Organizational Development
The organizational level focuses on organizations created largely for the purpose of producing goods and services. They include community-based organizations (CBOs), including service providers, local businesses, and development organizations, as well as local branches of larger institutions, including banks, schools, and major retail establishments. Community capacity at this level might be reflected in the ability of such organizations to carry out their functions responsively, effectively, and efficiently as part of the larger system of actors and processes to which they are connected, within and beyond the community. To the extent that organizations can be seen as a component of and mechanism for creating community capacity, criteria for their effectiveness are likely to go beyond a simple accounting of production outputs to incorporate issues of constituent representation, political influence, and the ability to engage in instrumental, inter-organizational relationships (e.g., Glickman and Servon 1997).
Housing & Education
Thousand of community groups are involved in building and renovating affordable housing, an important social service that has profound economic consequences. Neighbourhood-led housing construction helps community members gain shills in turn contributes to family stability and low school transfer rates. Communities with higher levels of homeownership, including cooperative ownership, show reduced crime rates and higher political participation (Weil, 2005). Community development practitioners in this situation can encourage local associations to create educational programs suited to the needs of local people. Local associations may provide more effective job training than is currently provided by formal educational institutions.
Commercial & Industrial Development
Community capacity building often includes various forms of commercial and industrial development, including creation of revolving loan funds, start-up and expansion of local businesses, assistance to micro-entrepreneurs from poor communities and industrial development. To encourage business starts government agencies, foundations, and sometimes banks makes available a lump sum loan or grant to a community group, which sets up a revolving loan fund; the community group can more easily check the credit-worthiness of loan recipients (Rubin & Rubin, 2001). Social workers can assist local businesses to form a local business association that can collaborate with the community economic development agency to formulate strategies for business revitalization. This form of social capital creation has a direct impact on economic development. Their abilities to network and lobby should be used to persuade firms to relocate or invest in the community and to persuade political leaders and financial institutions to support local economic activities. Social workers can also foster links between employers and job seekers through social networks and associations. They can encourage local groups to engage more effectively in job referral activities. Granovetter’s (1974) research has shown that most people use personal network ties to find employment. Although they peruse advertisements as well, networks are the most effective means of finding a job. By creating employment referral networks through local churches, civic associations, and youth and women’s groups, social workers can effectively use social capital to link people with jobs.
The Role of Community Development Practitioners (Social workers)
Social workers can apply their conventional knowledge and skills as community organizers to promote local economic development by using communnity organization techniques to foster social capital formation (Midgley, 1998). These techniques involve:
Ø Defining the target community or population, identifying and analyzing community resources and problems, creating local community agencies, facilitating setting goals and objectives, selecting effective strategies for community action, implementing programs and projects, and evaluating outcomes Ø Bring divergent community members together around common interests and enhance networks and social capital formation. Ø Building coalitions among people and organizations with divergent interests, community. |
|
Rothman's Model of Organizational Development!!
Many macro practitioners are grounded in the three major approaches to community intervention introduced as models by JackRothman in 1968 After revising of his original framework of locality development, social planning, and social action, he provides a more complex interwoven view of the mixed phase modes of community intervention Rothman provides significant analysis of the dilemmas related to the implication of internal and external linkages of locality development, the locus of decision making and community participation in community planning, and the relative kind of goals and tactical means along a continuum from normative to radical , adopted for social action interventions. In 1974, Rothman created a framework for analyzing approaches to community organizing that included identifying (a) the client system, (b) the community orientation to change, (c) the outcomes sought, (d) the change strategies and tactics, (e) the target of change strategies, (f) the social philosophy undergirding the approach, and (g) the nature of the power relationships between community members and the power structure (Weil, 2005)
Critique of Rothman’s model
Using Lum's cultural competence components to assess Rothman's framework, it is apparent that he does not identify the cultural origins of his framework, nor does he describe his world view. That said, other scholars consider his framework to be based on analysis of the work of organizers of European descent (Bradshaw, Soifer, & Gutierrez, 1994; Weil,1996). Weil notes that Rothman's models are not unique in this regard, as there is insufficient literature available that details the culture-based organizing approaches of people who are not of European descent. Rivera and Erlich (1997) would seemingly agree as, they call standard community models color blind and lament that purveyors of the models seem to assume that the models are applicable in any community. In this regard, Rothman's framework does not reflect cultural self awareness.
Assets Based Organizing
Assets based organizing (Kretzmann & Mcknight, 1993) is focused on identifying and deploying the internal human and institutional assets of disadvantaged communities to bring about change in community problems. Kretzmann and McKnight reveal some of their perspective in their criticism of other organizing methods that focus on the deficits and needs of communities. The key organizing methods used in this model are door-to-door canvassing, developing maps “of the community's assets, capacities and abilities,” and the connection of these assets “in ways that multiply their power and effectiveness” (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Under their model, cultural frames of reference may be a community asset, but they do not specify how culture should be used in organizing, and culture does not appear to be key a factor for formulating interventions. Thus, Kretzmann and Mcknight's work would seeming fall into a preliminary level of pre-competence, as their model reflects an awareness of the influence of culture and encourages organizers to consider using culture as an organizing tool. However, their assets-based organizing model does not itself build cultural knowledge and does not discuss strategies for employing culture in organizing.
Here the role of Community practitioners is to:
Ø Promote economic revitalization of communities
Ø Direct social capital specifically towards economic activities.
Ø Recruiting participants from all segments of the community.
Ø Collaborate with urban planners, political leaders, and local community members concerned with local economic development.
Ø Work with other professionals, social workers to create new enterprises and strengthen existing businesses.
Ø Assist local businesses to form a local business association that can collaborate with the community economic development agency to formulate strategies for business revitalization.
Ø Attract greater external investment.
Ø Persuade firms to relocate or invest in the community and to persuade political leaders and financial institutions to support local economic activities.
Ø Foster links between employers and job seekers through social networks and associations.
Ø Encourage local groups to engage more effectively in job referral activities.
Critique of Rothman’s model
Using Lum's cultural competence components to assess Rothman's framework, it is apparent that he does not identify the cultural origins of his framework, nor does he describe his world view. That said, other scholars consider his framework to be based on analysis of the work of organizers of European descent (Bradshaw, Soifer, & Gutierrez, 1994; Weil,1996). Weil notes that Rothman's models are not unique in this regard, as there is insufficient literature available that details the culture-based organizing approaches of people who are not of European descent. Rivera and Erlich (1997) would seemingly agree as, they call standard community models color blind and lament that purveyors of the models seem to assume that the models are applicable in any community. In this regard, Rothman's framework does not reflect cultural self awareness.
Assets Based Organizing
Assets based organizing (Kretzmann & Mcknight, 1993) is focused on identifying and deploying the internal human and institutional assets of disadvantaged communities to bring about change in community problems. Kretzmann and McKnight reveal some of their perspective in their criticism of other organizing methods that focus on the deficits and needs of communities. The key organizing methods used in this model are door-to-door canvassing, developing maps “of the community's assets, capacities and abilities,” and the connection of these assets “in ways that multiply their power and effectiveness” (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993). Under their model, cultural frames of reference may be a community asset, but they do not specify how culture should be used in organizing, and culture does not appear to be key a factor for formulating interventions. Thus, Kretzmann and Mcknight's work would seeming fall into a preliminary level of pre-competence, as their model reflects an awareness of the influence of culture and encourages organizers to consider using culture as an organizing tool. However, their assets-based organizing model does not itself build cultural knowledge and does not discuss strategies for employing culture in organizing.
Here the role of Community practitioners is to:
Ø Promote economic revitalization of communities
Ø Direct social capital specifically towards economic activities.
Ø Recruiting participants from all segments of the community.
Ø Collaborate with urban planners, political leaders, and local community members concerned with local economic development.
Ø Work with other professionals, social workers to create new enterprises and strengthen existing businesses.
Ø Assist local businesses to form a local business association that can collaborate with the community economic development agency to formulate strategies for business revitalization.
Ø Attract greater external investment.
Ø Persuade firms to relocate or invest in the community and to persuade political leaders and financial institutions to support local economic activities.
Ø Foster links between employers and job seekers through social networks and associations.
Ø Encourage local groups to engage more effectively in job referral activities.
Organization Development Through Participatory Model of Community Capacity Building
The aim community organizational development is to stimulate the local community to evaluate, plan and coordinate efforts to provide for the community’s health, welfare, and recreation needs. Since every community is different and has its own history and ways of doing things there are no fit model or strategies to address all communities’ capacity building endeavour. However, most critically needed are methods of carrying out planning with communities through a strongly participatory process to promote social and economic development and create neighbourhood supports that can improve quality of life.
In 1950s, Murray Ross articulated a very participatory model and in fact viewed larger or more centralized social planning as useful for social welfare and program development. Ross sharply separated planning done for neighbourhood or communities by government expert from effort undertaken with communities and saw the process as an essential component of community planning practice. He specified planning and development methods for work with community groups that focused primary on developing local leadership and building strongly participatory processes; efforts that might now be called “Community driven.” According to Murray Ross the "process of self help and communal action is valuable in its own right". The model of locality development is based on this particular thought process. It originated from the traditional community organization practice. The main focus of this model is whole community or a part of it. The basic belief is that communities have some common needs and interests and once the people realize this need and work together democratically they can take appropriate steps to improve the quality of life. UNDP and FAO.
Here the role of Community practitioners is to:
Ø Create new social relationships and associations and strengthen people’s participation in community affairs.
Ø Building relationships among individuals from different social classes and ethnicities, to increase the density of social networks.
Ø Encourage disenfranchised individuals to become involved in civic life by creating associations that value divergent views and address concerns that affect diverse constituencies
Ø Facilitate community meetings and discussions at church, youth, women’s and other local groups.
Ø Stimulate greater local involvement in small business development.
In 1950s, Murray Ross articulated a very participatory model and in fact viewed larger or more centralized social planning as useful for social welfare and program development. Ross sharply separated planning done for neighbourhood or communities by government expert from effort undertaken with communities and saw the process as an essential component of community planning practice. He specified planning and development methods for work with community groups that focused primary on developing local leadership and building strongly participatory processes; efforts that might now be called “Community driven.” According to Murray Ross the "process of self help and communal action is valuable in its own right". The model of locality development is based on this particular thought process. It originated from the traditional community organization practice. The main focus of this model is whole community or a part of it. The basic belief is that communities have some common needs and interests and once the people realize this need and work together democratically they can take appropriate steps to improve the quality of life. UNDP and FAO.
Here the role of Community practitioners is to:
Ø Create new social relationships and associations and strengthen people’s participation in community affairs.
Ø Building relationships among individuals from different social classes and ethnicities, to increase the density of social networks.
Ø Encourage disenfranchised individuals to become involved in civic life by creating associations that value divergent views and address concerns that affect diverse constituencies
Ø Facilitate community meetings and discussions at church, youth, women’s and other local groups.
Ø Stimulate greater local involvement in small business development.