Researchers studied how 23 organizations across eight U.S. cities worked together to make positive changes in their neighborhoods. They looked at whether community-led projects could improve things like food access, exercise opportunities, and early childhood programs. The study found that when local leaders received training, tools, and support—like learning how to map out problems and connect with each other—they were more successful at making real changes. Most projects were still ongoing when the study ended, but they showed promise in reaching the people who needed help most. The research shows that communities are more likely to succeed when they have strong teamwork, good planning, and outside support.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: Whether community groups could successfully create lasting changes in their neighborhoods by working together with support and training
  • Who participated: 23 partner organizations across 8 U.S. communities, involving 110 local volunteers and leaders who worked on neighborhood improvement projects
  • Key finding: Communities that received training, networking opportunities, and technical help were able to launch 21 different neighborhood improvement projects, with most showing progress toward their goals despite being early-stage efforts
  • What it means for you: If you live in a community working on health improvements, organized teamwork and proper support make these projects more likely to succeed. However, these changes take time and require ongoing commitment from multiple organizations

The Research Details

Researchers used a combination of surveys and interviews to track progress. They asked 14 community leaders to fill out surveys about their projects and interviewed 10 of them in depth to understand what helped or hurt their efforts. The study looked at 21 different community projects across six cities that focused on things like improving food access, getting kids more active, and helping young children learn better.

The research team used a special framework called Stakeholder-Driven Community Diffusion (SDCD), which is basically a fancy way of saying they focused on what local people actually wanted and needed, rather than imposing outside ideas. They tracked which projects were completed, which were still in progress, and what made some communities more successful than others.

The researchers carefully analyzed all the interview responses by looking for common themes and patterns. Two different researchers reviewed the same interviews to make sure they were interpreting things the same way, which helps ensure the findings are reliable.

This research matters because it shows what actually works when communities try to make real changes. Instead of just telling communities what to do, this approach asks local people what they need and helps them build the skills to make changes themselves. Understanding what helps or hurts these efforts can guide other communities trying to improve health and quality of life.

The study has some important strengths: it looked at real communities doing real work, it combined surveys with detailed interviews, and it tracked actual projects over time. However, the study also has limitations: only 14 people completed surveys and 10 were interviewed, which is a small number, and most projects were still in progress when the study ended, so we don’t know the final results. The COVID-19 pandemic also affected some communities’ ability to work together, which may have influenced the results.

What the Results Show

The 23 partner organizations successfully engaged 110 local volunteers and leaders to work on 21 different community projects. These projects focused on four main areas: making early childhood and school programs better, improving access to healthy food, encouraging people to be more active, and strengthening connections between neighbors.

Most of the projects were still ongoing when researchers collected data, meaning they hadn’t been completed yet. However, the projects that were underway showed partial success in reaching the people they were trying to help. This suggests that while these community-led changes take time, they are moving in the right direction.

Capacity-building strategies—basically, training and support given to community leaders—proved to be very important. When communities received help with things like peer networking (connecting leaders with each other), learning tools like causal loop diagrams (visual maps of how problems connect), and technical assistance with planning and funding, they were much more likely to move forward with their projects.

The study found that success depended heavily on local factors. Communities with strong teamwork, good organizational readiness, and sufficient resources made more progress. Interestingly, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected some communities’ ability to work together, showing how outside events can impact local efforts.

The research revealed that different communities prioritized different projects based on their unique needs and strengths. This flexibility—letting each community choose what matters most to them—appears to be important for success. The study also showed that building relationships between organizations and leaders was just as important as the actual projects themselves. When people trusted each other and worked well together, projects moved forward more smoothly. Technical assistance with funding and planning was particularly valuable, suggesting that communities often need help navigating the practical side of making changes.

This research builds on earlier work showing that community-led approaches work better than top-down solutions where outside experts tell communities what to do. The study confirms that when you combine community leadership with proper training and support, you get better results. It also supports the idea that understanding local context—what’s unique about each neighborhood—is crucial for success. The findings align with growing evidence that sustainable community health improvements require both local ownership and external support.

The study has several important limitations to keep in mind. First, the number of people surveyed and interviewed was quite small (14 surveys, 10 interviews), so the findings may not represent all communities. Second, most projects were still in progress when the study ended, so we don’t know if they ultimately succeeded or failed. Third, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted some communities’ work, which may have made results look worse than they would have been under normal circumstances. Finally, the study focused on communities that were already engaged in this initiative, so it may not reflect what happens in communities without this support.

The Bottom Line

If your community is trying to make health or quality-of-life improvements, this research suggests you should: (1) Invest in training and support for local leaders—this appears to be one of the most important factors for success; (2) Build strong connections between different organizations and leaders in your community; (3) Let local people decide what problems to tackle rather than imposing outside solutions; (4) Be patient—these changes take time and most projects will be in progress for months or years before showing full results. Confidence level: Moderate—the findings are promising but based on a relatively small number of communities.

Community leaders, nonprofit organizations, local government officials, and public health professionals should pay attention to these findings. If you’re involved in trying to improve your neighborhood or community, this research offers practical guidance. However, these findings are most relevant to communities that have access to support and resources. Communities facing severe resource constraints may find some recommendations harder to implement.

Don’t expect quick results. Based on this study, community-led changes typically take many months to show progress, and full success may take a year or more. The projects in this study were still in progress after the initial implementation period, suggesting that patience and sustained effort are necessary. You should see early signs of progress (like increased participation or completed planning steps) within 3-6 months, but meaningful community-wide changes typically take longer.

Want to Apply This Research?

  • If you’re part of a community improvement project, track monthly: (1) Number of people participating in your project, (2) Specific milestones completed (like securing funding, launching a program, or reaching a target number of people), and (3) Feedback from community members about whether the project is meeting their needs. This gives you concrete data to show progress.
  • Use the app to: (1) Schedule regular check-ins with other community leaders to maintain relationships and share progress; (2) Document what’s working and what’s not in your project; (3) Set specific, measurable goals for your community project and track progress toward them; (4) Connect with other communities doing similar work to learn from their experiences.
  • Set up quarterly reviews where you look back at your tracking data to see if your project is on track. Use the app to create visual reports showing participation growth, milestones completed, and community feedback. Share these reports with your team to celebrate wins and identify areas needing adjustment. This ongoing monitoring helps you stay accountable and make improvements as you go.

This research describes one approach to community-led change and shows promising early results, but most projects were still in progress when the study ended. The findings are based on a relatively small number of communities and may not apply to all neighborhoods or situations. Community health improvements require sustained effort over time and depend on many local factors. Before implementing major changes in your community, consult with local health officials, community members, and relevant experts. This research should inform but not replace professional guidance from public health, urban planning, or community development specialists.