HIGH IMPACT PRACTICES (HIPs)

ASSET BASED:  RATHER THAN VIEWING NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES FROM A DEFICIT POINT-OF-VIEW, WE SEEK TO IDENTIFY AND BUILD UPON THE STRENGTHS AND ASSETS OF EACH PARTNER AND COMMUNITY. 

PLANT BASED:  WE ALSO BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF PLACE – INCLUDING LISTENING TO RESIDENTS AND LEADERS – AND UNDERSTANDING THE LEARNING AND MEANING THAT IS DERIVED FROM ENGAGING IN A COMMUNITY.

MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL & RECIPROCAL:  INVEST IN BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS THAT ARE INTENTIONAL, AIM TO ADD VALUE FOR EACH PARTY, AND DEMONSTRATE RECIPROCITY. 

DEVELOPMENTAL:  PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT TAKES EXPERIENCE TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN PARTNERSHIPS THAT CAN INCLUDE WORKING AT DIFFERENT LEVELS PURSUING LONG-RANGE COMMUNITY IMPACT GOALS. 

DEEP:  AN AIM IS TO HAVE PARTNERS CONNECTED WITH MULTIPLE RESOURCES, SUCH AS THE INVOLVEMENT OF LONG-TERM VOLUNTEERS, RESEARCH PROJECTS, AND EVEN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT. 

SUSTAINED:  THIS SUPPORTS LONG-RANGE VISIONING, PLANNING, AND EVEN IMPACT ASSESSMENT.

FOCUS ON CAPACITY BUILDING:  ADOPTING GOALS FOR BUILDING THE CAPACITY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING STRATEGIES FOR DIRECT SERVICE, VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT, PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH, AND ASSESSMENT.

PARTNERS AS CO-EDUCATORS:  WE BELIEVE AND INTENTIONALLY ENGAGE PARTNERS AS WELL AS CLIENTS IN CO-EDUCATOR ROLES, VALUING THEIR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THEIR COMMUNITIES, ISSUES, AND APPROACHES FOR CHANGE.

CONNECTIVE:  WHEN THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OF ALL WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE ENGAGEMENT IS SOUGHT AND RESPECTED, MENTORING AND LEARNING TAKE ON NEW DIMENSIONS. TEACHING AND LEARNING BECOMES A DIALECTICAL PROCESS FOR ALL.

DEMOCRATIC:  WE SEEK TO FOSTER “DEMOCRATIC ENGAGEMENT,” MEANING THAT ALL CONTRIBUTORS ARE VALUED IN HELPING TO ADDRESS ISSUES (LIKE EDUCATION AND CIVIL RIGHTS), CREATE KNOWLEDGE (THROUGH ACTION), AND BE A PART OF A LARGER ECO-SYSTEM OF INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WORKING FOR A HEALTHY AND JUST SOCIETY. 

TYPE OF IMPACT

PLACE

  • IS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SYSTEMATICALLY INFORMED BY AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PLACE AND COMMUNITY VOICE (I.E., ROLES IN PROGRAM AND INSTITUTIONAL DECISIONS)?

  • ARE COMMUNITY ASSETS AND NEEDS SYSTEMATICALLY INFORMING THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT? 

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: COMMUNITY ASSET MAPPING; COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARDS; TOWN-HALL MEETINGS AND FORUMS; COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION AS TRUSTEES

HUMILITY (VALUING THE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL)

  • DOES THE INDIVIDUAL (INVOLVED MEMBERS AND MORE BROADLY) DEMONSTRATE THAT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTNER AND COMMUNITY IS VALUED AS KEY ASSETS?

  • IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS (COMMUNITY AND COLLABORATORS) VALUED AND INCORPORATED AS ASSETS IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND PROJECTS?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: COMMUNITY ASSET MAP RESULTS; DETAILED INVENTORIES; INTEGRATION OF DATA IN MAKING FOCUSED CHOICES; KNOWLEDGE SHARING; COEDUCATION ROLES; LEARNING CIRCLES

DEPTH

  • IS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EMBEDDED WITHIN A STRUCTURE OF STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENTAL SUSTAINED PARTNERSHIPS?

  • HAVE THE ORGANIZATION AND THE COMMUNITY AGREED TO BUILD AND IMPLEMENT A MULTIYEAR, DEVELOPMENTAL PARTNERSHIP?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: MULTIYEAR PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS; STRATEGIC PLANS WITH PARTNERS; DETAILED JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR VISTAS (VOLUNTEERS IN SERVICE TO AMERICA); COMMUNITY LEARNING AGREEMENTS; AND POSITIONS THAT INVOLVE EVOLUTION FOR THOSE INVOLVED

DEVELOPMENTAL

  • IS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE STAGE OF THE COLLABORATOR OR OTHER VOLUNTEER? 

  • IS THE ORGANIZATION ABLE TO SPECIFY THE DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS OF EACH POSITION AND ABLE TO MATCH VOLUNTEERS APPROPRIATELY?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: DEVELOPMENTAL PLACEMENTS; OUTCOME-ORIENTED JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR VOLUNTEERS WHO ALSO SHOW GROWTH OVER TIME

SEQUENCE (SCAFFOLDED)

  • COULD THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROJECT AND/OR COURSES BE OFFERED AND LINKED ACROSS MULTIPLE DEMOGRAPHICS AND EXPERIENCES?

  • CAN THE ORGANIZATION WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO ACCESS VOLUNTEERS AND RESOURCES YEAR ROUND?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: PROGRAMS THAT OPERATE YEAR ROUND (I.E., SUMMER INTERNSHIPS/FELLOWSHIPS/PROGRAMS)

TEAMS (COLLABORATIVE)

  • IS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRUCTURED TO MAXIMIZE THE EFFECTIVE USE OF LEARNING, COLLABORATION, AND LEADERSHIP?

  • CAN THE ORGANIZATION INTEGRATE TEAM-BASED MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP SUCH THAT THE POSITIONS OFFER DEVELOPMENTAL WORK AND OPPORTUNITIES?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: SITE- OR ISSUE-BASED TEAMS; MANAGEMENT APPROACHES THAT INVOLVE LEADERSHIP OR VISTAS AT SITES; VOLUNTEER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES THAT ENGAGE VOLUNTEERS AT MULTIPLE LEVELS

REFLECTION

  • DOES THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INVOLVE STRUCTURED (AND UNSTRUCTURED) RIGOROUS REFLECTION?

  • DO THE VOLUNTEERS PARTICIPATE IN REFLECTION THROUGH WHICH THEY UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY CONTEXT?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: STRUCTURED AND UNSTRUCTURED REFLECTION OPPORTUNITIES; TRAININGS AND FACILITATION THAT SUPPORT ONGOING REFLECTION; BLOGS; VLOGS; JOURNALING; E-PORTFOLIOS; COURSE-BASED REFLECTION ASSIGNMENTS 

MENTORS

  • DOES THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INVOLVE DIALOGUE AND GUIDANCE FROM PARTICIPANTS, AND FACILITATORS? 

  • ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE VOLUNTEERS TO BE MENTORED, INCLUDING BY PARTNERS, STUDENTS, AND OTHERS WITH KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE TO SHARE?

LEARNING

  • IS THERE AN INTENTIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL TO REFLECT ON, SHARE, AND ARTICULATE THEIR OWN LEARNING (LEARNING APPROACHES AND OUTCOMES) AS THEY ENGAGE IN COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY-BASED INITIATIVES, REFLECT UPON AND ASSIMILATE CONTENT, MEANING, AND ACTION?

  • IS THE LEARNING PROCESS CO-CONSTRUCTED; IS IT INCLUSIVE OF BOTH COMMUNITY AND EDUCATOR CONSTITUENTS AS AUTHENTIC COLLABORATORS AS TEACHERS, LEARNERS, AND SCHOLARS?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: ENGAGING PARTNERS AS CO-EDUCATORS; ENGAGING PARTNERS IN HELPING PEOPLE PROCESS THEIR LEARNING AND GROWTH THROUGH REFLECTION; PARTNERS TEACHING IN CLASSROOM CONTEXTS

CAPACITY

  • IS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOCUSED AROUND CAPACITY-BUILDING NEEDS OF THE PARTNER OR CONSTITUENCY IN WAYS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO ENHANCING ITS WORK (I.E., PROGRAM DESIGN, CBR AND POLICY RESEARCH, ASSESSMENT, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT)?

  • CAN THE PARTNERSHIP RESULT IN INCREASED CAPACITY BY BOTH THE INSTITUTION AND COMMUNITY CONSTITUENTS TO ADDRESS AND SOLVE PROBLEMS?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH PROJECTS AND COMMUNITY BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; POLICY RESEARCH ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE PARTNER AND THE PRODUCTION OF ISSUE BRIEFS; ISSUE-ORIENTED CAPACITY- BUILDING INITIATIVES SUCH AS WHEN A CAMPUS CONDUCTS A COMMUNITY HEALTH INDEX STUDY FOR THE LOCAL AREA; BOARD DEVELOPMENT; FUNDRAISING AND RESOURCE SHARING; COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS; NEW PROGRAM DESIGN; THE INTEGRATION OF PROVEN PROGRAM MODELS TO IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY AND/OR ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY

EVIDENCE (PROVEN)

  • IS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT INFORMED BY EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE AND PROVEN PROGRAM MODELS?

  • CAN THE PARTNERSHIP HELP THE ORGANIZATION OR COMMUNITY CONSTITUENCY IDENTIFY RELEVANT PROGRAM MODELS, APPROACHES, OR EVIDENCE TO INFORM, ENHANCE, OR DEEPEN ITS WORK?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: THE PRODUCTION AND INTEGRATION OF PROVEN PROGRAM MODELS; RESEARCH ON BEHALF OF A PARTNER/AGENCY; COMMUNITY-WIDE EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS (I.E., TOWN-HALL MEETINGS AND FORUMS); DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY FORUMS THAT INTEGRATE DIALOGUE ABOUT EFFECTIVENESS; ISSUE- BASED GATHERINGS OF NONPROFIT PARTNERS TO FOSTER COALITIONS

IMPACT

  • IS THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ORGANIZED TO ACHIEVE MEASURABLE COMMUNITY IMPACT (I.E., QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE)?

  • RELEVANT STRUCTURES: COMMUNITY-LISTENING PROJECTS THAT WORK WITH PARTNERS TO IDENTIFY INTENDED OUTCOMES AND THEN FIND OR CREATE MEASURES FOR THEM; CAPACITY-BUILDING METRICS AND RUBRICS; EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAM DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION; LOGIC MODELING; STRATEGIC PLANNING WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO SHARE COMMUNITY INDICATORS; OUTCOME-BASED PROGRAM DESIGN.