Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects 

FY 2008–FY 2015 

Final Report 

 Authors 

Shauna Harps, Ph.D.

Liam Ristow, M.A.

Marneena Evans, B.S.

Clarissa McKithen, M.A.

Bess Rose, Ed.D.

Kerri Wills, M.A.

 March 2019 Prepared for the Appalachian Regional 

Commission Under Contract #CO-18675-2016 

Prepared for:

Appalachian Regional Commission

1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW

Suite 700

Washington, DC 20009

202-884-7700

Prepared by:

Westat

An Employee-Owned Research Corporation®

1600 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129

(301) 251-1500
This page left intentionally blank.
iii

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... viii

Summary of Findings.............................................................................................................. x

Implications and Conclusions ............................................................................................... xii

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

The Commission’s Leadership and Community Capacity-Building Projects......................... 1

Logic Model for the Commission’s Leadership and Community Capacity Projects............. 5

2. Evaluation Overview and Methodology...................................................................................... 8

Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 9

Commission Database and Project Documents..................................................................... 10

Web-Based Survey................................................................................................................ 10

Stakeholder Interviews.......................................................................................................... 11

3. Literature Review on Leadership and Community Capacity .................................................... 16

Key Terms............................................................................................................................. 16

Rural Context ........................................................................................................................ 18

Community Capitals Framework .......................................................................................... 20

Leadership Development....................................................................................................... 22

Implications for the Current Evaluation................................................................................ 24

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 25

4. Summary of Research Findings and Results............................................................................. 26

Project and Community Characteristics................................................................................ 26

Community Challenges and Project Strategies..................................................................... 29

Outcomes Achieved .............................................................................................................. 41

Sustainability and Lessons Learned ...................................................................................... 53

5. Policy Implications and Program Recommendations............................................................... 60

Policy Context....................................................................................................................... 60

Recommendations for Performance Measurement for Leadership and Community 

Capacity Projects................................................................................................................... 61

Recommendations for Leadership and Community Capacity Grants.................................. 65
iv

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

6. Summary and Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 66

Summary of Major Findings ................................................................................................. 66

Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 68

7. References................................................................................................................................. 70

Appendix A: Supplemental Data................................................................................................... 74

Appendix B: Survey Administered to Commission Grantees...................................................... 84

Appendix C: Interview Protocol.................................................................................................. 104

Appendix D: Commission Projects Included in the Evaluation.................................................. 110

List of Tables

Table 1. Number and percentage of grants awarded, by service area....................................... 2

Table 2. Characteristics of grants and grant recipients, by data collection method................ 13

Table 3. Project categories and types, by data collection method .......................................... 13

Table 4. Anticipated and actual project outputs ..................................................................... 45

Table 5. Anticipated and actual project outcomes.................................................................. 47

Table 6. Extent to which supplemental outcomes were met and were considered 

important to project success .................................................................................... 49

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Crosswalk of research questions and data collection methods................................... 8

Exhibit 2. Leadership and capacity building project challenges identified during the 

interviews ................................................................................................................. 40

List of Figures

Figure 1. Categories of projects implemented, by funded grantees........................................... 3

Figure 2. Types of projects implemented, by funded grantees.................................................. 3

Figure 3. Percentage of grantees using core output measures ................................................... 4

Figure 4. Percentage of grantees using core outcome measures................................................ 4

Figure 5. Logic model for the Appalachian Regional Commission’s (the Commission) 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects........................................................... 6

Figure 6. Locations of projects selected for telephone interviews and site visits.................... 12

Figure 7. Percentage of projects led by different types of organizations................................. 26

Figure 8. Grantee locations, by organization type ................................................................... 26

Figure 9. Grantee locations, by amount of funding awarded................................................... 27

Figure 10. Percentage of projects reporting different definitions of community....................... 29
v

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

Figure 11. Percentage of reports reporting different types of community assets....................... 31

Figure 12. Percentage of respondents reporting different types of community liabilities......... 32

Figure 13. Percentage of projects that included activities related to developing a vision 

and direction for the community .............................................................................. 34

Figure 14. Percentage of projects that included activities related to involvement of 

community members................................................................................................ 35

Figure 15. Percentage of projects that included activities related to enhancing the skills 

and knowledge of community members................................................................... 36

Figure 16. Percentage of respondents reporting different types of project challenges.............. 38

Figure 17. Percentage of projects targeting different geographic areas..................................... 41

Figure 18. Percentage of projects targeting specific community segments............................... 41

Figure 19. Percentage of projects targeting specific sectors...................................................... 42

Figure 20. Percentage of projects expecting to achieve individual-level outcomes .................. 42

Figure 21. Percentage of projects expecting to achieve organization-level outcomes............... 43

Figure 22. Percentage of projects expecting to achieve community-level outcomes)............... 44

Figure 23. Percentage of projects for which projected outputs were met or exceeded, 

by measure type........................................................................................................ 46

Figure 24. Percentage of projects for which projected outcomes were met or exceeded, 

by measure type........................................................................................................ 47

Figure 25. Percentage of projects meeting supplemental targets............................................... 48

Figure 26. Percentage of projects, by current operation status.................................................. 52

Figure 27. Percentage of projects operating in each status type, by grant year ......................... 53

Figure 28. Percentage of projects operating in each status type, by project category................ 53

Figure 29. Percentage of projects that expanded due to various factors.................................... 54

Figure 30. Percentage of projects that scaled-back due to various factors ................................ 55
vi

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

This page left intentionally blank.
vii

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

Acknowledgments

Westat would like to acknowledge the individuals who supported the evaluation of the 

Appalachian Regional Commission’s (the Commission) leadership and community 

capacity projects. We would like to recognize Commission staff, including 

Kathryn Whiteman for her support and guidance throughout the evaluation, as well as 

Kostas Skordas and Sue Moreland for their advice and insights. In addition to the authors, 

several other Westat staff played important roles in data collection, analysis, and report

writing. We received invaluable support and guidance from Victoria Schaefer and 

Gary Silverstein, senior advisors for the evaluation. Lauri Celli, Christina Fetzko, and 

Valerie Orellana led data collection efforts with support from Kelly Choong, 

Ari Hirschhorn, and Emily Tolvinski. Shen Lee provided vital contributions to data 

analysis tasks. Carol Litman and Sylvie Warren provided editorial and formatting support 

for this report. We would also like to thank the representatives from the Commissionfunded projects who participated in evaluation activities, particularly those who 

graciously hosted site visitors. This evaluation would not have been possible without 

their contributions.
viii

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

This page left intentionally blank.
ix

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

Executive Summary

Since its establishment in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission (the 

Commission) has promoted economic and social development in the Appalachian 

Region. Among the Commission’s objectives is the support of leadership development 

and community capacity building in Appalachian communities. In 2016, the Commission 

contracted with Westat to carry out an evaluation of 152 leadership and community 

capacity projects it supported between fiscal years (FY) 2008 and 2015. During this 

period, the Commission awarded $14,414,855 in grants to nonprofit organizations; 

city/township, state, and county governments; institutions of higher education; and local 

development districts. Grant recipients are required to supplement Commission funding 

with funding from other sources, and grantees reported receiving a total of $10,516,548 

in non-Commission funds. Collectively, Commission and non-Commission funding used 

to implement leadership and community capacity projects between FY 2008 and FY 2015 

totaled $24,931,403.

This report presents findings from Westat’s evaluation, which was designed to address 

the following questions:

• What problems and challenges were the projects designed to address?

• What approaches did the projects use to ameliorate these problems and challenges?

• What specific outcomes were projects designed to achieve and did they meet their 

performance targets?

• What are the characteristics of communities, individuals, and organizations that 

benefited from the projects?

• To what extent were project-related gains sustained beyond the period covered by 

the Commission grant?

• What factors influenced a project’s success and implementation?

• Have grantees applied lessons learned to their ensuing efforts to serve target 

communities?

• What strategic, actionable recommendations can be made for both the Commission 

and local communities undertaking these types of projects?
x

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

To answer the research questions, Westat conducted four major activities:

1. A review of current literature on leadership and community capacity, and best 

practices for implementation of these types of projects

2. A review of key project documentation (i.e., data from the internal grants 

management database system and other project documentation) for 152 projects

3. A Web-based survey that was completed for 117 of the 152 projects

4. Telephone interviews with project leaders from a sample of 15 projects, and 

onsite interviews with project staff and other key stakeholders from an additional 

10 projects

Summary of Findings 

The 152 projects were led by a diverse array of organizations located in 13 states and the 

District of Columbia.1 Most projects (76 percent) were led by nonprofit organizations or 

government entities at the state, county, or city level. The level of Commission support 

varied widely across the projects (from $5,000 to over $650,000 for single-year grants), 

with a median award amount of $50,000 and $14,414,855 awarded in total. Some 

grantees were funded over multiple years to continue activities within the same scope as 

the original grant or to implement new activities.

The leadership and community capacity-building projects served a variety of 

communities, including individual cities and towns, single counties, and multiple 

counties both within and across state boundaries. Grant recipients implemented projects 

related to seven broad categories:2

• Leadership and civic capacity (49 percent of projects)

• Civic entrepreneurship (30 percent of projects)

• Business development (11 percent of projects)

• Community development (8 percent of projects)

 

1 The grantee was located in Washington, D.C. but conducted regional workshops in Appalachian regions of three 

states (Georgia, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania).

2 The categories are based on the Commission’s classification system at the time the projects included in the evaluation 

were funded. During this time frame, the category “civic entrepreneurship” was renamed “leadership and civic 

capacity.” Together these two categories account for over three-quarters of the projects in the evaluation. 
xi

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

• Asset-based development (1 percent of projects)

• Education and workforce development (1 percent of projects)

• Environment and natural resources (1 percent of projects)

Project representatives reported that the communities they serve face a number of 

important challenges, most notably a lack of resources. Findings from the survey and 

interviews also revealed that projects benefited from a number of key strengths or assets 

in the communities they served, including strong partnerships, effective community 

organizations, and energized citizens. Within this context, the projects carried out 

activities designed to enhance the capacity and leadership of their target communities, 

including activities related to fostering vision and direction in the community, involving 

and engaging community members, and enhancing community members’ skills and 

knowledge. Project teams both directly carried out these types of activities themselves 

and enabled others to do so through the distribution of mini-grants designed to support 

small-scale community projects.

Through their activities, the projects aimed to achieve a range of outcomes for 

individuals, organizations, and entire communities. They included increasing individuals’

capacity through improved awareness, skills, and empowerment; increasing 

organizational collaboration and effectiveness; and increasing the pride, self-reliance, and 

civic participation within a community. Evaluation results suggested that most projects 

successfully achieved their aims. Survey responses and Commission project performance 

data indicated that project teams met or exceeded expected project outcomes for the 

following measures:

• Number of communities improved (91 percent of project teams using this measure 

reported meeting or exceeding expected outcomes)

• Number of organizations improved (89 percent of project teams using this measure

reported meeting or exceeding expected outcomes)

• Number of programs implemented (82 percent of project teams using this measure 

reported meeting or exceeding expected outcomes)

• Number of participants improved (78 percent of project teams using this measure 

reported meeting or exceeding expected outcomes)

Survey findings indicate that many of the community capacity and leadership 

development projects have continued to operate beyond the Commission-supported grant 

period, and for nearly half of projects for which a survey was completed, respondents

reported expanding their efforts. Project staff and community stakeholders who
xii

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

participated in interviews identified a range of factors that allowed them to continue 

implementing project activities after the end of Commission funding, including positive 

shifts in community attitudes toward capacity building, commitment of leaders, and 

increased organizational capacity. Interview respondents also noted barriers or challenges 

to ongoing capacity and leadership development work, including limited resources, 

changes in community priorities, and shifts in economic or political environments.

Finally, interview respondents shared a number of lessons learned that can inform similar 

work in the future. They included a strong focus on identifying and developing effective 

leadership, building inclusive collaboration throughout a community, planning for 

success in the context of limited time and resources, and taking steps to encourage 

community ownership of the change effort.

Implications and Conclusions 

Evaluation findings show that most leadership and community capacity grantees were 

successful in implementing project activities and achieving their stated goals. Analyses of 

quantitative and qualitative data collected through this evaluation enabled the evaluation 

team to make recommendations for additional metrics that would help the Commission

determine the impact of its leadership and community capacity projects. In the 

Commission’s most recent strategic plan, published after funding had ceased for the 

projects included in the current evaluation, the Commission identified two new 

performance measures for the Leadership and Community Capacity strategic investment 

goal: number of leaders strengthened and number of communities with enhanced 

capacity.

Community capacity and local leadership are intertwined and equally important to 

community change efforts, particularly in rural communities. It is critical to have longterm involvement from local leaders who make meaningful contributions to community 

capacity-building efforts. Local collaborative groups should identify and support local 

leaders, and identify opportunities to help leaders develop and expand relevant 

knowledge and skills. Additional performance measures could help the Commission 

gauge progress toward strengthening local leadership. Measures that may help predict 

success in increasing the number of leaders strengthened include the following:

• Percentage of planned leadership development activities that were implemented

• Percentage of community leaders who formally agreed (e.g., through 

Memorandums of Agreement or Understanding [MOAs or MOUs]) to participate 

in community-building activities when the grant was awarded and remain actively 

involved in the activities over time
xiii

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

• Percentage of community leaders who were invited to participate in skill- or 

knowledge-building activities and participated

Challenges that are prevalent in rural communities include limited resources, 

depopulation, and poor economic conditions. These and other project-specific challenges

could limit grantees’ ability to enhance their community’s capacity. Although

respondents from most projects described steps for surmounting local challenges, it may 

be beneficial to study which levels of community capacity were (and continue to be) 

critical to successful community-building efforts. Possible performance measures include

the following:

• Percentage of partnerships with key stakeholders that were formed or formalized 

(e.g., through MOAs or MOUs) when the grant was awarded and are maintained 

over time

• Completion of or updates to a strategic plan for the community the grant was 

funded to improve

• Local economic conditions (e.g., median income)

The evaluation showed that the leadership and community capacity projects funded 

between FY 2008 and FY 2015 engaged multiple levels of community capacity, as 

project stakeholders worked to improve their community’s economic and social 

conditions.
xiv

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

This page left intentionally blank.
1

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

1. Introduction

Established in 1965, the Appalachian Regional Commission (the Commission) is a 

federal-state partnership that functions as a catalyst for economic and social development

by drawing upon the resources of the federal government, the 13 states in the 

Appalachian Region, and local resources. Since its inception, the Commission has 

invested nearly $4 billion and made more than 25,000 investments in regional projects, 

resulting in decreased poverty rates, increased employment, increased high school 

graduation rates, increased number of homes with plumbing, and decreased infant 

mortality rates (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2015). Despite these regional 

achievements, many of its communities continue to lag behind the nation in areas that 

include employment, postsecondary educational attainment, physical health, and poverty.

This section provides an overview of the portfolio of projects the Commission chose for 

the current evaluation and a description of the evaluation that Westat conducted.

The Commission’s Leadership and Community CapacityBuilding Projects 

Over the years, interest in increasing the capacity of local communities to improve their 

own development has intensified (Simpson, Wood, & Daws, 2003). The Commission has 

contributed to this movement through investment in projects that cultivate community 

self-sufficiency and promote community pride. Leadership and Community Capacity is 

one of the Commission’s five strategic investment goals, as outlined in its 2016–2020 

Strategic Plan. The goal has five action objectives:

• Develop and support robust inclusive leadership that can champion and mobilize forwardthinking community improvement

• Empower and support next-generation leaders and encourage authentic engagement in 

local and regional economic and community development

• Strengthen the capacity of community organizations and institutions to articulate and 

implement a vision for sustainable, transformative community change

• Support visioning, strategic planning and implementation, and resident-engagement 

approaches to foster increased community resilience and generate positive economic 

impacts
2

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

• Develop and support networks, partnerships, and other models of collaboration that 

catalyze public, private, and nonprofit action for community impact (Appalachian Regional 

Commission, 2015, p. 36)

As the action objectives imply, the 

Commission prioritizes investments in 

projects that seek to improve the 

Appalachian Region’s economy and local 

communities by strengthening community 

collaboration, increasing civic 

engagement, and fostering the emergence 

of local leaders who can champion 

community-building efforts. Through its 

state partnerships, the Commission funds 

eligible entities to plan and implement 

projects aligned with these investment 

goals and the needs of their local 

community, and it supports grant 

recipients (grantees) in implementing 

project activities, such as developing

comprehensive community plans, building or enhancing local collaboratives, and

providing leadership training. The number and percentage of leadership and community 

capacity grants in each state (based on service area, not grantee location) awarded from 

FY 2008 through FY 2015 are provided in Table 1. Several projects that served multistate service areas are listed in the table as “Regional”. A full list of funded projects 

included in the evaluation is provided in Appendix D on page 109.

The Commission strives to improve conditions throughout the Appalachian Region, 

particularly in distressed communities, which are designated as such based on a county’s 

economic conditions (e.g., having higher unemployment, higher poverty, and lower 

income than national rates). Nearly three-quarters of projects in the portfolio funded 

between FY 2008 and FY 2015 were intended to benefit distressed communities 

primarily (47 percent) or substantially (24 percent). Some grant recipients also allocated

mini-grants or Flex-E-Grants, through which the Commission grantee awards subgrants 

to local entities that implement small-scale and short-term economic development 

projects.

The Commission labels each grant with a category and type based on the Commission 

classification system in use at the time the grant is funded. Figure 1 shows the breakdown 

of the projects by category, and Figure 2 shows the breakdown by type. It should be 

Table 1. Number and percentage of grants 

awarded, by service area (n=152) 

State Number Percentage

Kentucky 35 23%

Alabama 20 13%

Maryland 16 11%

Regional 16 11%

Mississippi 15 10%

West Virginia 10 7%

Pennsylvania 8 5%

North Carolina 7 5%

Virginia 7 5%

New York 6 4%

Georgia 4 3%

Tennessee 4 3%

Ohio 3 2%

South Carolina 1 <1%

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional 

Commission.
3

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

noted that the classification system changed during the FY 2008 to FY 2015 time frame 

of these projects, resulting in some overlap of categories and types listed in the figures. 

Most notably, “civic entrepreneurship” was renamed “leadership and civic capacity.” 

Together, these two categories account for over three-quarters of the projects in this 

evaluation. In addition, all projects in the “leadership and community capacity” category 

are now divided into one of three new types: individual capacity, organizational capacity, 

or community capacity. Organizational capacity is not listed in Figure 2 because fewer 

than ten projects were classified as this type. Other project types with fewer than ten 

projects each include career education, dropout prevention, youth leadership, and 

community infrastructure. Specific examples of activities conducted through projects that 

were included in the current evaluation are provided in the Summary of Research 

Findings and Results (section 4).

Figure 1. Categories of projects implemented, by funded grantees (n=152)

Notes: “Civic entrepreneurship” was renamed “leadership and civic capacity,” so combined, these make up a single category 

accounting for over three-quarters of the projects. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Figure 2. Types of projects implemented, by funded grantees (n=152)

Note: All projects in the “leadership and community capacity” category are now divided into one of three new types: individual 

capacity, organizational capacity, or community capacity (with planning, leadership, and others identified as sub-types), so 

there may be some overlap of types in this figure.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

1%

1%

1%

8%

11%

30%

49%

Education and workforce development

Environment and natural resources

Asset-based development

Community development

Business development

Civic entrepreneurship

Leadership and civic capacity

7%

7%

7%

8%

18%

18%

18%

Individual Capacity

Leadership

Tourism Development

Downtown Revitalization

Technical Assistance

Community Capacity

Planning
4

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

Project teams used a variety of measures to define project objectives and determine 

progress toward attaining them. These included output measures, such as the number of 

program participants or other indicators of immediate project results. Among the core 

output measures for leadership and community capacity projects, the number of 

participants served was the most common output measure (reported by 59 percent of 

projects; Figure 3), followed by the number of plans or reports developed (reported by 

43 percent of projects).

Figure 3. Percentage of grantees using core output measures (n=152)

Note: Grantees could select multiple measures. Grantees updated data reported to the Commission in the evaluation survey, 

if necessary.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Project representatives also reported using a range of measures to assess project outcomes 

or the longer-term results of their work. These included the number of programs 

implemented, which was cited as an outcome measure for 43 percent of the projects 

(Figure 4). Among core outcome measures, the number of participants improved was an 

outcome measure for roughly one-third of projects in the portfolio. The Summary of 

Research Findings and Results (section 4) discusses the extent to which project

representatives reported attaining the output and outcome goals they set for their projects.

Figure 4. Percentage of grantees using core outcome measures (n=152)

Notes: Grantees could select multiple measures. Grantees updated data reported to the Commission in the evaluation survey, 

if necessary.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

11%

21%

43%

59%

Organizations served

Communities served

Plans/report

Participants served

12%

21%

36%

43%

Organizations improved

Communities improved

Participants improved

Programs implemented
5

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

A similar evaluation of the Commission’s capacity-building projects was conducted in 

2004, findings from which indicated that many grant recipients were successful in 

building the capacity of individuals, organizations, and communities (Kleiner, Raue, 

Silverstein, Bell, & Wells, 2004). Since the prior evaluation, the Commission has 

maintained emphasis on identifying and supporting the pathways through which 

Appalachian communities build leaders and improve their own capacity to prosper.

Logic Model for the Commission’s Leadership and 

Community Capacity Projects

One of the Commission’s strategic investment goals is to support local projects in their 

efforts to “build the capacity and skills of current and next-generation leaders and 

organizations to innovate, collaborate, and advance community and economic 

development” (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2015, p. 35). Entities that receive 

Commission grants are expected to implement projects that address their local needs 

while being aligned with the Commission’s objectives. A logic model is a tool that helps 

visualize and succinctly articulate an initiative’s processes and anticipated goals. Logic 

models provide a visual depiction of an initiative’s theory of change, or the theoretical 

assumptions underlying the progression of activities toward the initiative’s goals (Alter & 

Murty, 1997; Bickman, 1987; Frechtling, 2007; McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999). 

The evaluation team developed a logic model to graphically display the theory of change

for the Commission’s leadership and community capacity projects, which is shown in 

Figure 5. A logic model was also developed for the previous evaluation of the 

Commission’s community capacity-building projects (Kleiner et al., 2004). Although 

logic models for the current and previous evaluations are similar in depicting the role of 

communities in achieving local and regional goals, the models differ in several ways. For 

example, the overall theory of change for the current evaluation’s logic model reflects the 

purposes, processes, and objectives for the Commission’s recently established strategic 

investment goal (Leadership and Community Capacity). 

As illustrated in the current evaluation’s logic model, the Commission and its grant 

recipients rely on resources, such as local assets and stakeholder expertise, to support 

implementation of local projects that address community needs. Execution of these 

projects is expected to lead to achievement of short-term (e.g., increased development 

and support of local leaders), midterm (e.g., increased local leader participation in 

community and economic development activities), and long-term (e.g., increased 

preparation and achievement among students, workers, and leaders) outcomes. The types 
6

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008-FY 2015

of projects implemented and the extent to which outcomes were achieved are outlined in 

detail in the Summary of Research Findings and Results (section 4).
Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008

–FY 2015

7

Figure 5. Logic model for the Appalachian Regional Commission’s (the Commission) Leadership and Community Capacity Projects

Theory of change: Through Commission-funded grants awarded by Appalachian states to local communities, grantees implement projects to develop 

and support local leaders, and increase the community’s capacity to improve the local economy and infrastructure.
8

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

2. Evaluation Overview and Methodology

In FY 2016, the Commission sought support in evaluating leadership and community 

capacity projects that the agency funded between FY 2008 and FY 2015. Westat’s 

evaluation examined project implementation processes and accomplishments, and 

progress toward achieving project objectives, across all projects in the leadership and 

community capacity portfolio that the Commission funded during the seven-year 

window. A total of 152 projects met the aforementioned criteria for inclusion in the 

evaluation. The Commission awarded a total of $14,414,855 in grants for implementation 

of the projects. Grant recipients are required to supplement Commission funding with 

funding from other sources, and grantees reported receiving a total of $10,516,548 in 

non-Commission funds. Collectively, Commission and non-Commission funding used to 

implement leadership and community capacity projects between FY 2008 and FY 2015 

totaled $24,931,403. The pool of projects included grantees in distressed communities, as 

well as grantees that allocate mini-grants or Flex-E-Grants. Through the mini-grants, the 

Commission grantee awards subgrants to local entities that implement small-scale and 

short-term economic development projects. 

As shown in Exhibit 1, the evaluation was designed to address eight broad research

questions that focused on the strategies and outcomes associated with the Commission’s 

152 leadership and community capacity projects funded between FY 2008 and FY 2015.

Westat conducted four primary activities to address these questions:

1. A review of current literature on leadership and community capacity, and best 

practices for implementation of these types of projects

2. A review of key project documentation (i.e., data from the internal grants 

management database system and other project documentation) for all 152 

projects

3. A Web-based survey that was completed for 117 of the 152 projects

4. Telephone interviews with project stakeholders from a sample of 15 projects, and 

onsite interviews with project staff and other key stakeholders from an additional 

10 projects
9

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Exhibit 1. Crosswalk of research questions and data collection methods

Research question

Data source

Literature 

review

Commission

database 

and project 

documents

Web-based 

survey

Stakeholder 

interviews

What problems and challenges were 

the projects designed to address? X X X

What approaches did the projects use 

to ameliorate these problems and 

challenges?

X X X

What specific outcomes were projects 

designed to achieve and did they meet 

their performance targets?

X X X

What are the characteristics of 

communities, individuals, and 

organizations that benefited from the 

projects?

X X

To what extent were project-related 

gains sustained beyond the period 

covered by the ARC grant?

X X

What factors influenced a project’s 

success and implementation? X

Have grantees applied lessons learned 

to their ensuing efforts to serve target 

communities?

X

What strategic, actionable 

recommendations can be made for both 

ARC and the local communities 

undertaking these types of projects?

X X

Literature Review 

Westat conducted a literature review that provided a foundation from which the 

evaluation team developed an analysis plan and study instruments. The evaluation team 

reviewed recent (published within the past ten years) literature on current work in the 

field to increase knowledge of what community capacity means and how to build it, the 

role of local leaders in capacity-building efforts, and inherent challenges encountered 

when undertaking leadership and civic capacity projects in rural, often disenfranchised,

communities. These issues are discussed in greater detail in the Literature Review

(section 3).
10

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Commission Database and Project Documents 

Westat reviewed project documentation contained in the Commission’s internal grants 

management database and hard-copy files stored in the Commission’s office. For each of 

the 152 projects, Westat extracted key information from grant applications, approval 

memorandums, closeout memorandums, and final reports. The evaluation team reviewed 

the documents and created a database to compile, organize, and analyze project data. 

Web-Based Survey 

Westat created a Web-based survey to update project-specific data contained in the 

Commission’s grants management database and obtain information used to document and 

quantify the effects of each project on the populations served. Westat invited one project 

representative from each of the 152 projects to complete a survey.

Some of the organizations that received Commission leadership and community capacity 

grants between FY 2008 and FY 2015 administered two or more projects during the 

target period. Representatives of organizations that received multiple awards in support 

of distinct projects were asked to complete separate surveys for each grant. However, 

organization representatives that received multiple Commission awards to fund the same 

work over multiple years were asked to complete a single survey that covered all work 

performed across these grants.3 In such instances, responses to survey items on resources 

that supported the project, characteristics of the community served, project context, 

strategies and challenges, and current project status were applied to all years of the 

project in the survey database. An exception was annual performance measure data (e.g., 

a project’s outputs and outcomes), which can vary from year to year. Unique annual data 

on performance were captured for all projects (both single and multi-year) between FY 

2008 and FY 2015.

Using the approach described above, survey data were ultimately obtained for 77 percent 

(117) of the 152 Commission projects funded between FY 2008 and FY 2015.4 Of these 

117 projects, 45 were stand-alone projects and 72 were projects that received multiple 

years of funding (each year of funding is counted as a separate project in the count).

 

3 For example, a grantee received Commission grants in 2010 and 2011, and used the funds awarded in 2011 to continue 

implementing activities that were initiated through the grant that was awarded in 2010. This grantee would have completed one 

survey covering both funding years.

4 Please note that seven partially completed surveys were included in the calculation of the response rate.
11

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Although the evaluation team expected to achieve a higher response rate, the response 

rate for the survey was not surprising considering that most projects that were targeted for 

the evaluation were no longer receiving Commission funding. Some project contacts 

responded to the invitation by stating they could not participate for several reasons, 

including project contacts no longer work for the funded entity (and were unable to 

identify alternate respondents who could answer survey questions accurately; n=12), 

uncertainty about who has enough knowledge of the project to complete the survey (n=1), 

and health issues of the appropriate contact (n=1). The evaluation team examined 

characteristics of survey respondents and nonrespondents, and projects in the two groups 

were similar in characteristics that included average amount of the Commission grant and 

grantee type (e.g., county government, institution of higher education). Nonresponding 

projects were most likely to be operated by nonprofit organizations (40 percent of 

nonrespondents) or city or township governments (31 percent of nonrespondents). That 

said, the evaluation team has no way of knowing whether project representatives who

chose not to respond (or could not be located) were less successful (e.g., were unable to 

implement their approach or achieve their goals) or less likely to sustain the project than 

project representatives who did complete a survey.

Project representatives responded to a range of survey questions (see Appendix B on 

page 83) about the Commission-funded projects, including the following:

• Contributions that various organizations or individuals made to the project

• Characteristics of the community the project served

• Project context (e.g., community assets and liabilities)

• Implementation strategies and challenges

• Project outcomes

• Current status of the project

Stakeholder Interviews 

Telephone interviews were conducted with project leaders from 15 Commission-funded 

projects; site visits were conducted with project leaders, project staff, community leaders, 

and community members from an additional 10 Commission-funded projects. The 

evaluation team selected projects that best represented the breadth of this portfolio.

Specifically, the evaluation team established selection criteria to ensure the 25 projects 

selected had the following attributes:
12

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

• Represented all states in the Appalachian Region, where possible

• Were diverse relative to various project characteristics (e.g., amount of funding

awarded, type of organization funded, type of project implemented)

• Had distinct conceptions of “community,” as reported on the project survey 

(e.g., people or organizations within specific geographic areas, social systems or 

connections among people)

• Varied in current operating status (e.g., the project has expanded since the 

Commission funding period ended; the project is no longer in operation)

Telephone and in-person interviews enabled the evaluation team to obtain detailed 

information about the Commission-funded projects and gather in-depth information on 

the activities conducted and outcomes achieved (see Appendix C on page 103). Topics

covered during interviews included the following:

• Contextual information (e.g., background about the entity that received 

Commission funds, community characteristics)

• Project design and implementation

• Project outcomes

• Project sustainability

• Lessons learned

A map showing the locations of the grantees for the 25 projects included in this 

component of the evaluation is provided in Figure 6.

5

 

5 Some grantees are based outside the Appalachian region but conduct work in Appalachian communities. The figure displays the 

location of the grantees, not the service area of the projects.
13

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure 6. Locations of project grantees selected for telephone interviews and site visits

Note: The location of some of the grantees was outside of the Region, but all project service areas were within the Region.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Tables 2 and 3 provide characteristics of the projects for which representatives of the 

grant team participated in site visits and telephone interviews.
14

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Table 2. Characteristics of grants and grant recipients, by data collection method

Characteristic

Number of projects, by data 

collection method

Site visits

(n=10)

Telephone 

Interviews 

(n=15)

Grant type

Single-year 9 6

Multi-year 1 9

Grant recipient category

City or township government 2 2

State government 0 2

Local development district 3 0

Nonprofit organization 3 6

Public/state controlled institution of higher education 2 5

Note: The evaluation team conducted 14 telephone interviews with representatives of 15 projects.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Table 3. Project categories and types, by data collection method

Characteristic

Number of projects, by data 

collection method

Site visits

(n=10)

Telephone 

Interviews 

(n=15)

Project category

Business development 1 0

Civic entrepreneurship 3 8

Community development 3 1

Leadership and civic capacity 3 5

Education and workforce development 0 1

Project type

Community capacity 0 7

Community revitalization 0 1

Downtown revitalization 2 0

Individual capacity 2 1

Leadership 0 0

Organizational capacity 1 0

Planning 4 2

Technical assistance 0 3

Tourism development 1 0

Educational achievement/attainment 0 1

Notes: The category “civic entrepreneurship” was renamed “leadership and civic capacity” during the time frame of these 

projects. Project types were also reorganized during this time frame and there may be some overlap between types. For multiyear projects, the category and type of the most recent year of funding were used. The evaluation team conducted 14 

telephone interviews with representatives of 15 projects.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
15

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

The sections that follow provide a summary of relevant literature and a framework for the 

evaluation (section 3, page 15), a summary of research findings and results (section 4, 

page 25), policy implications and program recommendations (section 5, page 59), and 

summary and conclusions (section 6, page 65).
16

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

3. Literature Review on Leadership and 

Community Capacity

Literature published over the past several decades has indicated that community capacity 

is a multi-faceted concept that is difficult to define. The concept of capacity building 

emerged in the literature in the early 1990s (Chaskin, 1999; Craig, 2005), but the term 

“community capacity building” specifically is fairly new, entering the lexicon of 

policymaking only within the past decade (Craig, 2005). Early references to capacity 

building primarily concerned building the strengths and capacities of organizations. 

There exists now, though, the more specific notion of communities building their own 

capacity (Craig, 2005). Over time, interest in capacity building has increased as more 

communities, policy makers, and philanthropists begin to recognize the value of 

community capacity building (Craig, 2005; Flaspohler, Duffy, Wandersman, Stillman, & 

Maras, 2008; Hargreaves et al., 2016). As a result, it has become commonplace for 

federal agencies and philanthropic organizations to direct funds to capacity-building 

efforts that improve the health and well-being of communities and their residents (Craig, 

2005; Flaspohler et al., 2008; Hargreaves et al., 2016). 

There are various purposes for increasing community capacity, such as economic 

development; increased community involvement and citizen participation (e.g., in urban 

renewal, regeneration); greater community-based empowerment (e.g., more vocal 

community members) and local leadership; increased skills, knowledge, and confidence 

of community members; improved social connections and relationships; improved 

development and mobilization of resources; stronger links between local entities 

(e.g., politics, organizations, environment); and accessibility to effective services (Aspen 

Institute, 2009; Verity, 2007). Ultimately, though, community capacity building is 

intended to improve communities and community members’ quality of life and wellbeing.

Key Terms 

Defining Community. The term community can take on various meanings (Craig, 2005; 

Mathie & Cunningham, 2003; Verity, 2007). For example, it might refer to a physical 

place or geographical location (e.g., neighborhood, rural town), characterize a group of 

people (e.g., by religion, ethnicity, sexuality), or represent an interest-based group (i.e., a 

group focused on a particular issue). Some of the literature also defines community as a 
17

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

social system, or connections, bonds, and interactions between people (Verity, 2007) and 

describes community as a quality, as in “sense of community” (Mathie & Cunningham, 

2003). 

Defining Community Capacity. What it means for a community to have or exhibit 

“capacity” fluctuates across the literature, with some definitions varying widely and some 

overlapping. Some of the literature (e.g., Aspen, 2009; Meyer, 1994, as cited in Chaskin, 

1999, p. 3) defines community capacity as the commitment, skill, and resources of a 

community to address community problems and opportunities. Other literature (e.g., 

Gittell et al., 1995, as cited in Chaskin, 1999, p. 3; Marre & Weber, 2007; Verity, 2007)

describes community capacity building as an ongoing, dynamic process of relationship 

building, skill strengthening, community planning, decision making, and action. This 

conceptualization emphasizes the journey of capacity building. Yet other literature

classifies community capacity as the set of assets or attributes (Easterling,1998, as cited 

in Simpson, Wood, & Daws, 2003, p. 278; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993) that 

community residents individually and collectively possess to develop solutions to 

problems within the community and to improve community and individual well-being 

(Kemmis & Knotz, 2012). Then there is some literature that conceptualizes community 

capacity in terms of the resources within a community (Flaspohler et al., 2008; Marre & 

Weber, 2007) and/or the connections within communities, both at the individual level and 

at the organizational level (Flaspohler et al., 2008; Verity, 2007). The latter often 

emphasizes the link between social capital and community capacity building. Some 

literature anchors the capacity-building process within a specific purpose (Verity, 2007) 

or focuses on specific factors such as leadership development and community 

participation (Flaspohler et al., 2008). 

Porter, Martin, and Anda (2016, p. 11) cite Morgan’s (2015) more general definition of 

community capacity, stating that “community capacity refers to the ability of a group of 

people to come together, build authentic relationships and reflect honestly about things 

that matter, share democratic leadership, and take collective actions that assure social and 

health equity for all residents.” Other scholars (Chaskin, 1999; Verity, 2007) also make 

reference to more general conceptualizations of community capacity.

There does not appear to be a single universally accepted definition of community 

capacity, but Chaskin provided a widely accepted definition that encompasses many of 

the existing conceptualizations:

Community capacity is the interaction of human, organizational, and 

social capital existing within a given community that can be leveraged 

to solve collective problems and improve or maintain the well-being of 
18

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

a given community. It may operate through informal social processes 

and/or organized efforts by individuals, organizations, and the networks 

of associations among them and between them and the broader systems 

of which the community is a part (Chaskin, 1999, p. 4).

Levels of Engagement. Typically, scholars posit that community capacity actions and 

efforts occur at three levels: individual, organizational, and broader system or community 

(Chaskin, 1999; Flaspohler et al., 2008; Verity, 2007). Individual-level engagement 

concerns the ways in which residents contribute to community capacity through 

individual skills, knowledge, abilities, attributes, etc. More simply, this level of 

engagement relates to human capital. The organizational level of engagement underlines 

organized entities’ (e.g., community-based organizations, departments, institutions, 

programs, and organized groups) impact on community capacity. Finally, broader 

system- or community-level engagement emphasizes social capital, or networks of 

relationships among individuals and organized entities, as contributors to community 

capacity. Though the levels of engagement can be delineated into three parts, these levels 

of capacity are usually closely interrelated (Flaspohler et al., 2008). 

Rural Context 

Marre and Weber (2007) note that most attempts to define, assess, and build community 

capacity have been undertaken in urban neighborhoods. For example, one of the most 

seminal and oft-cited analyses of community capacity (Chaskin, 1999) focuses 

specifically on urban neighborhoods. However, as Marre and Weber explain (p. 2), 

“There are distinctive characteristics and dynamics of rural communities that introduce 

unique challenges to the assessment and building of community capacity.” Specifically, 

many rural communities are classified as distressed communities, where poverty, 

joblessness, and an ongoing recession abound, often due to plant closings or mass layoffs 

associated with declines in a specific industry or business (Economic Innovation Group 

[EIG], 2016; Greenstone & Looney, 2011). Within Appalachia, 84 counties were 

classified by the Commission as economically distressed in FY 2017, while 114 were 

classified as at risk of becoming economically distressed. Together, these counties had an 

estimated 2015 population of 5.3 million (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2016). As 

a result, many rural communities face population dispersion, depopulation, economic 

decline, inaccessibility to services, environmental degradation, and several other 

challenges (Craig, 2005; EIG, 2016; Emery & Flora, 2006; Fey, Bregendahl, & Flora, 

2006; Greenstone & Looney, 2010). Accordingly, rural communities can often have 

unique needs and thus have to approach capacity building differently from urban 

communities. 
19

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Capacity building in rural communities is also of special interest because of the notion 

that these communities risk being left behind in the new global economy as the United 

States continues to grow and develop (EIG, 2016; Simpson et al., 2003). Consequently, 

multiple researchers (e.g., Emery & Flora, 2006; Fey et al., 2006; Kemmis & Knotz, 

2012; Lott & Chazdon, 2009; Marre & Weber, 2007; Simpson et al., 2003) have studied 

and analyzed community capacity-building efforts in rural communities to provide 

insight and identify ways to conceptualize capacity building in rural communities (as 

cited below).

While rural communities share some similarities with each other, The Aspen Institute 

(2009) explains that rural communities attempting to engage in change efforts all start 

from a different place, with different challenges and opportunities (or assets). Aspen 

identifies four types of rural communities: full-tilt communities, gridlock communities, 

Trojan horse communities, and ghost town communities. According to Aspen, full-tilt 

communities are clear on their needs but not necessarily on how to meet those needs, 

while gridlock communities are those that are not able to make decisions due to 

divisiveness about what to do to make changes. Trojan horse communities are threatened 

by too much change too quickly or characterized by no change at all, and ghost town 

communities have given up trying to make any changes because too many jobs and 

people have left. Thus, community capacity-building efforts and processes vary from 

community to community, and the levels of success rural communities have in building 

capacity also varies.

Based on an analysis of a community development effort in Nebraska, Emery and Flora 

(2006) argue that “critical investments in social capital [are an] entry point for 

community change” (p. 20) in rural communities, and warn that the usual strategy of 

infusing financial capital and built capital into these communities has less of a cumulative 

effect than does a focus on social capital. Three not-for-profit organization leaders 

learned this lesson and joined forces to reverse population and per capita income decline 

in their rural Nebraskan community. First, the organization leaders invested their own 

social capital by collaborating, or “binding social capital,” to mobilize their respective 

organizations’ area of strength; i.e., leadership development, entrepreneurship 

development, and community foundation. They then worked with community leaders to 

establish strategies to increase philanthropy, retain youth in the community, increase 

leadership capacity, and strengthen local economies. Once the community identified 

strategies, the collaborative partners facilitated opportunities for community members to 

work together in teams, all of which included a youth initiative, and they used their 

connections to pull in technical assistance and resources outside the community to 

implement the strategies, thereby “bridging social capital.” Emery and Flora found that 
20

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

such increases in the stocks (assets) and flow (investments) of social capital produced a 

“spiraling up” effect in the community that increased stocks in other community capitals, 

including human capital, financial capital, cultural capital, and political capital (four of 

seven capitals in the Community Capitals Framework, which is discussed in the next 

section).

Community Capacity Frameworks 

Just as definitions of community capacity vary in the literature, so too do the ways in 

which to characterize, identify, and/or measure (community) capacity building. However, 

various scholars have attempted to establish domains, dimensions, and frameworks to 

define and assess community capacity (e.g., Chaskin, 1999; Goodman et al., 1998; 

Hargreaves et al., 2016; Laverack & Labonte, 2001, as cited in Verity, 2007, pp. 21-22; 

Smith et al., 2003 as cited in Liu, 2010, p. 30). To describe and assess community 

capacity, scholars most often selected domains/dimensions that examined a community’s 

or organization’s leadership activities, social networks, processes to assess and solve 

problems, transferal of knowledge and skills, and the overall “sense of community.” 

Other common domains included community engagement and participation in capacitybuilding efforts, level of access to and mobilization of resources (e.g., economic, human, 

political), and partnerships, among others. 

Additionally, the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, located at 

Michigan State University, established the Community Capitals Framework (Emery & 

Flora, 2006; Fey et al., 2006) to analyze community and economic development from a 

holistic systems perspective. It measures seven kinds of capital investments that affect a 

community’s capacity: (1) natural capital, or natural resources that are specific to a 

particular location (e.g., landscape, weather, green spaces, etc.); (2) cultural capital, 

which reflects “the way people know the world” (Emery & Flora, 2006, p. 21), including 

the values and symbols reflected in clothing, art, language, and customs (cited in Fey et 

al., 2006, p. 5); (3) human capital, or the skills and abilities that people within the 

community possess; (4) social capital, or connections among people and organizations 

that influence action and change; (5) political capital, or access to power and 

organizations, connections to resources, and residents’ ability to have a voice and engage 

in matters that affect the well-being of their community; (6) financial capital, or simply 

the financial resources to invest in community capacity building; and (7) built capital, or 

infrastructure. Verity (2007) identifies a similar set of domains, i.e., physical 

(infrastructure), institutional (policy), economic (resources), social (networks, trust), and 

human (abilities, skills, motivation), for community capacity building. 
21

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Asset-based community development (ABCD) (Appalachian Regional Commission, 

2004, 2015, n.d.a., n.d.b.; Boyd, Hayes, Wilson, & Bearsley-Smith, 2008; Collaborative 

for Neighborhood Transformation, n.d.; Kerka, 2003; Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993; 

Mathie & Cunningham, 2003), an approach to community capacity building that 

Kretzmann and McKnight of Northwestern University developed, is an alternative to the 

needs-based approach often used to “intervene” on behalf of communities to address 

problems (Boyd et al., 2008; Mathie & Cunningham, 2003). The approach initially 

focused on problem solving in urban neighborhoods, but it has since been used in rural 

communities as a community capacity-building strategy (Appalachian Regional 

Commission, n.d.b.). The ABCD approach rejects viewing communities as deficient and 

instead focuses on the assets (e.g., skills, talents, and capacities of individuals, 

associations, and organizations) or resources that are inherent to a community in order to 

mobilize and effect change in the community. For example, natural resources 

(e.g., forests, rivers), culture, art, and history may be assets of Appalachian and rural 

communities. ABCD emphasizes the assets inherent in social relationships, both formal 

and informal. As such, key community assets include its residents, who possess 

individual skills and gifts; associations, or small informal groups of people (e.g., clubs); 

institutions (e.g., government agencies, private businesses, schools) that can help 

communities obtain resources; and connections, or exchanges between people 

(i.e., relationship building). Physical assets (e.g., land, building, funds, etc.) are also vital 

to ABCD (Collaborative for Neighborhood Transformation, n.d.).

More recently, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation introduced the Self-Healing 

Communities Model (Porter et al., 2016) as a method to “build the capacity of 

communities to define and solve problems most relevant to them and [generate] new 

cultural norms that mirror the values and aspirations that community members have for 

their children” (p. 2). The model calls for communities to establish partnerships 

(e.g., with funders and subject matter experts) and encompasses four phases of 

community engagement to reduce adversity—i.e., leadership expansion; shared 

understanding of values, ways of thinking, and cultural patterns among community 

members; iterative cycles of learning; and results (e.g., outcome research, data, and 

evaluation). 

A team of researchers described several other approaches to community capacity building

resulting from a study conducted in five communities in the state of Washington. The 

researchers identified five different community capacity-building models, all of which 

conceptualize community capacity building differently (Hargreaves et al., 2016). The 

researchers labeled these approaches to community capacity-building:
22

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

• Prevention coalitions, or alliances of organizations that make use of practices, 

programs, and processes within a community to prevent and alleviate social or 

health problems

• Community collaborations, which focus on the development of social relationships 

to achieve desired goals

• Comprehensive community initiatives, which typically address the needs of poor 

communities and use intermediary organizations to engage residents, integrate 

community development and human service, strengthen networks, and concentrate 

resources to transform distressed neighborhoods

• Community capacity development, which includes four elements of community 

capacity—shared focus, community leadership, learning, and results

• Collective impact, which highlights five conditions for effective community 

change—common agenda, shared measurement, mutually reinforcing strategies, 

continuous and open communication, and backbone support

Leadership Development 

Local leadership is critically important to community capacity-building efforts (Flora, 

Flora, Bastion, & Manion, 2003; Kemmis & Knotz, 2012; Lott & Chazdon, 2009; Porter 

et al., 2016). For example, Lott and Chazdon (2009) assessed the long-term effects of 

three separate leadership development programs administered by the University of 

Minnesota U-Lead Program. Community members who participated in the leadership 

programs transferred skills and knowledge to make positive changes, experienced an 

increase in self-confidence and a change in their personal vision for leadership, set more 

ambitious goals and aspirations, better coped with life challenges, willingly took more 

risks (e.g., voiced their opinion) and overcame fears of failure, and became more 

involved in leadership activities. Also, as a result of program participation, community 

members established professional and personal connections; shared the knowledge they 

gained from the programs with others in the community (e.g., in informal settings with 

family and friends and/or more formally through presentations); became more involved 

in policy- and decision-making activities, sometimes even running for political office; 

and took a lead in other cultural activities (e.g., events and festivals) in the community 

(Lott & Chazdon, 2009). 

Kemmis and Knotz (2012), who sought to understand the role of philanthropy in building 

community capacity, completed case studies of three programs that were implemented to 

improve community and individual well-being in rural communities. Grants from 
23

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

philanthropic foundations funded each program, and two of the programs focused 

specifically on leadership training to increase community capacity. Each of the three 

programs has been successful at building capacity at the local level. Additionally, one of 

the major lessons learned from the study was that community capacity requires leadership 

to meet local challenges and seize opportunities. Shared leadership among community 

members was associated with more positive results (Kemmis & Knotz, 2012). 

A lack of leadership is often an obstacle to community development, particularly in 

declining rural communities and decaying inner-city neighborhoods (Flora et al., 2003). 

However, leadership development is critical in building and maintaining a community’s 

capacity to respond to and anticipate changes that affect the local community. Flora and 

colleagues’ analysis of community-based leadership development programs revealed that 

such programs engender interaction among community members and impart skills and 

support to continue those interactions and achieve collectively defined goals. However, 

the leadership must be participatory, transparent, accountable, and effective if the 

community is to remain sustainable (Flora et al., 2003). 

Though leadership development has proven to be an effective strategy for building 

community capacity, O’Doherty, Smith, Spangler, Williams, and Richards-Schuster 

(2015) assert that youth leadership development should be strengthened, particularly in 

Central Appalachia (i.e., West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and North 

Carolina). Interviews with youth and adults in the community indicated that several 

organizations in the region provided programs to and for youth, but few engaged youth as 

leaders or promoted the value of youth leadership. Lack of engagement may not be 

intentional, but instead may be due to limited opportunities and spaces for youth to 

connect, a lack of funding to support youth leadership, and the various other challenges 

that the region and population endure (e.g., lack of transportation, money, etc.). 

Additionally, adults in the region may be barriers to youth leadership development. 

Interview respondents suggested that adults in the region sometimes do not value the 

opinions and contributions of youth; adults are not always willing to pass the torch to the 

next generation; and youth do not always feel empowered to speak up or take the lead 

(possibly due to the culture of deference for adults/elders). To address this challenge, 

O’Doherty et al. suggest increasing the capabilities of adults in Central Appalachia to 

work with youth, as well as a need for intergenerational partnerships and connections 

between youth and adults. This was a strategy the Nebraska-based collaborative 

implemented (discussed earlier). The collaborative partners and community leaders 

included youth on each of the strategy-level teams (i.e., leadership, entrepreneurship, and 

community foundations) and established a separate youth team to organize youth 
24

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

activities and a youth initiative to affect overall community change (Emery & Flora, 

2006). According to O’Doherty et al., strengthened youth leadership and participation 

helps the region respond to challenges and address social issues and might keep youth 

from leaving their communities, which is a major concern in rural communities (Emery 

& Flora, 2006; Fey et al., 2006; Greenstone & Looney, 2011; O’Doherty et al., 2015).

Implications for the Current Evaluation 

The variability in the literature suggests that the ways in which community capacity and 

leadership development are defined and operationalized by individual Commission

grantees may vary as well. To capture this variability, the evaluation team took a holistic 

approach to operationalizing community capacity and leadership in the data collection 

instruments, rather than relying on a particular definition or framework. For example, it 

was important to assess how project stakeholders defined “community”; this information 

was requested from all respondents who completed a survey, and the concept was

explored in depth during site visits and telephone interviews. Additionally, through the 

site visits and telephone interviews, the evaluation team examined the formal and 

informal roles of both individuals and organizations in carrying out the work of each 

project team, including how partnerships were formed among individuals and 

organizations, how partnerships are defined, and whether these were sustained. 

The literature suggests a number of important contextual factors that could influence the 

success and sustainability of Commission grantees’ work. These include facilitators or 

barriers to community decision making; the role played by economic, cultural, and 

natural resources; and successes and challenges in identifying leaders to champion the 

work. The survey enabled the systematic assessment of the extent to which the contextual 

factors described in the literature influenced project implementation and correlated with 

the outcomes for projects. The interviews allowed for a deeper look into more specific 

details about these factors, how they played a part in the successes and challenges of the 

grants, how grantees responded to these factors, and why grantees responded the way 

they did. 

In the analyses of qualitative and quantitative data, the evaluation team leveraged the 

variability among grantees’ approaches to community capacity building by examining 

these differences and ascertaining whether any patterns emerged. The team examined the 

degree of alignment of projects’ definitions of community with the strategies they chose 

to implement—for example, do projects that define community in purely geographic 

terms tend to implement strategies to address physical needs such as infrastructure, while 
25

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

those that define community in terms of social cohesion implement strategies to increase 

civic participation? 

Summary 

Current literature reveals multiple approaches to community capacity building, showing 

wide variation in how community capacity is defined and developed. Strategies 

communities implement to build community capacity depend on a number of factors, 

including the availability of natural and human resources, the complexity or severity of 

community deficiencies or inefficiencies, community member engagement, and the 

ability of local leaders to galvanize support. Each community is unique and has a number 

of strengths, challenges, and features that must be considered when gauging how best to 

improve its conditions and increase community pride.
26

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

4. Summary of Research Findings and Results

The theory of change for the Commission’s leadership and community capacity projects, 

as depicted in the logic model (Figure 5), shows how the major activities that 

Commission-funded grantees implement lead to improved short-, mid-, and long-term 

outcomes. Grantees use Commission grants to implement projects to develop and support 

local leaders, and increase the community’s capacity to improve the local economy and 

infrastructure. The subsections that follow provide

• an introduction to the leadership and community capacity projects the Commission 

funded between FY 2008 and FY 2015 (below),

• a summation of identified community challenges and strategies used to address 

these challenges (page 28),

• outcomes the projects achieved (page 40), and

• project sustainability and lessons learned for implementing community capacitybuilding projects in the Appalachian Region (page 52).

Project and Community Characteristics 

Grantee Organizations 

Nearly half (48 percent) of the 152 leadership and community capacity-building projects 

funded by the Commission between FY 2008 and FY 2015 were led by nonprofit 

organizations (Figure 7). These 73 nonprofit organizations included several community 

foundations and economic development organizations. Slightly more than a quarter (28 

percent) of the projects were led by government organizations, including 22 projects that 

were led by city or township governments.
27

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure 7. Percentage of projects led by different types of organizations (n=152)

Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Figure 8 shows the locations of project grantees by grantee organization type. The largest 

percentage of grants were awarded to nonprofit organizations.

Figure 8. Grantee locations, by organization type

Note: Some grantees are based outside the Appalachian region but conduct work in Appalachian communities. This figure 

displays the location of the grantees.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

48%

16% 14% 9% 7% 5%

Nonprofit

organization

Public/state

controlled

institution of

higher learning

City or township

government

State

government

Local

development

district

County

government
28

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Amount of Project Funding 

The amount of Commission funding awarded to each of the 152 projects ranged from 

$5,000 to over $650,000. The median award was $50,000. Award amounts of different 

sizes were distributed to grantees located across 13 states and the District of Columbia 

(Figure 9).

Figure 9. Grantee locations, by amount of funding awarded

Notes: Some grantees are based outside the Appalachian region but conduct work in Appalachian communities. This figure 

displays the location of the grantees. Cutoff values for the funding range were established by calculating quartile ranges for 

total Commission funding. The second and third quartiles were combined into the “Medium-sized grants” category.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Nearly all the leadership and community capacity-building projects had some additional 

funding beyond what was provided by the Commission.

The amount of funding awarded by the Commission also varied by type of grantee.

Institutions of higher education tended to receive larger grants on average. Awards to 
29

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

local development districts and city or township governments tended to be smaller on 

average.

As mentioned in other sections of the report, distressed communities have higher poverty 

rates and lower income than national rates, and thus have a higher level of need than 

other types of communities. Commission grants provide an opportunity to improve the 

local conditions in distressed areas.

In addition to Commission grants, other entities provided grantees with additional 

funding and/or resources to support implementation of project activities, such as 

expertise, technical assistance, time, materials, equipment, or staff. Survey respondents 

were asked to indicate the extent to which each source of additional resources made an 

important contribution to the Commission project. Local community nonprofit 

organizations, individual community members, and local and state government agencies 

were cited as the most important sources of additional funding or resources, beyond 

support received from the Commission. National or regional organizations, private sector 

companies, and foundations were considered important sources by fewer projects.

These findings imply that local resources were often more important to project 

implementation than resources outside of the immediate community. This is not 

surprising given that one of the purposes of the leadership and community capacity grants 

is to increase community-level buy-in and ownership of efforts to improve local 

conditions. Although all resources, whether local, regional, or national, are valued, 

representatives of agencies or organizations who are able to observe and participate in 

community change efforts (e.g., local organizations, community members) may be more 

likely to make more meaningful contributions to enhancing the local community. 

Additional data on important sources of additional funding or resources, by grant size, are 

provided in Appendix Figure A-1 on page 73.

Community Challenges and Project Strategies 

Stakeholders from the leadership and community capacity projects designed and carried 

out work that incorporated a variety of strategies to address specific challenges or issues 

present in the communities they served. These included projects aimed at developing a 

vision or plan for community growth and improvement, initiatives designed to increase 

the involvement of citizens in the community, and efforts to increase the skills and 

knowledge of community members. The approaches utilized were often framed by the 

context of the community served, including how projects defined their community and 

what community strengths and liabilities had been identified. This section begins with a 
30

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

discussion of this community context, then highlights the types of strategies used by the 

projects as they sought to build leadership and community capacity.

Community Context 

Project representatives responding to the survey reported different conceptions of the 

“communities” they served, although a large majority (80 percent) viewed community as 

defined by a specific geographic area (Figure 10). For example, “community” could be 

defined as the county in which the project was implemented, or a specific neighborhood. 

Slightly over half of project respondents viewed a community as people or organizations 

with certain characteristics, needs, or interests (e.g., organizations established to promote 

the rights and safety of the elderly population may be engaged in efforts to support a 

“community” of aging citizens), while about a third viewed community as represented by 

social systems or connections among people. For example, some individuals may 

consider high school teachers for whom trainings will be provided as a “community” of 

educators.

Figure 10. Percentage of respondents reporting different definitions of community (n=117)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple community types. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not 

fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

80%

51%

37%

27%

22%

2%

Geographic areas

Characteristics, needs, or interests

Social systems or connections among people

A quality as in “sense of community”

Sectors

Other
31

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

River Towns Phase II: Discovering Middle 

Susquehanna Valley River Towns

(PA-15736)

Through the Discovering River Towns 

project, collaborative relationships were 

built within and among the Middle 

Susquehanna River Towns in 

Pennsylvania, and a branded regional 

identity for the Susquehanna Greenway 

was established. Public perception of the 

Susquehanna River had been largely 

negative due to a history of destructive 

flooding, and the river towns had not 

embraced a larger regional identity. 

Through consistent community 

engagement and planning, project stakeholders saw a shift in how local leaders and community 

members saw both the river and their region: “The interesting thing about that is...you have had 

this symphony of towns all working together and realizing that we complement each other and 

not compete with each other.” In addition, elected officials began to acknowledge the 

Susquehanna as an asset, not just a threat.

The survey results suggest that projects often see multiple ways of defining the 

communities they serve. Project representatives who participated in telephone and site 

visit interviews also viewed the definition of community as complex, particularly when 

thinking about a community in a larger regional context. For example, several project 

staff and community stakeholders discussed the benefits of a regional approach to 

planning and economic development. By working together, they indicated that smaller 

geographic communities were able to develop a greater capacity for planning and 

development, and were therefore able to leverage the outside perception of a region to 

benefit everyone (e.g., tourists think about vacationing in the Great Smoky Mountains, 

not a particular county or town in the region). However, many small towns or rural areas 

have a strong sense of community pride and identity that while adding to the character 

and resiliency of these communities, can also build resistance to a regional development 

approach. As one participant noted: “Somehow there’s this belief that if you’re building 

this larger regional relationship you’re being disloyal to your town instead of building a 

larger possibility.”

The Discovering River Towns project helped build a larger 

community identity among the towns along the Susquehanna 

River.
32

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Community assets (or strengths) and liabilities were important contextual considerations 

for the projects. In both the survey and interviews, respondents reported seeing a variety 

of assets in their communities, including 

assets that enabled their work to succeed.

For example, a close-knit community was 

viewed as a key area of strength across 

projects in interviews, including strong 

partnerships between individuals and 

community groups. Similarly, 82 percent of 

survey respondents saw partnerships as an 

important community asset that influenced 

their project work (Figure 11). Community 

organizations, groups of energized 

community members, and key individuals 

who motivate change were also reported as 

important strengths in survey responses. In 

interviews, project representatives were asked to reflect on aspects of their work that 

were successful. When considering successful aspects of the work, project representatives 

focused mainly on activities that brought community members together (outreach, 

convenings, youth engagement) or had tangible outputs (streetscapes, downtown 

revitalization, new jobs or businesses). One interview respondent reflected on a program 

where “we typically could see ideas or initiatives—and it may not have been during the 

project period—that [community members] could take and do more with. There was 

more opportunity for tangible impact after [these activities].”

Figure 11. Percentage of respondents reporting different types of community assets (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple community assets. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not 

fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

82%

79%

79%

78%

67%

65%

20%

Key partnerships

Community organizations

Groups of energized community members

Individuals who motivate change

Innovative leaders

Physical assets/infrastructure

Other asset

Community strengths reported 

in interviews 

• Proud, resilient people

• Close-knit communities 

• Strong partnerships 

• Community culture and character 

(“sense of place”)

• Location conducive to economic 

growth 

• Natural beauty and resources

• Local universities

• Workforce with a strong work ethic
33

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

As shown in Figure 12, survey respondents reported a number of community liabilities or 

challenges that contextualized or affected their work—with limited resources being 

among the most common challenges (identified by 83 

percent of respondents). Similarly, lack of funding and 

other economic challenges were reported by 

respondents across the 25 projects that participated in 

telephone and site visit interviews. For some, such 

resource shortages tempered the community’s 

strengths. As one interview respondent stated, “We 

have a lot of strengths, just not much money.” Nearly half of project representatives

responding to the survey also saw an entrenched political structure as a community 

liability, while slightly less than a third cited community distrust as a liability. Similarly, 

resistance to or lack of capacity for long-term planning was a common community 

challenge identified in the interviews—with project staff and community stakeholders 

noting several specific challenges that were not reported by survey respondents, including 

population decline (particularly the out-migration of young people), limited access to 

broadband Internet, limited transportation options, and substance abuse.

Figure 12. Percentage of respondents reporting different types of community liabilities 

(n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple community liabilities. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not 

fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Southwest Steuben County I-86/I-99 Corridor Economic Development Blueprint (NY-15936)

The Blueprint Project team in Southwest Steuben County, New York, used a regional 

development focus to develop plans for community improvement projects within the individual 

municipalities in Steuben County. Stakeholders focused on creating plans the community would 

be able to implement, but the physical infrastructure of the region (e.g., water, sewer systems) 

presented a challenge. To overcome this challenge, stakeholders have pursued funding through 

New York State and sought financial support from property developers and owners to improve 

local infrastructure (e.g., water sewers, road extensions).

83%

46%

31%

27%

27%

26%

17%

3%

Limited resources

Entrenched political structure

Distrust

Lack of empowerment

Apathy

Fear of change

Other liability

None of the above

“We have a lot of 

strengths, just not 

much money.” —Interview respondent
34

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Project Strategies 

Through Commission-funded projects, project teams implemented different strategies to 

develop capacity and leadership in the communities they served. They included activities 

related to developing a vision and direction for the community, promoting the 

involvement of community members, and enhancing the skills and knowledge of 

community members.

In both surveys and interviews, respondents reported using multiple strategies to address 

their community challenges. For some of the projects, there appeared to be recognition by 

interview respondents that building community capacity cannot be achieved through 

isolated efforts but requires a set of interconnected strategies and initiatives. For example, 

some respondents noted that leadership development is nearly inextricable from 

community capacity building. As such, they indicated that leaders need to be skilled, 

knowledgeable, and committed. However, they stressed that decisions about growth or 

addressing community needs should also include the whole community—noting that 

leaders and community members should have a shared vision for the long-term future of 

the community, and then should engage in concrete planning to create that future. They 

concluded that planning allows the community to address infrastructure challenges, 

which can range from broadband access to land use to workforce development.

Developing a community vision and direction. Developing vision and direction for the 

community was a key type of activity for the projects, including assessing needs, 

conducting strategic planning, and identifying leadership assets in the community.

Among project representatives responding to the survey, 70 percent conducted strategic 

planning and analysis, while 61 percent conducted a regional or local needs assessment

(Figure 13). More than half the grantees conducted leadership training, and less than half 

the grantees identified potential or current leaders for further training. Additional data on 

implementation of activities related to developing a vision and direction for the 

community, by grant size, are provided in Appendix Figure A-2 on page 74.
35

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure 13. Percentage of projects that included activities related to developing a vision and 

direction for the community (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple activities. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees. 

City of Gainesville Downtown Strategic Planning (GA-17837)

The City of Gainesville, Georgia, developed and implemented a plan to improve their downtown 

area to increase the economic viability of the city as a whole. The project conducted a detailed 

focus study on the downtown and midtown areas to identify what the community values about 

those areas and a vision of what they could become. They focused on engaging what they 

referred to as the “unusual suspects,” such as retirees and young people in high school and 

college. “They are taking ownership of this plan...it truly is their plan, not city staff or even our 

local elected officials. And so it’s a plan that’s going to transcend any change in leadership,” 

explained a project staff member. “I think that is how it would increase leadership capacities, 

giving people not normally within those political grounds the opportunity to take and move 

forward the vision that we’ve captured as a community.”

Among projects focused on developing strategic plans or planning processes, interview 

respondents reported carrying out a variety of interconnected subactivities that supported 

this type of work. For example, one multicommunity planning project team led by a 

university carried out community assessments and provided technical assistance to 

community leaders on developing a plan and next steps. Another project team, led by a 

rural county planning commission, conducted a study of the county’s needs and strengths 

to inform the strategic plan. A third project team, led by a small city government, carried 

out an assessment and inventory of historic buildings and reviewed land use ordinances 

in areas targeted for development.

42%

48%

51%

61%

70%

Identify potential new leaders

Identify current leaders with potential

 for further training

Conduct leadership training

Conduct a regional or local needs assessment

Conduct strategic planning and analysis
36

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Involving community members. Respondents also reported implementing a number of 

activities related to promoting the involvement of community members. For example, 73 

percent of survey respondents reported organizing meetings, conferences, and forums 

(Figure 14). About half conducted a small-scale project requiring community 

participation or developed a community organization, program, foundation, or 

association. Additional data on implementation of activities related to promoting 

involvement of community members, by grant size, are provided in Appendix Figure A-3

on page 75.

Interview respondents from several projects reported that these types of community 

engagement activities were used as a way to lay the groundwork for strategic planning 

initiatives. For example, two local government grant recipients reported that convening 

community members to discuss issues relevant to the community’s future (e.g., proposed 

land use regulation changes) was an initial step in their community planning process. A

representative from a nonprofit organization working with local governments across a 

large region reported that convening community officials and stakeholders to lay the 

groundwork for strategic planning and effective partnerships was a key activity.

Figure 14. Percentage of projects that included activities related to involvement of 

community members (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple activities. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees. 

New Generation West Initiative (NC-17387)

The North Carolina Rural Center developed the New Generation Initiative to counteract the 

alarming “out-migration” of young people from rural North Carolina communities. As part of the 

Initiative, the New Generation Leaders program brought together groups of young adults to 

form community action teams in several communities. Each action team spent a year learning 

about their community’s history, economy, and infrastructure, and engaging with community 

members to develop a community improvement project. At the end of the project, some of the 

community action teams began raising their own funds so they could continue work in their 

communities.

45%

49%

51%

73%

 Conduct outreach to raise community

 awareness of local issues

 Conduct a small-scale project requiring the

participation of community members for completion

Establish/develop a community organization,

 program, foundation, association

Organize and hold meetings, conferences, forums
37

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Enhancing skills or knowledge of community members. Respondents also reported 

implementing activities related to enhancing the skills or knowledge of community 

members. Group training and technical assistance activities were especially common for 

the projects. In survey responses, 62 percent of project representatives reported activities 

related to technical assistance, while 60 percent organized or conducted group 

instructional activities such as workshops (Figure 15). One-on-one training opportunities 

were reported by only about a quarter of survey respondents, making these among the 

least common types of activities reported on the survey. Additional data on 

implementation of activities related to enhancing the skills and knowledge of community 

members, by grant size, are provided in Appendix Figure A-4 on page 75.

Figure 15. Percentage of projects that included activities related to enhancing the skills and 

knowledge of community members (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple activities. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees. 

Project representatives participating in interviews indicated that activities related to 

enhancing skills and knowledge were typically designed with specific community goals 

in mind. For example, through one project, training was provided to local advisory boards 

and there were facilitated peer learning opportunities that related to economic 

development topics. Through another, mini-grants were provided to teams of community 

members for community projects, and leadership training was offered to team members 

to support project implementation. Through a third project, the project team organized 

community trainings on how to engage youth and involve youth in community life, with 

the objective of improving youth leadership development in the community.

26%

43%

60%

62%

 Facilitate, organize, and conduct one-on-one

instructional activities, such as

mentoring/counseling/teaching

Develop, purchase, publish, or distribute materials

Organize and conduct group instructional

activities (e.g., workshops, courses, etc.)

Obtain or provide technical

assistance/consultation
38

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Mississippi Community Action Program 

(MS-17112)

The Mississippi Community Action Program 

(MCAP) team worked to build the skills and 

knowledge of local leaders and community 

members so that they could more ably

identify and address local community 

challenges. The project educated leaders and 

community members through a number of 

different strategies, such as the YourTown 

Mississippi (YTM) Workshops, which taught 

participants basic design and planning 

principles for community development, and 

the Selected to Serve (S2S) retreats, which 

provided training on leadership and 

community goal setting for mayors and board 

members. 

Northeastern Pennsylvania Grantmakers 

(PA-16664)

The Regional Association of Grantmakers 

(RAG) brought together foundation leaders 

and grantmakers in Northeastern 

Pennsylvania to build leadership capacity and 

collaboration for more efficient, responsive, 

and effective grantmaking in the region. By 

regularly convening and educating local 

philanthropic leaders, the RAG has become a 

“hotbed for best practices,” according to one 

interviewee. The number of grantmaking 

collaborations and partnerships in the region 

has increased, including the creation of two 

new community foundations.

Distribution of mini-grants. Another key strategy identified among representatives of

community capacity building and leadership projects is the use of mini-grants. The

typical mini-grant program is administered by a nonprofit organization, educational 

instruction, or state government agency working across a specific region. The mini-grant 

administrators interviewed for this evaluation reported awarding grants to support a range 

of small community initiatives, including efforts to boost economic development, 

develop strategic plans, engage youth, and develop new leaders.

For example, representatives of one community received a series of mini-grants over 

several funding cycles to plan and implement a downtown revitalization project, which 

has helped stakeholders engage university students in revitalization activities, train

partners in leadership skills, and complete a comprehensive economic development 

assessment. So far, the community has seen the opening of five new businesses and the 

expansion of some existing businesses. 

Other mini-grant projects have included a mobile health clinic, scholarships for 

leadership development training, street sign installation and street improvements, 

invasive species control and other environmental planning, development of landslide 

susceptibility maps, a pedestrian connectivity study, and grant-writing workshops, among 

many others. Representatives of grant-making agencies reported that in addition to the 

capacity development intended through the projects, the administration of the mini-grants 

also increased the capacity of staff in many of the smaller community nonprofit 
39

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

organizations by increasing their grant-writing skills and capacity for grant management 

and reporting.

Southwestern Commission Toolbox Implementation Fund (NC-16688)

The Adding Value to Livestock mini-grant project focused on helping western North Carolina 

farmers achieve their national Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) qualifications, which boosted 

income from cattle by approximately 15 percent per head. Farmers have used the additional 

income to continue expanding their operations, and the number of farmers achieving BQA 

qualifications has nearly tripled since the initial small grant due to increased demand and the 

ability to leverage further grant money through the initial success.

Project Challenges 

Survey respondents were asked to indicate whether they faced challenges in carrying out 

their project. Figure 16 shows the most commonly reported types of challenges. The most 

common challenge encountered was in planning the resources needed (35 percent of 

project representatives reported this challenge), followed by local administrative delays, 

delays in contracting with an outside service provider, and changes in key personnel. 

Contractual delays or delays in awarding of the grant and participants not maximizing use 

of services were tied for the fifth most common type of challenge, with 22 percent of 

respondents reporting each. Additional data on specific challenges are provided in 

Appendix Figures A-5 through A-9 on pages 76–78.

Figure 16. Percentage of respondents reporting different types of project challenges (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple challenges. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

22%

22%

24%

30%

32%

35%

Participants not maximizing use of services

Contractual delays or delays in awarding of the grant

Changes in key personnel

Delays in contracting with an outside service

provider/delays incurred by outside providers

Local administrative delays

Planning the resources needed
40

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Town of Section Economic Development Strategy (AL-16578)

Lack of a public sewer system protected the 

town of Section, Alabama, from uncontrolled 

growth and development, but also limited any 

economic growth in the town. When 

construction began on a new sewer system, 

project representatives in the town set out to 

develop a participatory planning process and 

regulatory framework to promote economic 

development and protect environmental, 

scenic, and cultural resources. It was too 

expensive to hire a building inspector, but

enacting zoning ordinances required one. To 

overcome this hurdle, stakeholders proposed 

that the police chief could also serve as the 

building inspector. The town attorney 

approved the proposal, and the zoning 

ordinances were passed.

During the interviews, project representatives also reported a number of specific 

challenges that arose in their work. Major challenges included communication and 

collaboration, capacity challenges, political turnover, and time constraints. Nearly all 

respondents interviewed felt they had overcome challenges over the course of their 

projects. For example, one of the major activities conducted through the Macon County 

Youth: Civic Entrepreneurs & Problem Solvers project was to facilitate mentoring by 

college students for local high school students, and provide opportunities for networking 

and civic participation. Due to transportation limitations and the distance between high 

school students’ locations and event locations, it was difficult to maintain participation. 

To surmount this challenge, the project team increased the number of activities or events 

offered at various locations (e.g., mentors offered services at the students’ school in 

addition to an off-site location). In addition, college student mentors sometimes traveled 

to locations convenient for the high school students, to maintain engagement. Exhibit 2

summarizes some of the key challenges faced across projects and provides examples of 

how project teams attempted to overcome them.

Stakeholders in the town of Section, AL, implemented 

planning and regulation activities to promote economic 

vitality while still protecting the town’s natural beauty 

and resources.
41

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Outcomes Achieved 

Entities funded to implement community capacity and leadership development projects 

aimed to achieve a variety of outcomes at the individual, organizational, and community 

levels. This section presents a summary of the types of stakeholders who were expected 

to benefit from project work and a discussion of the types of outcomes project teams 

expected to achieve. This is followed by survey and interview findings on the extent to 

which the project representatives felt they achieved project outcomes.

Intended Beneficiaries of Project Work 

Most (80 percent) survey respondents intended to target a specific geographic area. Just 

over one-fourth (26 percent) of these 93 projects reported that a single city or town was 

intended to be the beneficiary of their work (Figure 17). Similarly, about a quarter of 

Exhibit 2. Leadership and capacity-building project challenges identified during the 

interviews

• Communication and Collaboration. Even in small communities, many organizations and 

stakeholders work in silos with little communication and different opinions and priorities. 

Getting—and keeping—everyone engaged and on the same page was a challenge for more 

than half the respondents. “One of the early lessons that we learned was that there was a lack 

of interface and communication from all of these important sectors,” one respondent 

explained, and continued, “but, they would also begin to have insights about how they could 

work together, about how they could build on each other’s successes and assets, how they 

could coordinate, how they could complement [each other].”

• Capacity Limitations. Many of the communities involved in grant projects are small towns or 

rural communities and have limited capacity for implementing new programs. Local leaders 

often hold multiple positions or even full-time jobs in addition to their government duties. 

Lack of funding, staffing, and technology also posed challenges. As one respondent noted, 

“We all manage to work with it, but having the resources stabilizes the communities and 

ensures that a lot of the ideas get implemented. Without it, some things get tossed or 

forgotten.” In addition, some grantees also faced their own capacity challenges, mostly 

regarding staffing and transportation. 

• Political Turnover. In several communities, elections or other staff turnover in local 

government presented challenges to the work. New officials need to be briefed on the project 

and sometimes convinced that the project is a good use of community resources, which can 

cause delays. “You’re taking a few steps forward and then you have to back up and bring 

everyone back up to speed,” one respondent noted. 

• Time Frames. Often as a result of the previous challenges mentioned, project teams took 

longer to complete work than anticipated on their original grant timelines. This caused 

contract difficulties for some grantees and made sustaining energy and interest among partners 

and participants more challenging. Noted a respondent, “Capacity building projects need more 

than a year to ferment, to nurture...You really need a minimum of a two-year horizon for 

something like this.” 
42

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

projects that targeted geographic areas said that adjacent counties within a state were 

expected to benefit from project work. Another quarter of projects indicated that other 

types of geographic areas were the intended project beneficiaries. These included 

multiple cities located in various counties, multiple counties within a specific region, and 

adjacent municipalities.

Figure 17. Percentage of projects targeting different geographic areas (n=93)

Notes: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Respondents from 60 of the 117 projects for which a survey was completed indicated that 

specific community segments were expected to benefit from their work. Of these, 

75 percent reported that people or organizations that were geographically isolated or rural 

were intended beneficiaries (Figure 18). Over half reported that people who live in 

poverty or are unemployed or underemployed were intended targets. Over a third 

reported that other types of groups were intended to benefit, including community 

leadership, downtown residents, entrepreneurs, local environmental groups, and farmers.

Figure 18. Percentage of projects targeting specific community segments (n=60)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple community segments. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did 

not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

26%

24%

14%

9%

2%

1%

25%

A single city or town

Adjacent counties within a single state

A single county

All counties within a single state

Adjacent states

A major metropolitan area

Some other geographic area

75%

57%

57%

48%

38%

18%

12%

8%

7%

3%

2%

35%

Geographically isolated or rural

Living in poverty or extreme poverty

Unemployed or underemployed

School dropouts

Elderly

Underrepresented minorities

Disabled

Illiterate

Living in urban or inner-city areas

Migrant workers/migrant students

Limited English speaking

Any other group
43

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Respondents from 26 of the projects reported on the survey that specific sectors were 

intended to benefit from their work. All of these project representatives reported that 

economic development sectors were a focus for their work (Figure 19). Two-thirds 

reported that community or social service sectors were targeted, while about half reported 

that the business or private sector was a focus. Fewer than half of these projects reported 

a focus on education, health care, government, or library sectors.

Figure 19. Percentage of projects targeting specific sectors (n=26)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple sectors. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Anticipated Outcomes 

Respondents from the projects reported that they expected to achieve outcomes at the 

individual, organizational, and community levels. Expected outcomes for individuals 

included increased awareness of community issues, which was cited as a project outcome

by 80 percent of project representatives responding to the survey (Figure 20). Enhanced 

skills and empowerment were also commonly reported as individual-level outcomes.

Other types of individual-level anticipated outcomes reported for projects included 

increased awareness of the community’s assets and potential, enhanced leadership, and 

increased understanding and awareness of philanthropic opportunities.

Figure 20. Percentage of projects expected to achieve individual-level outcomes (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple outcomes. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees. 

100%

65%

54%

42%

42%

27%

4%

31%

Economic development

Community or social service

Business or private

Education

Health care

Government

Library

Other

27%

60%

60%

80%

Other individual capacity outcome

Enhanced empowerment

Enhanced skills

Increased awareness of community issues
44

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program (VA-14248) 

Funded by a Flex-E-Grant, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development 

(DHCD) partnered with the Southwest Regional Adult Education Program to conduct the 

PlugGEDIn VA program. The six-month program helps prepare students for employment by 

getting their GED, career-specific technical training, and other workforce skills training. DHCD 

staff considered PlugGEDIn a particular success “because that was meaningful economic 

development. Those students now work in health care, or they work in technology. They work in 

the music industry; they work in education. [They have] good paying jobs with just an 

associate’s degree.”

Project representatives also reported anticipated outcomes at the organization level on the 

survey. The most common was increased collaboration, cited for 87 percent of projects 

(Figure 21). Enhanced organizational stability or growth and enhanced efficiency or 

effectiveness were also common, with each being reported by 73 percent of project

representatives.

Figure 21. Percentage of projects expected to achieve organization-level outcomes (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple outcomes. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees. 

Several community-level outcomes were reported as goals by project representatives who 

completed the survey. These included increased civic participation, which was the most 

frequently reported at 82 percent (Figure 22). Other commonly reported community-level 

outcomes included improved community self-reliance (78 percent), enhanced community 

pride (69 percent), and improved planning (65 percent).

16%

73%

73%

87%

Other organizational capacity outcomes

Enhanced efficiency and effectiveness

Enhanced stability/growth

Increased collaboration
45

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure 22. Percentage of projects expected to achieve community-level outcomes (n=116)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple outcomes. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project. 

Source: Survey of Commission grantees. 

Southwestern Commission Toolbox Implementation Fund 

(NC-16688)

Stakeholders from the town of Sylva, North Carolina, 

developed a comprehensive streetscape plan for Main 

Street in downtown Sylva to improve traffic flow, 

pedestrian access, landscaping, parking, and access to 

businesses. The complementary Sylva Wayfaring project 

added informational and directional signs at key points 

around Sylva to direct travelers and tourists to commerce 

and points of interest in Sylva.

Outputs and Outcomes Achieved 

As noted previously, community capacity building and leadership project representatives 

specified a variety of performance targets for their work, including project outputs and 

outcomes. Through their performance reporting to the Commission, project

representatives reported both their anticipated outputs and outcomes and any actual

outputs and outcomes achieved by the time of project closeout. For example, a project 

representative might have specified that the project team aimed to enroll 20 people in a 

training (anticipated project output) and that 15 people had participated (actual project 

output). Similarly, project representatives set goals for anticipated outcomes (e.g., 

number of participants who show improvement following a training) and reported on 

what outcomes had actually been achieved. Data were reported on more than one output 

12%

25%

51%

53%

65%

69%

78%

82%

Other community capacity outcome

Increased political participation

Improved infrastructure

Improved educational opportunities

Improved planning

Enhanced community pride

Improved community self-reliance

Increased civic participation

A Sylva Streetscape project goal was to make

Main Street more attractive and accessible.
46

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

and more than one outcome for most projects, and grantees could have had mixed success 

achieving multiple goals (e.g., Project A met its anticipated outcome for Goals 1 and 2, 

and did not meet its anticipated outcome for Goal 3). Project representatives responding 

to the evaluation survey were given the opportunity to review their reported outputs and 

outcomes and provide updated data, if available.

Output Measures

Looking across projects, reported actual outputs were similar to, or higher than, 

anticipated outputs for most measures. For example, project teams that used the number 

of plans or reports developed as an output measure reported an actual output of 253 plans 

or reports, compared to an anticipated count of 211. Similarly, project teams that used the 

number of communities served as an output reported an actual count of 366 communities

served, compared to a projected count of 306 communities. Table 4 shows the anticipated 

and actual counts for the core output measures across all projects in this portfolio.

Secondary outputs for the leadership and community capacity projects are the number of 

students served (nine projects used this measure) and number of business served (five 

projects used this measure).

Table 4. Anticipated and actual project outputs 

Measure

Grantees using 

measure Output counts (all projects)

Number Percentage Projected Actual Results

Participants served 90 59% 12,562 24,255 Exceeded target by 93%*

Plans/reports

developed 66 43% 211 253 Exceeded target by 20%

Communities served 32 21% 306 366 Exceeded target by 20%

Organizations served 17 11% 227 299 Exceeded target by 32%

*Output counts exclude one outlier (Commission grant number CO-16450; the grantee reported actually serving 43,000

participants compared to 2,000 projected).

Note: Grantees could use multiple measures.

Sources: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission and survey of Commission grantees.

Among the core output measures, over 90 percent of project teams that used the number 

of communities served as a project outcome met their projected target in this area (Figure 

23). Project teams that used the number of organizations served, number of participants 

served, or number of plans or reports developed as output measures were also successful, 

with over 80 percent of project teams meeting their targets in each of these areas. 
47

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure 23. Percentage of projects for which projected outputs were met or exceeded, 

by measure type

 

Note: Respondents could select multiple measures.

Sources: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission and survey of Commission grantees.

Outcome Measures

Across projects, reported actual outcomes were also generally similar to anticipated 

outcomes, although the reported actual values tended to be slightly higher than 

anticipated values. For example, among project teams that used the number of programs 

implemented as an outcome measure, 308 programs were reported as actually 

implemented, compared to a projected count of 237 programs. Table 5 shows the 

anticipated and actual counts for the core outcome measures across all projects in this 

portfolio. Secondary outcomes for the leadership and community capacity projects are 

number of businesses created (10 projects), number of students showing measurable 

improvements as a result of the project (7 projects), number of jobs created (6 projects), 

number of jobs retained (2 projects), and leveraged private investment (2 projects).

Table 5. Anticipated and actual project outcomes

Measure

Grantees using 

measure Outcome counts (all projects)

Number Percentage Projected Actual Results

Programs implemented 66 43% 237 308 Exceeded target by 30%

Participants improved 54 36% 5,051 6,770 Exceeded target by 34%*

Communities improved 32 21% 283 354 Exceeded target by 25%

Organizations improved 18 12% 214 284 Exceeded target by 33%

*Outcome counts exclude one outlier (Commission grant number CO-16450; the grantee reported an actual outcome of 

43,000 participants improved compared to 2,000 projected).

Note: Grantees could use multiple measures.

Sources: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission and survey of Commission grantees.

83%

87%

88%

94%

Plans/reports (n=66)

Particiants served (n=90)

Organizations served (n=17)

Communities served (n=32)
48

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Among the core outcome measures, project teams that used community improvement as 

an outcome measure were the most successful in meeting their projected target relative to 

others, with 91 percent meeting or exceeding the projected number of communities 

improved (Figure 24). Nearly 90 percent of project teams that used the number of 

organizations improved met or exceeded their anticipated target.

Figure 24. Percentage of projects for which projected outcomes were met or exceeded, 

by measure type

Note: Respondents could select multiple measures.

Sources: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission and survey of Commission grantees. 

Supplemental Outcomes 

Project representatives responding to the survey were also asked about supplemental 

outcomes or targets they had set for themselves but were not included in the formal

numeric outcome reporting. These included more descriptive objectives, such as “the 

project will provide local leaders with a network of contacts within the region” or “the 

project will provide local leaders with a plan for building their community capacity.” 

Between one and nine supplemental targets were identified for each project; survey 

results showed that the mean number of supplemental targets identified per project was 

five. Almost 60 percent of the supplemental outcomes represented enhanced community 

capacities or tangible community-wide outcomes expected to occur as result of the 

Commission grant. Twenty-three percent of the supplemental outcomes were focused on 

enhancing individual capacities, while only 12 percent of these outcomes were focused 

on organizational capacities.

In general, survey respondents indicated they had a very high level of success in meeting 

these outcomes. Among survey respondents who reported on the status of supplemental 

outcomes, results indicated that 71 percent of projects met all proposed supplemental 

78%

82%

89%

91%

Particiants improved (n=54)

Programs implemented (n=66)

Organizations improved (n=18)

Communities improved (n=32)
49

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

outcomes, while only five percent of projects met fewer than half of supplemental 

outcomes (Figure 25).6

Figure 25. Percentage of projects meeting supplemental targets (n=61)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple outcomes. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

As shown in Table 6, 73 percent of the 469 supplemental outcomes were considered to be 

very important to project success, and 45 percent were reported as having been met more 

often than expected. Further, over half (59 percent) of supplemental outcomes associated 

with individual capacity were viewed as being very important to project success and were 

met more often than expected. Additional data on supplemental targets, including 

descriptive information about the number and types of supplemental targets reported, are 

provided in Appendix Tables A-1 through A-5 on pages 79–81.

 

6 Figure 25 shows information for only the most recently awarded grant of multi-year projects, since only one year was captured on 

the survey. Counting only the most recent year of multi-year projects and single-year projects results in a total of 95 projects. Thirtyfour projects did not report on the status of supplemental outcomes on the survey, leaving 61 projects.

71%

11%

13%

5%

100% met

76-99% met

50-75% met

< 50% met
50

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Table 6. Extent to which supplemental outcomes were met and were considered important 

to project success (n=469 outcomes)

Supplemental outcome type

Number of 

supplemental 

outcomes

Supplemental 

outcome was 

very important 

to project 

success

Supplemental 

outcome was 

met more 

often than 

expected

Supplemental 

outcome was 

very important 

to project 

success AND

was met more

often than 

expected

Individual capacity 106 87% 64% 59%

Organizational capacity 58 74% 48% 45%

Community capacity 176 72% 30% 23%

Community-wide outcomes 104 64% 50% 49%

Other 25 56% 36% 36%

Total 469 73% 45% 40%

Notes: Projects could have more than one supplemental outcome in a given type. The table only includes supplemental 

outcomes for which respondents provided a response to a survey item on the importance of each outcome and the extent to 

which a given outcome was met as planned. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement 

the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Project representatives participating in interviews were asked to discuss which outcomes 

they considered particularly successful and which they found particularly challenging. 

Representatives for nearly all of these projects discussed successful outcomes, and most 

discussed challenges to achieving their outcomes. 

The most commonly discussed successes centered on 

planning and building relationships, representing the 

most tangible and intangible outcomes. Many 

relationships formed between community 

organizations that did not exist prior to the capacitybuilding project. Some participants mentioned that 

other projects have developed out of these new 

partnerships; others discussed an overall shift in 

community culture toward greater collaboration. 

Participants felt this built the capacity both of individual organizations, which now have 

access to more resources, and the community as a whole, which is “building an objective 

group of leaders who are all getting together on the same page to help things move more 

quickly.”

Successful outcome areas

identified in interviews 

• Relationships

• Strategic planning

• Economic development

• Youth development

• Leadership development
51

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Mountain Landscape Initiative: A Tool Box (NC-15971)

The Southwestern North Carolina Planning and Economic Development Commission developed 

a toolkit of best practices and tools for growth management based on the values and needs of 

the communities in western North Carolina. The project team conducted interviews and focus 

groups with a diverse range of community members, which resulted in a video documentary 

(Seeking Balance in the Mountains) that was shared and discussed in community forums. These 

discussions helped identify the key issues to address while developing the toolkit in a multi-day 

charrette, for which a video was produced that is available online (MLI: What’s a Charrette?). 

The charrette brought together over 20 experts in various fields (hydrology, economics, rural 

farming, etc.) in a public working session. Throughout the charrette, public officials and 

community members could join the session at any time to discuss their issues and needs.

Successful strategic planning led communities to solid plans for future development that 

can help them prepare for economic growth while retaining their character and values. 

One participant cautioned that planning outcomes can be difficult to measure: “What 

really matters is: what did that strategic plan over the life of that community produce? 

And that’s often not reported at the end of six months. So the life of the grant lives on 

well beyond the administrative cycle.” Another participant reflected: “Generally speaking 

these grants, like planning grants, they run for a year or so—they don’t run for 10 years. 

And so some of the things that are planned within them take quite a while to accomplish. 

And I think in time nearly everything that’s in the plan will be addressed. They’re all 

good ideas.”

However, some of those communities have already begun implementing their plans 

(through Commission grants, mini-grants, or other leveraged funding), and respondents

mentioned these tangible community improvements as particularly successful outcomes 

both in their own right and for the momentum they are building. For example:

• Respondents affiliated with the City of Gainesville Downtown Strategic Planning

project stated that stakeholders from the local town have begun requesting 

proposals from developers for how to develop city-owned downtown lots. “And 

because we had this plan, this visual concept of before and after that was accepted 

by the community, we are going to be getting a product, an end development that is 

going to be in line with those goals and objectives,” a respondent for the grantee 

explained. “And it’s going to be done in a way that also, while new, will embrace 

the value that the community has for its historic architectural feel and sense of 

place.”

• In a phone interview with representatives from the Center for Rural Development 

and Brushy Fork Institute regarding their mini-grant programs, the interviewees 

stated that through a series of mini-grants, a five-year strategic plan for 

revitalizing their downtown area was developed and implemented. The grantee 
52

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

respondent reported that the downtown area is now thriving with new businesses 

and public spaces. This success has also generated a “culture of community 

development” in the town. “I think it’s the communities that had layered 

investment over time...they could figure out not only their direction but how to 

strategically use these funds to build things that would continue to provide for the 

community where we see the most dramatic change.”

• Other communities have also begun implementing planned development 

activities, such as streetscape projects, greenway development, pedestrian 

connectivity plans, and street sign (or “wayfaring”) installation. One participant

reflected that one small project can have a cumulative impact over time: “There are 

a number of businesses that have started that probably never would have started if 

the Opera House restoration project had not been done. I think there’s at least five 

buildings that have been purchased. I think that’s at least a dozen people who are 

employed whose job didn’t exist before. We’ve attracted other businesses from 

California. They just opened up a business downtown. So there are things that are 

going on, and I think that this planning document had a pretty good impact and it 

continues.”

Other areas where grantees felt they had success included youth development activities, 

mini-grants, and leadership training. One participant felt the project’s greatest success 

had been providing training opportunities for community residents: “Getting as many 

people from small communities into training situations where they’re exposed to broader 

sense of their possibilities and the fact that there’s a lot of skills and information and 

resources available to them. You’re providing them that input that they don’t normally 

get...In most of these small communities they have no budget for it, so being able to 

support them so that they’re expanding their knowledge and applying it locally is a direct 

benefit.”

Challenges to achieving outcomes included funding, 

communication barriers, low community 

engagement, fear of change, gaps in community 

infrastructure, capacity of local government or 

community organizations, differing opinions within 

a community, changes in local leadership or political 

climate, and other community-specific challenges.

One example came from a respondent associated

with a project in which stakeholders finished a 

planning effort just as a major recession hit their 

region: “One of the ways I feel like the recession has 

negatively influenced the progress is we’ve kind of had this backlash into rolling out the 

Barriers to achieving outcomes, 

as identified by interview 

respondents

• Limited resources/capacity

• Communication barriers

• Low engagement

• Fear of change

• Lack of consensus

• Leadership changes
53

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

red carpet for any business to come into town...everybody’s bottom line needs improving, 

so we went from all this thoughtfulness around doing it right to businesses popping up all 

along the 4-lane highway, and driveway cuts, and new stop signs.”

Sustainability and Lessons Learned 

Evaluation respondents were asked to report on their project’s current operational status, 

factors that supported or limited project sustainability beyond the grant period, and any 

key lessons learned that could inform community capacity and leadership projects 

supported by the Commission in the future.

Project Sustainability 

Among survey respondents, 46 percent reported that their Commission-funded project

was still in operation and serving in a function that had expanded since the grant period 

ended (Figure 26). About a quarter of respondents reported that their work is ongoing at 

about the same level as during the grant period. Nineteen percent operate a scaled-back 

version of their original project and 12 percent indicated that their project was no longer 

in operation.

Figure 26. Percentage of projects, by current operation status (n=101)

Notes: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Although the percentages of projects that were still in operation and had expanded at the 

time the evaluation survey was completed were slightly higher among projects funded in 

2011 or earlier than among projects funded in 2012 and later, the operational statuses of 

projects were fairly similar across grant years (Figure 27).

12%

19%

24%

46%

No longer in operation

In operation and serving a function that has scaled

back from the original Commission project(s)

In operation and serving a function that has stayed

about the same as the original Commission project(s)

In operation and serving a function that has

expanded from the original Commission project(s)
54

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure 27. Percentage of projects operating in each status type, by grant year

Notes: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Most of the projects implemented were related to leadership and civic capacity (n=48), 

civic entrepreneurship (n=27), and business development (n=15).7 Of these three 

categories, 65 percent of leadership and civic capacity projects were still in operation and 

had expanded, followed by business development (40 percent) and civic entrepreneurship 

(30 percent). Respondents from less than one-quarter of each category reported that they 

were no longer in operation (Figure 28).

Figure 28. Percentage of projects operating in each status type, by project category7

Notes: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

 

7 The categories are based on the Commission’s classification of projects at the time the projects included in the 

evaluation were funded. During this time frame, the category called “civic entrepreneurship” was renamed 

“leadership and civic capacity.”

12%

11%

13%

14%

22%

11%

11%

6%

13%

19%

11%

14%

22%

22%

22%

25%

19%

24%

44%

50%

14%

33%

22%

22%

13%

13%

46%

33%

38%

57%

22%

44%

44%

56%

56%

All projects (n=101)

2015 (n=9)

2014 (n=8)

2013 (n=7)

2012 (n=9)

2011 (n=18)

2010 (n=18)

2009 (n=16)

2008 (n=16)

No longer in operation In operation, scaled back In operation, about same In operation, expanded

12%

6%

22%

20%

19%

23%

100%

100%

7%

20%

100%

24%

6%

88%

41%

20%

46%

65%

13%

30%

40%

All projects (n=101)

Leadership and civic capacity (n=48)

Environment and natural resources (n=1)

Education and workforce development (n=1)

Community development (n=8)

Civic entrepreneurship (n=27)

Business development (n=15)

Asset-based development (n=1)

No longer in operation In operation, scaled back In operation, about same In operation, expanded
55

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Survey respondents who reported that their work had expanded were asked what factors 

had facilitated this expansion. Nearly 60 percent reported that an increased need for 

leadership and capacity-building activities in the community was a factor in their 

expansion, while 54 percent cited increased recognition of the value of these types of 

activities (Figure 29). Some interview respondents also cited community attitudes 

regarding the importance of capacity building as a reason they had been able to continue 

their work. In one such community, an interview participant explained that “there is a 

cultural shift, and that shift of paradigm, to me, is far more permanent than physical 

structures.” Other key factors that interview respondents identified as supporting

sustainability were increased capacity of the community or lead organization, additional 

funding, and commitment of leadership.

Figure 29. Percentage of projects that expanded due to various factors (n=46)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple factors. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Appalachian Rural Development Philanthropy Initiative: Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky

(KY-17101)

Representatives from the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky (FAKY), through the Appalachian 

Rural Development Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI), sought to leverage local sources of 

philanthropy funding to allow rural Kentucky communities to determine and address their own 

needs. Between 2008 and 2015, 18 community endowments were established. From the start, 

FAKY established a capital investment plan and worked with a financial consultant to develop a 

sustainability plan. Ultimately, FAKY respondents feel that the project continues to exist because 

“it’s a vital piece of the infrastructure of southeastern Kentucky as we transition our economy 

away from coal...we are a part of the infrastructure that has been missing for a long time in 

most rural places and most definitely in southeastern Kentucky, and that’s why we still exist and 

will continue to exist.”

17%

11%

30%

46%

54%

59%

Other

Loss of other community services that led the

project to take on additional roles

Additional funding available for leadership and

capacity building activities

Additional areas of need recognized since the 

grant’s inception

Increase in recognition or value of community

leadership and capacity building activities

Increased need for community leadership and

capacity building activities
56

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Among survey respondents who reported that their projects had scaled back activities, 

key factors that led to the scale-back included a decreased need for leadership and 

capacity-building activities and decreased recognition of the value of these activities 

(Figure 30). Lack of funding or resources was also commonly reported, with 79 percent 

of respondents reporting that this was a factor that led to their current status. Other factors 

that led to scaled-back project activities included changes in priorities and changes in 

leadership. Similarly, interview respondents reported that shifts in community priorities, 

resource shortages, and changes in the economic or political climate were among the key 

challenges for sustainability. Some individuals participating in interviews reported that 

projects suffered leadership turnover or staffing loss that made it difficult to take on more 

work or apply for further funding. In other communities, shifting economic conditions 

hindered further work. “Right after this [project], the bottom fell out of the economy. So 

some of those things that looked just terrific never happened,” one interview participant 

explained, further noting, “I’ve been involved with all of these planning efforts, and 

honestly, they’re all sitting on a shelf somewhere. And to me, that’s very unfortunate. I 

think there’s incredible material in there that nobody’s really looking at right now.”

Figure 30. Percentage of projects that scaled back due to various factors (n=19)

Notes: Respondents could select multiple factors. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully 

implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Lessons Learned 

Respondents participating in interviews shared various lessons learned from their work, 

including what is necessary for successful community capacity and leadership 

development, and what projects might have done differently if given the chance. Several 

68%

0%

21%

79%

88%

88%

Other

Fewer areas of need recognized since the grant’s 

inception

Increase in other community services

Fewer funds or other resources available

Decreased recognition or value of community

leadership and capacity building activities

Decreased need for community leadership

and capacity building activities
57

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

common recommendations were identified, related to topics including leadership, 

collaboration, resources, and local ownership of the effort.

• Focus on identifying and developing effective leaders. Respondents who 

participated in interviews noted that community capacity building requires strong 

and skilled leadership to succeed, elevating the importance of identifying capable 

leaders to guide the work. One respondent stated that this was not about identifying 

“the smartest guy at the table” but rather finding the “person who knows the most 

about [the] situation and can help make an effective change take place.” Another

respondent, however, noted that identifying effective leaders can sometimes be 

challenging in small communities where there are “only one or two key leaders. If 

one of them goes away it presents a big problem.” Respondents from other projects 

noted the importance of developing leadership, which can give people (especially 

unlikely candidates) a chance to step out front. In fact, one respondent argued that 

rural communities offer a unique opportunity for new leaders to develop, saying 

“It’s a short, quick path to leadership in a rural area, so if you give people the right 

tools, you can get things done.” Another respondent said that new leaders can 

emerge from unexpected places, highlighting the importance of broad community 

engagement as a means to identify new leaders.

• Collaborate, cooperate, and communicate—with everyone. Respondents who 

participated in the interviews reported that success relies heavily on partnerships 

and leveraging relationships within the community. To this end, an inclusive 

approach to community engagement was described across projects as essential. As 

one participant said, “I think the key lesson is [to] think outside the box when it 

comes to who you ask to participate in your steering committee, your focus groups, 

and what not. Think outside the box and go after the unusual voices that you 

haven’t heard from before so that you get a full spectrum of what your community 

is truly all about.” Other participants agreed that casting a wide net was important, 

but also noted that projects should be strategic in how community members are 

engaged. For example, it was noted that project teams must make an effort to 

understand different personalities and how to make different personalities work 

together to achieve the common goal. One respondent said that careful attention to 

“barriers to open thought and communication” is a good way to create and maintain 

dialogue in a community. Another successful approach is clearly informing the 

community about the logic behind or the process of implementing improvement 

plans.

• Carefully consider the time, funding, and other resources needed for success.

Interview respondents pointed out the resource-intensive nature of community 

capacity building, indicating that it is important for those pursuing these types of 

efforts to carefully plan for what resources will be needed. For example, it was 

noted in several projects that community capacity building is inherently time 

consuming, particularly when a project is trying to change attitudes or culture 
58

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

within a community. As one participant said, “The work is very labor intensive. 

You can’t just spend 40 hours in the community, walk away and expect them to be 

self-sufficient.” As noted above, people are an essential resource for community 

capacity-building efforts, and some interview respondents said it was important to 

plan for sustained engagement of leaders and other stakeholders, but also to be 

careful to not over-involve people and thus avoid burnout. Funding to support the 

work is also required for success, but interview respondents said the amount of 

funding does not necessarily have to be large. For example, a respondent from a 

project that provided mini-grants argued, “Just enabling folks to fund these little 

chunks [mini-grants] and keep that momentum going creates a space in which 

leadership emerges.” It was also noted that in distressed rural communities, small 

improvements or increases can mean a huge impact for community members—for 

example, increasing a farming family’s income by $100 a month by helping them 

build a greenhouse means a lot when they are raising a family of four on less than 

$20,000 per year.

• Change has to be owned locally. Interview respondents found that the success of 

their work depended on attaining meaningful community buy-in. Project 

representatives said that achieving this often means working from the bottom up, 

rather than the top down. Community members must be met “where they are” and 

projects should avoid entering a community “with the mindset that you’re going to 

save them,” said one respondent. Another respondent argued that “[community 

members] have the answers, you just have to help them bring those answers to the 

fore and let them know you’re here to help facilitate the process, that you’re not 

there to do it for them.” Making meaningful links to local culture can be one way to 

encourage community acceptance and buy-in and can bring communities together 

in a powerful way. As one respondent stated, such efforts to celebrate local culture 

are sometimes overlooked in capacity-building work: “Ironically, we’ve been 

cutting wood, mining coal, and drilling for oil and gas, but one resource that we 

have not tapped is our culture and our people.... From a [capacity] building 

standpoint, this is the direction we need to take. We need to tap into our people and 

our culture.”
59

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

This page left intentionally blank.
60

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

5. Policy Implications and

Program Recommendations

Evaluation findings demonstrate that Commission-funded leadership and community 

capacity projects were successful in implementing economic development activities and 

achieving most local goals. Quantitative data provide evidence of the achievement of 

project goals, while the qualitative data offer supportive supplemental information on 

project stakeholder perceptions of how project goals were achieved and project activities 

were sustained. The evaluation team selected projects for telephone interviews and site 

visits that best represented the breadth of Commission-funded projects in this portfolio. 

Exploration of the quantitative data supplemented by the qualitative data enabled the 

critical examination of project processes, outcomes, and lessons learned, as well as the 

identification of potential additional performance measures. Interview respondents also 

provided recommendations for the Commission. This section describes the evaluation 

team’s recommendations in detail. They are suggestions for the Commission’s 

consideration based on the team’s experience with performance measurement and 

knowledge of projects in this portfolio.

Policy Context 

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (and the subsequent 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010), enacted to increase federal accountability and show 

progress toward achieving agency goals, requires federal agencies to submit data on 

program results to Congress annually. Performance measures should be meaningful and 

enable the federal agency to observe, track, and quantify program performance and 

progress toward achieving program results (Scheafer, Harps, Moore, & Lammert, 2018). 

To meet this requirement, grant recipients report project-level data to the federal agency 

that awarded the grant, which the federal agency aggregates to report on program-level 

performance. Commission grantees may also report data on supplemental measures that 

enable them to track progress toward achieving results specific to the individual project. 

The degree to which performance measures are useful depends on the quality of the data 

reported, alignment of program or project goals with measures, and the extent to which 

the measures are clear and measurable.
61

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Recommendations for Performance Measurement for 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects 

The logic model developed through the evaluation of the Commission’s leadership and 

community capacity projects (see Figure 5, page 6) shows the following short- and 

medium-term outcomes for projects in the portfolio:

• Community member opportunities to build knowledge and skills, and increase 

capacity to contribute to community-building efforts

• Interorganizational collaboration/networking and engagement in community 

planning activities leading to increased capacity for local communities to improve 

and sustain local economies

• Local leader development and participation in community and economic 

development

These short- and medium-term outcomes are expected to lead to increases in the 

following long-term outcomes:

• Number of businesses created or strengthened

• Number of jobs created and retained

• Preparation and achievement among students, workers, and leaders

• Capacity to identify and address local issues

• Number of businesses and households with access to improved infrastructure

In addition to outcomes addressed in the logic model and in the recommendations below, 

it is important to note that two core measures were established for the Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity strategic investment goal in the Commission’s most 

recent strategic plan (Appalachian Regional Commission, 2015). These measures were 

established after funding had ceased for the projects included in the current evaluation.

The two core performance measures are as follows:

1. The number of leaders strengthened

2. The number of communities with enhanced capacity
62

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Capacity-Building Need: Capable and Committed Local Leaders 

Evaluation findings and current literature show that community capacity and local 

leadership are intertwined and equally important to community change efforts, 

particularly in rural communities. Interview respondents and the literature also

emphasized the importance of communities having local leaders who make meaningful

contributions to community capacity-building efforts and remain engaged in the efforts 

over time. This requires local collaborative groups to strategize about how to identify and 

support local leaders, and identify opportunities to help potential and existing leaders 

develop and expand relevant knowledge and skills. 

Recommendation: In addition to the current performance measure, the number of leaders 

strengthened, the evaluation team recommends that the Commission consider employing 

other performance measures for its leadership and community capacity projects to help 

the Commission gauge progress toward strengthening local leadership as a step toward 

enhancing community capacity. For example, the Commission could consider developing 

measures that may help predict success in increasing the number of leaders strengthened,

such as the following:

• Percentage of planned leadership development activities that were implemented

• Percentage of community leaders who formally agreed (e.g., through 

Memorandums of Agreement or Understanding [MOAs or MOUs]) to participate 

in community-building activities when the grant was awarded and remain actively 

involved in the activities over time

• Percentage of community leaders who were invited to participate in skill- or 

knowledge-building activities and participated

For each measure, the Commission could establish annual percentage goals that are 

targeted for achievement. Also, grantees would report the numerator, denominator, and 

resulting percentage for each measure. For example, for the third measure grantees would 

report the number of leaders who participated in skill- or knowledge-building activities 

(numerator), the number of leaders who were invited to participate in the activities 

(denominator), and resulting percentage. The nature of improvement will vary based on 

the measure. For example, knowledge of the percentage of leaders who were invited to 

participate in skill- or knowledge-building activities and who actually participated in the 

activities (the third suggested measure) will enable the Commission to determine the 

extent to which grantees had success in efforts to engage local leaders. If the percentage 

of invited leaders who participated in skill- or knowledge-building activities is lower than 

the target percentage (or if the percentage decreases over time), it may indicate that 
63

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

grantees need more support in improving local leader engagement (e.g., support in 

identifying appropriate recruitment strategies or refining leader engagement plans).

Capacity-Building Need: Efficient Community Collaborations that Galvanize 

Community Support 

The other existing performance measure for the Commission’s leadership and community 

capacity projects is the number of communities with enhanced capacity. Interviews with 

project representatives and the current literature highlight the challenges that are 

prevalent in rural communities, including limited resources, depopulation, and poor 

economic conditions. These challenges, coupled with unique grantee-specific challenges, 

could limit the extent to which grantees enhance their respective community’s capacity. 

However, interview respondents from most projects identified successful strategies for 

surmounting the challenges.

Recommendation: The Commission should consider exploring community collaborative 

processes that are critical to community-building efforts by more closely examining the

multiple layers of community capacity. To do this, the evaluation team recommends 

developing performance measures that could provide insight on critical communitybuilding processes, such as the following:

• Percentage of partnerships with key stakeholders that were formed or formalized 

(e.g., through MOAs or MOUs) when the grant was awarded and are maintained 

over time

• Completion or updates to a strategic plan for the community the grant was funded 

to improve (e.g., grantees would report whether they have a strategic plan that was 

completed or updated during the funding period)

The first suggested measure would enable the Commission to examine the extent to 

which grantees are able to establish or maintain partnerships that may be critical to 

achieving project success. Grantees would report the numerator (e.g., number of partners 

who were members of the community collaborative when the grant was awarded and 

continued to actively participate in the collaborative at the end of the grant year), 

denominator (e.g., number of partners who were members of the collaborative when the 

grant was awarded), and the resulting percentage.

For the second suggested measure, grantees would answer “yes” or “no” to a question 

about whether they completed or updated a strategic plan for the community the grant 

was funded to improve. The Commission would calculate the percentage of grantees that 
64

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

have a strategic plan by using the total number of leadership and community capacity 

grantees as the denominator and the number of grantees who completed or updated a 

strategic plan as the numerator (grantees that answered “yes” to the question). The 

Commission may also want to consider requesting that grantees provide descriptive 

information to support the quantitative response. For example, grantees could identify the 

types of partners on the collaborative (e.g., local government officers) and when each 

partner joined the collaborative. When examined in combination with other data, this 

information could provide insight on which partners may be essential to the development 

or refinement of comprehensive strategic plans for rural communities.

Capacity-Building Need: Continuous Awareness of Local Economic Conditions 

The potential for success in achieving community capacity-building goals may vary 

across projects, depending on the characteristics of the community in which project 

activities will be implemented. However, a project that was carefully planned and 

executed to address the community’s identified needs has the potential to improve 

economic conditions for residents in the community. Improvements in an individual’s or 

family’s circumstances lead to subsequent improvements in the economic profile of the 

community. Tracking how and when community change efforts move the economic 

needle will aid in the identification of strategies for building on successful solutions and 

in making adjustments to address ineffective change efforts.

Recommendation: The evaluation team recommends that grantees track and report

changes in local economic conditions. The Commission tracks socioeconomic conditions 

of the Region, so more extensive county-level data would enable the Commission to 

conduct a more in-depth examination of how project activities affect local, and 

subsequently regional, conditions. Grantees could examine data from measures such as

the following:

• Median income

• Percentage of families in poverty

• Percentage of children that qualify for the federal free and reduced-price lunch 

program

• Employment rate
65

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Recommendations for Leadership and 

Community Capacity Grants 

As mentioned throughout this report, community capacity is a multidimensional concept

that local communities in the Appalachian Region tackle in a multitude of ways. The 

evaluation team offers the recommendations below for the Commission to address the 

multidimensionality of community capacity.

• Offer short- or long-term grants designed to support grant recipients in

implementing projects that will address specific facets of community capacity 

(e.g., increase interorganizational capacity, including building an efficient and 

stable collaborative partnership), and conduct a rigorous evaluation of processes 

and outcomes. 

• Offer multiyear grants designed to support grant recipients in implementing 

projects that will address one community capacity component per year. This will 

enable project teams to prioritize their community’s capacity-building needs and 

strengthen one capacity-building process at a time. 

• Consider all characteristics of grant communities during the review process for 

leadership and community capacity grant proposals. Funding reserved for rural, 

distressed counties may be out of reach if a county looks too prosperous on paper. 

For example, some Appalachian areas attract retirees with higher incomes from 

outside the Region, driving up the median income level. Outside those communities

there is still enormous poverty and need. That disparity can make the county as a 

whole look more prosperous, even though the distressed areas still have as high a 

level of need as other counties whose distress is more statistically obvious.

• Establish more rigorous requirements for grantee performance reporting and 

provide detailed program-specific performance reporting guidelines, including 

expectations for required program-level measures. This will help grantees to report 

more complete, high-quality data the Commission can use to assess grantee- and 

program-level performance.
66

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

6. Summary and Conclusion

Summary of Major Findings 

The evaluation sought to answer eight research questions about leadership and 

community capacity projects the Commission funded between fiscal years 2008 and 2015

(specified in Exhibit 1 on page 8). A summary of findings related to the research 

questions is provided below; more detailed information can be found in the Summary of 

Research Findings and Results (section 4) of this report.

Commission-funded grantees implemented projects to improve local conditions and 

support local residents. Among survey respondents, the most commonly cited geographic

area targeted was a single city or town, the most commonly cited community segment 

targeted was people or organizations that were geographically isolated, and the most 

commonly cited sector targeted was economic development sectors. When asked about 

community challenges or liabilities, project representatives who completed an evaluation 

survey most commonly cited limited resources and an entrenched political structure. All 

project representatives who participated in site visits and telephone interviews described 

limited funding and other economic challenges, underscoring the importance of 

Commission funding. Respondents described approaches for surmounting these 

challenges, including implementation of interconnected strategies and initiatives, and 

increasing multi-level community member involvement in local activities.

Grantees reported data on a range of anticipated and actual outputs and outcomes. The 

outcome measure used most frequently among projects was the number of programs 

implemented, and 82 percent of those that used this measure met or exceeded their 

anticipated target. Most grantees exceeded target goals for all other core outcome 

measures as well (i.e., the number of participants improved, communities improved, and 

organizations improved). Many grantees also reported using supplemental outcomes or 

targets they had set for themselves that were not included in the formal numeric outcome 

reporting. Project representatives reporting use of supplemental measures had from one to 

nine of these measures. Data from project surveys indicated that 71 percent of projects 

with supplemental measures met all proposed supplemental outcomes. 

For local initiatives, it is critically important to sustain project activities after funding 

ends. Projects included in this evaluation were funded by the Commission between fiscal 

years 2008 and 2015. Eighty-nine percent of projects that responded to the survey were 
67

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

still in operation. Of those, some maintained the same level of functioning (24 percent), 

some had expanded their scope (46 percent), and some had scaled back (19 percent). It is 

important to reiterate that the response rate for the survey was 77 percent of all projects, 

so there is uncertainty about whether project representatives that did not respond to the 

survey would have reported similar success with sustainability. Among project teams that 

expanded activities since the grant ended, the most commonly cited reason for the 

expansion was the increased need for community leadership and capacity-building 

activities, followed by increased recognition of the value of these types of activities. 

Likewise, respondents reporting scaled-back functioning since the grant ended cited 

decreased need for, and/or recognition of the value of, leadership and capacity-building 

activities as the main reasons for scaling back. 

Over 80 percent of survey respondents reported that key partnerships contributed to 

project success. Most respondents also reported that community organizations, energized 

community members, and individuals who motivate change contributed to project 

success. Project representatives interviewed described strategies they applied to project 

implementation, learned through their work on the Commission-funded project and 

similar initiatives. For example, some representatives reported that it is essential for 

community stakeholders to communicate with each other and collaborate with 

community members. Similarly, some project representatives reported during interviews 

that one area in which they experienced great success was in building relationships, and 

the most commonly reported organization-level outcome to be achieved was to increase 

collaboration. Collectively, the evaluation findings indicate that community stakeholders 

recognize the importance of collaboration and service coordination. Change efforts are 

more effective when individuals and organizations work collaboratively rather than in 

silos to address identified needs. Through collaboration and coordination, community 

partners capitalize on each other’s strengths and pool needed resources.

As illustrated throughout this report, Commission-funded project teams worked to 

improve the ability of individuals, organizations, and community institutions to 

understand the challenges they face, identify assets that can be leveraged to surmount the 

challenges, and design and implement plans to become more successful and resilient.

Community capacity building requires substantial time and effort from individuals and 

organizations in the community. Project success often depends on shifts in deep-seated 

attitudes and behaviors, which can take time to change. However, as mentioned in the 

previous section of this report, there are steps that can be taken to help future grantees 

achieve their goals. For example, it is important to develop a set of performance measures 

that will help grantees and the Commission isolate areas of success in capacity-building 
68

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

processes that have the potential to be replicated and strengthened, and strategize to 

address areas of need. 

Conclusion 

The challenges Appalachian communities face are complex. The evaluation showed that 

the leadership and community capacity project teams worked to address these complex 

challenges by designing initiatives that take into account the multifaceted nature of 

community capacity. The project teams worked to improve the ability of individuals, 

organizations, and community institutions to understand the challenges they face, identify 

assets that can be leveraged in addressing those challenges, and design and implement 

plans to become more successful and resilient. The project teams themselves experienced 

success in this work as well, with many able to achieve a high proportion of the goals 

they set for themselves and continuing to pursue their work well after the funding 

provided by the Commission had ended. Even with these successes, project

representatives acknowledged that there are few if any quick-fix solutions to carrying out 

community capacity building, as success often depends on shifts in deep-seated attitudes 

and behaviors that can take time to change. This indicates that the Commission’s ongoing 

work to support community capacity building and leadership development in 

Appalachian communities is well directed and important to the Region’s long-term 

economic and social prosperity.
69

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

This page left intentionally blank.
70

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

7. References

Alter, C., & Murty, S. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching practice evaluation. Journal of 

Social Work Education, 33: 103–17.

Appalachian Regional Commission. (2004). Appalachia: Turnings assets into opportunities. 

Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved from 

http://www.arc.gov/images/newsroom/publications/assets/assets.pdf

Appalachian Regional Commission. (2015). Investing in Appalachia’s future: The Appalachian 

Regional Commission’s five-year strategic plan for capitalizing on Appalachia’s 

opportunities. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved from 

https://www.arc.gov/images/newsroom/publications/sp/InvestinginAppalachiasFutureARC

s2016-2020StrategicPlan.pdf

Appalachian Regional Commission. (2016). County economic status and distressed areas in 

Appalachia, FY 2017 data tables. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/countyeconomicstatusanddistressedareasinappala

chia.asp

Appalachian Regional Commission. (n.d.a). Asset-based development. Washington, DC: 

Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved from 

https://www.arc.gov/program_areas/index.asp?PROGRAM_AREA_ID=13

Appalachian Regional Commission. (n.d.b). Leadership planning and capacity building. 

Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. Retrieved from 

https://www.arc.gov/program_areas/index.asp?PROGRAM_AREA_ID=17

Aspen Institute. (2009). Measuring community capacity building—A workbook-in-progress for 

rural communities, Version 3-96. The Aspen Institute Rural Economic Policy Program. 

Washington, DC: Aspen Institute. Retrieved from 

https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/measuring-community-capacity-building/

Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. In L. Bickman, (Ed.), Using program 

theory in evaluation, new directions for program evaluation, 33, 5-18. San Francisco, 

CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 

Boyd, C. P., Hayes, L., Wilson, R. L., & Bearsley-Smith, C. (2008). Harnessing the social capital 

of rural communities for youth mental health: An asset-based community development 
71

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

framework. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 16, 189-193. DOI: 10.111/j.1440-

1584.2008.00996.x. 

Chaskin, R. J. (1999). Defining community capacity: A framework and implications from a 

comprehensive community initiative. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the 

University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.saintlukesfoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/07/41.pdf

Collaborative for Neighborhood Transformation. (n.d.). What is asset based community 

development (ABCD). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University, Asset-Based Community 

Development Institute. Retrieved from https://resources.depaul.edu/abcdinstitute/resources/Documents/WhatisAssetBasedCommunityDevelopment.pdf

Craig, G. (2005). Community capacity-building: Definitions, scope, measurements and critiques. 

A paper presented for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

(OECD): Prague, Czech Republic. 

Economic Innovation Group. (2016). The 2016 distressed communities index. Washington, DC: 

Economic Innovation Group. Retrieved from http://eig.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/2016-Distressed-Communities-Index-Report.pdf

Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: Mapping community transformation with 

community capitals framework. Journal of the Community Development Society, 37(1), 19-

35. Retrieved from https://www.uvm.edu/rsenr/rm230/costarica/Emery-Flora-2006.pdf

Fey, S., Bregendahl, C., & Flora, C. (2006). The measurement of community capitals through 

research. Online Journal of Rural Research & Policy, 1(1), 1-26. Retrieved from 

http://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ojrrp

Flaspohler, P., Duffy, J., Wandersman, A., Stillman, L., & Maras, M. A. (2008). Unpacking 

prevention capacity: An intersection of research-to-practice models and communitycentered models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 182-196. DOI: 

10.1007/s10464-008-9162-3.

Flora, J. L., Flora, C. B., Bastian, S., & Manion, E. (2003). Leadership and community capacity 

building: An inventory and analysis of curricula and tools. East Lansing, MI: North 

Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Retrieved from 

http://srdc.msstate.edu/fop/levelthree/trainarc/sharedleadership/leadershipcommunitycapacitybldg.pdf

Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.
72

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., Smith, S. R., 

Sterling, T. D., & Wallerstein, N. (1998). Identifying and defining the dimensions of 

community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education & Behavior, 

25(3), 258-278. Retrieved from 

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/67070/10.1177_10901981980250

0303.pdf?sequence=2

Greenstone, M., & Looney, A. (2011). Renewing economically distressed American 

communities. Issues in Science & Technology, 27(2), 59-67.

Hargreaves, M. B., Verbitsky-Savitz, N., Coffee-Borden, B., Perreras, L., Pecora, P. J., Roller 

White, C., Morgan, G. B., Barila, T., Ervin, A., Case, L., Hunter, R., & Adams, K. (2016). 

Advancing the measurement of collective community capacity to address adverse 

childhood experiences and resilience. Gaithersburg, MD: Community Science. Retrieved 

from http://www.appi-wa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/APPI-White-Paper.pdf

Kemmis, D., & Knotz, S. (2012). Community capacity-building: Lessons learned from our 

partners. Listening and Learning Series. Seattle, WA: Philanthropy Northwest. Retrieved 

from 

https://philanthropynw.org/sites/default/files/resources/Community%2520Capacity%2520

Case%2520Studies%25204.30.12.pdf

Kerka, S. (2003). Community asset mapping. Trends and Issues Alert No. 47. Education 

Resources Information Center (ERIC). Retrieved from http://www.calproonline.org/eric/docs/tia00115.pdf

Kleiner, B., Raue, K., Silverstein, G., Bell, R., & Wells, J. (2004). Evaluation of the Appalachian 

Regional Commission’s community capacity-building projects. Rockville, MD: Westat. 

Retrieved from 

https://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/EvaluationofARCCommunityCapacityBuildin

gProjects1.pdf

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Introduction to building communities from the inside 

out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets (p. 1-11). Evanston, IL: 

Institute for Policy and Research. Reprinted with permission from John P. Kretzmann and 

John L. McKnight. Retrieved from https://resources.depaul.edu/abcdinstitute/publications/Documents/GreenBookIntro%202018.pdf

Liu, Y. (2010). Building urban community capacity: A multiliteracy framework. Researcher: An 

Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(2), 21-46.
73

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Lott, S., & Chazdon, S. (2009). The effects of leadership development: Individual outcomes and 

community impacts—a U Lead impact study. St. Paul, MN: Regents of the University of 

Minnesota. Retrieved from 

https://www.extension.umn.edu/community/research/reports/docs/U-Lead-report-effectsleadership-development.pdf

Marre, A., & Weber, B. (2007) Assessing community capacity in rural America: Some lessons 

from two rural observatories. Working Paper. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, 

Rural Studies Program. Retrieved from 

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/9264/RSP07-

02.pdf;sequence=1

Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community 

development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice, 

13(5), 474-486. Retrieved from https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/27454fab-98e8-

4d89-80a0-044837593aa0.pdf

McLaughlin, J., & Jordan, G. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s 

performance story. Evaluating and Program Planning, 22: 65-72.

O’Doherty, R., Smith, A., Spangler, B., Williams, E., & Richards-Schuster, K. (2015). Strategies 

to strengthen youth leadership and youth participation opportunities in Central 

Appalachia. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Carsey School of Public Policy. 

Retrieved from http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1238&context=carsey

Porter, L., Martin, K., & Anda, R. (2016). Self-healing communities: A transformational process 

model for improving intergenerational health. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Johnson 

Foundation. Retrieved from 

http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/farm/reports/reports/2016/rwjf430225

Schaefer, V., Harps, S., Moore, H., & Lammert, J.D. (2018). Grantee guide to project 

performance measurement. Rockville, MD: Westat.

Simpson, L., Wood, L., & Daws, L. (2003). Community capacity building: Starting with people 

not projects. Community Development Journal, 38(4), 277-286. DOI: 

10.1093/cdj/38.4.277. 

Verity, F. (2007). Community capacity building—A review of the literature. Government of South 

Australia Department of Health. Retrieved from 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/36722639_Community_capacity_building_-

_a_review_of_the_literature
74

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Appendix A: Supplemental Data

Figure A-1. Percentage of projects in which resources were identified as providing important

contributions, by grant size in dollars (n=100)

Notes: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

26%

17%

18%

13%

6%

15%

36%

34%

69%

47%

42%

49%

67%

58%

44%

45%

41%

13%

28%

42%

33%

20%

35%

40%

18%

24%

19%

43%

43%

46%

14%

28%

53%

10%

53%

46%

Local government agency

State agency

Federal agency

Private sector company

Foundation

Local community/nonprofit

National or regional organization

Individual community members

Other

Small (<= $24,072) Medium ($24,073–$100,000) Large ($100,001+) All
75

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure A-2. Percentage of projects in which activities related to developing a vision and 

direction for the community were implemented, by grant size in dollars (n=105)

Notes: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

70%

61%

42%

48%

51%

31%

32%

31%

39%

42%

53%

54%

49%

46%

42%

16%

14%

20%

14%

15%

Conduct strategic planning and analysis

Conduct a regional or local needs assessment

Identify potential new leaders

Identify current leaders with

potential for further training

Conduct leadership training

Small (<= $24,072) Medium ($24,073– $100,000) Large ($100,001+) All
76

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure A-3. Percentage of projects in which activities related to promoting the involvement 

of community members were implemented, by grant size in dollars (n=105)

Notes: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Figure A-4. Percentage of projects in which activities related to enhancing the skills and 

knowledge of community members were implemented, by grant size in dollars

(n=105)

Note: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.
77

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure A-5. Planning challenges (n=116)

Note: Survey respondents could select more than one challenge. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did 

not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Figure A-6. Administrative challenges (n=116)

 Note: Survey respondents could select more than one challenge. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did 

not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

18%

3%

13%

22%

35%

43%

Other planning problems

Planning for how quickly equipment

would become obsolete

Planning for the demand for services

or magnitude of the problem

Planning the time or effort needed

Planning the resources needed

No planning challenges

13%

1%

2%

3%

7%

22%

32%

48%

Other administrative problems

Matching funds were never received

Delays in receiving payments or reimbursements

Project funds were depleted before implementation

Matching funds were less than expected

Contractual delays or delays in awarding of the grant

Local administrative delays

No administrative challenges
78

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure A-7. Personnel challenges (n=116)

Note: Survey respondents could select more than one challenge. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did 

not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Figure A-8. Implementation challenges (n=116)

Note: Survey respondents could select more than one challenge. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did 

not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

6%

9%

10%

20%

24%

60%

Other personnel challenges

Excessive staff turnover

Communication problems or misunderstanding of roles

Inadequate staff

Changes in key personnel

No personnel challenges

17%

3%

11%

30%

51%

Other implementation problems

Problems developing program materials

Construction delays

Delays in contracting with an outside service provider

or delays incurred by outside providers

No implementation challenges
79

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Figure A-9. Community challenges (n=116)

Note: Survey respondents could select more than one challenge. A respondent from one project completed a survey but did 

not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

16%

11%

22%

59%

Other community problems

Community/families not supportive

Participants not maximizing use of services

No community challenges
80

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Table A-1. Distribution of supplemental outcomes identified through the document review

(n=469 outcomes)

Outcome type Number of outcomes Percentage

Individual capacity 106 23

Organizational capacity 58 12

Community capacity 176 38

Community-wide outcomes 104 22

Other 25 5

Total 469 100

Notes: The lack of clarity for many of the supplemental outcomes made it difficult to systematically code these statements. As 

such, the distribution in this table should be viewed as exploratory. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Data provided by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Table A-2. Status of supplemental outcomes at the time the survey was administered (n=468 

outcomes)

Outcome type

Number of 

outcomes

Current status of the outcome (as of spring 2017)

No 

progress—

efforts 

shifted to 

other goals

No 

progress—

remains an 

important 

goal

Further 

progress—

but not 

building on 

project work

Further 

progress 

that builds 

on project 

work

Individual capacity 106 8% 28% 5% 59%

Organizational capacity 57 5% 11% 5% 79%

Community capacity 176 2% 33% 10% 55%

Community-wide 

outcomes

104 0% 14% 10% 77%

Other 25 12% 48% 32% 8%

Total 468 4% 26% 9% 61%

Notes: The table only includes outcomes for which respondents provided a response to a survey item about the current status 

of each measure reported measure. Response options were (1) Further progress on this measure has been made that builds 

on the work of this ARC project; (2) Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this ARC 

project; (3) No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal; and (4) No further progress

on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different goals. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Additionally, a respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.
81

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Table A-3. Extent to which projects met a given supplemental outcome (n=469 outcomes)

Outcome type

Number of 

outcomes

Extent met

Less than 

expected

Same as 

expected

More than 

expected

Individual capacity 106 5% 31% 64%

Organizational capacity 58 7% 45% 48%

Community capacity 176 11% 59% 30%

Community-wide outcomes 104 3% 47% 50%

Other 25 4% 60% 36%

Total 469 7% 48% 45%

Notes: Only includes outcomes for which respondents provided a response to a survey item on how project performance on 

each measure compared to what project leaders expected. Additionally, a respondent from one project completed a survey 

but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Table A-4. Extent to which a given supplemental outcome was important to project success

(n=469 outcomes)

Outcome type

Number of 

outcomes

Level of importance

Not very 

important

Somewhat 

important

Very 

important

Individual capacity 106 3% 10% 87%

Organizational capacity 58 10% 16% 74%

Community capacity 176 2% 26% 72%

Community-wide outcomes 104 0% 37% 64%

Other 25 4% 40% 56%

Total 469 3% 24% 73%

Notes: Only includes outcomes for which respondents provided a response to a survey item on the importance of each

outcome to the success of the project. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding. Additionally, a respondent from one 

project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Table A-5. Distribution of all supplemental outcomes, by level of importance and level of 

attainment (n=469 outcomes)

Level of importance

Level of attainment

Less than expected Same as expected More than expected

Not very important 10 2 2

Somewhat important 8 86 19

Very important 14 139 189

Note: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.
82

Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s 

Leadership and Community Capacity Projects: FY 2008–FY 2015

Table A-5a. Distribution of individual capacity outcomes, by level of importance and level of 

attainment (n=106 outcomes)

Level of importance

Level of attainment

Less than expected Same as expected More than expected

Not very important 3 0 0

Somewhat important 0 6 5

Very important 2 27 63

Note: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Table A-5b. Distribution of organizational capacity outcomes, by level of importance and 

level of attainment (n=58 outcomes)

Level of importance

Level of attainment

Less than expected Same as expected More than expected

Not very important 4 1 1

Somewhat important 0 8 1

Very important 0 17 26

Note: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Table A-5c. Distribution of community capacity outcomes, by level of importance and level of 

attainment (n=176 outcomes)

Level of importance

Level of attainment

Less than expected Same as expected More than expected

Not very important 3 0 1

Somewhat important 5 28 12

Very important 11 76 40

Note: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.

Table A-5d. Distribution of community-wide capacity outcomes, by level of importance and 

level of attainment (n=104 outcomes)

Level of importance

Level of attainment

Less than expected Same as expected More than expected

Not very important 0 0 0

Somewhat important 3 34 1

Very important 0 15 51

Note: A respondent from one project completed a survey but did not fully implement the Commission-funded project.

Source: Survey of Commission grantees.
83

This page left intentionally blank.
84

Appendix B: Survey Administered to 

Commission Grantees

Appalachian Regional Commission

Survey of ARC Leadership and Community Capacity Projects

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) has contracted with Westat to conduct an evaluation of its 

leadership and community capacity projects. By completing this survey, you will help the evaluation 

team develop a better understanding of project implementation, accomplishments, and the extent to 

which ARC-funded projects made progress toward achieving their goals. 
85

SECTION 1: ABOUT THE ARC GRANT

This section asks for information about the grantee organization and other sources that supported the 

project(s): 

1. Which types of organizations or sources provided additional funding and/or resources that 

helped you implement activities related to the goals of your ARC project(s)? Resources can 

include funding, ideas, expertise and technical assistance, time, materials, technology and 

equipment, staff, or other resources. Indicate the extent to which each source made an 

important contribution to your ARC project(s): 

Source

Did not make 

important 

contributions

Made 

moderately 

important 

contributions

Made 

important 

contributions

Local government (county/township) agency

State agency

Federal agency

Private sector company

Foundation

Local community/nonprofit organization

National or regional organization

Individual community members

Other, please specify: ________________________ 

2. Of the sources you identified in #1 as contributing major resources, which was the most 

important? Select one: 

☐ Local government (county/township) agency 

☐ State agency 

☐ Federal agency 

☐ Private sector company 

☐ Foundation 

☐ Local community/nonprofit organization 

☐ National or regional organization 

☐ Individual community members 

☐ Other, please specify: ______________________________________________________
86

SECTION 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMUNITY SERVED BY THE ARC-FUNDED PROJECT

This section asks about the intended beneficiaries of the project.

3. The “communities” that ARC and similar projects intend to benefit can be defined in various 

ways. Which definition(s) of “community” match your project(s)? Choose all that apply: 

☐ People or organizations within specific geographic areas

☐ People or organizations within specific sectors (e.g., education, government, health care)

☐ People or organizations with certain characteristics, needs or interests 

☐ Social systems or connections among people 

☐ A quality as in “sense of community”

☐ Other, please specify: _______________________________________________________

4. Which one of the following best describes the geographic distribution of the people expected to 

benefit from the project(s)? Choose one: 

☐ A single city or town 

☐ A single county 

☐ A major metropolitan area (i.e., a central city and its adjacent counties) 

☐ Two or more adjacent counties within a single state 

☐ All counties within a single state 

☐ Two or more adjacent states 

☐ Two or more nonadjacent states 

☐ Some other geographic area, please specify: ____________________________________

5. What sectors did the project(s) target? Choose all that apply: 

☐ Education

☐ Government 

☐ Health care 

☐ Business or private 

☐ Economic development 

☐ Library 

☐ Community or social service 

☐ Other, please specify: _______________________________________________________
87

6. Which of the following community segments were intended to use project-related services or 

resources or to otherwise benefit from the project(s)? Choose all that apply:

☐ Living in poverty or extreme poverty

☐ Illiterate

☐ Limited English speaking

☐ Disabled

☐ Elderly

☐ Geographically isolated or rural

☐ Living in urban or inner-city areas

☐ Unemployed or underemployed

☐ Underrepresented minorities

☐ Migrant workers/migrant students

☐ School dropouts 

☐ Any other group, please specify: ______________________________________________
88

3. PROJECT CONTEXT

This section asks about the context of the project(s), specifically the assets and liabilities in the 

community. Please take a moment to reflect on the community assets and liabilities that played a part 

in the successes or challenges your project(s) experienced.

7. Community assets help to facilitate change and can enhance a community’s ability to implement 

its approach and achieve its outcomes. Community assets are unique to each community but 

they might include community organizations, innovative leaders, individuals who motivate 

change, groups of energized community members, and key partnerships.

Which of the community assets listed below played a part in the ARC project(s)? Choose all that 

apply: 

☐ Community organizations

☐ Innovative leaders

☐ Individuals who motivate change

☐ Groups of energized community members

☐ Key partnerships

☐ Physical assets/infrastructure (e.g., land, buildings)

☐ Other asset, please specify: __________________________________________________

☐ None of the above (community assets played no part in any of the ARC projects)

8. Community liabilities can inhibit community change and a project’s ability to implement 

activities and/or achieve desired outcomes. Every community has limitations or obstacles that 

they must overcome as they embark on community development. Examples of community 

liabilities might include an entrenched political structure, a lack of empowerment, a fear of 

change, apathy, distrust, or limited resources.

Which of the community liabilities listed below played a part in the ARC project(s)? Choose all 

that apply: 

☐ Entrenched political structure

☐ Lack of empowerment

☐ Fear of change

☐ Apathy

☐ Distrust

☐ Limited resources

☐ Other liability, please specify: ________________________________________________

☐ None of the above (community liabilities played no part in any of the ARC projects)
89

4. STRATEGIES AND IMPLEMENTATION

This section asks about the specific activities attempted by your project(s), and the types of challenges

you may have encountered in implementing them.

9. Community capacity building projects may implement a variety of activities. Which of the 

following activities did your ARC project(s) implement? Please include any activities regardless 

of whether or not ARC funding was used for them. Choose all that apply: 

☐ Conduct strategic planning and analysis

☐ Conduct a regional or local needs assessment

☐ Identify potential new leaders

☐ Identify current leaders with potential for further training

☐ Conduct leadership training

☐ Conduct a small scale project requiring the participation of community members for 

completion

☐ Establish/develop a community organization, program, foundation, association

☐ Conduct outreach to raise community awareness of local issues

☐ Organize and hold meetings, conferences, forums

☐ Organize and conduct group instructional activities (e.g., workshops, courses, etc.)

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

counseling/teaching

☐ Develop, purchase, publish, or distribute materials

☐ Obtain or provide technical assistance/consultation

☐ Other strategies to develop vision and direction for the community, please specify: _____

☐ Other strategies to develop local leaders, please specify: __________________________

☐ Other strategies to promote involvement of community members, please specify: ______

☐ Other strategies to enhance the skills and knowledge of community members, please 

specify: ____________________________________________________________________

☐ Other strategies to obtain technical support for the community, please specify: ________

☐ Other strategies, please specify: ______________________________________________

10. Please indicate whether any of the following obstacles or impediments prevented you from 

carrying out the activities of the ARC project(s) as well as you might otherwise have done. 

Choose all that apply.

Planning challenges

☐ Planning the resources needed 

☐ Planning the time or effort needed 

☐ Planning for the demand for services or magnitude of the problem 

☐ Planning for how quickly equipment would become obsolete 

☐ Other planning problems, please specify: _______________________________________

☐ No planning challenges 
90

Administrative challenges

☐ Local administrative delays 

☐ Contractual delays or delays in awarding of the grant

☐ Delays in receiving payments or reimbursements

☐ Project funds were depleted before implementation

☐ Matching funds were less than expected

☐ Matching funds were never received

☐ Other administrative problems, please specify: __________________________________

☐ No administrative challenges

Personnel challenges

☐ Inadequate staff 

☐ Changes in key personnel 

☐ Excessive staff turnover 

☐ Communication problems or misunderstanding of roles 

☐ Other personnel problems, please specify: ______________________________________

☐ No personnel challenges 

Implementation challenges

☐ Delays in contracting with an outside service provider or delays incurred by outside 

providers 

☐ Construction delays 

☐ Problems installing equipment 

☐ Problems developing program materials 

☐ Other implementation problems, please specify: _________________________________

☐ No implementation challenges 

Community challenges

☐ Community/families not supportive 

☐ Participants not maximizing use of services 

☐ Other community problems, please specify: _______________

☐ No community challenges 

Other challenges

☐ Other challenges that hindered the project’s success, please specify: _________________

☐ Other challenges that hindered the project’s success, please specify: _________________

☐ No other challenges
91

5. OUTCOMES

This section focuses on the outcomes of your community capacity project(s).

11. Which of the following outcomes did your project(s) intend to achieve? Choose all that apply:

Individual capacity

☐ Enhance skills 

☐ Enhance empowerment 

☐ Increase awareness of community issues 

☐ Other individual capacity outcome, please specify: _______________________________

☐ No individual capacity outcomes

Organizational capacity

☐ Increase collaboration 

☐ Enhance efficiency and effectiveness

☐ Enhance stability/growth

☐ Other organizational capacity outcome, please specify: ____________________________

☐ No organizational capacity outcomes

Community capacity

☐ Improve planning

☐ Improve community self-reliance

☐ Increase civic participation

☐ Increase political participation

☐ Enhance community pride

☐ Improve infrastructure

☐ Improve educational opportunities

☐ Other community capacity outcome, please specify: ______________________________

☐ No community capacity outcomes

☐ Other outcome, please specify: __________________________________________________
92

Please enter the projected and actual outputs and outcomes for each of your project’s 

performance measures. 

Measure Projected 

Output

Projected 

Outcome

Actual 

Output

Actual 

Outcome

12. Please provide information about up to nine of your project’s intended goals, as requested in 

the items below.

Outcome measure 1 (Example: The project will provide local leaders with a network of 

contacts within the region and at the state level that can continue to provide guidance and 

technical assistance.): ____________________________________________________________

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 
93

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

Outcome measure 2 (if applicable):_________________________________________________ 

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 
94

Outcome measure 3 (if applicable): _________________________________________________

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

Outcome measure 4 (if applicable): _________________________________________________

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 
95

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

Outcome measure 5 (if applicable): _________________________________________________

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one:

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

Outcome measure 6 (if applicable): _________________________________________________

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 
96

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

Outcome measure 7 (if applicable): _________________________________________________

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

Outcome measure 8 (if applicable): _________________________________________________
97

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

Outcome measure 9 (if applicable): _________________________________________________

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 
98

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

13. Please address the following questions if you identified an “other” individual capacity outcome

in Question #11 (skip to Question #14 if you did not identify an “other” individual capacity

outcome): 

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 
99

14. Please address the following questions if you identified an “other” organizational capacity

outcome in Question #11 (skip to Question #15 if you did not identify an “other” organizational 

capacity outcome):

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

15. Please address the following questions if you identified an “other” community capacity

outcome in Question #11 (skip to Question #16 if you did not identify an “other” community 

capacity outcome):

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected 

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 
100

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

16. Please address the following questions if you identified an “other” outcome in Question #11 

(skip to Question #17 if you did not identify an “other” outcome):

a) How did project performance on this measure compare to what project leaders expected? 

Choose one: 

☐ Less than expected

☐ Same as expected 

☐ More than expected

b) On what evidence (e.g., personal observation, counts of participants, surveys, interviews, 

assessments) is your response based? 

c) How important was this outcome to the success of your project? Choose one: 

☐ Very important; this was a key objective 

☐ Somewhat important; it was a contributor to our overall success 

☐ Not very important; the project still would have been a success even if this outcome 

were not met 

d) What is the current status of this measure? Choose one: 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made that builds on the work of this ARC 

project 

☐ Further progress on this measure has been made, but not building on the work of this 

ARC project 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made, but it remains an important goal 

☐ No further progress on this measure has been made; efforts have shifted to different 

goals 

17. What were the most important outcomes, anticipated or not, to result from the ARC grant? 
101

7. CURRENT STATUS

Your organization may continue to be involved in the leadership and capacity building efforts that 

were funded by these ARC grants (regardless of whether or not this work continues to be supported 

by ARC funds). This section asks about the current status of these efforts.

18. Which statement best describes the current status of your leadership and capacity building 

efforts? Choose one: 

☐ a. In operation and serving a function that has stayed about the same as the original ARC 

project(s) 

☐ b. In operation and serving a function that has expanded from the original ARC project(s) 

☐ c. In operation and serving a function that has scaled back from the original ARC 

project(s) 

☐ d. No longer in operation 

19. If you selected “b” for Question #18, please describe how your leadership and capacity building 

efforts have expanded. 

20. If you selected “c” for Question #18, please describe how your leadership and capacity building 

efforts have scaled back. 

21. If you selected “b” for Question #18, which, if any, of the following factors have facilitated 

expansion of your leadership and capacity building efforts? Choose all that apply:

☐ Increased need for leadership and capacity building activities in the community 

☐ Increase in recognition or value of leadership and capacity building activities in the 

community 

☐ Additional funding available for additional or continued leadership and capacity building

activities 

☐ Loss of other services in the community that led the project to take on additional roles 

☐ Additional areas of need recognized since the grant’s inception (broadening leadership 

and capacity building scope) 

☐ Other, please specify: _______________________________________________________
102

22. If you selected “c” for Question #18, which, if any, of the following factors have necessitated 

scaling back your leadership and capacity building efforts? Choose all that apply:

☐ Decreased need for leadership and capacity building activities in the community

☐ Decreased recognition or value of leadership and capacity building activities in the 

community

☐ Fewer funds or other resources available for leadership and capacity building activities

☐ Increase in other services in the community that make our leadership and capacity 

building efforts less necessary

☐ Fewer areas of need recognized since the grant’s inception (constricting leadership and 

capacity building scope)

☐ Other, please specify: _______________________________________________________

23. Please provide your name, telephone number, and e-mail address as the primary contact for this 

project. Please indicate the preferred method of contact. We will use this information only if we 

need to contact you regarding this evaluation.

Name: _________________________________________________________________________

Telephone number: _______________

E-mail address: _________________________________________________________________

Preferred method of contact (choose one): 

☐ Telephone 

☐ E-mail 

Thank you for your participation. 
103

This page left intentionally blank.
104

Appendix C: Interview Protocol8

Respondent and project background

1. Are you familiar with the [ARC PROJECT TITLE] project? 

a. How did you learn about the project?

2. With which aspects of the project’s work are you familiar? 

a. In which project activities have you been involved?

3. Can you please give me a brief overview of the project [ARC PROJECT TITLE]?

4. What role did [ARC PROJECT TITLE] play in carrying out your project? (Flex-E-Grant subgrantees 

only)

a. Did you collaborate with the [ARC PROJECT TITLE] team in carrying out your project?

5. What is your connection to the community or communities that were served by this ARC 

project?

Probe:

a. Do you live in the community? For how long if so?

6. What is the name of the organization or agency for which you currently work? 

a. What type of agency or organization is this?

7. What is your current job title or position?

Probe:

a. How long have you served in this position?

8. What was (or is) your primary role in this project?

Probe:

a. When did you begin serving in this role for the project?

9. Can you tell me a little about the mission of [LEAD PROJECT ORG]?

Probe:

a. What is this organization’s role in this project?

b. Why did this organization choose to take on this project, to your knowledge?

c. Had this organization undertaken similar efforts in the past?

10. What other organizations were involved in the project, if any?

Probe:

a. What role did these organizations play? What was their primary contribution?

b. Had this organization worked to address similar problems in the past?

c. Had your organization worked with this organization beforehand? In what capacity? And 

if not, how was this organization identified/selected?

 

8 Unless otherwise specified, the evaluation team asked the questions of project directors, other project staff, community leaders, community 

members, and Flex-E-Grant subgrantee representatives, or subsets of these respondent types as applicable. 
105

d. What was the project able to accomplish with this organization that might not otherwise 

have been possible?

e. Would you describe the project as a partnership? Why or why not?

11. What role, if any, did funding sources other than ARC play in supporting this project?

Probe:

a. What were the other sources?

b. Did these other sources support specific aspects of the project? Which ones if so?

12. In your view, what was the principal problem or issue this project was meant to address?

Probe:

a. How was this problem or issue identified?

b. When did this problem or issue arise in the target community?

c. To your knowledge, was there any work before this ARC-funded project that aimed to 

address this problem or issue in the community? What was it if so (and what was the 

funding source)?

13. What are some other important problems or issues the project was meant to address?

Probe:

a. How were these identified?

b. When did these problems/issues arise in this community?

c. To your knowledge, was there any work before this ARC-funded project that aimed to 

address these problems or issues in the community? What was it if so (and what was 

the funding source)?

14. In your view, how did this project intend to affect community capacity?

Probe:

a. How do you define community capacity for this project?

15. In your view, how did this project intend to affect leadership development?

Probe:

a. How do you define leadership development for this project?

16. Are there other kinds of activities this project could have offered that would have been useful to 

you or the community? If so, what are these? 

17. Have any changes occurred for you personally as a result of this project?

a. What kind of changes? Are these positive or negative?

18. Have any changes occurred for your community as a result of this project?

a. What kind of changes? Are these positive or negative?

About the community

19. What do you think are some of the community’s biggest strengths?

Probe:

a. Why do you think this is a strength for this community?
106

20. What do you think are some of the community’s biggest challenges?

Probe:

a. How did these challenges develop? Are these recent or long-standing challenges?

Project design and implementation

21. What were the most important activities or strategies this project used to carry out its work?

Probe:

a. Can you tell me a little about your approach to developing these activities or strategies? 

b. What resources—within and outside of your community—did you utilize in developing 

your project approach? 

c. Which of these activities were in place at the beginning of the project? Which were 

added later?

d. How were these activities or strategies intended to help the project achieve its 

objectives? 

e. Which of these activities (if any) required the involvement of other organizations?

22. In your view, in which strategies or activities did the project have the greatest success?

Probe:

a. What factors were important in the project’s success in these areas?

b. On your survey response, you reported that some of the community’s assets were 

[SURVEY ITEM 7 RESPONSES]. Did these assets play a role in facilitating the areas of 

success?

c. Did the project have any takeaways or lessons learned from these successes? Were 

these applied to other areas of project work if so?

23. On your survey response, you noted a few areas where the project experienced challenges in 

putting the planned strategies and activities into place. I’d like to learn a bit more about these.

IF NOT A SURVEY RESPONDENT: What were some of the areas in which the project experienced 

challenges?

Probe:

a. How did these challenges impact the project? Were there things these challenges 

prevented you from undertaking or accomplishing?

b. On your survey response, you reported that some liabilities of this community including 

[SURVEY ITEM 8 RESPONSES]. Did these liabilities present challenges to the project?

c. Had you anticipated any of these challenges?

d. What steps did you take to overcome these challenges? Were these effective?
107

Project outcomes

24. Are any important project outcomes missing from the list of outcomes you reported on the 

survey? What do you see as the key outcomes this project aimed to achieve?

IF NOT A SURVEY RESPONDENT: What were the intended outcomes of this project?

Probe:

a. What was the project’s process for identifying outcomes? Who was involved in this 

process?

b. Were some outcomes identified during the course of the project work? What were 

these if so?

c. Did the project decide to abandon pursuit of any outcomes? What were these if so, 

and why were they not pursued?

25. Which outcomes would you highlight as most successful?

Probe:

a. What factors enabled the project to be successful?

26. Which outcomes were more challenging for the project to accomplish?

Probe:

a. What factors led to these challenges?

Project sustainability

27. When the project began, were there a plan or vision in place to continue the work after the ARC 

grant ended?

Probe:

a. IF YES: Can you tell me more? What steps did the project intend to take to enable it 

to continue?

b. IF NO: Why not? Was the project expected to continue after the ARC grant ended?

Were plans for continuation developed later?

28. On your survey response, you reported that the project [did not change/expanded/contracted/

ended].

IF NOT A SURVEY RESPONDENT: What is the current operating status of the project?

Probe:

a. What do you think is the main reason the project [did not change/expanded/

contracted/ended]?

b. Was this something the project anticipated?

29. What activities supported by the ARC grant are still in place?

Probe:

a. Have any new activities been added since the grant ended? What are these?

b. Have any activities supported by the ARC grant been modified? How if so?

c. How have these activities been supported financially?

30. To your knowledge, what activities of the ARC-funded project have ended?
108

31. What do you see as the next steps for the project?

Probe:

a. What do you think the project will look like in five years? What will be needed to 

achieve this vision?

Lessons learned

32. Based on your experience with this project, what would say are the key lessons you have 

learned about building community capacity?

33. What about lessons learned with regard to leadership development?

34. What other important lessons have you taken away from your work on this project?

35. If you were undertaking a similar project today, what if anything would you do differently?

Probe:

a. How, if at all, have you applied the lessons learned from the ARC-funded project to 

other work you are involved in?

36. Based on the lessons you have learned, what advice would you give to the ARC for supporting 

future work related to community capacity building and leadership development?

Probe:

a. Are there specific supports, such as technical assistance, that would be useful?

37. Is there anything else you would like to discuss about this project that we didn’t cover?
109

This page left intentionally blank.
110

Appendix D: Commission Projects Included in the Evaluation

Site visit conducted

Telephone interview conducted

Survey completed

*Survey completed as well as a site visit or telephone interview

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

AL-14638-C5* Small Town and Rural Counties 

Design Initiative and Planning Auburn University 2008 69,640.00 87,050.00 AL

AL-14638-C6* Small Town and Rural Counties 

Design Initiative & Planning Auburn University 2009 93,238.00 116,548.00 AL

AL-14638-C7* Small Town and Rural Counties 

Design Initiative & Planning Auburn University 2010 43,046.00 53,808.00 AL

AL-15859-I Langdale Mill Revitalization of Old 

Steam Plant Area City of Valley 2008 28,000.00 56,000.00 AL

AL-15873-I West Florence Community 

Development Plan City of Florence 2008 25,000.00 50,000.00 AL

AL-16200-I Bibb County Leadership 

Development

Bibb County 

Commission 2009 13,600.00 19,450.00 AL

AL-16431-I Tuskegee Comprehensive Plan 

Update

South Central Alabama

Development 

Commission

2009 48,000.00 60,000.00 AL

AL-16554-I Building Hale: Youth Build Program

Hale Empowerment & 

Revitalization 

Organization

2010 81,795.00 119,235.00 AL

AL-16555-I Strengthening Capacity to Build 

Communities of Excellence

Alabama Communities 

of Excellence, Inc. 

(ACE)

2010 100,000.00 222,225.00 AL
111

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

AL-16578-I* Town of Section Economic 

Development Strategy Auburn University 2010 50,000.00 100,000.00 AL

AL-16869-I Decatur Downtown Economic 

Development Plan

Decatur Downtown 

Redevelopment 

Authority

2011 10,000.00 20,000.00 AL

AL-16920-C1* Macon County Youth: Civic 

Entrepreneurs & Problem Solvers Auburn University 2012 37,926.00 47,435.00 AL

AL-16920-I* Macon County Youth: Civic 

Entrepreneurs & Problem Solvers Auburn University 2011 130,000.00 172,966.00 AL

AL-16933-I Celebrating Appalachian 

Communities PACERS, Incorporated 2011 50,000.00 100,000.00 AL

AL-16967-I Wetumpka Tourism Development 

Plan City of Wetumpka 2011 20,000.00 40,000.00 AL

AL-17173-I Moundville Comprehensive Plan Town of Moundville 2011 17,600.00 22,000.00 AL

AL-17211-I

Web-based Technical Assistance to 

Enhance Asset-Based Planning in 

Disaster-Impacted 

Communities

Your Town Alabama, 

Inc. 2012 18,150.00 36,300.00 AL

AL-18016-I

Blount County Economic 

Development Council Operations 

Support

Blount County 

Economic 

Development Council 

Inc.

2015 50,000.00 101,000.00 AL

AL-18073-I* Randolph County Youth 

Development Initiative

Randolph County 

Industrial 

Development Council

2015 52,400.00 65,500.00 AL

AL-18084-I Reform Comprehensive Community 

Master Plan Town of Reform 2015 22,400.00 28,000.00 AL

CO-12600-C10-F* East TN State University Consortium 

of Appalachian Centers & Institutes

East Tennessee State 

University 2012 100,000.00 124,000.00 Regional

CO-12600-C11-F* East TN State University Consortium 

of Appalachian Centers & Institutes

East Tennessee State 

University 2013 98,442.00 122,442.00 Regional
112

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

CO-12600-C12-F* East TN State University Consortium 

of Appalachian Centers & Institutes

East Tennessee State 

University 2014 116,725.00 141,552.00 Regional

CO-12600-C13-F* East TN State University Consortium 

of Appalachian Centers & Institutes

East Tennessee State 

University 2015 125,000.00 150,079.00 Regional

CO-14137-C10 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 2012

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2012 10,000.00 12,500.00 Regional

CO-14137-C11 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 2013

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2013 10,000.00 12,500.00 Regional

CO-14137-C12 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 2014

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2014 10,000.00 12,500.00 Regional

CO-14137-C13 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2015 10,000.00 12,500.00 Regional

CO-14137-C6 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 2008

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2008 5,000.00 10,000.00 Regional

CO-14137-C7 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 2009

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2009 5,000.00 6,250.00 Regional

CO-14137-C8 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 2010

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2010 10,000.00 12,500.00 Regional

CO-14137-C9 Appalachian Studies Association 

Annual Conference 2011

Appalachian Studies 

Association 2011 10,000.00 12,500.00 Regional

CO-16069-I* Harlan Leadership Development, 

Phase II

Southeast Education 

Foundation 2008 15,000.00 126,500.00 KY

CO-16108-I East TN Crossing Waterways Project Cocke County 

Partnership 2008 39,350.00 49,550.00 TN

CO-16158-I Mini Grants for Community 

Environmental Action Bluegrass PRIDE 2009 651,837.00 1,083,357.00 KY

CO-16158-I-R1 Mini Grants for Community 

Environmental Action, Revision Bluegrass PRIDE 2013 12,283.00 20,471.00 KY

CO-16215-I Bluegrass PRIDE Strategic Planning Bluegrass PRIDE 2009 74,310.00 74,310.00 KY

CO-16447-I Geo-Guides Along Blue Ridge 

Parkway Surry County 2009 40,000.00 50,500.00 NC
113

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

CO-16448-I Virginia & North Carolina Gateway 

Interactive Kiosk

Carroll County Office 

of Tourism 2009 38,000.00 47,500.00 VA

CO-16449-I

Appalachian Grown: Creating Food 

& Farm Gateways to the Blue Ridge 

Parkway

Appalachian 

Sustainable Agriculture 

Project

2009 30,000.00 37,500.00 NC

CO-16450-I TRACKing for Community Health Blue Ridge Parkway 

Foundation

2009 10,000.00 15,501.00 NC

CO-16451-I Foothills Geocache Trail Rockbridge County 2009 14,000.00 17,500.00 VA

CO-16452-I

Appalachian Women's Museum: 

Preserving the Past, Educating the 

Future

Dillsboro, City 2009 17,500.00 21,875.00 NC

CO-17212-C1 Appalachian Funders Network (AFN) Greater Kanawha 

Valley Foundation 2014 30,000.00 135,450.00 Regional

CO-17212-C2 Appalachian Funders Network (AFN) Greater Kanawha 

Valley Foundation 2015 30,000.00 148,932.00 Regional

CO-17212-I Appalachian Funders Network (AFN) Greater Kanawha 

Valley Foundation 2012 30,000.00 118,000.00 Regional

CO-17241-I

Capacity Building for Sustainable 

Regions & Communities in 

Appalachia

National Association of 

Development 

Organizations 

Research Foundation 

(NADO)

2012 25,000.00 25,000.00 Regional

GA-14773-C3

GA Appalachian Studies Center 

Developing Community 

Partnerships

North Georgia College 

& State University 2008 69,520.00 158,000.00 GA

GA-14773-C4 Sustaining the GA Appalachian 

Studies Center

North Georgia College 

& State University 2009 59,000.00 153,000.00 GA

GA-14773-C5 Sustaining the GA Appalachian 

Studies Center

North Georgia College 

& State University 2011 77,000.00 154,000.00 GA

GA-17837-I City of Gainesville Downtown 

Strategic Planning City of Gainesville 2014 20,000.00 40,000.00 GA
114

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

KY-15813-C1*

Developing and Implementing 

Community Strategies Program, 

Phase II

The Center for Rural 

Development 2009 200,000.00 250,000.00 KY

KY-15813-C2*

Developing and Implementing 

Community Strategies Program, 

Phases IV/V

The Center for Rural 

Development 2010 200,000.00 250,000.00 KY

KY-15813-C2-R1*

Developing and Implementing 

Community Strategies Program, 

Phase V

The Center for Rural 

Development 2011 200,000.00 250,000.00 KY

KY-15813-C3*

Developing and Implementing 

Community Strategies Program,

Phase VI

The Center for Rural 

Development 2013 150,000.00 187,500.00 KY

KY-15813-C3-R1* Developing and Implementing 

Community Strategies Program

The Center for Rural 

Development 2014 100,000.00 125,000.00 KY

KY-16080-C1* Brushy Fork Institute Training and 

Flex-E-Grant Mini-Grant Program Brushy Fork Institute 2009 529,000.00 666,600.00 KY

KY-16080-C2* Brushy Fork Institute Training and 

Flex-E-Grant Mini-Grant Program Brushy Fork Institute 2010 529,000.00 666,600.00 KY

KY-16080-C3* Brushy Fork Institute Training and 

Flex-E-Grant Mini-Grant Program Brushy Fork Institute 2011 529,000.00 666,600.00 KY

KY-16080-C4* Brushy Fork Institute Training and 

Flex-E-Grant Mini-Grant Program Brushy Fork Institute 2012 571,350.00 752,075.00 KY

KY-16080-C5* Brushy Fork Institute Training and 

Flex-E-Grant Mini-Grant Program Brushy Fork Institute 2013 396,410.00 523,335.00 KY

KY-16080-C5-R1* Brushy Fork Institute Training and 

Flex-E-Grant Mini-Grant Program Brushy Fork Institute 2014 100,000.00 130,750.00 KY

KY-16080-I* Brushy Fork Institute Training and 

Flex-E-Grant Mini-Grant Program Brushy Fork Institute 2008 400,000.00 501,250.00 KY

KY-16408-I

New Opportunity School for 

Women Residential Sessions and 

Regional Outreach Program

New Opportunity 

School for Women, Inc. 2009 75,000.00 242,060.00 KY
115

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

KY-16416-I Robertson County Comprehensive 

Plan & Commission Training

Robertson County 

Fiscal Court 2009 22,500.00 30,000.00 KY

KY-16768-C1

Community Foundation 

Establishment Support for Hazard 

and Perry County

Community 

Foundation of Hazard 

& Perry County, Inc.

2011 75,000.00 201,200.00 KY

KY-16768-C2

Community Foundation 

Establishment Support for 

Foundation for Appalachian 

Kentucky (FAKY)

Foundation for 

Appalachian Kentucky 2012 75,000.00 151,200.00 KY

KY-16768-I

Community Foundation 

Establishment Support for Hazard 

and Perry County

Community 

Foundation of Hazard 

& Perry County, Inc.

2010 75,000.00 166,020.00 KY

KY-17058-I Menifee County Community 

Sustainability Planning Initiative

Gateway Area 

Development District 2011 44,000.00 59,320.00 KY

KY-17099-I

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI):

Center for Rural Development

The Center for Rural 

Development 2011 582,150.00 727,690.00 KY

KY-17100-C1

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI):

Brushy Fork Institute 

Brushy Fork Institute 2015 25,000.00 31,600.00 KY

KY-17100-I

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI):

Brushy Fork Institute

Brushy Fork Institute 2011 171,750.00 214,910.00 KY

KY-17101-C1

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI): 

Foundation for Appalachian 

Kentucky 

Foundation for 

Appalachian Kentucky 

Inc.

2015 25,000.00 75,000.00 KY

KY-17101-I

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI): 

Community Foundation of Hazard 

and Perry County

Community 

Foundation of Hazard 

& Perry County, Inc.

2011 116,500.00 147,500.00 KY
116

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

KY-17102-C1

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI ):

Foundation for the Tri-State 

Community, Inc.

Foundation for the TriState Community, Inc. 2015 25,000.00 31,250.00 KY

KY-17102-I Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI)

Foundation for the TriState Community, Inc. 2011 133,600.00 167,000.00 KY

KY-17413-I

New Opportunity School for 

Women (NOSW) Residential 

Sessions and Regional Outreach 

Program and Post-Arson Rebuilding 

Efforts

New Opportunity 

School for Women, Inc. 2012 125,000.00 287,688.00 KY

KY-17536-C1

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI): Blue 

Grass Community Foundation 

Blue Grass Community 

Foundation (BGCF), 

Inc.

2015 25,000.00 41,760.00 KY

KY-17536-I

Appalachian Rural Development 

Philanthropy Initiative (ARDPI) 

Support: Blue Grass Community 

Foundation

Blue Grass Community 

Foundation (BGCF), 

Inc.

2013 122,000.00 152,500.00 KY

KY-17758-I Kentucky Highlands Promise Zone 

Start-Up & Implementation Project

Kentucky Highlands 

Investment 

Corporation

2014 250,000.00 312,500.00 KY

KY-17920-C1 Appalachian Innovations 

Collaborative (AIC)

Kentucky Valley 

Educational 

Cooperative (KVEC)

2015 160,000.00 200,000.00 KY

KY-17920-I Appalachian Innovations 

Collaborative (AIC)

Kentucky Valley 

Educational 

Cooperative (KVEC)

2014 160,000.00 200,000.00 KY

MD-15735-C1 Virginia Avenue Corridor 

Revitalization Initiative City of Cumberland 2010 20,000.00 40,000.00 MD

MD-15735-C2 Virginia Avenue Corridor 

Revitalization Initiative City of Cumberland 2011 30,000.00 60,000.00 MD
117

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

MD-15877-I Allegany County Leadership Skills 

for High School Students

Board of Education of 

Allegany County 2008 10,000.00 20,000.00 MD

MD-16055-C1 Maryland Trail Town Program The Progress Fund 2011 100,000.00 200,000.00 MD

MD-16055-I Great Allegany Passage Economic 

Development Program The Progress Fund 2008 100,000.00 200,000.00 MD

MD-16160-C1* Frostburg Sustainable Community 

Initiatives (SCI) Planning, Phase II City of Frostburg 2010 45,000.00 90,000.00 MD

MD-16160-I* Frostburg Sustainable Community 

Initiatives (SCI) Planning City of Frostburg 2009 28,000.00 66,000.00 MD

MD-16243-I Georges Creek Regional 

Comprehensive Plan

Board of Allegany 

County Commissioners 2009 116,000.00 232,000.00 MD

MD-16517-I Community Trust Foundation 

Equipment

The Community Trust 

Foundation, Inc. 2010 10,000.00 20,000.00 MD

MD-16770-I FrostburgFirst: A Maryland Main 

Street Community Historic Frostburg 2010 20,000.00 40,000.00 MD

MD-16981-I Canal Place Heritage Area 

Management Plan Update City of Cumberland 2011 40,000.00 220,042.00 MD

MD-17113-I Sustainable Transformation of the 

Appalachian Region (STAR) University of Maryland 2011 30,000.00 63,616.00 MD

MD-17235-I* Washington County Strategic 

Economic Development Plan

HagerstownWashington County 

Industrial Foundation,

Inc.

2012 50,000.00 100,000.00 MD

MD-17741-C1

Cumberland Economic Feasibility 

Analysis and Implementation Plan 

for Strategic Opportunity Areas

City of Cumberland 2015 30,000.00 65,000.00 MD

MD-17741-I Cumberland Economic 

Development Strategic Plan City of Cumberland 2014 25,000.00 100,000.00 MD

MD-18134-I Grantsville Revitalization Plan and 

Agricultural Village Study Town of Grantsville 2015 25,000.00 50,000.00 MD
118

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

MS-15861-C1

MS Main Street Economic 

Development Charrette & Technical 

Assistance Program

Mississippi Main Street 

Association 2009 128,000.00 168,000.00 MS

MS-15861-I

Mississippi Main Street Economic 

Development Charrette & Technical 

Assistance Program

Mississippi Main Street 

Association 2008 142,000.00 182,000.00 MS

MS-15861-I-R1 MS Main Street Economic 

Development Charrette, Revision

Mississippi Main Street 

Association 2009 10,000.00 12,500.00 MS

MS-16061-C1* Mississippi Appalachian Community 

Learning Project (ACLP)

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2010 76,800.00 108,800.00 MS

MS-16061-C1-

R1*

Mississippi Appalachian Community 

Learning Project (ACLP)

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2012 8,664.00 13,291.00 MS

MS-16061-C2* Mississippi Appalachian Community 

Learning Project (ACLP)

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2011 87,580.00 125,114.00 MS

MS-16061-C2-

R1*

Mississippi Appalachian Community 

Learning Project (ACLP)

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2012 24,144.00 34,492.00 MS

MS-16061-C3*

Mississippi Appalachian Community 

Learning Project: Transitioning to 

Local Ownership

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2013 259,000.00 369,000.00 MS

MS-16061-C3-

R1*

Mississippi Appalachian Community 

Learning Project: Transitioning to 

Local Ownership

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2014 14,000.00 20,000.00 MS

MS-16061-I* Mississippi Appalachian Community 

Learning Project (ACLP)

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2008 228,000.00 285,000.00 MS

MS-16515-I

Strategic Planning and Coaching 

Technical Assistance for Artesia and 

Crawford, Mississippi

Golden Triangle 

Planning & 

Development District 

2010 20,000.00 28,570.00 MS

MS-16651-I TAP Alliance Regional Economic 

Development Strategy TAP Alliance 2010 37,300.00 53,350.00 MS

MS-16800-I Starkville Main Street Economic 

Development Charrette

Mississippi Main Street 

Association 2010 25,000.00 35,715.00 MS
119

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

MS-17112-I* Mississippi Community Action 

Program (MCAP)

Mississippi State 

University of 

Agriculture & Applied 

Sciences

2011 136,524.00 199,500.00 MS

MS-17127-I Smithville Comprehensive Plan Town of Smithville 2011 56,000.00 56,000.00 MS

NC-15971-I* Mountain Landscape Initiative: A 

Tool Box

Southwestern North 

Carolina Planning & 

Economic 

Development 

Commission

2008 52,000.00 255,000.00 NC

NC-16688-I* Southwestern Commission Toolbox 

Implementation Fund

Southwestern North 

Carolina Planning & 

Economic 

Development

Commission

2010 300,000.00 550,000.00 NC

NC-17387-I New Generation West Initiative

North Carolina Rural 

Economic 

Development Center 

2012 200,000.00 400,000.00 NC

NY-15934-I* Cuba Comprehensive Economic 

Development Planning Village of Cuba 2008 20,000.00 40,500.00 NY

NY-15936-I

Southeast Steuben County I-86/I-99 

Corridor Economic Development 

Blueprint

Three Rivers 

Development 

Foundation, Inc.

2008 40,000.00 80,000.00 NY

NY-16267-I

Watkins Glen Lakefront 

Management & Commercial 

Development Strategy

Schuyler County 

Partnership for 

Economic 

Development

2009 15,000.00 30,000.00 NY

NY-16591-I Burdett/Odessa Commercial District 

Improvement Strategy

Schuyler County 

Partnership for 

Economic 

Development

2010 15,000.00 30,000.00 NY
120

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

NY-16666-I Chemung County Human Services 

Efficiencies Planning

Southern Tier Central 

Regional Planning 

Development Board

2010 10,000.00 20,000.00 NY

NY-17531-I Southport Economic Development 

Strategy Town of Southport 2013 25,000.00 50,000.00 NY

OH-15682-R1 Appalachian Community Learning 

Program (ACLP)Phase II

The Rensselaerville 

Institute 2008 86,100.00 107,625.00 OH

OH-16473-I OH Flex-E-Grant Community Facility 

Improvements

Ohio Development 

Services Agency 2009 100,000.00 600,000.00 OH

OH-17185-I Appalachian Leadership in Utility 

Management Initiative

WSOS Community 

Action Commission, 

Inc.

2011 105,000.00 150,000.00 OH

PA-15736-C1*

River Towns Phase II: Discovering 

Middle Susquehanna Valley River 

Towns

SEDA-Council of 

Governments 2010 69,000.00 150,000.00 PA

PA-15829-I Foxburg Revitalization Master Plan

Northwest 

Pennsylvania Regional 

Planning & 

Development 

Commission

2008 25,000.00 50,000.00 PA

PA-16465-I Northwest PA Community 

Revitalization Assistance Project

Northwest 

Pennsylvania Regional 

Planning & 

Development 

Commission

2009 34,527.00 69,054.00 PA

PA-16621-I Fulton County Industrial 

Development Capacity Project

Fulton Industrial 

Development 

Association

2010 24,000.00 48,000.00 PA

PA-16664-I* Northeastern Pennsylvania 

Grantmakers

Northeastern 

Pennsylvania Nonprofit 

& Community 

2010 80,000.00 160,000.00 PA
121

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant

year

Funds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of 

service area

Assistance Center 

(NCAC)

PA-16697-I

Forest County Industrial 

Development Corporation 

Assistance

Northwest 

Pennsylvania Regional 

Planning & 

Development 

Commission

2010 47,000.00 58,750.00 PA

PA-16699-I Forest County Comprehensive Plan Forest County Board of 

Commissioners 2010 80,000.00 80,000.00 PA

PA-16949-I Forest County Leadership Training & 

Capacity Development 

Forest County Board of 

Commissioners 2011 8,125.00 12,565.00 PA

SC-16987-I Mauldin Downtown Development 

Plan City of Mauldin 2011 10,000.00 50,000.00 SC

TN-17156-I Southeast Tennessee Sustainable 

Communities Planning Initiative

Southeast Tennessee

Development District 2011 100,000.00 2,200,000.00 TN

TN-17888-I* Tennessee Certified Economic 

Developers Program

University of 

Tennessee Institute for 

Public Service 

2014 50,000.00 100,000.00 TN

TN-17906-I* Mooresburg Community Association 

"Reaching Out"

Mooresburg 

Community 

Association

2014 43,397.00 72,250.00 TN

VA-14248-C4* Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program

Virginia Department of 

Housing & Community 

Development

2008 17,000.00 21,250.00 VA

VA-14248-C5* Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program

Virginia Department of 

Housing & Community 

Development

2009 51,096.78 63,870.98 VA

VA-14248-C6* Virginia Flex-E-Grant Program

Virginia Department of 

Housing & Community 

Development

2010 19,118.79 23,898.79 VA

VA-17035-I* Haysi Downtown Revitalization 

Planning-Related Studies Town of Haysi 2011 75,000.00 93,750.00 VA
122

Project number Project title Grantee name

Grant yearFunds from the 

Commission

Funds from all 

sources

Location of service area

VA-17053-I Pocahontas Asset Inventory and 

Company Store Master Plan Town of Pocahontas 2011 50,000.00 100,000.00 VA

WV-14334-C10* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2012 100,000.00 203,500.00 WV

WV-14334-C11* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2013 100,000.00 203,500.00 WV

WV-14334-C12* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2014 115,000.00 233,500.00 WV

WV-14334-C13* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2015 100,000.00 192,300.00 WV

WV-14334-C6* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2008 344,815.00 546,569.00 WV

WV-14334-C6-

R1* West Virginia Flex

-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2009 84,771.00 121,000.00 WV

WV-14334-C7* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2009 316,727.00 458,727.00 WV

WV-14334-C7-

R1* West Virginia Flex

-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2010 95,886.00 152,200.00 WV

WV-14334-C8* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2010 328,257.00 521,409.00 WV

WV-14334-C9* West Virginia Flex-E-Grant

West Virginia

Development Office 2011 200,000.00 341,500.00 WV