to a future where 

homes are both affordable and designed, 

constructed, rehabilitated, and maintained 

in a manner that supports the health and 

safety of occupants. 

Mission: To reduce health and safety 

hazards in housing in a comprehensive and 

cost effective manner, with a particular 

focus on protecting the health of children 

and other sensitive populations in lowincome households.14

After the program is designed and throughout 

the implementation and evaluation process, 

community stakeholders and community members 

most affected by the problem should be included 

in decision making and reviewing program 

outcomes. This can be achieved by holding 

regularly scheduled meetings, documenting and 

reviewing meeting activities through minutes, 

assessing program progress in the context of 

the work plan and timeline, identifying problems 

and successes, and involving program partners in 

Community Involvement in Program Planning

developing solutions and celebrating successes. 

The partnership infrastructure is important to 

program sustainability and can be self-generating 

in addressing more comprehensive health and 

housing concerns. One example of the impact 

coalitions can have in improving community health 

and housing appears in Figure 2.5. 
page 34

Chapter 2 References*

1

 Butterfoss F.D. 2009, April. Evaluating 

partnerships to prevent and manage chronic 

disease. Preventing Chronic Disease: Public 

Health Research, Practice and Policy. 6(2):1–10. 

Available: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/

apr/08_0200.htm.

2

 Center for Managing Chronic Disease. 2007. 

Asthma Programs with an Environmental 

Component: A Review of the Field and Lessons 

for Success. Asthma Health Outcomes Project. 

Available: http://cmcd.sph.umich.edu/assets/

files/final_AHOP_report.pdf.

3

 Durch, J.S., Bailey, L.A., and Stoto, M.A, 

editors. 1997. Improving Health in the 

Community: A Role for Performance Monitoring. 

Committee on Using Performance Monitoring 

to Improve Community Health; Institute of 

Medicine. Free Executive Summary. Available: 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5298.html.

4

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [no 

date]. A systems-based approach for creating 

and sustaining effective community-based 

asthma programs. In Asthma Change Package. 

National Asthma Forum, Communities in Action 

for Asthma-Friendly Environments. Available: 

http://www.asthmacommunitynetwork.org/

interact/changepackage

5

 Sofaer, S. 2004. Working Together, 

Moving Ahead: A Manual to Support 

Effective Community Health Coalitions. 

Baruch College, School of Public Affairs. 

http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/

smokelessstatesworkingtogethermovingahead.

pdf

6

 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Develop-ment. 2007. An Evaluation of HUD’s 

Healthy Homes Initiative: Current Findings and 

Outcomes. p. A–27.

7

 UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. 

2004. Article #1: Asset Mapping. Health 

DATA Program–Data Advocacy and Technical 

Assistance. Democratizing Data Through 

Community & Technology-Technical Assistance 

Series. Available: http://www.healthpolicy.ucla.

edu/healthdata/democ_data_assetmap.pdf.

8

 Kretzmann, J.P., McKnight, J.L., Dobrowolski, S., 

and Puntenney, D. 2005. Discovering Community 

Power: A Guide to Mobilizing Local Assets and 

Your Organization’s Capacity. Evanston, IL: 

Northwestern University, School of Education 

and Social Policy, Asset-Based Community 

Development Institute. Available: http://www.

abcdinstitute.org/docs/kelloggabcd.pdf.

9

 Clark, N.M., Doctor, L.J., Friedman, A.R., 

Lachance, L.L., Houle, C.R., Geng, X., and Grisso, 

J.A. 2006. Community coalitions to control 

chronic disease: Allies Against Asthma as a model and case study. Health Promotion Practice. 7(2 

Suppl):14S–22S.

10 The Health Measurement Research Group. [No 

date.] Health-Related Quality of Life Measures. 

Available: http://www.healthmeasurement.org/

measures.html

11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Center for Environmental Health, and the 

National Association of City and County Health 

Officials. [No date.] Community Environmental 

Health Assessment Protocol for Assessing 

Community Excellence in Environmental Health 

Guidebook. Available: http://www.naccho.org/topics/environmental/CEHA/paceeh.cfm.

12 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

Prevention Research Centers. “Research 

Projects” webpage. Definition of Community 

Partners. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/prc/

research-projects/community-partnership.htm

13 University of Kansas. [No date.] Proclaiming 

your dream: Developing mission and vision 

statements. Community Tool Box. Available: 

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_

main_1086.htm.

14 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 2009. Leading Our Nation 

to Healthier Homes: The Healthy Homes 

Strategic Plan. Office of Healthy Homes and 

Lead Hazard Control. p. 7. Available: http://

www.hud.gov/offices/lead/library/hhi/

DraftHHStratPlan_9.10.08.pdf.

Community Involvement in Program Planning

*Websites were verified during the drafting of this document but may have changed.
Community Involvement in Program Planning page 35

Notes
page 36 Community Involvement in Program Planning