Reflections on evaluators' role in community needs assessment
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Evaluators play a critical role in shaping evaluation practices, but in practice this can be challenging to accomplish in ways that are productive as well as healing. This article discusses evaluation practices in the context of a project commissioned as needs-based to assist with community recovery after a racially motivated mass shooting in an urban neighbourhood marginalised by crime, income, race and unemployment. Development of an unmet needs survey included incorporating initial data collected by empowered community leaders with subsequent data collected by evaluators through focus groups and surveys. Evaluators then analysed and organised the data into a report that community leaders could submit to local and state officials. Identifying details were omitted out of an abundance of concern and respect for the privacy of the communities and constituents that were directly and indirectly affected by the tragedy that inspired this discourse.
This article presents a reflective discussion between evaluators on whether or not it would have been appropriate to suggest integrating an assets-based community development (ABCD) approach within a commissioned community needs assessment. It also covers the evaluators’ process of using a critical lens to retrospectively assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of adopting an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach. The discussion emphasises the importance of acknowledging and engaging with the diverse perspectives held by the wider evaluation community. It recognises, too, the value of ongoing dialogue and debate to encourage evaluators to critically reflect on the appropriateness and implications of integrating a variety of approaches within community needs assessments. This article also explores how the authors ‘made space’ for this conversation, including aspects of content analysis and consideration of crucial conversations, parameters and ethics, in the hope of further stimulating discussion and fostering a decision-making process that would encompass a range of viewpoints, ultimately driving more effective and responsive community development practices.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who submit articles to this journal from 31st March 2014 for publication, agree to the following terms:
a) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share and adapt the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Open Access Citation Advantage Service). Where authors include such a work in an institutional repository or on their website (ie. a copy of a work which has been published in a UTS ePRESS journal, or a pre-print or post-print version of that work), we request that they include a statement that acknowledges the UTS ePRESS publication including the name of the journal, the volume number and a web-link to the journal item.
d) Authors should be aware that the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) License permits readers to share (copy and redistribute the work in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the work) for any purpose, even commercially, provided they also give appropriate credit to the work, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. They may do these things in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests you or your publisher endorses their use.
For Volume 6 (2013) and before, the following copyright applied:
Articles published by UTSePress are protected by copyright which is retained by the authors who assert their moral rights. Authors control translation and reproduction rights to their works published by UTSePress. UTSePress publications are copyright and all rights are reserved worldwide. Downloads of specific portions of them are permitted for personal use only, not for commercial use or resale. Permissions to reprint or use any materials should be directed to UTSePress.
References
Altschuld, J., Hung, H-L. & Lee, Y-F. (2014). Needs assessment and asset/capacity building: A promising development in practice. In J. W. Altschuld& R. Watkins (Eds.) Special issue: Needs
assessment: Trends and a view toward the future. New Directions for Evaluation 144, 89–103.
Altschuld, J. & Watkins, R. (2014). A primer on needs assessment: More than 40 years of research and practice. In J. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.) Special issue: Needs assessment and a view toward the future. New Directions for Evaluation 144, pp. 5-18.
Axel-Lute (2019). The opposite of deficit-based language isn’t asset-based language. It's truth-telling. Community Development Field Blog, 12 November). Montclair, NJ: Shelterforce. https://shelterforce.org/2019/11/12/the-opposite-of-deficit-based-language-isnt-asset-based-language-its-truth-telling/
Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence (n.d.). The Mental Health Impact Of Mass Shootings. Washington, DC: BRADY. https://s3.amazonaws.com/brady-static/Report/MentalHealthImpactOfMassShootings.pdf
Cunningham, I., Willetts, J., Winterford, K. & Foster, T. (2022). Interrogating the motivation mechanisms and claims of asset-based community development with self-determination theory. Community Development, 53 (4), pp. 393-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2021.1953089
Curato, N. (2019). Democracy in a time of misery: From spectacular tragedy to deliberative action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dawson, N. (2014). The ethics of exploiting a tragedy (Campaign UK Blog, 7 October). Twickenham, UK:Haymarket.com. https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/ethicsexploiting-tragedy/1315643
Forbes Coaches Council (2017). 15 ways to offer truly constructive feedback. (Forbes Leadership Blog, 19 June). https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/06/19/15-ways-to-offer-truly-constructive-feedback/?sh=71fa70456e9b
Garcia, I. (2020). Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD): Core principles. In R. Phillips, E. Trevan & P. Krager (Eds.). Research handbook on community development (pp. 68 - 75). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Assuring the Health of the Public in the 21st Century (2002). The future of the public's health in the 21st century: The community (Chapter 4). Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221228/
Institute on Trauma and Trauma-Informed Care (2015). What is Trauma-Informed Care? Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, Buffalo Center for Social Research. https://socialwork.buffalo.edu/social-research/institutes-centers/institute-on-trauma-and-trauma-informed-care/what-is-trauma-informed-care.html
Kennedy (2021). It's not a deficit. And you don't need to "fix" it. UNLV News Center Blog (21 September). Las Vegas, NV: University of Nevada. https://www.unlv.edu/news/article/its not-deficit-and-you-dont-need-fix-it
Kretzman, J. & McKnight, J, (1996). Assets-based community development. National Civic Review 85 (4), pp. 23-29.
Nel, H. (2020). Stakeholder engagement: asset-based community-led development (ABCD) versus the traditional needs-based approach to community development. Social Work, 56 (3), pp. 264-278. https://dx.doi.org/10.15270/52-2-857
Martin-Kerry J., McLean J., Hopkins T., Morgan A., Dunn L., Walton R., Golder S., Allison T., Cooper D., Wohland P., & Prady S. (2023). Characterizing asset-based studies in public health: development of a framework. Health Promotion International 38 (2), pp. 1-12). https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daad015
Panzarella, F. Turcanu, C. Anderson, B. & Cappunys, V (2023). Community capitals and (social) sustainability: Use and misuse of asset-based approaches in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management 329 (2023), pp. 1e - 13e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117122
Russell, C. & McKnight, J. (2022). The connected community: discovering the health, wealth, and power of neighborhoods. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Thomas, C., Otis, N., Abraham, J., Markus, H. & Walton, G. (2020). Toward a science of delivering aid with dignity: Experimental evidence and local forecasts from Kenya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (27), pp. 15546-15553.
Weinstein, E., Wolin, J. & Rose, S. (2014). Trauma informed community building: A Model for Strengthening Community in Trauma Affected Neighborhoods. San Francisco, CA: Bridge Housing, Corp. & Health Equity Institute.