DRAFT: THIS PIECE IS UNDER REVISION

Resource Development 
Indicators and Measures

Resource development indicators and measures are listed below. For the most part, measures to document the indicators are counts of specific events or items that can be derived from existing records or from tracking protocols that can be developed. Other measures are also specified.

It should also be noted that the extent to which resource development indicators are reflective of solid collaborative efforts is dependent, in part, on the extent to which the resources are provided on a continued basis. Successful collaborative efforts take time to develop. Therefore, renewal and continuation of resources over time to the collaborative effort should be considered when documenting resource development indicators.

In addition to documenting the expansion and integration of resources, there is need to also track the programatic results of the increased capacity afforded by resource development. After assessing the resource development, include information about how those resources were used to improve programatic or collaborative efforts.

I. Indicators for Community Resource Expansion: Acquiring the resources that are needed


Environmental Capital: Improvement in the social and organizational context in which the collaborative group exists and functions.

Indicator: Increased access to needed technical assistance from external resource systems will result in greater ability to meet community need Measure: A numerical tally of the number and duration of visits from different state/federal, and/or international agencies to the communities based on a content assessment of agency trip reports.
Measure: An interview or survey assessment of presenters meeting of community need.

Indicator: Residents of the community perceive their community as a collectivity. (Rossi)
Measure: Record number of community members who perceive themselves as sharing a significant set of interests with other residents
Tool: Mobilization Scale (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999) (in Adobe Acrobat PDF)

Indicator: The extent to which there exist opportunities for public discussion within an organizational and/or structured setting.
Measure: Content analysis of local papers, newsletters, or meeting announcements. Time given at local meetings for public input into decision making process

Indicator: The extent to which a wide variety of related organizations come together to co-sponsor events, activities or projects
Measure: Numerical count and analysis of meeting minutes

Indicator: The purposes of the local organization meet the community's needs
Measure: Community survey of organizational awareness, involvement, and perception of needs being met in community.
Tool: Mobilization Scale (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999)

Indicator: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR. These documents must explicitly focus on enhancing the work of a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Timely information via PCs, Internet, other communication devices, etc. will be available and/or affordable.
Measure: Survey by phone and personal interview. Logs of site connectivity computer use.

Indicator: All members of the group are informed of the actions of the group.
Measure: interview, Distribution lists
Tool: Network Analysis Questionnaire Source: Linney & Wandersman (1991). Prevention Plus III. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Pg. 413.

Indicator: Meetings will be well planned and executed.
Tool: collaboration Structure Meeting Questionnaire
Source: Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the Journey, St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
Tool: Meeting Questionnaire Source: Dombro, A. L., O'Donnell, N.S., Galinsky, E., Malcher, S.G., & Garber, A. (1996). Community Mobilization: Strategies to Support Young Children and Their Families, New York: Families and Work Institute.
Tool: Citizen Development Questionnaire
See also: Where the Answers Live: Team Decision Making in Zenger, J. H., Musselwhite, E., Hurson, K., Perrin, C. (1994). Leading Teams: Mastering the New Role. Homewood, IL: Zenger-Miller.

Indicator: Increased access to needed technical assistance from external resource systems will result in greater ability to meet community need Measure: A numerical tally of the number and duration of visits from different state/federal, and/or international agencies to the communities based on a content assessment of agency trip reports.
Measure: An interview or survey assessment of presenters meeting of community need.

Indicator: The extent to which there exist opportunities for public discussion within an organizational and/or structured setting.
Measure: Content analysis of local papers, newsletters, or meeting announcements. Time given at local meetings for public input into decision making process Indicator: The extent to which a variety of related organizations come together to co-sponsor events, activities or projects Measure: Numerical count and analysis of meeting minutes

Indicator: The purposes of the local organization meet the community's needs
Measure: Community survey of organizational awareness, involvement, and perception of needs being met in community.

Indicator: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Number of letters of commitment or interagency agreements between partner organizations and agencies, and policies, laws, or regulations that specifically identify or encourage collaboration to address issues and problems of CYFAR. These documents must explicitly focus on enhancing the work of a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Timely information via PCs, Internet, other communication devices, etc. will be available and/or affordable.
Measure: Survey by phone and personal interview. Logs of site connectivity computer use.


Financial Capital

Indicator: The extent to which local community leaders and/or public officials redirect local budget resources in ways that more fully support the staff, program and facility requirements of CYFAR community based project initiatives.
Measure: A review of official documentation and annual budget data.

Indicator: Amount of financial resources contributed by partner organizations and agencies to the collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Total amount of financial resources contributed by partner organizations and agencies to the collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Amount of financial resources secured by the collaborative group through community fundraising, government and foundation grants and contracts, and other private sector resources to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Data providers will need to track and maintain the total amount of financial resources secured by the collaborative group through community fundraising, government and foundation grants and contracts, and other private sector resources to address issues and problems of CYFAR.


Non-financial capital

Indicator: Number of organizations or agencies providing in kind contributions (e.g., donation of meeting rooms, supplies, computers, transportation, public relations or promotional activities, equipment, furniture, printing, construction and renovation, clerical assistance, etc.) to support a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR. Measure: Monitor contribution records


Human Capital: Improvement in individuals' cognitive skills, knowledge, training, and other personal skills and resources to improve the community

Indicator: Community members will show an increase in knowledge, awareness, and skills to bring about change in the community. Specifically, the extent to which citizens have learned the following skills:

Gather information relevant to issues
      develop a survey
      conduct a survey
      assess resources

Collaborative problems solving
      facilitate a group discussion
      negotiate in conflict situations
      decision making
      consensus building

Influence over the community
       leadership
       communication

Plans to take action
       Grantwriting
        time management

Measure: Survey or interview citizens to determine which skills they have acquired since program implementation
Tool: Mobilization Scale (Jakes and Cassidy, 1999) (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)
Tool: Evaluation of Citizen Action Training (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)

Indicator: Community members will show an increase in knowledge, awareness, and skills to bring about change in the community. Specifically, the extent to which citizens have learned the following skills:

1. Gather information relevant to issues
a. develop a survey
b. conduct a survey
c. assess resources

1. Collaborative problems solving
a. facilitate a group discussion
b. negotiate in conflict situations
c. decision making
d. consensus building

1. Influence over the community
a. leadership
b. communication

1. Plans to take action
a. Grantwriting
b. time management

Measure: Survey or interview citizens to determine which skills they have acquired since program implementation
Tool: Mobilization Scale (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)
Tool: Citizen Development Questionnaire (in Adobe Acrobat PDF file)



Social Capital

Indicator: Increase in number of paid organization and agency personnel meaningfully involved in a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Counts of paid organization and agency personnel meaningfully involved (i.e., attending at least two meetings and performing significant work) in a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Increase in number of volunteers meaningfully involved in a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Counts of volunteers meaningfully involved (i.e., attending at least two meetings and performing significant work) in a collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Community organizations & local government bodies use of group process techniques to address issues or solve problems results in more effective group functioning.
Measure: Review of minutes, reporting by members or attendees, survey for evidence of use of group process technique. Interview of group participants on functioning of group.

Indicator: Community members report an increase of feelings of trust in their community
Measure: Interview, survey or focus groups - How has your level of trust in your community changed as a result of involvement in CYFAR?

Indicator: Community members report an increase of feelings of identifying with the community - decreased alienation
Measure: Interview, survey or focus groups - How has your level of identification with your community changed as a result of involvement in CYFAR? - Do you feel more like a part of your community since your involvement with CYFAR? Do you feel like you know the members of your community better since your involvement in CYFAR?

Indicator: An increase in citizen Involvement
Measure: See citizen development/citizen participation section

Indicator: Increase in the number of civic groups or ability of existing civic groups to meet community need.
Measure: Document review of meeting minutes, newsletters and local paper. Community survey of awareness of local organizations, and perceptions of these organization's ability to meet local need.

Indicator: Increase in care for property
Measure: Increase in the home value in the neighborhood greater than town average inflationary increases.

Indicator: Decrease in the transient nature or feelings of temporary residence in the community
Measure: Analysis of Percentage of home ownership, percentage of home ownership turnover within 5 years, Interview with community residents: Do you plan to stay in your community long term? Do you think your children will want to come back to this community to live? Do you think this community is a good place to settle down?

Indicator: Increase in mutual give and take within community/ reciprocity i.e., day care needs facility, church provides space, day care takes care of church members children.
Measure: Interview with community members


I. Indicators for Community Resource Accessibility: Insuring that resources are accessible, integrated, and used effectively

Environmental Capital

Indicator: Family members, youth, and children living in at-risk circumstances will have greater access to community based services, facilities and other resources necessary for alleviating at-risk living conditions
Measure: Survey or interview community members

Indicator: The extent to which CYFAR Project initiatives are structurally integrated as an ongoing part of local governmental jurisdiction or a non-governmental organization servicing the needs of at-risk people living within that jurisdiction.
Measure: Evidence documenting that structural realignment has occurred.

Indicator: Structures will be in place in the community that allow for improved integration of resources i.e., communities will be able to use the available financial capital to improve human capital, which should in turn, improve the community's assets
Measure: Survey or interview community members
Measure: Monitor records of how resources are used

Indicator: Community services will be more accessible to community members who need them
Measure: Interview or survey community members
Measure: Monitor records of use of community services

Indicator: Community will include a diverse representation of the community in its collaborative groups addressing issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Diversity on the collaboration's membership will be assessed on the following criteria: to which members of the collaborative group represent the following characteristics: age, educational background, ethnicity, family status, gender, income, military experience, geographic areas of origin, ownership of property and assets, physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, social class, spiritual practice, and work experience.


Financial Capital

Indicator: Number of partner organizations and agencies contributing financial resources to the collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.
Measure: Data providers will need to track and maintain counts of partner organizations and agencies contributing financial resources to the collaborative group to address issues and problems of CYFAR.

Indicator: Increased use of Resources Assessment.
Measure: Data providers will need to complete a Use of Resources Assessment (to be developed) that will assess the appropriate use of financial resources for the collaborative effort. This will be a qualitative assessment and will likely include the following questions (based on Kaye & Wolff, 1997): Does everyone have access to the collaborative groups resources or are they only available to a small handful of people who have certain connections? Who controls decisions concerning the use of resources? Towards what use are the collaborative funds put? Do the long term financial resources generated by the collaborative group benefit those who did not initially have access to them?

Indicator: Community programmers will have increased access to financial capital
Measure: Survey or interview

Indicator: Community groups will effectively use their monetary resources to contribute to the community (such as by implementing groups, paying for training for group leaders, paying for educational programs for youth, etc.) Measure: Monitor financial records
Measure: Survey or interview Non-financial Capital Goal: Communities will have improved accessibility to and use of non-financial resources

Indicator: Increased accessibility to non-financial resources
Measure: Survey community members to see if the community's non-financial resources are accessible to those who need them

Indicator: More effective use of non-financial resources
Measure: Survey or interview community members to determine how they are using their community's non-financial resources (are they effectively utilizing resources such as space, computers, etc., that were donated to them?)
Measure: Monitor records of use of non-financial resources Human Capital

Indicator: Community members' skills will be recognized by the community groups in which they participate
Measure: Survey or interview group members

Indicator: Community members' skills will be well utilized by the community groups in which they participate.
Measure: Survey or interview group members

Indicator: Community members will feel valued and needed in community functions
Measure: Survey or interview group members

Social Capital

Indicator: Community groups will demonstrate increased reciprocity of relationships
Measure: Survey or interview group members

Indicator: Community groups will demonstrate trust in their partnerships Measure: Survey or interview group members

Indicator: Community members will take advantage of community networks to benefit programming efforts
Measure: Survey or interview group members

Authors: Lisa Cassidy and Susan Jakes
Adapted from an submission for the the Resource Development Working Group by Michael Lambur, Extension Specialist, Program Development and Nadya Berstein, Research Assistant, Virginia Cooperative Extension