The most fundamental question about community change efforts—what would “success” look like?—has been one of the hardest to answer. Too often, the goals sought by community change interventions are poorly specified at the outset and defined only at a broad or abstract level. What exactly do we mean by neighborhood revitalization, poverty alleviation, increased capacity, sustain- ability, or even something as seemingly straightforward as improved outcomes for children?
Sometimes the lack of clarity is intentional, so a variety of stakeholders will see themselves in the initiative and invest in it. If the planning process is de- signed to elicit broad participation, definitions of success might await the group’s decision. An effort that emphasizes capacity building might not settle on its de- sired outcomes without a clearer sense of what the community or lead organiza- tions can accomplish when functioning at higher capacity. In other cases, as the challenges associated with implementing a community-driven reform become evident, the designers, sponsors, and managers might change their definition of
success, scale back their hopes, and focus on interim outcomes on the path to longer-term outcomes.
Lack of clarity about community change goals leads to technical and politi- cal problems. The technical problems reflect the old adage, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any path will take you there.” Clearly, intentionality is cru- cial to producing outcomes: Planners, managers, and funders must specify the condition that they intend to change, develop a feasible strategy (based on sound theory, or evidence from research or experience) for how to affect that condi- tion, create an action plan, implement the plan well, and track progress toward the outcome. Lack of clarity about the desired goals or outcomes inevitably leads to the absence of a strong theory of change that can guide strategies and action.
Political problems occur because lack of clarity about goals leaves different stakeholders with different definitions of success. Consequently, as the interven- tion evolves one group might be satisfied with its achievements while another is disappointed, which undermines collective commitment to the endeavor. This rupture generally occurs when one set of constituents (commonly the board of a sponsoring foundation) becomes impatient about the slow progress toward tan- gible and quantifiable programmatic outcomes, while other constituents (such as initiative staff ) value the capacity that is being built, the relationships that are being been forged, and the platform that is being built to support longer-term program investments.
This is not to suggest that everything must be decided up front or that all de- cisions are immutable. After all, much of this work evolves as capacities develop, consensus emerges, and relationships mature. Rather, it means that there must be enough of a theory of change to get started and to know whether progress is occurring, but not so fixed an agenda that it can’t be adapted with experience. It also means that there must be deliberate, structured, and ongoing discussion about expectations for community change among board members, staff, public officials, funders, community residents, and other partners.
HELPFUL GUIDELINES FOR GOAL SETTING INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
e Set outcomes that are achievable in five to ten years, such as improving
third-grade test scores for ten-year-olds who have been in high-quality, intensive educational and family support programs since birth (Harlem Children’s Zone); or constructing a community center, within five years, in a way that fully involves the community (Jacob Family Foundation’s Market Creek Initiative). Even when the long-term goal is community change, five to ten years seems to be the maximum amount of time stake- holders can tolerate before seeing tangible outcomes from the work.
e Make sure there are clear milestones along the way that everyone agrees on. The challenge of defining interim outcomes is as significant as defin- ing long-term goals, but the time invested in specifying them and gaining consensus around them is well spent.
e Define the population that will benefit as specifically as possible: For
example, all adult public housing residents (Jobs-Plus); every gang mem- ber in the community (Boston TenPoint Coalition; Columbia Heights/ Shaw Family Support Collaborative); all of the blocks in the University City neighborhood (West Philadelphia Initiative).
e Build in some quick wins, such as a clean block, increased EITC receipts,
a cultural celebration, or asthma screenings. These provide credibility and legitimacy and build momentum while also producing valuable re- sults.
e Revisit decisions about long-term goals, theory of change, and interim
outcomes regularly. There is always turnover, and these discussions help
new stakeholders get on board. Even for original stakeholders who stay engaged, reminders are useful to ensure that quick wins don’t become distracting, or when things don’t go as planned and fatigue or frustration set in. For all participants, the discussions are a way to manage any lack of consensus that was ignored during the launch stages but resurfaces later.