Community profiling, Community
development and health: Lessons from
Quebec
Paul Morin, Professor, Department of Social Work, Sherbrooke’s
University,
Scottish Community Development Centre
March, 6th, Glasgow
Contents
 Community development in Québec
 Eastern Townships Community
Development Observatory
 Estrie Community Dashboard: a project
for mobilization and joint planning in
community development.
 First experimentation (2009-2011)
Contents
 Development phase (2011-
 Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
 Challenges
Community development in Québec
Since the early 70’s they are community
organizers in the health and social services
local public institutions
Now called Heath and Social services
Center (94 of them)
Also community organizers in the third
sector (mostly sectorial)
Community development in Quebec
 As stated in Québec’s national public health program, the
capacity of people to change their habits and control their
situation as regards health and well-being does not only
depend on their willpower and capacity to act but also on
the conditions of their socio-economic, physical, social, and
cultural environment.
 With regard to this point, community development is one
of the leading priorities in regional and local public-health
action plans all over Québec.
Eastern Townships Community
Development Observatory
 Third sector organisation (2006)
 Mandate:
a
partnership
between
practitioners and academics to create a
synergy to promote and develop practice in
community development
 Membership and Composition of the board
 Shoestring budget
A web site : www.oedc.qc.ca
Estrie Community Dashboard
What is the Eastern Townships Community
Dashboard?
A tool designed to help orient people, allowing
them to take action.
A winning combination of statistics and
information on the dynamics of local
communities, based on census results (2001, 2006
but also 2011, 2016…) and original use of social
data.
Eastern Townships Community
development Observatory
Eastern Townships Community
development Observatory
Estrie Community Dashboard
A participative initiative of participants,
citizens, elected officials, groups of
consultants and researchers.
The ability for everyone to be able to detect
complex problems that can arise in local
communities as well as potential issues that
can develop.
A tool to support the efforts of
local development in progress
An acute knowledge of all communities is
essential in order to determine what sort of
support is needed.
The purpose of the dashboard is to compile
data on communities and their projects to
provide support for the implementation of
the developments through :
A tool to support the efforts of
local development in progress
strategic planning;
citizen participation;
the creation of action plans;
the politics of community development;
interventions on social inequalities.
An interactive and cross-sectoral
process
 L’Observatoire estrien du développement des
communautés (OEDC) supports this project, in
collaboration with the Direction de la santé
publique et de l’évaluation (DSPÉ). At least two
representatives from each RMC territory and from
Sherbrooke as well as representatives from local
organizations form the OECD’s scientific
committee.
 The main goals of this committee are:
Estrie Community Dashboard
 Defining local communities
In the spring of 2008, 66 local communities
consisting of ± 5 000 people were identified by 73
pivotal members of the Eastern Townships.
 Choosing quantitative indicators
In autumn 2008, the scientific committee chose a
series of indicators (age of the population, income,
crimes against the person, rate of cancer, housing,
etc). (19 indicators = 126 informations)
Estrie Community Dashboard
 Producing Statistics
Statistical research is undertaken by the regional
public health agency.
 Acknowledging communities’ potential for
development
The leaders of each territory invite the citizens and
businesses of the local communities to identify
their most vital and dynamic areas as well as their
zones of vulnerability.
Estrie Community Dashboard
 Producing statistics
The first statistics were available on the OEDC website
by the summer 2009.
 Disseminating results
Communities and regional authorities will acquaint
themselves with the results and discuss how to best
transform the information into action. (knowledge
transfert)
 Assessing the process of implementation
Evaluations will be made throughout the entire
process.
Community Potential Appraisal
This questionnaire contains 40 statements on life in a local community.
• Every group member must complete this questionnaire.
• Read each statement while thinking about your local community,
and then state whether you agree
or disagree with each statement by checking the box which
corresponds best to your opinion.
• We ask that you answer individually and as spontaneously as
possible. You are being asked to give your impression. There are no
correct or incorrect answers.
• Your answer will remain confidential and will not be disseminated.
Only a summary of the discussion will be made public.
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
4 Relations in the neighbourhood are good.
5 People have a social life (family, friends, business, etc.) within the community.
Not Applicable (N/A)
3 People feel that they can make a difference in their community.
Totally agree
2 People do volunteer work.
Somewhat agree
1 It is easy to find people who can participate in community projects.
Neither agree nor
disagree
Potential of Individuals
Somewhat disagree
Statement
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
-—
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
9 People enjoy living in this community.
10 People help one another in their daily lives.
Not Applicable (N/A)
8 People use public or community services when needed.
Totally agree
7 People feel concerned about events in their community.
Somewhat agree
6 People have a social life (family, friends, business, etc.) outside the community.
Neither agree nor
disagree
Potential of Individuals
Somewhat disagree
Statement
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
-—
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
15 It is easy to get involved in the community.
Not Applicable (N/A)
14 Organizations and associations work together to solve common problems.
Totally agree
13 People have access to a variety of organizations and associations within the community.
Somewhat agree
12 People frequently use the Internet.
Neither agree nor disagree
11 People are interested in local news.
Somewhat disagree
Community Potential
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
-—
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
20 People have access to a variety of modes of transportation for their daily activities.
Not Applicable (N/A)
19 There is a variety of local services to respond to everyday needs (corner store, ATM,
pharmacy, gas station, etc.).
Totally agree
18 Young people participate in athletic and cultural activities.
Somewhat agree
17 People visit a public library.
Neither agree nor disagree
16 Public institutions are close to citizens (schools, CLSC, municipality, police, etc.).
Somewhat disagree
Community Potential
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
-—
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
25 People take daily measures to preserve the environment (composting, selective collection,
etc.).
Not Applicable (N/A)
24 People use public or community spaces to meet each other.
Totally agree
23 Outdoor public spaces have been laid out.
Somewhat agree
22 Buildings and public spaces are attractive.
Neither agree nor disagree
21 People care about maintaining their homes and the community in general.
Somewhat disagree
Environmental Potential
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
-—
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
30 People feel safe in the community.
31 Children can play outdoors safely.
1
2
3
4
5
Not Applicable (N/A)
29 There are leaders who can seek grants to fund community projects.
Totally agree
28 There are leaders who encourage people to get involved in community projects.
Somewhat agree
27 Young people feel that they fit into their community.
Neither agree nor
disagree
26 The contribution of elders is recognized within the community.
Somewhat disagree
Collective Potential
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
-—
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
36 People dream of a better future for their community.
1
2
3
4
5
Not Applicable (N/A)
35 People are proud of the patrimony and history of their community.
Totally agree
34 People rally when the community faces a trial or hardship.
Somewhat agree
33 People want to gather to celebrate events.
Neither agree nor disagree
32 People have access to a broad selection of quality and affordable foods in their community
or nearby.
Somewhat disagree
Collective Potential
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
--
—
Eastern Townships Community
Scorecard: Action Based on Knowledge
Neither agree nor disagree
Somewhat agree
Totally agree
1
2
3
4
5
Not Applicable (N/A)
Somewhat disagree
Socio-Economic Potential
Totally disagree
Eastern Townships Community Scorecard:
Action Based on Knowledge
-—
37 People have sufficient funds to meet their basic needs (housing, food, clothing,
transportation).
38 Significant gaps exist among people living in the community (income, education, etc.).
39 There are poor people living in the community.
40 People in the community benefit from a dynamic economic environment.
This appraisal of community potential is directly inspired from: Réal Boisvert (2007). Les indicateurs de développement des communautés. Vers
un dispositif national de surveillance, Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de la Mauricie et du Centre du Québec, p. 56-58.
Advance knowledge for better actions
Observatoire estrien
du développement
des communautés
A quantitative and
qualitative tool
Comité de mise en oeuvre
du Tableau de bord des
communautés de l’Estrie
Intervenants
pivots
(MRC)
Instances
intersectorielles
Intervenants
pivots
(MRC)
Instances
intersectorielles
Intervenants
pivots
(MRC)
Instances
intersectorielles
Intervenants
pivots
(MRC)
Instances
intersectorielles
Intervenants
pivots
(MRC)
Instances
intersectorielles
Instances
intersectorielles
Comité de suivi
Intervenants
pivots
(Ville)
Comité
opérationnel
ad hoc*
Comité
opérationnel
ad hoc
Comité
opérationnel
ad hoc
Comité
opérationnel
ad hoc
Comité
opérationnel
ad hoc
Comité
opérationnel
ad hoc
MRC
des Sources
MRC
du Granit
MRC du HautSaint-François
MRC du ValSaint-François
MRC de
Memphrémagog
Ville de
Sherbrooke
Communautés
statistiques
/vécues
Communautés
statistiques
/vécues
Communautés
statistiques
/vécues
Communautés
statistiques
/vécues
Communautés
statistiques
/vécues
Communautés
statistiques
/vécues
A participatory
process,
intersectoral and
to the point
Février 2009 − Octobre 2010
An evaluation
of the implantation process
5 steps
Delimitation of the communities
Choice of indicators
Discussion on the communities’
potential
Validation of description
Communities at work
Principes d’action
Citizen participation
Strengthening of empowerment
Intersectorality
Autonomy of territories
8 pilot communities
3 in Sherbrooke
1 in 5 of the 6 RCM
Étapes
4 principles of action
PRINCIPES D’ACTION
ÉTAPES
TB
Concertation/ PRINCIPES
Participation
D’ACTIONAutonomie des Autonomie des
ÉTAPES
POUR ÉVALUATION intersectorialité
des acteurs
milieux
milieux
Augmentation
TB
Concertation/ PRINCIPES
Participation
Autonomie des
D’ACTION
du
pouvoir
ÉTAPES
Étape
1
:
POUR ÉVALUATION intersectorialité
des acteurs
milieux
d’agir
TB
Délimitation
des
Concertation/
Participation
PRINCIPES
D’ACTION Autonomie des Autonomie des
Étapecommunautés
1:
POUR ÉVALUATION
intersectorialité
des acteurs
milieux
Renforcement
Participation
Concertationmilieux
ÉTAPES
Délimitation
des
Autonomie des
locales
du pouvoir
intersectorielle
Étape 1communautés
: citoyenne
Étape 2 :
milieux
d’agir
Délimitation des
localesChoix des
communautés
Étape 2indicateurs
:
Étape 1
locales Choix
des
statistiques
et les
Délimitation des
Étape 2 indicateurs
:
analyses
communautés
Choixstatistiques
des
et les 3 :
Étape
indicateursanalyses
Groupes de
statistiques
etÉtape
les discussion
3:
Étape
2
de
de
Choix desanalysesGroupes
l’appréciation
du
:
de de la
indicateursÉtape 3discussion
potentiel
Groupes
de
l’appréciation
du
communauté
de
potentiel
de
la 4 :
Étape 3discussion
Étape
l’appréciation
duPrésentation des
Discussion
sur le communauté
deÉtape
la portraits
4 : dans les
potentielpotentiel
des
communauté
Présentation
des
communautés
communautés
Étapeportraits
4:
dans les
Étape 5 :
Présentation
des
communautés
Étape 4
portraits dans lesMise en action des
Validation des
Étape 5 :
communautés communautés
portraits
Mise en action des
Étape 5communautés
:
Mise en action des
Étape 5
communautés
Mise en action des
communautés
The TBCE can be linked to:
Place-based policy spaces and strategies
Local knowledge for community-based planning
and
Collaborative community building
First experimentation (2009-2011)
Intersectoral concertation
 Creation and consolidation of spaces of
concertation :
the most important effect of the TB dashboard
 Intersectoral process demanding and complex
which requires the development of a common
vision of the process
 The co-construction of a « territorial
intelligence » (RCM, communities)
 A long term commitment of partners to this
concerted action
First experimentation (2009-2011)
Appropriation
By the regional stakeholders:
 They had to reflect on the process and
construct tools
By the key territorial persons:
 Understand themselves the process
Staff movement
Partial vision at the start without always
understanding the finality
First experimentation (2009-2011)
To adapt the process in their territory
 To have the partners adhesion:
-
by the key territorial persons (with one-off or
longer term involvement)
-
by the citizens during the appreciation of the
potential
First experimentation (2009-2011)
Citizen participation
 A difficult principle to operationalise for the
practitioners
 Citizens especially present at the stage of
the appreciation of the potential of the
communities
 The necessity emerged:
 Of reinforcing the consensus in the
territories
 Of being equipped with tools and
mechanisms to be able to make things
differently
Development phase (2011 The TB dashboard is completed (first phase)
 At the end of 2013, 27 of Sherbrooke’s 33
communities will have completed the process
 TB is utilized by third sector organisations for
planning and demanding subventions
TB has been utilized for determining the
allocation of a regional fund on poverty and
social exclusion
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
The current research aims to evaluate
TBCE’s approach in terms of its position in
response to the question:
What is the potential impact of the TBCE’s
strategies on social determinants of health
(SDH)?
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
 The approach of the TBCE has a substantial
impact in assisting residents to take
ownership of the reality of their devitalized
community (which is not easy to accept)
and to guide them in their first steps
towards mobilization in order to take action
on this reality.
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
Dedicated and
visionary leaders
Participation:
structured,
concerted and
inclusive
Joined-up action
Concrete and
innovative actions
Access to
ressources, with
support
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR (Sherbrooke)
 Adhesion to TBCE of public institutions and third
sector organizations as being perceived in synergy
with their mandate
 Support and expertise of key human resources,
mainly from public institutions
 Recognition that for acting on the quality of life,
the action must be intersectoral and having a
dynamic of partnership
The staged implementation of TBCE has produced
an appropriation of the process and its concrete
potential
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
Challenges at the municipal level:
Find the funds that will permit the
concretisation
of
the
municipality
orientation in community development
A better articulation between the diverse
responsibilities of the key stakeholders
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
Challenges at the municipal level:
 Being able to start community development
in communities very much disadvantaged
 Consolidate community development that
is already in place
Develop the reflex of using the TBCE
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
Mont-Bellevue’s district example:
Leadership of the district and of the
councillors for the TBCE process
 A territorial third sector organization is
using the TBCE in conjunction with its
mobilization strategy
 Appropriation
of
the
intersectoral
dimension by key stakeholders
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR (Mont-Bellevue)
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
Example of a project in Mont-Bellevue: the
primary school project:
The community organizers have used the
TBCE as the tool for organizing the
information:
Realistic evaluation (2012-2014)
funded by the CIHR
 The level of schooling is way under the
average
One household of three is under the annual
poor income level
23.4 % of children are living in a household
under the annual poor income level
An evolving partnership between the
Health and Social services center and the
School board
Final Challenges
Consolidate the partnership between
communities,
academics
and
other
stakeholders
Junction with the economic world
Thanks for your attention
Paul.morin@usherbrooke.ca