2006-2007 Annual Report Cover

By getting to know each other through neighbourhood gatherings, citizens feel safer and reduce crime in their areas.

Resources

Evaluation Project - Executive Summary March 2006

This Executive Summary summarizes the more detailed findings contained in:

  1. Growing Roots.Strengthening Neighbourhoods, Photovoice, September 2005
  2. Growing Roots.Strengthening Neighbourhoods Evaluation Final Report by Nancy F. Johnson dated December 2005
  3. Growing Roots.Strengthening Neighbourhoods Key Informant Feedback by Arnold Love, Ph. D dated February 13, 2006

I. INTRODUCTION

In the spring of 2005, Hamilton Community Foundation (HCF) engaged Dr. Arnold Love to create an evaluation framework for HCF's Neighbourhood Program. The Foundation then contracted with Nancy Johnson of Johnson Associates to adapt and implement the evaluation, with the ongoing counsel of Dr. Love and in concert with HCF staff under the direction of Betty Muggah.

Based on extensive research of similar models, Hamilton Community Foundation's Neighbourhood Program aims to use an asset-based community development approach, combined with small grants, to help build capacity and improve the quality of life in four of Hamilton's most challenged neighbourhoods. The program helps residents see opportunities for community improvement and turn their ideas into action. It seeks to build resident leadership individually and collectively and to strengthen relationships within the community. The model combines: a full-time community development worker (Neighbourhood Program Coordinator); technical support to groups; small grants; leadership development; program evaluation; and additional technical support to groups from part-time Community Builders. The Neighbourhood Program began in August 2002. Hamilton Community Foundation made a five-year commitment to the program.

II. EVALUATION APPROACH AND FINDINGS

Evaluation Questions

In consultation with the Neighbourhood Program's Advisory Committee, Foundation staff and the Foundation's leaders, Arnold Love identified five evaluation questions:

  1. What has changed in the lives of the individuals and groups that have participated in the Neighbourhood Program?
  2. What assets is the program helping to build in the residents and the neighbourhood?
  3. What aspects of the program are working well and what needs to be changed?
  4. What is transferable to other neighbourhoods?
  5. What are the major challenges still facing people in the four communities?

Evaluation Components and Findings

Data were collected using three evaluation components. The findings are summarized here.

1. Photovoice, an evaluation technique designed to evoke stories and narrative data from residents and neighbourhood groups.

This technique was chosen because - consistent with the program model - it keeps residents' perspectives at the centre of the evaluation, and contributes to their ownership of the evaluation learning and community development process. The photovoice component was contracted to the Workers Arts and Heritage Centre.

Interviews were conducted with groups of program participants, using a standardized script. Approximately 75 adults and 70 children were part of the interview process, representing 22 projects. Despite significant challenges of language - many participants are not English speakers - people were eager to have their views recorded. In analyzing the interview transcripts, Arnold Love concluded that:

  1. There was good acceptance of the program by participants
  2. There was evidence of strengthening relationships and sense of community
  3. Outcomes for the community include greater pride, sense of safety, increased interaction between newcomers and other residents
  4. The contribution of the Neighbourhood Coordinator (David Derbyshire) was acknowledged and valued. His expertise and continuity was seen as important in sustaining their change efforts.
  5. HCF's interest in the neighbourhoods, and its willingness to invest in them, gave residents hope in place of despair or complacency.

Photos taken at these interviews, photos from the projects, key interview themes, quotes, and information about the projects were transformed into a 20-minute audiovisual presentation, a photo display panel, and a printed handout.

2.  Analysis of descriptive and statistical data from the Program's records since inception and from the reports submitted by the community project groups.

The records of the program from August 1, 2002 to September 30, 2005 were reviewed. All available final reports (18 of the 32 completed projects) were analyzed along with other program data, supplemented by conversations with the Neighbourhood Coordinator. Some of the key findings:

  1. The Foundation invested a total of $313,000 in the Neighbourhood Program, including Community development staffing, small grants, evaluation and other costs.
  2. Thirty-seven small grants were made during the 38-month period totaling $29,014.
  3. A wide array of perceived changes were reported as a result of the projects: increased interaction on the street, new and stronger relationships among residents, improved self-confidence, marketable skills and increased employment opportunities for individuals, community beautification, safe after-school activity for children, increased involvement of schools.
  4. Projects brought neighbours together who would not have interacted under other circumstances. Inter-cultural and inter-generational connections were strengthened. Many projects helped to break the isolation of seniors and others.
  5. Schools involved in the projects have strengthened their links with residents and their neighbourhoods.
  6. Relationships with the police improved, with more sense of partnership and shared responsibility for community safety. Police participated more in community activities.

A range of assets were created by the projects: physical assets, such as window boxes or a tool lending "library"; individual and organizational skills, such as learning to drive or learning how a Board of Directors works; relationships and social connections, such as increased interaction between children and adults; and improved community morale.

Sustainability was considered. Of the projects reviewed, a few were self-contained "one-off" activities. Others are ongoing and expanding, with continued financial support from the Foundation. At least four initiatives had become self-sustaining.

The Neighbourhood Program involves a systematic process of leadership development designed to support natural leaders and empower participants. One indicator of success is whether groups or individuals stay involved and help to organize further projects. Repeat grants (grants made to a similar project organized by previous recipients) increased over the years and several successful projects were replicated by other people in other venues. As well, a progression in the difficulty or complexity of projects occurred suggesting a deepening of leadership. Residents also participated eagerly in additional Foundation-initiated leadership development opportunities, for example First Aid and CPR workshops, community development training and Board Training, as well as broader opportunities like the City-wide conference on after school programming and the Low Income Advisory Committee of the Hamilton Poverty Roundtable.

Observations about the Program's operation:

  1. Neighbourhood residents value the work of the Neighbourhood Coordinator very highly; his skill set is well-matched to the community development approach and is a substantial factor in the success of the Program. There has been difficulty implementing the Community Builders model.
  2. Building trust is the key to this program. Neighbourhoods will not engage with the Foundation until trust has been established. The community development approach is time-consuming and labour-intensive.
  3. Transferability within the neighbourhoods is high and some projects are being replicated from one neighbourhood to another. The approach seems equally effective in one neighbourhood as another.

The Neighbourhood Program has also had an effect on the operation of the Foundation as a whole. Staff and volunteers have learned more about their city and its downtown neighbourhoods; the asset-based focus on challenged neighbourhoods may have helped the foundation toward its strategic poverty focus. The diversity (age, ethnicity, income level etc.) that is the hallmark of the Neighbourhood Program has encouraged the Foundation to increase its diversity in other areas.

3. Key informant interviews with community stakeholders from all sectors.

Arnold Love interviewed 18 key informants to solicit their views about what difference they feel the program was making for residents and the neighbourhoods, whether there had been unintended negative effects, and how well the major components of the program were working. He also asked for suggestions to improve the program.

Among the many benefits highlighted in these interviews:

  1. youth involvement in the projects was identified as extremely positive for both individual young people and the community at large, through activities like park cleanup. Youth were developing leadership skills and ownership of the neighbourhoods, resulting in reduced vandalism, increased school and civic participation, etc.
  2. the program has enriched the exchange between school and community, and has increased parent involvement in the schools
  3. it has increased participation in existing programs (recreation, parenting etc.) and increased volunteering
  4. small grants have made a difference by increasing participants' self-esteem and confidence creating pride, and demonstrating self reliance. This creates a sense of optimism in the community
  5. other effects identified: breaking down barriers, strengthening ethno-cultural groups, increasing neighbourhood involvement.

A few key informants identified unintended negative effects: possible dependence on the Neighbourhood Coordinator, and the perception that links were not being built between the program and existing services.

The vast majority of respondents felt that the focused intervention by a community development worker was an essential component of the model. A few respondents raised issues regarding this role. Most informants felt that small grants were a useful approach with immediate impact and many community benefits. However, concerns were raised about the short-term nature of the projects in the face of long-term problems, and the need for a "staircase' of resources to longer terms initiatives. Many respondents felt that tackling poverty needed at least 7-10 years of sustained attention as well as structural change. Leadership development in poor neighbourhoods was identified as a priority and most respondents identified effective strategies and results in the program. Ongoing succession planning for grassroots leadership was seen as a necessity. Virtually all the respondents supported the asset-based approach of the model and gave numerous examples of its benefits.

Suggestions for improvement included a higher cap amount for grants, expansion of the community development worker model, development of connections to other agencies or volunteers for mentoring, and continued strengthening of the links to schools. Regarding possible expansion of the program, there was agreement that the current neighbourhoods require sustained effort for years to come. It is also important to deepen involvement with new immigrants here. Unless additional resources are available, the program should stay in the current four neighbourhoods.

III. CONCLUSION

In launching the Neighbourhood Program, Hamilton Community Foundation identified three outcomes that might define success in each neighbourhood after the first five years:

  1. Improved quality of neighbourhood life - neighbourhoods which are becoming cleaner, safer, friendlier, with more and better youth and children's programs, housing, greater education, improving job opportunities etc.
  2. Leadership development - more neighbourhood residents involved in public life, identifying and analyzing issues, mobilizing others to take action and speak out, designing and operating campaigns and projects to deal with community issues, and practicing public speaking, group decision making, community accountability, etc.
  3. Strengthened community infrastructure - co-operation and co-ordination are improving not only among neighbourhood residents, but also between residents and institutions and among institutions and organizations themselves that are active in the neighbourhood (e.g. police, schools, government agencies and services, churches, local businesses, human service agencies, etc.).1

At the approximate mid-point of the five-year program, progress has been made toward all three objectives. The small grant program has generated excellent results from very small individual grants, supplemented by intensive community development work. Participants are reporting significant changes in the quality of neighbourhood life. Residents are enthusiastically taking part in leadership opportunities. People are staying involved and transferring their skills from one project to the next. Community relationships are gradually strengthening and community institutions are becoming more involved. Other stakeholders are generally very positive about the impact the program is having at the individual level and the neighbourhood level, although it is clear that significant challenges remain and sustained, strategic effort is needed over the long term.

1 June 25, 2005 Neighbourhood Program Press Kit, Hamilton Community Foundation