sCommunities are at many different stages of readiness for implementing programs, and this readiness is to be a major factor in determining whether a local program can be effectively implemented and supported by the community. The Community Readiness Model was developed to meet research needs, (e.g., matching treatment and control communities for an experimental intervention) as well as to provide a practical tool to help communities mobile for change. The model defines nine stages of community readiness ranging from "no awareness" of the problem to "professionalization" in the response to the problem within the community. Assessment of the stage of readiness is accomplished using key informant interviews, with questions on six different dimensions related to a community's readiness to mobilize to address a specific issue. Based on experiences in working directly with communities, strategies for successful effort implementation have been developed for each stage of readiness. Once a community has achieved a stage of readiness where local efforts can be initiated, community teams can be trained in use of the community readiness model. These teams can then develop specific, culturally appropriate efforts

Communities are at many different stages of readiness for implementing programs, and this readiness is to be a major factor in determining whether a local program can be effectively implemented and supported by the community. The Community Readiness Model was developed to meet research needs, (e.g., matching treatment and control communities for an experimental intervention) as well as to provide a practical tool to help communities mobile for change. The model defines nine stages of community readiness ranging from “no awareness” of the problem to “professionalization” in the response to the problem within the community. Assessment of the stage of readiness is accomplished using key informant interviews, with questions on six different dimensions related to a community's readiness to mobilize to address a specific issue. Based on experiences in working directly with communities, strategies for successful effort implementation have been developed for each stage of readiness. Once a community has achieved a stage of readiness where local efforts can be initiated, community teams can be trained in use of the community readiness model. These teams can then develop specific, culturally appropriate efforts that use local resources to guide the community to more advanced levels of readiness, eventually leading to long‐term sustainability of local community efforts. This article presents the history of the development of the model, the stages of readiness, dimensions used to assess readiness, how readiness is assessed and strategies for change at each level of readiness. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

There is limited recent research on the strategies that rural local governments are employing in the face of changing intergovernmental relationships, especially in relation to local economic development. This paper draws on data from a survey of local governments in the Ohio River Valley Region that includes a mix of localities on the urban‐rural continuum, to empirically address three issues. First, we examined the extent to which county governments have undertaken local economic development initiatives as well as other, extra‐economic activities designed to improve community well‐being. Second, we assessed the extent to which rural county governments vary from urban counties in their activities and available resources. Finally, we employed logistic regression models of factors associated with use of development strategies to determine the relationship between rurality and local development policy activities. The results show that rural counties are less likely than urban counties to undertake various economic development activities, with observed urban‐rural differences largely attributable to county socioeconomic disadvantages, such as poverty and education.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

During the closing decades of the twentieth century, the federal government has experienced a period of delegitimation and fiscal crisis that has led to decentralization of some federal programs and a fledgling revival of community-and place-based policies. These and other locality-based policies are not new tools. The renewed interest in this type of policy raises questions about their effectiveness. Historic and recent records of locality-based policies suggest that they are not panaceas for achieving programmatic goals. Three cases provide an empirical, comparative basis for assessing the liabilities of locality-based policies: the Third New Deal efforts to institute county land-use planning; Mexico's experiences with community forestry; and emerging grassroots ecosystem management movements in the western United States. Among other factors, the degree of local democracy and inclusiveness and the quality of local social, economic, and physical infrastructures are identified as important in mediating effective policy implementation.