Public sector and community

Community Needs Prioritisation

Compare community issues, challenges, and opportunities to determine where support or intervention is most needed. Useful for local government, nonprofits, healthcare, and community development. The criteria can be changed, added to and weighted.

What the framework is

Community needs prioritisation compares the issues and needs in a community to decide where support or investment is most needed. The template starts with five criteria: Urgency, Potential Impact, Number of People Affected, Feasibility and Long-Term Importance. The criteria can be changed, added to and weighted.

What the result looks like

EXAMPLE
Which local needs should we address first?
Top ranked
Safer crossings
Urgency 92% · 1st
Potential Impact 63% · 1st
Number of People Affected 38% · 3rd
Feasibility 75% · 1st
Long-Term Importance 50% · 2nd
63%
Weighted win rate

Overall

Options Weighted win rate
01
Safer crossings
Urgency 1st · Potential Impact 1st · Number of People Affected 3rd · Feasibility 1st · Long-Term Importance 2nd
63%
02
Youth activities
Urgency 2nd · Potential Impact 2nd · Number of People Affected 1st · Feasibility 3rd · Long-Term Importance 1st
52%
03
Library opening hours
Urgency 3rd · Potential Impact 3rd · Number of People Affected 2nd · Feasibility 2nd · Long-Term Importance 3rd
35%

Overall with the criteria

Rank
Options
Urgency
20%
Potential Impact
20%
Number of People Affected
20%
Feasibility
20%
Long-Term Importance
20%
Overall
Weighted win rate
01 Safer crossings
92%
1st
63%
1st
38%
3rd
75%
1st
50%
2nd
63%
02 Youth activities
42%
2nd
58%
2nd
71%
1st
33%
3rd
54%
1st
52%
03 Library opening hours
17%
3rd
29%
3rd
42%
2nd
42%
2nd
46%
3rd
35%

By the options

01 · Safer crossings 63% weighted win rate
–
Urgency
92%
1st of 3 · 22 Wins · 2 Losses
–
Potential Impact
63%
1st of 3 · 15 Wins · 9 Losses
–
Number of People Affected
38%
3rd of 3 · 9 Wins · 15 Losses
–
Feasibility
75%
1st of 3 · 18 Wins · 6 Losses
–
Long-Term Importance
50%
2nd of 3 · 12 Wins · 12 Losses
02 · Youth activities 52% weighted win rate
–
Urgency
42%
2nd of 3 · 10 Wins · 14 Losses
–
Potential Impact
58%
2nd of 3 · 14 Wins · 10 Losses
–
Number of People Affected
71%
1st of 3 · 17 Wins · 7 Losses
–
Feasibility
33%
3rd of 3 · 8 Wins · 16 Losses
–
Long-Term Importance
54%
1st of 3 · 13 Wins · 11 Losses
03 · Library opening hours 35% weighted win rate
–
Urgency
17%
3rd of 3 · 4 Wins · 20 Losses
–
Potential Impact
29%
3rd of 3 · 7 Wins · 17 Losses
–
Number of People Affected
42%
2nd of 3 · 10 Wins · 14 Losses
–
Feasibility
42%
2nd of 3 · 10 Wins · 14 Losses
–
Long-Term Importance
46%
3rd of 3 · 11 Wins · 13 Losses
Scoring Explanations
CRITERIA WEIGHTINGS — The % weighting for each criterion is shown in the table header. Unless this was entered in the setup, the weighting is equal across criteria.
WEIGHTED WIN RATE — Each criterion's result, in the measure they share, averaged using the assigned weightings.

When it earns its place

Use it for local plans, needs assessments, a charity's strategy, or a council or health partnership deciding where to focus. It works best when residents and front-line staff take part alongside decision-makers.

The trap is that the loudest needs win. Groups that are hard to reach are easy to under-rank. Bring in evidence and the people affected, not only those who usually attend.

How to run it with a group

  1. List each need in plain language, as residents would describe it.
  2. Agree the weights. Decide how much the number of people affected should count against urgency.
  3. Send the link and give people a week or two. Participants do not need an account to respond. Reach out beyond the usual channels.
  4. Read the overall ranking, then the ranking per criterion. Publish the result, and say what will happen next.

Get started