Meaningful Measures for Community Engagement in Public Health

May 19, 2025 | Sara Bell, Anna Bradley

For many agencies, community engagement in public health initiatives is a strategic priority — central to advancing equity, building trust, and shaping responsive services. Yet, measurement tools often fall short, focused primarily on participation counts or one-time feedback efforts rather than the quality and impact of ongoing relationships with communities. This begs the question: How can health agencies assess the impact of community engagement in a meaningful and equitable way?

A Familiar Question with Fresh Insights

This challenge is not theoretical — it’s one public health agencies are actively grappling with. Earlier this year, in response to a question posed in an online community forum, ASTHO convened a conversation among health agency staff from several jurisdictions to explore this topic further and spark peer sharing. Participants shared a common refrain: Traditional metrics aren’t cutting it.

Many expressed that existing tools don’t reflect the depth of their partnerships or the intentionality behind their work. What they need isn’t just more data — it’s a better way to evaluate trust building, power sharing, and sustained collaboration. This discussion served as a reminder that the field is still searching for practical, equitable approaches rooted in values to measure what matters in community engagement.

Moving Beyond Traditional Metrics

Historically, quantifiable indicators (e.g., service delivery outcomes, program enrollment, or compliance milestones) track public health performance. While these metrics remain important, they do not always tell the full story of impact or reflect the relational work required for authentic engagement. Effective community engagement in public health is about more than how many people attend a meeting — it’s about shared decision-making, mutual accountability, and long-term partnership.

To assess this type of work, agencies are beginning to consider new questions:

• Are community voices shaping agency priorities and decisions?
• Do engagement practices reflect transparency, trust, and respect?
• Are resources (e.g., funding, staffing, and time) allocated to support sustained engagement?
• Do community-based organizations feel that partnerships are reciprocal and meaningful?

These questions point to deeper cultural and operational shifts, many of which require ongoing reflection and adaptation. One attendee also shared the value they find in asking, “Why?” at least three times. They expressed that this practice helps them to refine the purpose and intention behind community engagement strategies, and communicate clearly with community partners.

Why Measurement Matters

When agencies measure what truly matters in community engagement, several benefits emerge:

• Informed strategy: Meaningful metrics help clarify what engagement efforts are achieving and where they need to evolve.
• Improved accountability: Clear metrics demonstrate to community partners and stakeholders that engagement is not symbolic but a serious, resourced priority.
• Stronger internal alignment: Measurement reinforces a culture that embeds relationship building and power sharing in daily practice instead of treating them as add-ons.
• Greater impact: Engagement strategies that are responsive, inclusive, and trusted are more likely to lead to sustainable outcomes.

Healthy People 2030 and other existing evidence-based public health frameworks can help identify potential partner sectors and measures for monitoring engagement specific to your health topic of interest.

Building a Foundation for Measurement

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to measuring engagement in public health. However, several emerging practices can support agencies in this work:

1. Align engagement metrics with agency values. What does meaningful engagement look like in practice, and how can measures reflect those values?
2. Identify potential subject matter experts on data collection, analysis, evaluation, and/or performance management in your agency who may be able to offer feedback on your process.
3. Involve community partners in defining success. Agencies should take a collaborative approach, ensuring that community perspectives inform what measures to track and how.
4. Prioritize qualitative insights. Narratives, reflections, and community feedback can offer rich context that complements quantitative data.
5. Center equity in evaluation. Measurement approaches should account for disparities in voice, access, and power — ensuring that historically marginalized groups are not only present but truly heard.
6. Leverage and evaluate existing processes. Use existing data collection and community engagement opportunities like health fairs, field interaction logs, clinic visits, referrals, and pre- and post-tests to invite feedback and participation from the community. Similarly, identify partner contact lists and other touchpoints for opportunities to consolidate and streamline communications, improve relationships, and develop shared understanding.
7. Seek out alignment. Familiarize yourself with partner needs and interests through their organizational strategic plans and find ways to proactively align your work with theirs.

Looking Ahead

As public health systems continue to embed engagement into core functions, it is critical that engagement measures align with purpose. Metrics should support — not constrain — a culture of continuous learning, trust building, and shared leadership.

By embracing more intentional and inclusive approaches to measurement, agencies can strengthen their relationships with communities and ensure that engagement efforts are truly driving systems change.

If your health agency wants more information about engagement measurement support, please submit a PHIG technical assistance request through PHIVE or contact performanceimprovement@astho.org for additional resources.