Components of Strong Communities

Community mobilization by staff outreach workers

Strong Families

Universal assistance to families of young children Generally provided with existing human resources (unpaid

volunteer service and donated professional time) In existing community facilities (homes, libraries, churches,

fire stations, schools, parks, etc.)1

Building a Sense of Community

Strong Communities was designed to promote normative change in perceptions, beliefs, and behavior

o Caring Attentiveness Neighborliness 

o Inclusion Universality of access to family support Mutuality of respect and caring

2

Building a Sense of Efficacy

o Optimism The belief, individually and collectively, that action on

behalf of families will be effective, because the community is a welcoming and supportive place positive things do happen for families in the community 

o Action The belief, individually, and collectively, that the possibility

of effective action on behalf of families should be translated into practical activity (moral norm)

The belief that such practical activity will occur; it is the thing to do, a norm that pervades life in the community (social norm) 

3

The Initial ResultsWhat we see [when we look at progress in the first 5 or 6 years of the Strong Communities initiative] is that…

not only are community efforts to protect children effective, but that communities are enlivened and renewed through their collective efforts to protect their most precious and vulnerable resources, their children.

JEANETTE LANCASTERThen dean, University of Virginia School of Nursing

and editor, Family & Community Health 4

5

5,000+ Volunteers ContributedTheir Time and Skills

Recruitment Was Steady

Strong Communities Volunteers, Cumulative

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1stquarter2004

2ndquarter2004

3rdquarter2004

4thquarter2004

1stquarter2005

2ndquarter2005

3rdquarter2005

4thquarter2005

1stquarter2006

2ndquarter2006

3rdquarter2006

4thquarter2006

1stquarter2007

2ndquarter2007

3rdquarter2007

4thquarter2007

1stquarter2008

2ndquarter2008

6

Contributions of Volunteer Time Grew Steadily

From January 2004 through June 2008,more than 60,000 hours of volunteer service were

recordedStrong Communties Volunteer Hours, Cumulative

0.0

10000.0

20000.0

30000.0

40000.0

50000.0

60000.0

70000.0

1stquarter2004

2ndquarter2004

3rdquarter2004

4thquarter2004

1stquarter2005

2ndquarter2005

3rdquarter2005

4thquarter2005

1stquarter2006

2ndquarter2006

3rdquarter2006

4thquarter2006

1stquarter2007

2ndquarter2007

3rdquarter2007

4thquarter2007

1stquarter2008

2ndquarter2008

7

The Settings of Everyday LifeWere at the Heart of Strong Communities

Organizational Involvement, Cumulative

106 118

44

144162

64

162 175

71

165196

77

188213

85

Businesses Faith Communities Voluntary Organizations

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Church EngagementExpanded Across Time

Faith Community Involvement

0

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

#

Bulletin Inserts

Contact

Volunteer Activity

Special WorshipService

Businesses Also Expanded the Arrayof Activities in Which They

ParticipatedBusinesses typically began involvement

with a financial contribution

Business Involvement

0

50

100

150

200

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

#

Spoke to Group

Donations

Volunteer Activity

Voluntary Associations Servedas Portals to Community Resources

Participating Organization Involvement

0102030405060708090

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Year

#

LeadershipSpokesperson

Adopted SCs as aTheme

Spoke to Group

Donations

Strong Families A New Part of Everyday Life

About 3,000 families enrolled in 2006-07 Many thousands more participated At least 1,300 activities from mid-2006 to mid-

2008 – a number that rapidly grew Extrapolated estimate of 25,000 instances of

participation Activities occurred throughout the community

More than one-third each in churches and community centers

Schools, 9.0%; libraries, 7.7%; other, ~15%

11

12

From Community Actionto Safer Homes

In surveys conducted in 2004 and 2007, parents in the Strong Communities service area reported– less parental stress– greater social support– more frequent help from others– greater sense of community and personal efficacy– more frequent positive parental behavior– more frequent use of household safety devices– less frequent disengaged (inattentive) parenting– less frequent neglect– trend toward less frequent assaultive behavior

across time and relative to matched communities

Fewer Founded Referrals to CPS2004-2007

• Officially substantiated cases of maltreatment among children aged 2 and under declined by 11% in the service area but increased by 85% in the comparison area

• For children aged 4 and under, founded maltreatment decreased by 41% in the service area but increased by 49% in the comparison area

• For children aged 9 and under, founded maltreatment decreased by 8% in the service area but increased by 30% in the comparison area

13

Fewer Injuries to Young Children2004-2007

• Emergency room visits and inpatient stays attributable to neglect declined by 68% among children of all ages in the service area and but by only 19% in the comparison area

• All admissions for injuries resulting from maltreatment of children aged 2 and under declined by 23% in the service area but only 6% in the comparison area

• All admissions for injuries resulting from maltreatment of children aged 4 and under in the service area declined by 38% in the service area but only 13% in the comparison area

14

Safety Across the Community

• Significant increases in beliefs of parents, teachers, and especially children

– that kids are safe at or in transit to school and

– that parents are taken seriously by school personnel

• Such beliefs became less common in families of children in matched comparison schools

15

Summary of Outcomes• Compelling evidence of community engagement, with

transformative effects on key volunteers• Both breadth and depth of engagement across time were

extraordinary• These changes in community life apparently translated into changes

in parental perceptions and norms of behavior• These changes are corroborated by the archival findings• Remarkable convergence among studies (across methods)

– Effects were strongest among families with young children– Evidence for enhanced safety was primarily in regard to neglect

• Some evidence for spillover to older elementary-school-age children

16

17

Building a Culture of Caring• Effects are especially noteworthy given the

premature termination of the project

• ‘Bowling alone’ persists: e.g., indicators of parental engagement in community civic life (e.g., organizational membership) declined significantly between 2004 and 2007

• But it is possible even in the current age of

alienation to enlist communities in care for children — and to sustain and deepen that involvement across several years

• We did so in diverse communities, with the greatest success (probably contrary to the expectations of most people) in the most disadvantaged communities

IT CAN BE DONE!

• Incorporated all sectors of the community

• Engaged all ages, both genders, and multiple ethnicities

• Relied on assets — both people and places already in the community

• Engaged volunteers on the basis of altruism, not self-interest per se

• Found new roles for churches

18

The Process of Change:Differences Across Communities

• The service area can be relatively easily divided by wealth– East: Mauldin and Simpsonville– West: Fountain Inn; South Greenville (‘Pelzer’); Piedmont; Anderson

School District 1; Conestee; Gantt

• In both areas, neglect decreased, and positive parental behavior increased, according to parental surveys (across time and in relation to matched block groups)

• But the level of activity on multiple objective measures was much greater in the West (mostly rural, disadvantaged area)

19

What Happened?• West: Changes in concrete, observable behavior;

enabling safety for children– Increased social support, giving and receiving help,

neighboring activities, use of household safety devices– Strategy: Community organizing and (literally) building

safe communities

• East: Recognition of new community norms for neighborliness, diligence of care, and respect for children’s physical integrity; actualizing safety for children– Modeling/educative effects– Strategy: Community education: public events; media

20

The Ultimate Lesson

One person CAN make a difference

• Outreach workers were linchpins of the effort

• Working in a carefully planned, ethically coherent, and empirically grounded initiative a social movement inclusive of people of diverse ethnicity, class, politics, and theology

21

The Answers Are in the Principles• LOGICAL relation of activity to prevention

of child abuse and neglect, not ‘just’ to promotion of child or community well-being

• Directed towards TRANSFORMATION of community norms and structures

• Continually pushing the envelope; MORE is better!

• Undertaken through activities to recruit, mobilize, and retain VOLUNTEERS

• Directed toward the establishment or enhancement of RELATIONSHIPS among families or between families and community institutions

22

• Directed toward enhancement of social and emotional SUPPORT for families of young children

• Intended to increase the safety of children but largely directed toward PARENTS

• Implemented in a manner to enhance parent leadership and community ENGAGEMENT

• Designed to promote RECIPROCITY of help• Built on the ASSETS (leadership, networks,

facilities, and culture) in and among primary community institutions

23

All of us, at some time or other, need help. Whether we’re giving or receiving help, each one of us has something valuable to bring to this world. That’s one of the things that connects us as neighbors—in our own way each one of us is a giver and a receiver.

Mr. RogersBesides hosting his long-popular children’s series on public television, the late Fred Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister.