Asset-Based Community Maps: A Tool for Expanding Resources in Community Health Programs

Literature Review

Community asset mapping is defined as a drawing of a map of what is valuable in communities (Dorfman, 1998). Every community contains a variety of public, private, and nonprofit institutions, and each of these institutions has an array of resources, such as personnel, space, expertise, equipment, and economic power, that can be used to build and strengthen public health programs and services (Kretzmann & McKnight, 2005). Furthermore, health promotion programs and services are often more successful and sustainable when they are able to create strong connections with community members, particularly those who will be served by the programs and services (Kretzmann & McKnight, 2005). A single, collaborative list of compiled, existing resources that can be used by any stakeholders is a fundamental component of community asset mapping. The community asset mapping process usually begins with the philosophy that all individuals, physical structures, natural resources, institutions, businesses, or informal organizations can play an effective role in addressing important matters in the local community (Kerka, 2003). Asset maps are often used in community development, geography and planning, and health policy (Burns, Paul, & Paz, 2012; The Community Geography Project, n.d.; Dorfman, 1998). Community asset mapping is commonly used in the public health field; however, most often in health education and health promotion community asset mapping is a technique used in a larger scale community assessment (Carroll, Perez, & Toy, 2004; Work Group for Community Health and Development, 2014). With years of teaching experiences in public health fields, the authors have observed that rarely are health education and health promotion students taught community asset mapping as a stand-alone skill that can be used in a variety of health education or health promotion programs or agencies. Community asset mapping can engage public health professionals and surrounding communities in working together to identify the resources that are already available to them without having to rely on financial assistance. By analyzing what is available, effective, and needed, one gains a sound basis for formulating strategies to enhance existing resources.

For example, Arizona’s Children’s Action Alliance developed a resource titled “School-Age Care Tool Kit: A Guide for Measuring Needs in Your Community” in 2001. The resource provided step-by-step community asset mapping instructions to community organizations on how to identify the need for programs for school-age children and how to assess existing program resources available in the community, and piloted a program in two Arizona communities to assess needs and conduct an asset assessment (Nagle, 2003). In Lexington, Kentucky, community members conducted community asset mapping to better connect children with disabilities to resources (Crane & Skinner, 2003). Throughout the mapping process, participants identified their unique strengths in the community as well as the resources they could contribute to meet the needs of all children within the community. Participants also reported several benefits that came from the mapping process and ultimately agreed that community asset mapping allowed them to develop a more results-driven system and build partnerships that improved youth services, while creating a comprehensive resource bank that enabled students to access the services they need (Crane & Skinner, 2003).

In summary, compared with traditional evaluation that focuses on community needs, deficits, and problems, the uses and benefits of community asset mapping are numerous. First, using a community asset mapping approach to identifying resources can help address or prevent population health issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, and substance abuse as well as promote and enhance healthy families and communities (Aronson, Wallis, O’Campo, & Schafer, 2007). Mapping can be used to plan interventions based on the location of at-risk populations (Blake & Bentov, 2001), to study geographic concentrations of disease (Ernst, 2000), and to highlight the evidence that advertisements for tobacco and alcohol are disproportionately located in low-income areas (Hackbarth et al., 2001). This approach can also be used to better understand program implementation such as location of participants and their proximity to service providers, and physical, social, and protective risk factors such as areas of high crime and problem-solving capacity (Aronson et al., 2007). Second, as the process of community asset mapping is largely influenced by economic hardship, community asset mapping provides a comprehensive overview of locations of resources and programs already available that can be used or built on without relying on governments and communities to supply additional resources that may be cost prohibitive for new and continuing programs and services. The community mapping approach has been used by local organizations to engage the community in the discussion of health data to modify service delivery in order to improve health outcomes (Detres, Lucio, & Vitucci, 2014). Mapping as a participatory approach has also been used to engage youth, families, and service providers in an assessment of service in the community (Minh, Patel, Bruce-Barret, & O’Campo, 2015). Finally, this approach allows students and practitioners to engage communities in positive ways, rather than relying on the typical deficit-based model that often brings with it an air of negativity and hopelessness (McKnight & Kretzmann, 1990). Concepts of social cohesion, community empowerment, and participant engagement enhance the success of public health programs and services (McKnight & Kretzmann, 1990). This shift in perspective can benefit the community and boost morale so that community buy-in and engagement are elevated rather than depressed. The tangible product of a community asset map can transform community excitement and engagement into momentum for building lasting and successful local programs and services (McKnight & Kretzmann, 1990).

Additionally, we point out the limitations of teaching community asset mapping. In our experience, students and emerging professionals are often keen to adopt new techniques and tools, and if and when these tools fail to create rapid and dramatic change in communities, there is often a dismissal of the tool rather than the acknowledgment that the social determinants of health and systems are often outside the individual’s control. Particularly in more disadvantaged areas, it is important to remember that change is incremental and difficult to achieve, and public health professionals should seek to avoid blaming the community and any perceived community faults for underwhelming results. It is important to remind students and emerging professionals that asset-based maps are useful tools to supplement public health promotion in communities, and the local, state, and national government agencies should still fulfill the social contract to support the health of communities. This tool should not be a replacement for public health systems support.

Introducing the Activity

This activity has been used for undergraduate health education and promotion students at a midsized university on the west coast where average class size is approximately 40 students per class. However, we believe it could be adapted for both larger and smaller class sizes at both smaller and larger universities. The only other consideration we would suggest would be weather dependent. If you ask students to leave the classroom, the weather should be suitable for outdoor exploration. As an alternative, students could work within the classroom in groups, but we have generally found that students like moving outside the classroom to experience their community with a new perspective.

We typically start a lecture on asset-based community mapping with a discussion on community structure and capacity. We start the discussion by asking students the following questions:

After discussing the aforementioned questions with students, we emphasize that communities are usually defined by what people have in common, and one of the most prominent things that communities share is physical space. Shared physical environments might be neighborhoods, workplaces, and schools. Physical environment can also include natural features such as surrounding land, air, water, plants, and animals, in addition to human-made structures such as buildings and other infrastructure. We also emphasize that physical space is not a requirement of a community; in fact, some communities stretch around the globe and have very little to do with common space (e.g., religious communities at large).

We then introduce the concept of an assets- or strengths-based models of working within communities. We highlight this rather than focusing on what is wrong in communities and what is lacking. We look at what is GOOD in the community, and what things we can draw on to build further success. Sometimes this takes thinking creatively to find nontraditional assets that might otherwise be overlooked. We discuss resource limitations in public health programs, and how asset-based community maps are but one tool to extend the reach of their programs by building on present community resources and avoiding duplication of services and resources whenever possible.

Activity Overview

We then introduce the class to the community mapping activity for the lecture period. In our case, we hand out a campus map to the class that has a map on one side and an asset map inventory on the back (see Figures 1 and 2). We ask students to name a “traditional asset” that our campus has that supports student health. Very often our students point out the Wildcat Recreation Center (WREC). The WREC is a free resource for students on campus to meet their fitness, recreation, and fun goals. It includes typical fitness equipment such as treadmills and weight-lifting equipment, and additional resources such as a climbing wall, an outdoor pool, as well as personal training, and nutrition counseling. It is also conveniently located in the middle of campus and has widely accessible hours to accommodate many schedules. It is important to emphasize access at this point in the discussion. Since all students can attend the WREC for free, economic restrictions are not an issue. However, there are some people who may not feel comfortable at the WREC (e.g., people of size, people with religious beliefs that require certain manners of dress, etc.) and that may be a limitation to their utilization of that resource. That is why having many resources on a map is important; we must have adequate resources for all potential users of our map.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Community asset inventory handout.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Campus map.

At this point we will discuss “nontraditional assets.” Nontraditional assets are things that people may look over at first glance but are imperative to the ways that students may navigate their health on campus. We point out the wall of ATM machines on the side of the student union on campus and ask how ATM machines might be considered a nontraditional asset. After brainstorming with the class, we usually come up with a list of ways that ATMs may have an impact on student health. One example is that cash is needed to buy fresh fruit and vegetables from our weekly farm stand that sells produce from our university farm. In this way, ATMs support student physical health and nutrition. Another example is that students may need to buy sexual health supplies (condoms, lube, birth control, etc.) from the bookstore or health center. Some parents may have access to the students’ bank statements or purchasing history. If students withdraw cash from the ATM instead, they can be assured that no one is monitoring what sexual health supplies students are purchasing and therefore encourage sexual health promotion by keeping purchases confidential and untraceable. On the back of their campus maps we have printed a table where students can come up with a map key, a place to record the asset, and a place to describe how the asset benefits student health. We demonstrate how to create a community asset map inventory on the back of their campus maps (see Figures 3 and 4).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Campus map example.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4.

Community asset inventory example.

After pointing out examples of traditional and nontraditional assets, students are asked to work in small groups of three to five to go explore the campus with their new assets-based outlook. We give students 20 to 30 minutes to leave the classroom with their groups to physically walk around campus looking for both traditional and nontraditional assets that can support the many dimensions of health in our campus community. Students are asked to return to the classroom at the appointed time so that we can discuss what they discovered.

Activity Discussion

After students return to the classroom, we facilitate a large group discussion with the class. We ask the following questions and ask students to expand on their answers as we discuss:

Students generally find this activity to be enlightening and a new way to look at communities. Students are often surprised by how many features on campus that they have previously overlooked as assets and are more appreciative of the resources that they could build on to promote health within the campus community. We discuss that this method can be a stand-alone activity or could be used as part of a broader community needs assessment in preparation for a larger health promotion program.

As an extension of this in-class activity, you could also assign students an out-of-class assignment to come up with their own asset maps (individually or with groups) beyond the campus community (see the appendix).

Conclusions

Community asset mapping is a useful tool for community health, and health education and health promotion students should be afforded the opportunity to learn this skill to assist them in their future careers as public health professionals. Asset-based community maps are one method for dealing with resource limitations in communities and programs that allow communities and professionals to build on preexisting strengths and assets in the community and therefore extend the reach of services and programs when resources are limited. These maps are also an important tool that allows professionals and communities to avoid duplication of services and resources that may already exist in the community, thus saving time and money for health promotion programs. Students can use asset-based community maps as a stand-alone tool or as part of a wider community needs assessment.