Community Impact Professional (CIP)
Issued by
ProAct Indy
Earners of the Community Impact Professional (CIP) have demonstrated the competence new leaders need to recognize and apply the skills and behaviors required to help any business or organization impact its community from a human-centered, equitable lens. Earners are set up to successfully lead high-functioning teams and human-centered service projects while leading conversations around social issues affecting vulnerable populations and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging initiatives.
- Type Certification
- Level Intermediate
- Time Months
- Cost Paid
Skills
- Community Engagement
- Community Leadership
- Community Service
- Diverse Learners
- Diversity And Inclusion
- Diversity Awareness
- Diversity Equity And Inclusion Initiatives
- Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging
- Influencing Skills
- Leadership
- Leadership Certificates
- Leadership Development
- Management
- Management Effectiveness
- Nonprofit
- Non-Profit Operations
- Non-Profit Organization
- Non-Profit Strategies
- Professionalism
- Project Management
- Project Planning
- Social Accountability
- Social Equity
- Social Issue
- Social Justice
- Team Building
Earning Criteria
Standards
The CIP certification aligns to the "Minimum Quality Standards and Indicators for Community Engagement" Report (UNICEF), which sets forth core minimum standards developed in line with the principles of human rights‑ and community‑based approaches, such as participation, inclusion, and accountability.
A.1.3 Community members are given an opportunity to identify barriers to participation. A.1.4 Community members have positive experiences of participation. A.1.5 NGOs, CSOs, and partners identify and use strategies to sustain/increase participation. A.1.6 Community members identify the needs/priorities of various groups/sub‑groups in the community.
A.2.2 Communities demonstrate an ability to explore key issues, develop action plans, carry out action plans and evaluate results. A.2.4 Community members feel that they ‘own’ the project; that it is ‘for them’. A.2.6 There is an increase in perceived and demonstrated community capacity by the end of the project.
A.3.2 Strategies have been developed and implemented to ensure as wide a range of inclusive representation as possible (e.g. gender, youth and children, minority groups, linguistic groups, vulnerable populations). A.3.4 Groups affected by the prioritized issue have been involved in leadership and mobilization activities.
A.4.1 Community leaders had direct access to government/CSO leaders in prioritizing community engagement goals. A.4.3 There has been an increase in knowledge about the issue among community members. A.4.6 CE platforms have facilitated two‑way communication and feedback for decision‑making and action by local stakeholders (including young people).
A.5.1 Communities are able to influence and guide project priorities and actions. A.5.2 Community support is assessed before initiating projects or activities. A.5.8 CE platforms/processes have been adapted to address specifics of local contexts, programmatic areas and special requirements of stakeholders (including young people).
B.7.2 Communities have influenced project plans.
B.8.1 A participatory assessment has been conducted, and results shared with communities. B.8.2 Transparency and accountability have been established with communities through the development of a written community action plan co‑developed with community stakeholders.
B.9.1 A community action plan has detailed community interests, defined the roles and responsibilities of programs, and community actors, timeframe for implementation, and progress benchmarks. B.9.5 Community mobilizers have access to regular training and responsive supervision. B.9.6 Project outcomes are consistent with community expectations...
B.10.1 Qualitative and quantitative indicators for community engagement have been co‑developed with local communities. B.10.2 Predefined indicators have been locally validated to ensure that they aligned with community priorities. B.10.5 Evaluations have been disseminated within organizations, to governments, to local communities and to partners.
C.12.2 Identification of CSO and community organization partners has been inclusive and represents the social, cultural, gender, age and religious distribution of the communities. C.12.5 Community members can clearly identify partners, and know how to address with questions, conflicts, or accountability issues.
C.13.1 All sections of the organization recognize that community engagement is a cross‑cutting activity with relevance for other sectors. C.13.4 Internal organizational processes are in place to resolve conflicts and competition between other sectors and community engagement capacities, to facilitate integration.