Regional Community Asset Scan Report

The Appalachia Funders Network (AFN) is a rapidly evolving and maturing cross-sector funding network that supports our members in effectively contributing to the transformation of the Central Appalachian region.

We prioritize equal access to the resources, systems, and infrastructure essential to thriving Appalachian communities. Our members include private and family foundations, government agencies, banks, and community development entities. Our region of focus is the Central Appalachian counties of West Virginia, Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

The Appalachia Funders Network is pleased to share the release of our regional community asset scan report: “A Road Map for Asset Based Investing in Central Appalachia.”

For this project, AFN partnered with Policy Solutions at Reinvestment Fund, a national Community Development Financial Institution based in Philadelphia (Dr. Michael Norton and team) and the Community and Economic Development Initiative at University of Kentucky (Dr. Alison Davis).

This work was funded in part by the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Context:  

AFN seeks to improve understanding of the funding and investment gaps and existing community assets associated with socio-economic wellbeing. We undertook this work in order to identify cross-sector opportunities for coordinated foundation funding and/or capital investing that will promote a pipeline of scalable or replicable projects. AFN envisions that these analyses will illuminate high opportunity areas in the region and inform a better understanding of the interconnected investment opportunities that can improve the wellbeing of Central Appalachian people and places.

We see great value in:

  • Understanding the relationships between social and economic factors that impact wellbeing (e.g., housing, jobs, civic engagement, health, education, personal safety) and

  • the presence or absence of community assets, including those held by residents, funders, and investors of all types.

 “Assets” include local nonprofit or government services; local infrastructure; small businesses; workforce and social services; natural and cultural resources; churches; residents’ associations; and funding, investing, and other support from public and private sources.

Value to the Network and Regional Funders and Investor

  • -Understand the key variables that proxy the dimensions of socio-economic wellbeing

    -Understand the relationships between the presence and absence of community assets and higher or lower levels of wellbeing

    -Understand how to use this analysis to establish a baseline to assess progress

    -Package data and document the methodology in user-friendly formats for applied practical future use

  • -Document achievements, capacities, and needs at local and sub-regional levels

    -Illustrate proven, current practices/projects ready for external funding, capital investment or other support in order to scale further

    -Help funders understand where and how to invest (e.g., geographic, domain, population) to have the greatest impact on socio-economic wellbeing

    -Invite in cross-sector partners, current and new, to build understanding and shared strategies and to catalyze collective action on common agendas

  • -Use the results to forge productive conversations across sectors, identify collaborative opportunities, and attract transformative philanthropic commitments across the region (current and new, private and public)

    -Use results to communicate about the region nationally and to build a regional narrative

    -Support partners and communities to bolster their case to apply for funding

Why Use a Social Wellbeing Framework?

Economic metrics alone are not enough to fully understand the flourishing of nations, neighborhoods, or individuals. While people value their material standard of living, other factors matter as well. Assessing social wellbeing at the community level involves understanding complex, multidimensional, and mutually reinforcing processes across the following dimensions:

  • Economic Wellbeing: material standard of living—income, education, and labor force participation;

  • Economic and Ethnic Diversity: the extent to which certain income levels and ethnic groups are concentrated or mixed in a place;

  • Health: physical and mental health status as well as access to care;

  • School Effectiveness: the degree to which the local school environment is conducive to learning—student achievement, dropout rates;

  • Cultural Engagement: opportunities to experience one’s own cultural legacy and those of other residents;

  • Housing Quality: physical and financial conditions associated with shelter—crowding, code violations, and relative cost burden;

  • Political Voice: freedom of expression and involvement in the democratic process;

  • Social Connection: the presence of nonprofit organizations and cultural resources that connect at an institutional level, and the level of trust and neighborhood participation that underlie face-to-face relations;

  • Environment: the quality and risks of the physical environment—the presence of parks and open space, heat vulnerability, and environmental hazards;

  • Insecurity: threats to physical security—violent and property crime, social tensions.

In addition to readily available financial resources, community assets include the natural and built environment, as well as organizations and resident associations that are central to institutional and interpersonal networks that support each of the dimensions of wellbeing. By engaging in activities that enhance their own value as a critical nodes within broader networks of support, they strengthen the network as a whole. In this way, investments in these assets can can be catalysts for change, increasing their own capacity and that of broader networks to promote social wellbeing for individuals and families.

Outcomes:

This report addresses the following questions:

● What new or existing approaches could address barriers to accessing philanthropic capital, including organizational practices and lack of place-based funders?

●  How can existing local assets (e.g., community-based organizations, expertise, space/land, local businesses, services, infrastructure) be fully leveraged to contribute to wellbeing?

● What bridges and capacities to accessing federal and private resources and funding need to be strengthened or created?

● Does the data gathered reflect the totality of what the audience for this work needs to move forward with decisions about individual or collective investments?

● How can the data be presented in the most useful manner for AFN members and partners?

● How can the results of this work, and Town Hall/convening synthesis, help lift up and acknowledge local assets to identify and activate social justice investing?