A Study Of Resiliency In Communities

Recommendations

Caveats

1) The present study used a cross-sectional research design. Thus, we cannot be certain that our 'protective factors' would actually have protective effects over time. A longitudinal design would be needed to test if the protective factors decrease the negative effects of risk over time.

2) The relationship between risk and protective factors and specific outcomes could not be determined in the present study. The present study identified a variety of risk and protective factors and outcomes. It cannot be determined if each of the risk and protective factors is related to each of the identified outcomes. There may, for example, be different sets of risk and protective factors for economic outcomes versus mental health outcomes.

3) The mechanisms by which risk and protective factors impact on outcomes was not examined in the present study. From the present study, we cannot state how factors such as communal coping actually work.

4) The present study focused on resiliency at the community level. Risk and protective factors at higher levels (e.g., provincial, federal) were not specifically examined. However, participants' comments frequently referred to the impact of broader systems on the community. Some suggestions listed are based on these data. However, additional research examining resiliency at multiple levels of analysis is needed.

     The above caveats limit the ability to draw implications and recommendations related to policy and programming from our data. Thus, the following ideas are termed suggestions.

     Additional research in the area of community resiliency is required. Combining research with some of the programming and policy suggestions may serve to both enhance our conceptual understanding of resiliency and strengthen communities.

Research

1) Longitudinal research studies on community resiliency should be conducted. The present study can be used as a framework to provide ideas for more detailed studies that examine resiliency in communities over time.

2) Research projects should be developed and conducted in collaboration with the community. There is a need for proactive research that involves grass-roots participation beginning at the design stage to ensure that locally identified community needs are served. The research should be designed to leave something in the community (e.g., enhanced skills).

3) Improved methodologies for the measurement of community-level variables are required. The quality of any research project is limited by the quality of its measurement. Measurement of risk, protective factors and outcomes at the community level has rarely been undertaken. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies should be used.

4) Future research should take into account information from existing databases. Demographic characteristics of communities, such as employment figures, economic status, health status and health behaviours will contribute to an understanding of community resiliency.

5) Resiliency related to specific outcomes should be examined. Identification of the risk and protective factors that relate to specific types of outcomes would enhance the ability to develop targeted interventions. Further, if a common core of risk and protective factors that predict a number of different outcomes can be identified, it may be possible to develop interventions that impact on multiple outcomes simultaneously.

6) The risk and protective mechanisms should be identified. Understanding how risk and protective factors operate is critical. This understanding can be used to develop models of how communities adapt and change in response to adversity. In addition, the interrelationship of outcomes needs to be investigated.

7) A method of developing community profiles is needed. This might involve mapping capacities/skills, in particular, population sub-groups such as youth, to explore how these support or complement community resilience.

8) The links among individual, family and community resiliency need to be explored. Is a community with attributes which contribute to the resiliency of individuals likely to be a resilient community? Do increases in family tension, breakdown and violence have a negative impact on community resiliency?

9) Changes in communal coping strategies used in the context of changing stressors in the community should be explored.

Policy And Programs

1) Programs that invest in community development should be created or enhanced. Ongoing programs aimed at enhancing protective factors are likely to be the most effective means of community development.

2) Community programs should involve joint partnerships between community and external agencies. Communities at risk likely require additional skills and resources. External agencies can assist communities by providing the training and other resources required to build skills within the community.

3) The effectiveness of community programs aimed at fostering resiliency should be evaluated. The evaluation process documents program success and identifies areas for improvement. The direct and indirect results of community programs should be examined.

4) Mechanisms to help communities learn from each other should be developed. Results from pilot studies and information about model communities must be disseminated effectively.

5) The impact of community development organizations can be maximized through provision of stable funding or long-term strategic funding plans. The community development process often takes years to implement. Efforts can be seriously hampered by short-term funding, or by changes in the political landscape which result in policy shifts with regard to community development and its funding.

6) In order to foster self-sufficiency, flexibility is needed in the design and administration of community development initiatives. Programs should be designed to maximize a community's ability to provide for itself. Despite common problems, communities have unique resources and histories. A 'one size fits all' approach to regional development does not acknowledge differences in strengths and challenges among local communities. Methods of administering program funds may serve to increase dependence and impair a community's ability to mobilize its resources. Program funding is likely best administered through external (e.g., provincial, federal) guidelines with sufficient flexibility to allow implementation procedures that fit the needs of individual communities.

7) Established community organizations/groups are likely the best choice for developing and administering new programs. Communities are readily able to identify which organizations provide leadership in key areas within the community. New programs should capitalize on the skills and resources of existing organizations.

8) Community participation should be enhanced through support for leadership and human resource development. Broad-based participation in the resolution of community problems is needed. Volunteers play a key protective role within communities, but low levels of participation and/or the limited availability of qualified personnel leads to burnout and limits access to skills of individuals who are not involved.

9) Programs that foster integration of new members into the community should be developed. Communities need to access all available human resources to meet their needs. Exclusion of new members cuts off access to new ideas and resources. In addition, feelings of exclusion impair the adjustment of new community members.

10) Interorganizational cooperation and collaboration should be enhanced. Programs are needed to equip community organizations with additional skills in policy development and conflict resolution.

11) A recommitment to extension and adult education agencies is needed. Poor education limits the abilities of community members to acquire requisite new skills to address community problems. It also creates feelings of inadequacy that impair individuals' use of existing skills. These agencies can provide essential third-party assistance to volunteer organizations in the planning and skill development needed to address community challenges.

12) Entrepreneurial initiatives and community-generated opportunities should be encouraged both within and from outside the community. Our study showed the indication of economic growth and entrepreneurism to be the outcome most highly rated by participants.

13) Mechanisms for community self-promotion should be developed. Communities may have multiple strengths but fail to promote these attributes. Self-promotion skills can foster economic development and enhance community pride.

14) Community pride should be enhanced. Community pride appears to energize various programming initiatives. Physical projects seem to be one method of enhancing community pride. Our study suggests that construction projects (e.g., community centre, board-walk) can provide a focal point for community support and facilitate the process of community cooperation.

15) Cultural heritage programs should be maintained or strengthened. Community celebrations of culture bind people together and contribute to the protective factor of community connectedness and identity. Art and music programs in the public schools provide a foundation for cultural appreciation and need to be supported.

16) Social support mechanisms need to be strengthened and expanded. Social support is a key protective factor for communities. Formal and informal social support should be enhanced. Social action organizations should be helped to move beyond a charity focus to address systemic reasons for community problems such as poverty and family breakdown.