Building on local expertise and lived experience for effective community-led improvement projects

Many initiatives that involve community engagement are structured in such a way that despite getting community input much of the decision-making is left to the organization carrying out the initiative. Such an approach is limited in that it forces the organization to make judgement calls about which inputs are worth incorporating and that community stakeholders are not able to work together to create a solution that they agree is most equitable.

This approach also denies community members the opportunity to exercise agency and leadership in implementing solutions, which would enhance their capacity and sense of ownership.
 

Benton tested an alternative approach to community engagement with a community that has diverse input and a shared vision of implementing improvements in their local park. Together, they focused on arts and culture additions to improve and activate Perry Park. (Creative placemaking projects like this support community resilience by increasing social cohesion and community connectedness, activating under-utilized community resources, and supporting a longer-term vision for community-led innovation.) This project was an ongoing collaboration; each action moved forward based on a shared and agreed upon community response, starting with a facilitated community conversation to inform next steps. Additionally, while carrying out this initiative, Benton initiated conversations with participants to identify other areas of improvement on which the Maricopa County public health department could partner with them.

She evaluated the effectiveness of the interventions using entrance and exit questionnaires about the park’s assets and opportunities for improvements, about past experiences working with the county, and about perceptions of working together with their community to find and solve problems. Because many of the participants in this research have prior experience working in their communities, these questionnaires also probed whether this approach left them feeling more optimistic about the role that they can play in their community. 
 

Because funding often depends on proposals in which specific deliverables are promised, it is understandable that researchers and public health workers limit community involvement beyond a certain extent. This project was unique in that the funding is distributed directly into the community with less restrictive conditions. Accordingly, funding will be left for the community to choose how to best spend on improvements. Benton’s theory is that the community is most qualified to identify problems within their parks and most qualified to allocate a finite amount of resources toward solving those problems in an equitable and accommodating manner. What’s more, she believes that this approach will create a community that believes that their efforts are valued, that governmental agencies and funding can help guide and empower them, and that they will continue to work together to identify areas of improvement and advocate for such improvements as needed.