We engage when everyday systems fail to support basic household functioning and recoverability.
ACSC uses a fixed operating process to examine current policies, projects, and institutional decisions by looking at their actual effects. The goal is to clarify what is working, what is failing, and what actions may be justified going forward. Initial screening is required, and proposals that do not demonstrate real-world effectiveness do not move forward.
Screening for Action — The Three Tests
This process begins with three screening tests that determine whether further action or evaluation is warranted. Entry into the operating levels requires that an issue pass all three screening tests, so evaluation is reserved for actions capable of producing real-world improvement.
The screening tests examine whether an issue materially affects households or communities, whether it creates or alleviates household burden, and whether meaningful action is possible. Issues that fail any screening test do not proceed.
Relevance Test
The issue must materially affect households or communities.
Household Burden Test
The issue must measurably increase or reduce household burden.
Actionability Test
The issue must be something a realistic policy, institution, or community action can address.
If an issue fails any screening test, it does not proceed.
Level 1 — The Four Qualifying Rules
All proposals that pass screening are evaluated against four non-negotiable rules:
Burden reduction without displacement
The proposal must reduce burden without shifting it to another domain, population, place, or the future.
Local verification
Households and communities must be able to verify, on the ground, that burden is actually reduced.
Recoverability
The proposal must remain workable over time and under predictable stress.
Clarity of claim
The claimed improvement must be specific enough to be evaluated and verified.
Failing any rule means the proposal does not pass.
Level 2 — Domain Placement (Where the Intervention Acts)
Domains describe where change is applied, not how institutions are organized. Every proposal must clearly operate in at least one of the following domains:
- Food systems
- Energy systems
- Materials and circular flows (waste, reuse, repair, recycling, local loops)
- Mobility and access
If a proposal cannot be clearly placed in at least one domain in operational terms, it does not pass.
Level 3 — Implementation Method (The Four Steps)
Evaluation proceeds in this required order. Steps are sequential; later steps do not substitute for earlier ones.
- Reduce demandReduce the need for the service, resource, or exposure in the first place.
- Eliminate required throughputsEliminate unnecessary miles, materials, energy, time, or structural load households are forced to carry.
- Redesign for fitChange form, layout, or rules so the system fits household and community reality.
- Reinforce locally, then scaleAdd resilience where failure actually occurs. Scale only after the first three steps are satisfied and verified.
Level 4 — Verification (Did It Work?)
Level 4 closes the loop. No proof, no completion.
S — Situation
Baseline conditions and burdens before action.
O — Outcome
The specific improvement being claimed.
A — Action
What was actually implemented.
P — Proof
Measured burden reduction at the household or community level.
If proof is absent, the loop is not complete.
One-sentence rule:
Sustainability is verified when value returns as lived worth at the household level without displacement.
From Conditions to Analysis
When a definable community problem is identified—one that involves real household burden, cost displacement, or reduced recoverability—we move from general evaluation into Community Cost Analysis. This process allows us to clearly define the extent of the problem, examine possible responses, and determine which actions actually reduce burden rather than shifting it elsewhere.
APPALACHIAN CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES 