Fromalatentgoaltoaplannedapproach

20July2012

DefinitionofSustainability
1. Thecapacitytomaintainservice coverageatalevel thatwillprovidecontinuingcontrolofaspecific domainofconcern 2. Thecapacityofaprojecttocontinuetodeliverits intendedbenefits overalongperiodoftime 3. Thatthebenefits oftheprogramisdeliveredforan extendedperiodoftimeafterfundingandother externalsupportisterminated 4. Institutionalization longtermviabilityand integrationoftheprogram withinanorganisation 5. Routinization/incorporation theprocessbywhich newprograms becomestandardbusiness 6. Community hasthecapacity(knowledge,skillsand resources)tocarryouttheprograms

Sustainability
Outcome focus Program outcomes: Benefitsto individuals, groups, familiesand community OrganizationFocus Continuation, institutionalization, routinization, incorporation, integrationof program Community Focus
Aprocess occurringat community levelwhere thereisthe

capacityto implement programs

Measures of sustainability
Measuring continued benefits for individuals after the initial program funding ends, particularly continuing to achieve beneficial outcomes among new consumers or other intended recipients Inquiries concerning the continuation of program activities within an organization, often termed institutionalization or routinization, within an organizational focus; and Questions about the continued capacity of a community to develop and deliver health promotion programs, particularly relevant when the initial program worked via a community coalition or other community capacitydeveloping process. (Scheirer, 2005, US & Canada)

Forms of sustainability
Sustainability a continuum of forms: with similar activities and target groups with similar activities and new target groups with similar activities in a different location or community with new activities and the same target groups, building on the previous work
(Savaya, Elsworth & Rogers, 2009)

Predictors of Sustainability of Social Programs

(Savaya & Spiro, 2012)

Project:

Auspiceorganization:
Size of project in relation to size

Overallfundingbythemainfunding agency Yearsreceivedsupport Diversityoffundingsources Diversityofnonfinancialsupport Fundraisingstrategies Staffqualityandcommitment Projectleaders qualityand commitment Qualityofproject Projecteffectiveness

of organization Project as organizational flagship Commitment of organizations management to the project Organizations qualities Champions

Community:

Main Funding Body:

Funders involvement in and

Community involvement in and perceptions of the project Patrons Perceived helpfulness of community involvement

commitment to the project Portion of total project cost covered by funder

Model of community-based program sustainability

(Mancini & Marek, 2004)

Project
Project leaders quality and commitment
Leaders clearly established the projects mission and vision Leaders planned within the first 2 years for sustaining the project Leaders continue planning for sustainability Leaders developed and followed a realistic project plan Leaders have identified alternative strategies for project survival (Mancini & Marek, 2004) Clear definition and logic (Savaya and Spiro, 2012)

Project
Staff quality and commitment

Staff are involved in program design Staff are involved in project decision making Staff are committed to the project mission, vision, and goals Staff are qualified to work on the project (Mancini &
Marek, 2004)

Staff not assigned to the project were involved in it (Savaya and Spiro, 2012)

Project
Strategic funding
Current funding is sufficient for project operations Funding is available on a long-term basis (at least 2 more years) There is adequate funding for hiring and retaining quality staff (Mancini & Marek, 2004) Amount of initial funding Diversity of funding resources Diversity of nonfinancial support Fundraising: polictical/ direct/ marketing No. of fundraising strategies employed (Savaya and Spiro, 2012) The nature of the original sources of financing Low cost, use volunteers (Scheirer, 2005)

Project
Demonstrating program results
Evaluation plans are developed prior to implementing programs Project effectiveness is demonstrated through evaluation Evaluations are conducted on a regular basis Evaluation results are used to modify programming (Mancini & Marek, 2004) Project was innovative (Savaya and Spiro, 2012) Whether evaluation has documented effectiveness How long the program or innovation has existed (Scheirer, 2005)

Project Program responsivity

Programs are eliminated when they do

not meet community needs New programs are developed when community needs change Sites are consolidated as necessary (Mancini & Marek, 2004) Whether the program is modifiable to meet local needs and conditions (Scheirer, 2005)

Community and environment

Effective collaboration

Local decision makers are project collaborators Community service agencies are project collaborators Collaborators are involved in program design Collaborators are involved in program implementation Collaborators are involved in program evaluation

Communityandenvironment
Effective collaboration
Collaborators share responsibility for

providing program resources Collaborators share credit for project success Collaborators have clearly defined roles and responsibilities There is a shared vision among collaborators Turf issues are resolved. (Mancini & Marek,
2004)

Community and Environment

Community support No. of patrons in community Perceived helpfulness of community involvement (Savaya and Spiro, 2012) Stability and favorability of external socioeconomic and political factors: Market forces impinging on an organization Legislation affecting the program Support from external community leaders The availability of funding and other resources as inputs to the program (Scheirer, 2005)

Organization

Project perceived as flagship Organization management ownership and support Project champion (Savaya and Spiro, 2012) Whether the new program or innovation in congruent with the underlying mission and operating procedures of the organization Strong existing capacity of the organization Perceived benefits to staff members and clients (Zcheirer, 2005): Anticipated continuation of auspice organization involvement Perceived effectiveness of auspice organization support (Savaya, Elsworth & Rogers, 2009)

Main Funding Body

Initial funders involvement Initial funders future orientation Portion of cost covered from initial

funder (Savaya and Spiro, 2012)


(2004-2006): / -(2005-2012): (2010-2012): ( / (2011-2014):

 /

 /


, : / , :/ // , :


()
/


/

/ CIIF

References:
Mancini, J.A. & Marek, L.I. (2004). Sustaining community based programs for families. Family Relations, 53, 339-347. Savaya, R., Elsworth, G., & Rogers, P. (2009). Projected sustainability of innovative social programs. Evaluation Review, 33, 189-205. Savaya, R. & Sprio, S.E. (2012). Predictors of sustainability of social programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(1), 26-43. Scheirer, M.A. (2005). Is sustainability possible? A review and commentary on empirical studies of program sustainability. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 320-347. Shediac-Rizkallah, M.C., & Bone, L.R. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and furture directions for research, practice and policy. Health Education Research, 13, 87-108.