LECTURERS NAME: STUDENT NAME: STUDENT NUMBER: COURSE CODE: COURSE NAME: ASSESSMENT NUMBER: ASSESSMENT NAME: TURNITIN

ID: 238768368 Discussion:

GRAEME STUART CRESSIDA BROADHEAD C3104806 SWRK6008 CAPACITY BUILDING IN THE HUMAN SERVICES ASSESSMENT 2 DISCUSSION PAPER

Interventions which take into account and build upon existing community capacities are more likely to be successful in accomplishing desired change than those which are adopted in a more traditional top-down manner (Littlejohns et al, 2001:37)

Over the last two decades, the industrial world has experienced massive economic shifts. Vast disparities in wealth and resources now Global demographic

characterise modern-day life in western societies.

changes have resulted in greater numbers of concentrated areas of poverty in western cities, bringing together large groups that share little in common in terms of culture, language and experience (Delgado 2000). Such radical economic and social change has placed immense pressure on human service organisations in the west, to develop ways of effectively addressing the complex portfolio of social issues that impregnate vulnerable and disadvantaged communities. Additionally, the west increasingly champions the individual (i.e. rather than community) and his/hers ability to be economically independent as opposed to governments and social institutions being held responsible for peoples welfare (MaCashen 2004).
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806

Such
Page | 1

ideology has culminated in regressive social consequences (Mayo 2003) as increasing numbers within the industrialised world are represented through disadvantaged, marginalised groups, in danger of being left behind in society (Hounslow 2002). Many of these deprived community groups are viewed by governments as problems and noted only for their needs and deficiencies. Since the late 1990s, the term community capacity building has been progressively used to define work activities with deprived groups (Craig 2007), carried out through social partnerships between not-for-profit organisations, private business and governments, placing a much greater emphasis on a cross-sector approach (Hounslow 2002). This shift in political ideology was aimed at more effectively addressing social problems, rather than relying solely on state or market interventions (Leonard & Oynx 2004). At the basis of such strategy was the renewed recognition of the potential value of promoting community participation, resulting in a deluge of programmes embracing the concepts of partnership, participation and capacity building, through voluntary community sectors working with both the private and public sectors (Mayo 2003). However, the reality for so

many of these disadvantaged communities is that capacity building programmes have been imposed on them, with perceived needs, desired outcomes and preferred methods part of a package which they have not had the opportunity to identify, develop or agree (FCDL 2004:3). Craig (2007) goes further in stating that many of these initiatives, enforced by governments with predetermined objectives, are simply top-down

interventions that serve to determine the programmes that communities are required to engage in, largely as a condition for receiving funding. Hounslow (2002:23) states that there are very often significant disjunctures between the goals and outcomes set by governments and those preferred by local community organisations. This paper will consider the advantages gained from implementing more bottom-up based approaches, aimed at enhancing capacity within disadvantaged communities. It will consider a strength based approach where community residents organise, assess, mobilise and build
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806 Page | 2

upon their own internal assets and proactively seek to control their own destinies (Gorham & Kingley 1997:366). This form of capacity building

presupposes the existence of strengths or assets as existent in all communities, which counterbalances the deficit prism through which disadvantaged communities and individuals are usually viewed (Hounslow 2002:21). The paper will hopefully demonstrate how interventions which take into account and build upon existing community capacities, i.e. adopt the strengths approach, are more likely to be successful in accomplishing desired change than those which are adopted in a more traditional top-down manner (Littlejohns et al, 2001). Each and every community is a unique body of diversity. To assume communities are homogeneous when developing policy initiatives aimed at helping vulnerable groups, limits the scope of what can be done and fails to embrace the rich diversity gained from a more empowering and participative approach to development. Saleeby (1992:7) states that no matter how a

harsh environment tests the metal of its inhabitants, it can also be understood as a lush topography or resources and possibilities. Craig (2007) speaks of effective capacity building which allows for control within the community itself. The Budapest Declaration (2004) speaks of strengthening civil society, prioritising the perspectives of community members, empowering local communities, strengthening the capacity of people to become active citizens. It talks of entering into shared and respectful dialogue with disadvantaged communities to shape and determine the change they want and to provide each member with a valued voice. Bottom-up approaches to capacity building understand how fundamentally important it is to equip the vulnerable and the disadvantaged with the skills and capacity required to both identify and meet the needs of their particular community. Such approaches do not concentrate on deficit and a prescribed cure, but more on the necessity for positive and empowered change through self -determination (Beazley et al. 2004). This does not however discount the importance of many imposed and
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806 Page | 3

predetermined government initiatives.

In specific situations, top-down

approaches, e.g. legislation and action to control the spread of disease or immunisation programmes, are examples of healthy initiatives (Laverack 2005) developed by governments for the common good of their citizens. Such top-down initiatives are effective for getting clearly defined things done. Both approaches have their correct place, but the two cannot be combined as the philosophies of each are in conflict when transposed against the other (Muirhead 2002). Top-down approaches tend to be prescriptive as opposed to enabling, controlling as opposed to empowering, driven by external agencies as opposed to individuals or communities, start with a grand plan as opposed to developing capacity step-by-step and work from the outside-in as opposed to the inside-out (Muirhead 2002). True capacity building takes time and patience and vision. It cannot be prescribed, it has to grow and be nurtured. Laverack (2005:33), in his work on power and empowerment, defines individual power quite simply as the ability a person has to exercise control or choice. Individuals existing in disadvantaged communities often feel they are powerless, i.e. they experience little leverage on the events and conditions that impinge on their existence. In sum, they feel they are not able to determine the outcomes they seek. These feelings of powerlessness often go hand-in-hand with a destructive sense of ones self and a feeling of hopelessness in gaining social and political influence. Bottom-up

approaches aimed at strengthening capacity within deprived communities are essentially empowering approaches that seek to develop an individuals ability to more effectively identify and control the basis of their power (Laverack 2005). Practitioners involved in building capacity within vulnerable communities who advocate bottom-up approaches, aim to increase other peoples power-from-within, as opposed to dominating them. The objective of the practitioner is to carefully transform power relationships so the submissive person accrues enough power from within to exercise his or her own choices and decisions (Laverack 2005:31).
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806 Page | 4

Building community capacity predominantly acknowledges the objective of achieving community specific outcomes, such as preventing substance abuse, combating domestic violence, developing social capital and improving the skills base amongst its members, etc. However, the

methodological process of capacity building very often contributes to the creation and maintenance of active citizenship and social trust (Hounslow 2002:22). These two elements are essential in the development of

empowered, functioning, healthy communities. All communities possess (to varying degrees) economic and physical capital (e.g. buildings, equipment, etc.), but these are only some of its important resources. Social, intellectual and cultural capital, are also highly valuable resources. It is the positive interdependence of all of these resources that allows for the development of sustainable, strong communities (Lodder 2001). Building capacity not only creates social capital and increased connectedness, but also harnesses these elements. Bottom-up approaches aimed at building capacity within

disadvantaged groups, pre-supposes that everybody in a community is a potential asset and this emphasis on assets creates the conditions for social relationships and networks (both informal and formal) to take root and flourish (Cameron 2000:4). Rather than constantly reiterating the needs

and problems of a community, strengths based approaches aim at recognising possibilities and potential through better understanding peoples skills and interests and harnessing the possibility to build positive connections, i.e. increased social capital (Cameron 2000). Central to the strengths approach is the practice of making an account of the assets, resources, reserves, and capacities within the client and in the environment, i.e. family, extended family, community, neighbourhood, and institutions (churches, schools, and informal associations & organisations), in as much detail as possible in an attempt to build a detailed and descriptive inventory of strengths (Saleebey 2000:134). The approach is internally focused and concentrates on promoting the capacity of individuals and local communities to develop, implement and sustain their
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806 Page | 5

own solutions to problems in a way that helps those communities exercise control over their physical, social, economic and cultural environments (Rogan 2002). The approach is relationship driven through the constant building of relationships among and between community members, associations and organisations. Fundamental to this approach is respect, the respect to work with and facilitate other peoples agendas, the respect for diversity and difference, the respect for the power of the local voice and the will to listen and understand. Real community development can only take place when local community people are committed to investing themselves and their resources in the effort (Kretzmann & McKnight 1993). In return for such commitment, comes a strong sense of belonging and an increased sense of self-esteem, self-confidence and support. Strengthened communities are more able to respond effectively to their health, social & economic needs. Enhancing the strengths and resilience of communities in turn strengthens whole societies (Rogan 2002).

Resiliency has become part of the strengths portfolio. The term has increasingly appeared in social work literature concerned with the traits, virtues and resources people develop and accumulate when confronted with struggle and adverse challenges (Greene & Conrad 2002). As discussed earlier, the strengths approach is driven by the search for and employment of peoples resources in helping them walk, however hesitantly, in the direction of their hopes and dreams (Saleebey 2000:127). This perspective embraces the belief that struggle is rewarded by deeper learning and the development of greater capacity and resources, enabling the individuals to move one step closer to realising those dreams (Rutter 1993). Within social work literature, the concept of resilience is being studied in an attempt to better understand the capacities and resources individuals and communities develop when confronted with difficulty. Saleebey (2000:128) speaks of the value in harnessing peoples compensating and transforming responses to the challenges they confront. We know that disadvantaged and vulnerable communities at times suffer debilitating and overwhelmingly adverse
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806 Page | 6

conditions.

However, research has shown that experiencing such harsh

conditions, very often results in the rise in levels of resolve and resilience. Social work has the potential to harness these strengths if the resources that were called upon that helped individuals survive the struggle, are better understood (Saleebey 2000).

Every individual, family and community possess an array of capacities and skills, talents and gifts, wiles and wisdom, which in the end are the bricks and mortar for change (Saleebey 2000:127). However, it is imperative that community practitioners must be cautious never to ignore the disadvantaged realities of so many vulnerable people and the horrors that people suffer. Mental and physical abuses, in their many guises, are painful, real and damaging, but the strengths approach advocates possibility, the possibility to recover. It does not assume that damaged means damaged forever (Deegan 1996).

There exist certain tensions with regards to capacity building strengths approaches. Hounslow (2002) points out that there is not always a local solution to a local problem, regardless of the strength of capacity within a community. Some problems require government intervention through policy change, political approach and the allocation of required resources. Practitioners must be cautious and realistic when determining the most effective approach for dealing with specific social issues. If there are

disjunctures between the desired outcomes of governments and the local wishes of communities, this poses an incredible responsibility for determining who best reflects community wishes (Hounslow 2002:22). Western

governments have been accused of looking for quick fixes, but practitioners have argued that each success story is unique in itself and cannot simply be replaced somewhere else (Mayo 2003). Mayo (2003) speaks cautiously of her fear that present day community workers are faced with extremely complex social programmes and are expected to achieve very specific outcomes in communities that are becoming increasingly complex and which
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806 Page | 7

pose ever-changing ethical dilemmas.

In this current climate, Mayo warns

that community workers must be provided with greater training and support, if they are to carry out their work effectively and that governments who are serious about promoting community participation and capacity building must value both community practitioners and representatives (Mayo 2003).

It seems logical however, that any social initiative will be more willingly received and successfully implemented, if the recipients of the initiative are involved and embraced. Sustaining workable and positive

change, allowing communities to take more effective and sustainable action upon the priorities most meaningful to them (Littlejohns et al. 2001), is essential in the long-term. To conclude, I will attempt to propose an analogy which I feel illustrates (indirectly) the great potential of the strengths perspective. Let us consider a ten year old car that often breaks down. The mechanic is called upon to fix it. The mechanic knows what is fundamentally wrong, but doesnt have the time or resources to fix the car properly and so carries out numerous botch jobs (i.e. quick-fix policies). The car just about functions, but functions poorly. In the end, the mechanic refuses to fix the car, stating it needs a complete overhaul. Resources are pulled in and the

car is taken apart, bit by bit. Each part is carefully considered and fixed. When each component has had its true potential restored, it is placed back in the car. All pieces are interdependent. When all the components are back in place, the car is returned. The mechanic is energised because he knows he has had the resources and time available to carry out a thorough job. Most importantly, he knows that the car will now continue to function healthily for a long time. Social policy has a responsibility to build on clients strengths

rather than their limitations, through policies that are designed to empower, preserve capacity, freedom and dignity (Chapin 1995).

CressidaBroadhead-C3104806

Page | 8

References: Beazley, M., Griggs, S., & Smith, M., (2004), Rethinking approaches to community capacity building, Mimeo, Birmingham, University of Birmingham The Budapest Declaration, (2004), 'Building Civil Society in Europe through Community Development', International Conference, Budapest 25-28 March 2004 Cameron, J., (2000), Asset-Based Community & Economic Development: Implications for the Social Capital Debate, Article from, Presentation notes for Alison Burton Memorial Lecture, p.1-10 Craig, G., (2007), Community Capacity-building: Something old, something new...?, Critical Social Policy, Vol.27, Nr.3, p.335-359 Deegan, P. E., (1996), Recovery as a journey of the heart, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, Issue.19, p.91-97. FCDL, (2004), Building Civil Renewal: A Review of Government Support for Community Capacity Building and Proposals for Change, Submission from the Federation for Community Development learning, Sheffield Gorham, W. & Kingley, G. T., (1997), The Need for Effective Local Governance, In: U.Kirdar (ed.) Cities Fit for People, United Nations, New York Greene, R. & Conrad, A., (2002), Basic Assumptions and Terms, Article from: Resiliency: an integrated approach to practice, policy and research, Chapter 2, p.29-62 Hounslow, B., (2002), Community capacity building explained. Stronger Families Learning Exchange, Bulletin No.1, Issue: Autumn 2002, p.20-22 Kennedy Chapin, R., (1995), Social Policy Development: Perspective, Social Work, Vol.40, Nr.4, p.506-514 The Strengths

Kretzmann, J. & McKnight, J., (1993), Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Towards Mobilising and Finding a Communitys Assets, The Asset-Based Community Development Institute.
CressidaBroadhead-C3104806 Page | 9

Laverack, G., (2005), Power and empowerment, Public Health: power, empowerment & professional practice, Chapter 3, p.27-39 Leonard, R & Oynx, J., (2004), Social capital & community building: Spinning straw into gold, Introduction, p.1-17 Littlejohns, L. B., Smith, N. & Thompson, D., (2001), Shaking out the cobwebs: insights into community capacity and its relation to health outcomes, Vol.36, Nr.1, January 2001, p.30-41 Lodder, S., (2001), Investing in Social Capital: The Wadeye Story, Article from: Generating service delivery outcomes for Aboriginal Communities,

Community Branch, Department of Family & Community Services, p.1-11 MaCashen, W., (2004), Communities of hope: A strengths based resource for building community, Bendigo, Vic: St. Lukes innovative Resources, Part 2, p.27-42 Mayo, M., (2003), Community Practices: the local and the global, the personal and the political, New Community Quarterly, Vol.1, Nr.4, p.24-31 Rogan, L., (2002), Community capacity building what can it offer Australians who are disadvantaged?,Australian Council of Social Services Rutter, M., (1993), Resilience: Some conceptual considerations, Journal of Adolescent Health, Issue.14, p.626-631 Saleebey, D., (1992), The strengths perspective in social work practice, New York, Longman.
Saleebey, D., (2000), Power in The People: Strengths and Hope, Advances in Social Work, Vol.1, Nr.2 (Fall 2000), p.127-136

CressidaBroadhead-C3104806

Page | 10