Assessing Meaningful Community Engagement
Kapazitätsentwicklung im Quartier (Capacity Building in Small Areas/Neighbourhoods Instrument)
KEY FEATURES
COMMUNITY/ GEOGRAPHY
Community members
Experienced professional stakeholders from health, educational, and social services
Disadvantaged neighborhood
Health promotion
Hamburg, Germany
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES
Strengthened partnerships + alliances
Broad alignment
Diversity + inclusivity
Partnerships + opportunities
Acknowledgment, visibility, recognition
Sustained relationships
Shared power
Expanded knowledge
Broad alignment
Bi-directional learning
Community-ready information
Improved health + health care programs + policies
Broad alignment
Community-aligned solutions
Actionable, implemented, recognized solutions
Thriving communities
Broad alignment
Physical + mental health
Community capacity + connectivity
Community power
Community resiliency
Life quality + well-being
PLACE(S) OF INSTRUMENT USE
Community/community-based organization
LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS
German
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES
Internal consistency reliability
YEAR OF USE
2001-2012
Assessment Instrument Overview
The Kapazitatsentwicklung im Quartier /(Capacity Building in Small Areas/Neighbourhoods Instrument) (KEQ) has 51 questions and is used by practitioners and researchers of health programs. It measures community capacity, changes that may occur during the program, and the maintenance of capacity building processes.
Alignment with Assessing Meaningful Community Engagement Conceptual Model
The questions from the KEQ were realigned to the Assessing Community Engagement Conceptual Model. Figure 1 displays the alignment of the KEQ with the Conceptual Model domain(s) and indicator(s). Where an instrument is mapped broadly with a domain or with a specific indicator, the figure shows the alignment in blue font.
Table 1 displays the alignment of KEQ’s individual questions with the Conceptual Model domain(s) and indicator(s). The table shows, from left to right, the aligned Conceptual Model domain(s) and indicator(s) and the individual questions from the KEQ transcribed as they appear in the instrument (with minor formatting changes for clarity).
| CONCEPTUAL MODEL DOMAIN(S) AND INDICATOR(S) | ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT QUESTIONS |
| STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Broad alignment with all indicators in this domain | 37. Local partners possess the necessary competence for cooperation (e.g., communication skills, ability to resolve conflicts). 38. Local cooperating partners work together efficiently and target oriented. |
| STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Diversity + inclusivity | 33. Local players of the alliances in the area cooperate with other players of the city or borough. |
STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Partnerships + opportunities | 18. Local leaders organize necessary qualification and training offers. 30. Local players (i.e., persons and/or institutions working for the area) form alliances and partnerships. 31. Relevant offices and authorities cooperate with local alliances |
| STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Acknowledgment, visibility, recognition | 10. Individuals from the relevant offices and institutions (kindergarten, community work etc. support the development of the area. 11. Medical doctors and individuals from other health-related services are committed to the development of the area. 39. Local cooperating partners are perceived positively in public/in the media. |
STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Sustained relationships | 32. Networks and cooperation between local players are stable. 35. Translocal networking and cooperation between different players is stable. |
STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Shared power | 12. Local leaders have the abilities to promote processes of change. 13. Local leaders motivate the area‘s residents to implement their ideas and projects. 14. Leadership of local stakeholders is democratic and integrative. |
EXPANDED KNOWLEDGE; Broad alignment with all indicators in this domain | 36. Local cooperation partners use available information in order to overcome problems or to release potential. |
EXPANDED KNOWLEDGE; Bi-directional learning | 34. There is a translocal exchange and comparison of experiences between local players in the area and other players (e.g., symposium, networks). |
EXPANDED KNOWLEDGE; Community-ready information | 22. There are enough information and analyses about the area (e.g., about health and social aspects). 23. Different media (e.g., advertising paper, newspaper, internet, etc. are used to disseminate information on area-related activities and offers. 24. Information on area-related activities and offers are conveyed to the residents in different languages. 25. The residents of the area are reached by the information media used. |
Improved Health + Health care Programs + Policies; Broad alignment with all indicators in this domain | 48. There are sufficient offers promoting and protecting the health of children and adolescents. 49. There are sufficient offers promoting and protecting the health of women. 50. There are sufficient offers promoting and protecting the health of men 51. There are sufficient offers promoting and protecting the health of people with migrant backgrounds. |
Improved Health + Health care Programs + Policies; Community-aligned solutions | 17. Activities are adapted to local conditions (e.g., focusing on specific target groups). 47. Medical practices and other healthcare services try to remove language and cultural barriers. |
Improved Health + Health care Programs + Policies; Actionable, implemented, recognized solutions | 41. Other health services (e.g., midwives, physiotherapy) offer sufficient health promotion. 42. The health authority and other public administration departments offer sufficient health promotion services (e.g., vaccination days, dental hygiene training). 43. Social services and educational institutions (e.g., kindergarten, schools) provide sufficient health promotion services. |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Broad alignment with all indicators in this domain | 29. People, who do not live here, have a good image of the area. |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Physical + mental health | 40. Medical care for residents (e.g., number of general practitioners, pediatrics, gynecologists and dentists) is adequate. |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Community capacity + connectivity | 19. Funding of various projects in the area is sufficient. 44. The area`s residents are sufficiently informed about healthcare offers (e.g., general practitioners, pediatrics, gynecologists and dentists). 45. The area`s residents are sufficiently informed about health promotion services of other health services, the health authority as well as social services and educational institutions. 46. Bridging structures (e.g., neighborhood office, counseling or information centers) promote the use of medical practices and other healthcare facilities. |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Community power | 1. Residents participate in social, political and cultural life of the area (e.g., membership in associations, self-help groups, neighborhood groups, citizen initiatives). 2. Residents participate in community activities in the area (e.g., neighborhood parties or events). 3. The active residents stem from all social groups of the population. 4. Residents proactively take the initiative to solve perceived problems. 5. Residents actively contribute to the planning and implementation of projects in the area. 6. Residents adopt projects in the area, i.e., they increasingly take more responsibility. 7. Public participation is fostered by effective activation techniques (e.g., providing information, activating surveys). 8. The opportunities for involvement of citizens and their spokesmen are sufficient (e.g., hearings, advisory boards, working groups). 9. Civic involvement in the area is accepted and appreciated. |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Community resiliency | 26. The residents of the area know their neighbors and aid one another. |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Life quality + well-being | 20. The living environment in the area (e.g., green and playing areas, public places) meets the residents` needs. 21. The buildings in the area are in a good condition. 27. The residents like living in the area. 28. The residents` needs (e.g., conviviality, celebrations) can be satisfied in the area. |
Not aligned with Conceptual Model | 15. Activities in the area are documented regularly (e.g., in form of an annual report). 16. Target achievement of activities in the area is reviewed systematically. |
Table 1 | Kapazitätsentwicklung im Quartier questions and alignment with the domain(s) and indicator(s) of the Assessing Community Engagement Conceptual Model
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT BACKGROUND
Context of instrument development/use
The article discussed the health promotional program conducted by the health authority of Hamburg-Eimsbuttel, Germany, which focused on children and their parents in a disadvantaged neighborhood. The program was aimed at sustaining community capacities around advice during pregnancy; providing services to underage, pregnant parents; postnatal support during the first year of a child’s life; vaccination; early childhood care and language training; dental care; diet; exercise; and addiction. The KEQ instrument assesses community capacities in these programs.
Instrument description/purpose
For use by practitioners and researchers, the KEQ measures community capacity, changes that may occur during the program, and the maintenance of capacity building processes. KEQ assesses the following areas:
- Health care
- Networking and cooperation
- Local leadership
- Participation
- Available resources
KEQ consists of 51 questions across five areas, and response options use a five-point Likert scale that ranges from “(nearly) not achieved” to “(nearly) completely achieved.” “Cannot assess” was also available as a response option.
The KEQ can be accessed through the link here: https://nam.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/KEQ-Title-Page-and-Instrument-v2_final.pdf.
Engagement involved in developing, implementing, or evaluating the assessment instrument
The local health authority and practitioners in the community collaborated closely to develop the health promotion program and the evaluation instrument. The KEQ was initially tested in 2006, and then, using recommendations from the respondents, the instrument was revised to include additional criteria focused on the health domain, as well as modifications to support improved understanding. Two additional surveys on community capacity were conducted in June 2008 and November 2011.
Additional information on populations engaged in instrument use
Across the three time periods that the instrument was distributed, 71 out of 144 responses were received. The average response rate was 49%. Eleven respondents were professionals from the public health services or other local authorities (28%); 12 were social and educational workers (31%); and 8 were from ‘other’ institutions (21%). Most respondents were female (76%) and living neither in nor near the neighborhood (76%).
Notes
- Potential limitations: The challenges of identifying professionals with experience and expertise on the neighborhood and capacity building resulted in a low response rate (50%), limiting the ability to make causal inferences. Additionally, a program on social urban development was happening concurrently, which included a focus on collaboration and health promotion, made it difficult to understand which effort influenced community capacity and stability over time.2
- Important findings: The study contributes to the assessment of community-based approaches to advance health promotion. The research demonstrated an increase in community capacity in the first few years, as well as an overall positive trend since 2001, highlighting the ability of the health promotion program to sustain and maintain capacity building over 10 years.2
We want to hear from you!
Assessing community engagement involves the participation of many stakeholders. Click here to share feedback on these resources, or email [email protected] and include “measure engagement” in the subject line to learn more about the NAM’s Assessing Community Engagement project.
