Considering the goals of comprehensive planning for children, youth and their families at the community level, the OCCYSC Model, and what we know about it takes to create change in communities through the Community Action Planning Process, there appears to be five basic kinds of community development activity measures to examine in any community.
These five areas of community development are inter-linked and may overlap at different levels. These areas of community development actively are described in more detail on the following pages in six different levels for each area.
These CATEGORIES are:
Category A. Community awareness/understanding/agreement with the need to assure the successful and healthy development of all children:
This is the "mission" and the outcome goal of everything we are doing.
Category B. Community awareness of the work/role of the Commission:
The work of the local Commission is the centerpiece of our model and the coordinating point for almost all activity.
Category C. Scope of comprehensive planning/use of the comprehensive plan:
The comprehensive plan in the community’s blueprint for action.
Category D. Coordination of existing resources/services; and,
Coordination of services is a key element of the legislation and a major expectation of the legislature. It is also a key strategy for creating new resources.
Category E. Local actions/creation of new resources and programs, including opportunities for youth participation and volunteer involvement.
This is ultimately the greatest vision of the OOCYSC model. Major accomplishment in the area puts our agency into a whole new paradigm of "social workers."
Category A. Community awareness/understanding/agreement with the need to assure the successful and healthy development of all children:
LEVELS:
L1 Limited awareness and understanding of the issues. The issues are superficially articulated when presented;
L2 General awareness by people, organizations, and agencies interested and concerned about children’s issues;
L3 Issue is articulated, understood and promoted by one or more key social service organizations including the schools and a few key community leaders and eclectic leadership groups in the community;
L4 Issues begin to be acted on as a guiding policy for decision-making, program development and other variable actions by key social service organizations, schools, and business; and begins to be actively supported by community leaders and eclectic leadership groups in the community;
L5 Issue becomes a major, guiding policy for the work of all community organizations and groups; organizational practices are changed by the issues. Actions and programs that work to prevent youth problems and initiated to balance remedial programs. There are specific strategies supported by the community to tackle conditions such as poverty and having equal access to opportunities by minority youth. The issue is articulated by the business community as a major policy for quality of the workforce and as part of economic development planning;
L6 In addition to the cumulative outcomes of the previous levels, there is evidence of a broad, positive vision for the success of all children throughout the entire community. Everyone believes in and acts on this vision. The vision directs all efforts behalf of children and youth. The vision is uniquely the community’s own vision and is not just connected to the work of the local commission. There are specific strategies supported by the entire community to tackle the most difficult conditions that work against all children having the opportunity to be successful in life.
Category B. Community awareness of the work/role of the Commission:
LEVELS:
L1 Youth service agencies are aware of the existance of the commission, however, there is liittle or no awareness of work/role of the commission by the general community; youth service agencies view commission as existing only as a source of funding several different categories of youth programs;
L2 Youth service agencies accept the commission as having a planning role but only as related to planning for the use of state grant funds;
L3 The public has a very general idea of the commission’s role as a planned group for children, youth and families. A few community organizations and groups begin to understand work/role of the commission as a planning body in the community beyond just planning for grant funds and participate in some parts of the planning process;
L4 Community agencies, organizations, the public, and the community view of commission as a major planning group for children, youth, and families in the county. These groups support the commission’s planning for a range of local actions in addition to grant funding decisions. Agencies and organizations begin to contribute to the plan by deciding how they can help to accomplish objectives of the plan; key community leaders and eclectic leadership groups become involved in the work of the commission;
L5 The public, community agencies, organizations, legislations, legislators and the business community see the commission as the central planning group for children, youth and families. There is broad participation in the planning process by almost all community agencies, organizations and groups in planning for grant and non-grant programs and initiatives. State agencies begin to utilize the plan to determine how their agency will provide services in the country. The business community begins to consider the work of the commission as an essential component of economic development by working to improve the quality of the future workforce and by working to improving the general quality of life for families in communities;
L6 In addition to the cumulative indicators of levels 1 - 5, the objectives of county comprehensive plans are considered by local governments and by the Legislature in all decisions about service priorities for children, youth and families. The plan provides direction for how local and state human services resources are allocated in communities.
Category C. Scope of comprehensive planning/use of the comprehensive plan:
LEVELS:
L1 The comprehensive plan (and any planning activity) is viewed as what is necessary to receive grant funds. The plan is viewed as "what the state wanted us to do."
L2 Planning identifies and funds mostly remedial service needs with some limited non-grant activities and local actions;
L3 Planning begins to stand alone and broaden in scope. Planning begins to shift from a "service needs" orientation to broader preventive outcome objectives such as how to strengthen families, improve the effectiveness of schools, etc. Planning begins to develop strategies for reducing risk factors and correcting negative conditions in the community that cause youth problems. The plan contains at least as many non-grant activities and local actions as grant funding recommendations. The commission begins to work in collaborative arrangements with other community groups who act as "ad hoc planning advisory bodies" or subcommittees of the commission;
L4. The comprehensive plan includes a balance of prevention and remedial service needs and begins to be seen as a plan for the county not just the state. The plan recommends a wide variety of local actions and strategies for all children and youth. The activities and efforts of some agencies and organizations begin to be influenced and directed by the plan;
L5 The comprehensive plan is considered to be a major action agenda document by community agencies and organizations. The plan has high credibility because of a thorough and collaborative planning process. The plan begins to influence the allocation of existing local and state resources. The plan begins to influence the allocation of existing local and state resources. The plan begins to include vision statements to work toward in addition to how to deal with problems;
L6 The plan is considered in all decisions that are made related to children, youth and families including business development plans for the community. The comprehensive plan sets the broad objective for determining priorities for local budget allocations. State agencies and legislators utilize the plan to determine state resource allocations to help the county accomplish the objectives of their plan.
Category D. Coordination of existing resources/services; and,
LEVELS:
L1 There is little or no coordination of existing services and efforts for children, youth and families;
L2 There is some coordination of services, but this coordination is limited mainly to client referral agreements;
L3 Mechanisms develop to improve broad communication among agencies about available services and common problems and challenges;
L4 Actual formally sanctioned case management activities begin to take place. Agencies begin to work together in formal networks and arrangements, particularly with multi-problem families. Agencies begin to share training resources and work in other collaborative relationships. Coordination mechanisms begin to include collaborations, joint and coordination with the services that are provided by the traditional character building agencies such as 4H, YMCA/YECA, Scouts, Campfire and religious organizations;
L5 New resources, services and programs begin to be created through coordination, networking and collaboration among some community agencies, organizations, and the same members of the business community by using or re-aligning existing resources;
L6 Many new resources, services and programs are created through wide-spread coordination, networking and collaboration among all community agencies, organizations, and the business community by using or re-aligning existing resources.
Category E. Local actions/creation of new resources and programs, including opportunities for youth participation and volunteer involvement;
LEVELS:
L1 There are little or not local actions and non-agent solutions are being initiated in the community by the commission or anyone else;
L2 Some new volunteer roles are created, but these roles are mostly connected to the funded programs. Some local actions/strategies are initiated as a result of recommendations in the plan or as an outcome of the planning process;
L3 Local actions begin to include ideas from and projects initiated by key leaders and eclectic leadership groups in the community. Local actions also begin to include youth and participation from youth leadership groups;
L4 Local actions broaden away from a direct connection to remedial programs. Actions and strategies begin to promote the creation of positive conditions and ways to assure the future of all youth. Solid strategies with broaden community participation and support are designed to tackle the tough problems, such as poverty. Local action strategies start to be linked to and coordinated with business development. Youth participation and key youth leadership are part of the development and implementation of all of these strategies;
L5 Support for local community actions comes from all key community leaders. Local actions begin to be planned, directed and coordinated by leadership groups outside of the commission. In multi-cultural communities, action plans include a range of strategies and actions for, and designed with the participation of, minority youth and families; and,
L6 In addition the cumulative outcomes of the other levels, local action plans have the power to re-align resources in the traditional system of local and state resources. Youth participation is seen as a key element of developing local action strategies and program design. Youth participation is routinely a part of the development of all planning, strategy development, program operation, and program evaluation.
This information was prepared by the Chandler Center for Community Leadership, 2600 NW College Way, Bend, Oregon 97701-5998, Phone (541) 388-8361, Fax (541) 383-8002, Electronic Mail, hoguet@oes.orst.edu.
The Center is a collaboration of Oregon State University Extension Service, Central Oregon Community College and the Chandler Center. The Center began in 1992 to foster community-based leadership and to encourage individuals and community groups to take part in governing. The Center focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on developing and sustaining public policy issues, community systems, and collaborations.
Chandler Center for Community Leadership