Section 2: Social Change Process: Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model for Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes

Social Change Process Indicators

Social Change Process

The following indicators correspond to the community dialogue and collective-action process as described previously. These indicators have the purpose of assessing how the community is advancing in its collective effort in the undertaking of a programme or solution to a problem affecting the community. These indicators are complementary to the outcome indicators described later. Note, also, that these indicators intend to measure the extent and mechanisms of the participation so that the effort (dialogue and action) is inclusive of all community members. Likewise, they intend to assess whether there is conflict and how does the community deal with it, so that the conflict empowers the community rather than preventing the programme from advancing.

Recognition of a Problem

The process of problem identification is complex, may take a great deal of time and may be catalysed internally or externally. Within the dialogue process "recognition of a problem" may occur simultaneously with "clarification of perceptions" (identification of the root causes and the potential solutions to the problem) and with the "expression of individual and shared interests" (conflict and opposition). These stages, however, have been assigned to individual boxes in the IMCFSC because of the importance of wider participation by the affected groups. These stages are presented separately with separate indicators, but they may, in fact, be all integral parts to the problem identification and clarification process. These indicators together with "social change" indicators of "information equity" and "sense of ownership," should be considered in assessing a community's progress towards addressing the problem.

The first stage in the process of social change is the recognition by the larger community or by a smaller subset of the community that there is a problem that limits their current quality of life, constrains their aspirations for the future, or has the potential to hurt the community or members of the community. This stage is so fundamental that it is unlikely that any process would be implemented before there is a basic recognition of a problem. Indicators to measure early-stage awareness of the problem are:

• Has the community recognised the issue as a problem
• What are (have been) the catalyst(s)?
• Which groups and people have been involved in the recognition of the problem?

Implicit in the identification of a problem is the identification of a solution. If there is not a solution, it is rare that people would think of the issue as a problem. Excess fertility, while a serious threat to a woman's health, became the problem of unwanted fertility only when women could control their fertility. The identification of a solution should be clearer as result of the "clarification of perceptions" by the wider community and not just by the initial groups aware of the problem.

Another important element of the problem identification stage is the recognition of the opposition to change. The opposition may be based on tradition, economics, control and power, ethnicity, competition or just fear of change. Empowering women may be a good strategy for promoting condom use to prevent AIDS, but that empowerment comes at the expense of men's power and control. Potable water systems may be a good solution to prevention of diarrheal disease, but it is a threat to the income of the water haulers. Ending the practice of female genital cutting has a positive health impact, but is an attack on traditional values and denies an income to the traditional practitioners who do the operation. Possible opposition to a programme/solution of a problem may be resolved during the community's stage of "expression of shared interests" and "involvement of leaders and stakeholders." An evaluator faced with opposition to the solutions should first assess what resources (such as additional key stakeholders/leaders who can address opposition) have been mobilised to overcome the barriers.

Identification and Involvement of Leaders and Stakeholders

Leaders

The problem or issue to be addressed next should logically produce some kind of leadership structure. This leadership structure can take many forms: (1) Spontaneously generated from within the group vs. externally appointed. (2) Leadership comes from an existing cadre of community leaders vs. leaders that evolve to address a specific problem (often first-time leaders). (3) Traditional or cultural leaders vs. political or externally appointed leaders. (4) Group leadership vs. individual leadership. (5) Casual and/or dynamic leadership structure vs. more formal or structured (often hierarchical) leadership. (6) Stable vs. constantly changing leadership structures. (7) Leadership based on capacity vs. interest vs. random selection. (8) Ongoing vs. specialised or one-time leadership. (9) Participatory vs. autocratic leadership. (10) Open opportunity vs. selected leadership.

The leadership that evolves in any community may be described using a number of the above descriptors. It is important to note that the above types of leadership do not have an inherent value — that is, one type is not better than another in producing the desired outcome. Special attention should be paid to ensure that the leadership structure created to tackle the issue does not reproduce an existing inequitable power structure in the community. For equitable leadership to happen, a fair representation of all community groups affected by the problem should be in place and endorsed or approved by these community groups. It should be noted that a mechanism that provides opportunities for active participation for leadership is more likely to convey social change as it provides reinforcement and renewal of the existing leadership. The indicators for this stage are:

• How were leaders (individual or groups) on the issue/programme elected?
• Proportion of different interest groups or factions in the community represented in the leadership (individual or group)?
• Number of individual leaders or groups working on the particular issue/programme?

Stakeholders

Participation of those who are most affected by the problem (stakeholders/beneficiaries) is a characteristic of community/social-change intervention. This involvement may be direct (work on the solution) or indirect (advocate or support for facilitating the solution or removing opposition). Besides direct beneficiaries, stakeholders can also be family/friends of direct beneficiaries, potential future beneficiaries, or people with an interest in the issue but no expectation of benefit (altruistic). Indicators of stakeholders' involvement can be qualified by answering the following questions:

• Describe what was done to get stakeholder and beneficiaries involved in the programme (posters, public meetings, speaker, truck, referrals, etc.).
• What was the mechanism for involving the larger community to discuss the issues and obtain representation?
• Who was involved in the discussion of the problem and possible solutions of the problem:
  
  – Persons from outside the community?
  
  – Small leadership group (look for fair representation of affected members)?
  
  – Members of the community (this is the response that indicates how equitable the participation by stakeholders is)?

Clarification of Perceptions

When this stage of community dialogue has occurred, there should be a greater degree of unanimity and understanding over the nature of the problems (root cause/s), possible solutions and associated actions. This stage can be transitional and may be skipped over if the root cause(s) of the problem is widely recognised and the solution(s) clear (e.g., household spraying for malaria), or if it has been resolved in the "recognition of a problem" stage. Potential indicators for assessing whether the community is moving toward a clear understanding of what are the causes and solutions to the problem are the following:

• Mechanisms for clarifying perceptions that involve the whole community,
• Proportion of most affected groups in the community effectively participating in discussions regarding the issue, and
• Level of agreement regarding the root causes of the problem and or solution.

Expression of Individual and Shared Interests

One of the goals of community dialogue is to maximise participation in the issue, while balancing the needs of a consensus. Another goal of dialogue is to balance the interests of individuals with the larger interests of the community. A problem that effects a small number of members of the community, or a solution that helps a small proportion of the community at risk, must be considered in light of the communities needs and the potential impact across the range of community members. This stage, like "clarification of perceptions," is transitional in the dialogue process, meaning that these transitional steps may have occurred earlier, or they may have occurred in the context of another step (e.g., involvement of leaders). It is important to remember that the IMCFSC, while laid out linearly does not function in a linear manner. The best indicator for participation is the degree to which all in the community are involved, including those who might be excluded. It is possible to identify if the community is allowing for "expression of interests" with the following indicators:

• Was anything done to identify all the beneficiaries, and include them in the planning process?
• What are the mechanisms being used for all community members to communicate their interests at the different structural levels in the community?
• Proportion of relevant groups expressing their needs or interests with regard to the issue.
• Was the design of the project changed to increase the number of beneficiaries?
• Were there any relevant groups (those most affected) in the community that refused to participate?

Conflict and Dissatisfaction

Balancing the interests of individuals with the larger interests of the community may result in conflict. Besides existing power structures within the community that may bias the direction of the programme or that may represent opposition, there may be undeniable conflicts of interest among community groups in dealing with solutions to the problem. This is a critical stage that may terminate a programme or, if dealt with effectively, can render an empowered community. For effectively dealing with conflict more/other leaders or stakeholders may be consulted to provide additional support/evidence and/or persuade/influence reticent groups. The important measurement at this stage is that the community keeps seeking resources and dealing with conflict positively to advance the programme.

• Is there conflict/disagreement?
• How are the different conflicts arising at this stage resolved (document the actual process)?
• What other resources (leaders, stakeholders, influential persons or evidence) has the community sought to deal with conflict?

Vision of the Future

Once a community has passed through the previous stages it would be ready to plan where it wants to be in the future (five years from now, one year from now) and to figure out the ways for getting there. As in the previous stages, broader community participation will ensure that the defined "vision" is inclusive of all community member's hopes and aspirations:

• What has been the representation of community members and affected groups in defining the vision?
• How has the community articulated its "dream" (generally, this takes the form of a statement that includes the ideal (feasible) scenario of where the community wants to be with respect to the problem/issue?

Assessment of Current Status

At this stage, the community may be already motivated (if not, it should be encouraged) to assess the extent/magnitude of the problem so that a plan of action can be defined. This assessment can be quantitative as well as qualitative. This may require gathering information about the problem from either an available source, such as the health center, or from members within the community. If information gathering within the community is necessary, the community should decide how to organise to get the data. It could be through periodic community meetings where the affected groups have member representatives to report, or by visiting those households in the community affected by the problem. Information gathering through group meetings may prove better as it facilitates sharing of knowledge and progress on the issue. An indicator for assessing whether the community is working on this stage is the mechanism used:

• Existing mechanism for information gathering about the extent of the problem in the community and the changes over time. This tracking mechanism should allow the community to answer questions such as: How many children in the community had diarrhea last week? How are these events similar or different from previous years?
• Resources, inside and outside of the community, being used to track changes in the number of cases and other qualifications related to the issue/problem.

Setting Objectives

A shared vision should allow the community to list the goals/objectives it wants to achieve. The community, together with the leaders and/or change agent, should evaluate how realistic the goals are and should try to set moderate goals in order to avoid either a sense of failure (if goals are unrealistic, too high), or lack of motivation (if goals are too low). Goals that are challenging but feasible should be preferred. Potential indicators to assess this stage of the process are the following:

• How are (were) the goals/objectives set up (participatory goal setting, in principle, would secure wide support and action)?
• What are the goals set up by the community to deal with the problem (generally, a list of goals should exist, that describes what the community wants to see accomplished at the end of the programme)?
• Level of agreement of leaders/group members on the goals/objectives set up.

Options for Action

The goal-setting stage should naturally give place to the actual planning process of what different kinds of actions can be taken to accomplish the objectives with which everyone has agreed. This implies the identification of resources both inside and outside the community, as well as persons or groups that can carry them out. A change agent can assist the community by making sure it has considered all feasible options. If the change agent believes a feasible option hasn't been considered it should be brought to the attention of the community and explored as to why the community did not decide on that option.

• What was (is) the mechanism used in identifying options for collective action?
• Were the affected groups involved in the identification of options?
• What are the internal and external options considered by the leaders/groups to deal with the problem (a list of considered options should provide evidence of awareness of the range of possibilities considered by the leaders/groups and members of the community)?

Consensus on Action

Getting a consensus on action can also lead to conflict or a lack of commitment. The important measurement at this stage is that the community continues to seek resources and deals with conflict positively to advance the solution to their problem:

• Has any conflict arisen in reaching consensus?
• How is the community dealing with conflict on actions and how is conflict being resolved?
• Has consensus been reached on any action plan?
• How was the consensus reached on the final action plan?
• Who participated in reaching consensus?
• Does a document exist that specifies what is the community-action plan?

Action Plan

A specific timetable for when each activity needs to be accomplished will help the community to have clear deadlines for effectively moving toward the solution of the problem:

• Does a written community action plan exist (Yes/No)?
• Verification of following data in the action plan:
  
  – Who is responsible for each activity?
  
  – What resources are needed (people and other material resources)?
  
  – When is the activity going to be implemented?
  
  – Where will the activity be implemented?
  
  – How will the activity be monitored?
  
  – What is the expected result?

Assignment of Responsibilities

Specific people and groups should take responsibility for conducting each activity as defined in the action plan. Indicators for assessing this stage are as follows:

• How were the actual responsibilities assigned (leaders assigned, volunteers, other)?
• Level of agreement (by leaders, community groups) with the assignment of responsibilities?
• Level of representation of interest groups on the assignment of responsibilities?
• Are there any new task forces/groups created to carry out different activities under the action plan (Yes/No)? If yes, a listing of the different groups/task forces created.
• Are leaders (individuals or groups) sharing in responsibility for implementing the action plan?

Mobilisation of Organisations

Depending on the size and nature of the problem, existing organisations inside and outside the community can be called upon to join the community-action effort. It is likely that the higher the resources mobilised by the community, the higher the commitment to the programme/solution of problem by the community. The extent of the participation by the different groups in the community should also influence the sense of ownership of the programme and social cohesion:

• Magnitude of resources mobilised within and outside the community (a listing of all organisations contacted will give evidence of the size of the network accessed by the community).
• Type of internal and external organisations/resources contacted (extent of networking; look for involvement of the local media).
• Representation of affected groups in the community in the participating resources and organisations.

Implementation

This step refers to the actual execution of the action plan and its monitoring. Actions should be put in place for back-up activities so that the whole action plan does not get truncated if some activities do not work according to the original plan. Indicators for this stage are:

• How is the implementation being monitored?
• Who is monitoring the implementation of the activities?
• Has each activity specified in the action plan been implemented as intended (documentation for each activity)?
• For the activities not implemented as planned, what are the reasons for poor implementation (resource constraint, decline in interest in the community members assigned with the responsibility, others)?
• Actions taken to cover for unsuccessful key activities.

Outcomes

This step refers to the actual results that the community is able to achieve:

• What are the actual results achieved at the end of the process?
• Who participated (is participating) in obtaining (summing up) the results?

Participatory Evaluation

The achieved outcomes may or may not be what the community originally planned in their goal setting. The comparison of the outcomes versus the original objectives is an important self-evaluation process. For purposes of group motivation and reward, it is important that most of the community (especially the affected groups) participate in the evaluation process so that the lessons learned about what worked and why may be shared throughout the community. The result of the participatory evaluation should be a new reassessment of the current status of the community with respect to the problem.

• How is (was) the evaluation conducted?
• Who is participating (participated) in the evaluation?
• How are the results being disseminated to the broader community?
• What was learned from the process (look for intangibles)?