In response to the anonymous poster mentioned in Alison's message, and
Theresa Schumilas' subsequent posting, a few thought re community development
and capacity-building ...
I agree with Theresa that the term "community development" (much like health
promotion, participation and even empowerment) has been hijacked, misused -- or
loosely used -- to the point where it has become virtually meaningless. This is
something I thought about a lot when working with a CHC to develop a preliminary
framework for evaluating community development outcomes, and attempting to do
so from a capacity-building rather than a deficit/needs-reduction perspective. At
some points I too found myself wondering what, if any, difference there was
between capacity-building and community development (and even between
community empowerment and community development).
*CD vs Community-based Programming -- distinguishable in practice?
Labonte (1993) distinguishes between "community development", in which
community is the locus for organizing efforts to shift broader socio-economic
policies and practices, and "community-based programming", where the
community is the venue for health behaviour programs but does not set the
agenda. So, while community-based programming is oriented more towards a
needs-deficit approach (a problem to be solved), CD emphasizes strength and
competence, with the main vehicles for health promotion and change being building
community and control, increasing resources and capacity, and effecting political
and economic change (Boutilier et al., 1997).
Theresa seems to be saying that this is all fine on paper, but in practice most CD
ends up looking more like community-based programming, i.e., with a problem
orientation -- the "problem" being diagnosed by, or under the influence of,
outsiders. The reasons for this, she suggests, include an entrenched paternalism
and unwillingness to accept a "power- with" vs a "power-over" approach, reluctance
among some workers to give up the "expert" role, and a propensity to turf wars and
inter-agency competition. (Sadly, there are good reasons why these things happen
-- monies being earmarked or tagged by funding agencies for certain issues,
inadequate training/preparation for new roles, a political/economic climate that
fuels competitiveness, insecurity and a preoccupation with scarcity. The net effect
has been to inhibit "true" community development from happening on the scale
needed.)
**The limits of CD
Theresa implies that investing all this effort and time in CD doesn't seem to be
getting us anywhere, and she lists some changes she would have expected to see
if it was working. The sad part about local efforts, no matter how intensive or
well-intentioned they may be, is that they often cannot solve or rectify commmunity
problems that are rooted in decisions and institutions outside the community -- "the
major forces affecting local communities are not local, but largely social, political
and economic" (Checkoway, 1995). The CD effort itself may not be lacking. It's just
that the changes required are just too humungous, and extend to systems and
structures which lie at the very foundations of our society..
Perhaps (as Theresa implies) genuine CD is threatening to the powers-that-be,
despite what Ravitz (1982) calls the "pious rhetoric". As he notes: "There are sound
and reasonable motives for those in power at whatever level to distrust, or dilute,
or oppose genuine community development." CD can be diluted by the imposition
of an array of administrative controls on agencies, which limit their effectiveness
(Kuyek, 1994) -- such controls may include making money available for special
short term projects (rather than long term funding); shifting the criteria regularly;
determining issues and goals at the outset of a project so that they cannot evolve
out of a community consultation and action process; creating accountability forms
and procedures that take long periods of staff time to complete; allocating funds so
that groups who should ally with one another compete for the same funds; and
requiring outputs to be measurable in quantitative terms. This kind of "death by a
thousand cuts" will ring familiar to many in the field.
***What's in a name?
Will giving CD a new name change these things? Probably not. Their roots run
deep. And there is a danger that renaming CD may inadvertently open the door for
the powers-that- be to throw out even the pious rhetoric, redefining and
circumscribing CD so that it becomes "officially" indistinguishable from
community-based programming -- which is not necessarily about building up "the
strength to respond and the freedom to determine the response" (what a
wonderfully simple and evocative phrase). You may say this doesn't matter, since
we're not doing the genuine CD anyway, but wouldn't we still rather have the ideal,
the vision to aim for, and the definition to back us up?
****Individual and community outcomes
Also, I can't help feeling that something is lost when we lump personal skills
development (individuals) in with community development (collectivities) under the
one rubric of capacity-building, even though in a generic sense they are both about
building people's potential to deal with issues effectively. There is obviously
some overlap since a community is made up of individuals. But the whole is more
than the sum of its parts, so we aren't just talking about the same change but on a
different scale. Individual behaviour/attitude/ knowledge change differs
qualitatively from the kinds of changes to structures, relationships and processes
sought by community development.
Hawe (1994) suggests that the way we conceive of community is seminally
important. If we view it no more than an aggregate of individuals, then the
outcomes we will concentrate on tracking will be "summed-up" changes in
individuals (e.g., changes in smoking rates). But if we conceive of community as
"a social system with capacity to work towards solutions to self-identified
problems", our intervention will aim to achieve more than this. It will seek to
"harness and enhance the natural problem-solving and helping processes in the
community, with the evaluation attempting to capture, as outcomes, changes in
community processes and structures".
Dixon and Sindall (1994) also stress the importance of indicators that relate to
collectivities and social relationships, rather than modified behavioural psychology
indicators aimed at judging shifts in individual problem status. Like Theresa, they
believe that a "problem focus" can lead to demoralization and victimization among
community members. In the same vein, Dixon (1995) calls for indicators that
reflect a movement towards a state of affairs valued by the community, rather than
a movement away from a professionally defined problem state or pathological
condition. Wharf (1996) notes the recent erosion of community capacity and the
reframing of public issues into private troubles which are then dealth with on a
case by case basis -- a collective capacity focus may assist CD workers to
conceive of themselves less as problem fixers (experts) than as
nurturer/supporters.
*****Dimensions and definitions
They state that community development and organizational experts (the e-word
again -- it keeps turning up, even in 1998), funding agencies and implementing
organizations "all share the view that community capacity is a necessary condition
for ... effective community-based health promotion and disease prevention
programs". Participants in a symposium on the subject of community capacity
stressed that (pre-intervention) assessments should emphasize community assets
to address the "presenting health concerns", rather than focusing exclusively on
risks, needs or other deficits.
The Goodman article lists some preliminary/tentative dimensions of community
capacity as follows: participation and leadership, skills, resources, social and
interorganizational networks, sense of community, understanding of community
history, community power, community values and critical reflection. Taken
together, these suggest that more is involved than aggregated changes at the
individual level.
There is a difference between potential to act (capacity) and actually using that
potential (action). Is capacity-building the end or the means in health promotion?
Only the means, surely. The term "community development" seems to me to go
that extra step, implying not only a process, but a longer-term outcome.
Interestingly, even though the Goodman article identifies community capacity as a
"condition", it also cites two starting definitions of the term used by symposium
participants. The first is more static and condition-like, and more about potential --
"the characteristics of communities that affect their ability to identify, mobilize and
address social and public health problems"; the second seems more like a
definition of "community capacity-building" (as process) than "community capacity"
(as condition), in that it goes beyond the idea of a state of readiness and includes
an action dimension (both before and after attainment of that state of readiness) --
"cultivation and use of transferable knowledge, skills, systems and resources that
affect community and individual changes consistent with public health-related
goals and objectives". (Note, not necessarily community goals and objectives). It
is not clear from the article which definition, if either, won the day at the
symposium, but the authors conclude that community capacity is a complex,
multidimensional, dynamic concept, and "a construct that has different meanings in
different contexts".)
Perhaps community capacity-building and community development are different
points along a single continuum. Baker and Teaser-Polk (1998) pose the question
whether certain dimensions of capacity are differentially important in different
stages of development within a community, and across different levels of
community. In the setting where I was working, community development was
viewed as a process in which communities gradually expand the options available
to them, and by so doing, improve their health prospects (this leaves room for a
range of outcomes -- e.g., individual and community skill-building, strengthening of
community ties, and structural change (e.g., successful lobbying for a supportive
policy).
******So what?
I'm not sure where all this leaves us. Would be interested to hear other views on
this issue, which I believe has very important implications for the evaluation of
outcomes in community development initiatives. Thanks to anyone who managed
to wade through this.
REFERENCES
Baker, Elizabeth A. and Teaser-Polk, Charlene. (1998) "Measuring community
capacity: where do we go from here?" Health Education and Behavior, 25(3):
279-283.
Boutilier, M. Cleverly, S., and R. Labonte. "The community as a setting for health
promotion." In Poland, B., Green, L. Rootman, I. Settings for Health Promotion:
Linking Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Checkoway, Barry. (1995) "Six strategies of community change." Community
Development Journal, 30(1): 2-20. (January 1995).
Dixon, Jane. (1989) "The limits and potential of community development for
personal and social change." Community Health Studies, 13(1): 82-91.
Dixon, Jane. (1995) "Community stories and indicators for evaluating community
development." Community Development Journal, 30(4): 327-336.
Dixon, Jane, and Sindall, Colin. (1994) "Applying logics of change to the evaluation
of community development in health promotion." Health Promotion International,
9(4): 297-309.
Goodman, R.M., Speers, M.A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S. et al. (1998) "Identifying and
defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for
measurement." Health Education and Behavior, 25(3): 258-278.
Hawe, Penelope. (1994) "Capturing the meaning of 'community ' in community
intervention evaluation: some contributions from community psychology." Health
Promotion International, 9(3): 199-210.
Kuyek, J. (1992) Fighting for Hope. Montreal: Black Rose.
Labonte, Ronald. (1994) "Health promotion and empowerment: reflections on
professional practice". Health Education Quarterly, 21(2): 253-268 (Summer 1994).
Ravitz, Mel. (1982) "Community development: the challenge of the eighties."
Journal of the Community Development Society, 13(2): 1-10.
Wharf, Brian (1996) "A Canadian view of Australian community development."
Community Development Journal, 31(3): 265-268. July 1996.
Wilkinson, Richard G. (1996) Unhealthy Societies: Afflictions of Inequality. London:
Routledge.
|
