Establishing Closure

It would be great to imagine that interventions come naturally to a dose when the stakeholders have learned how to use their experience to plan for the future success and effectiveness of their community. That they have empowered themselves sufficiently and developed problem solving skills that enable them to run the project themselves. In reality, interventions include estimates of the length of time needed to achieve the goals. Or in the case of many community development projects the sponsoring agency may set an arbitrary time span into which projects are expected to fit. CUSO and CIDA in Canada are typically two years. Closure is the point at which the intervener or intervention team leave the project and it should be planned for carefully.

Leaving the project too early may create a feeling of being deserted among the participants. Such a feeling could lead to demoralization of the stakeholder and perhaps a readiness to get even for being deserted by stopping work on the project altogether. Staying too long on a project can create dependency and reduce the ability of the participants to empower themselves and take over project leadership. But if the budget has run out or the assignment is over, closure should be made as comfortable and empowering for the stakeholders as possible.

My bias is to negotiate the time and style of closure with the system. In many of our Centre interventions, we build in a specific time or two to negotiate whether we will continue and if so what our focus will be. In organizations there are "change of scope" meetings and in communities our regular review sessions. Many interventions just peter out as there is no closure. This may leave participants wondering why it stopped and whether that represents success or failure. The uneasy feeling about the ending of this intervention becomes part of the folklore and may impede future interventions.

At a minimum the closure activity should include a review and discussion of what the intervention did and didn't accomplish. In addition, there should be a discussion of the intervention process—how the intervener(s) and stakeholders worked together. A consideration of where the project goes from here is a third useful activity. Finally, the project closure needs to be communicated to all the stakeholders, especially those in related systems not plugged into the regular grapevine. Some kind of a final report may surface after an intervention is over but it is my bias that it should not be considered part of the closure activity. These reports usually come out too long after the project is over to be of much use to the stakeholders and they do not provide an opportunity for participants to deal with their feelings about the project.

Here are some other specific ideas to help you plan closure activities:

1. Review evaluation data and discuss perceptions of it. This could include discussing some of the learnings in the process.
2. Go around the group, or at least discuss, "What was the most import-ant part of this experience for me" and "What am I most concerned about now that it is over."
3. Have small groups review the whole intervention and make up lists of what they thought helped the intervention and what hindered it. These lists would then be reported back to the total group.
4. A small committee would prepare a working paper for the total group on their perspective of the social intervention, with special focus on the present state of affairs. A force-field analysis could be used to show where things were at the beginning of the intervention and where they are now. This would help focus on how stable the changes were likely to be.
5. The group has a guided fantasy about what is going to happen (for themselves personally or for the social system) now that the intervention is over. The group could imagine that the intervention is just starting and talk about what in their fantasy is going to happen.
   This is another way of evaluating what did happen, but does not blame or reward anyone. It helps to focus on the group taking responsibility for what could happen in future dealings with change activities.
6. A brief presentation is made on typical ways of dealing with termination followed by going around the group and reporting "here and now" feelings about closure.
7. Material from an early stage is presented and small groups work and report on what is happening differently now. This early material could be a tape recording or video tape of an early session, the record of a meeting, a list of early goals and objectives, or some kind of a working document or data collection summary typical of that phase of the intervention.
8. If the group is not available for a closure activity, a report on the intervention (perhaps only 2 or 3 pages) is prepared by the intervener(s) or a committee and sent to each participant.
9. If the intervention ends abruptly or peters out, the intervener writes a letter to everyone about the ending or lack of closure and invites responses.

 

Closure is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate and have fun. A pot luck picnic or supper (in the collaborative style of the intervention) is a popular choice. Or add to the regular review meeting planned for closure a recognition period, a sing-song, dance, or informal skit presentations. Prayers or some kind of a worship service may be effective in some communities.

...Part 6