Community Capacity Building -  Betty Hounslow

---

Coming to grips with the concept  

�Community capacity  building� has become a central objective in a wide range of public policies and programs in Australia . Most analysts and practitioners in the human services field would count this as a positive development despite the fact that the concept of community capacity� is seldom precisely defined in these policies and programs, and measures to indicate whether or not it has been �built� are only in the developmental stage. Some useful short definitions of �community capacity� in the literature include:  

�   the degree to which a community can develop, implement and sustain actions" which allow it to exert greater control over its physical, social, economic and cultural environments (Littlejohns & Thompson, 2001);  

�   the ability of individuals, organisations and communities to manage their own affairs and to work collectively to foster and sustain positive change (Howe & Cleary, 2001);  

�   a holistic representation of capabilities (those with which the community is endowed and those to which the community has access), plus the facilitators and barriers to realisation of those capabilities in the broader social environment (Jackson et al, 1977).  

On a more concrete level, one application of the concept of capacity building in the health promotion field (Hawe et al, 2000) has defined it in terms of (at least) three activities:  

The promotion of community capacity building recognises that these continuing economic and social transformations will result in an increasingly divided society with even more deeply entrenched pockets of disadvantage in the twenty‑first century ‑ unless new and more effective interventions change the trajectory.

Old wine or new?

In one sense, the ideas behind community capacity building are not new. From the 1970s in Australia , there has been a strong �community development� school in the not‑for‑profit sector aimed at fostering the ability of people to take greater control over their lives and environments through working together for common goals. Many of the aspirations, processes and strategies of community development are also found in the current manifestations of community capacity building.

Some would argue that there is no difference between the older concept of �community development� and newer concept of �community capacity building� (other than the packaging), and that capacity building was always at the heart of good community development practices.

Others believe that, while there is a continuum, a qualitative shift has occurred because community capacity building:

�   places a much greater emphasis on a tri‑partite, cross‑sector approach to tackling social and economic issues (particularly on the involvement of business and the private sector in collaborative work);

�   poses a greater challenge to all three tiers of government (but particularly the federal government) with its explicit demands for �place management� rather than program‑focused management, and for a �bottom‑up and joined‑up� approach to solving multi‑faceted problems (Howe & Cleary, 2001);  

Whatever the merits of the �old wine/new wine� argument, the reality is that community capacity building is now a central plank of public policy and most would agree that this is a positive development.

Some underlying values  

The capacity building approach is an acknowledgement that certain groups and communities have been or are in danger of being �left behind� in our society and that they need to �catch up�. In making this acknowledgement, it implicitly endorses the value of equal opportunity and the desirability of greater social equity.  

In its emphasis on participation and a more collaborative approach between different sectors, it not only reinforces the value of participatory democracy but expands the meaning of democratic governance at all levels (Howe & Cleary, 2001). In effect, it overtakes the concept of "government as steerer, not rower" that dominated public policy in the early to mid‑1990s, and asserts that the steering role should be shared ‑ although the precise dimension of the sharing and of the residual control that should remain with government is often contested territory (see below).  

The concept of capacity building (as opposed to �development�) is also predicated on the conviction that all communities ‑ whether geographic communities or communities of interest ‑have strengths or �assets�. This apparently simple and self‑evident understanding counterbalances the �deficit� prism through which disadvantaged people and communities are usually viewed.  

The assets approach challenges the paternalism inherent in many public policies and programs and in the ways that �professionals� often work with communities. It also recognises that "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 & Thompson, 2001, p.37).  

Connected to this is the proposition that solutions to problems are best developed and implemented by those closest to the problem ‑ a belief succinctly expressed in the phrase "local solutions to local problems" (the name of a sub‑program of the Commonwealth Government�s Strengthening Families and Communities Strategy). Viewed from this perspective, community capacity building is the latest manifestation of decentralisation in public policy.  

Finally, while the main purpose of efforts to build a community�s capacities is often to achieve a specific outcome (such as improving its ability to intervene early to prevent youth homelessness), many practitioners and analysts argue that it is also a desirable end in itself because it contributes to the creation and maintenance of active citizenship and social trust.