PRELIM

TOPIC 1: Review of Perspectives on social welfare and development:

a) Social Work Administration;

b) Social Planning;

c) Sustainable Development;

d) Participatory Development;

e) Goal oriented Project Management

f) Gender and Women in Development

g) Empowerment and Resiliency Model

h) Rights Based Approach

i) Strengths Based Perspectives

a) Social Work Administration

1.1 Concept of Administration in Study of Social Work
Modern nations are based on democratic principles and ideologies of public welfare. The
principles of people’s participation in governmental work and policy for people’s welfare generated and
activated governmental work and involved the government for encouraged more and more social welfare for
the common mass. Basically the developing countries implemented different social policies for the weaker
sections to get into national mainstream of socio-economic development This demanded state intervention
and the concept of welfare signifies wide sense of socio-economic development came into existence. In India,
after independence with the advancement of Planning Commissions’ work, a number of voluntary
organizations were come into existence.
The applications of management into voluntary organizations are became demand and necessary.
The administrative theories were not new to Organizational Functions in connection to social scientists;
they developed a number of theories to suit the Social Welfare Organizational work. Previously these
theories were considered as the back bone of “Public Administration”. The importance of
administration came to lime light. If we define the “Administration” then we have to search its origin. The
word “Administer” is derived the Latin word “ad” and ‘ministrate’. This means to “to ministrate to”,” to serve”
or “to manage”. The Dictionary meaning of administration is the management not only the management
affairs, rather it has universal application in nature in all the organizational discipline.
This is true to the sense, for any developmental work an organization is necessary and for running an
organization for people’s development, planning is necessary decision, recruitment of good staffs, budgets are
the associated elements which make success the organizational work. Thus different views and comments
were related as:
1. One group (Integral) viewed that all activities like physical, psychological, clerical, and managerial
attaining the purpose comprise administration, Where as
2. Managerial view suggested that only administration is concerned with the management, direction,
supervision and control of human being are to next. In simply it says for a definite objective, individuals
brought together and it is the need of application of administration as “doing the work” properly.
 The persons who are responsible they are in charge of ordering, forwarding and facilitating with a joint
initiation for achieving the goal needs to work under an administration purview. As we say earlier that
profession of social work is now no more limited to a person or a group only. Major social problems now
professionally handled by constructive and creative projects and programs. If there will no implementing
agency how we can handle the situation professionally. We are using the term “Professionally” which is a
present time demand. It means that “Skill Development” is necessary and adaptation of knowledge and skill
development of the profession for the solutions of the social problems depends upon the effective and
efficient functioning of executives related to administrative success.
Administrative principles intervention into social welfare organizational work requires
knowledge, skill and attitudes development among the executives who will handle the objective of an
organization successfully and effectively. It is a process which transforms community resources into
programmed of community service. This transformation is according to goals, policies and standards which
have been agreed upon by those involved into organizational work. The administrative skills prepare the social
work practitioner to play his role as A. Organizational Employee B. Professional Service Provider C. playing
different role as supervisor, supervisee, staffs etc.
 Thus administration of social agencies translates the provisions of social legislation into law and
effectively practices it through proper planning and decision making to establish an organization. This is
a process of attaining objectives of system of co-ordination and cooperative effort. So administration is
a process of defining and attaining the objectives of an organization. It processes the polices and taken
the decision which not only affect the present functioning but also directed the future. In this
context Skidmore have more emphasized about “Social Work Administration” that “in action of staff
members who utilize social processes to transform in social policies of agencies into the delivery of
social service. The basic processes most often used are planning, organizing, staffing, directing
and controlling,”

For a Social Work Student (Basic Points to remember)

1.Need of Planning for an Organization
2.Need of Organizational policy
3.Need of Good Staffs
4.Need of Recruitment
5.Need of Mobilizing Funds through Budget
6.Evaluating Outcomes and observe effective action plan.
7.Observing various structure of Organization and their aims.
Before going to study “Social Work Administration, primarily a social work student must understand
the need of “Social Policy” for solution of a “Social Problem”. For an example after Nirbhyas Sex Exploitation
Case in New Delhi socio-legal condition demanded the need of more policy for “Rape Victims” in India .But
only policy cannot solve the problem .An organizational set up is necessary to implement these polices,
otherwise we cannot reach the goal and proper social welfare cannot be possible without effective
implementation of administration .From local level to state level, state level to international level
effective administration can attain goal of human development positively.
The dictionary meaning of administration is the management of affairs. Thus, the meaning of administer to
manage or direct of serve. However, in order to render social services to the needy sections of the population,
one requires not merely devotion and dedication but method, organization, administrative efficiency and
adequate knowledge of budgeting, accounting, public relations, etc. The spending of public money, involves
accountability. Both the governmental official and the voluntary worker have to underset and this through
effective administration. In this paper a social work student gained the knowledge of theoretical knowledge of
how to run an organization as well as observe various organizations administrative structure and functions.

Definitions of Social Work Administration

1. Beavers (1950): Administration “as the processes of means by which the aims of an organization are
determined, plans made for achieving these aims and the plans carried out”.
2. Tead (1939): “Administration is the process of direction, oversight, coordination and stimulation in an
agency designed to carry out some agreed purpose with economy and effectiveness in the means employed
(material and personnel) and with all possible regard for the claims of the individuals involved”.
3. Leopard Maya (1945): Administration may be defined “as the determination and clarification of function;
the formulation of policies and procedures; the delegation of authority; the selection, supervision and
appropriate resources to the end so that the purposes of the agency may be fulfilled”.
4. Arlien Johnson (1947): Administration as “a process and method by which objectives of program are
transformed into reality through a structure and a mode of operation that make possible the coordinated and
unified work of people in the movement towards the defined objectives”.
5. Kidneigh (1950): Administration “as the process of transforming social policy into social services a two-way
process (1) transforming policy into concrete social services and (2) the use of experience in recommending
modification of policy”.
6. Spenser (1950): “Administration is the conscious direction of the internal relationships and activities of
enterprise towards the achievement of goals”. She also outlines that it encompasses” the conscious
intervention in the interaction forces operating between the agency and the larger community of which it is a
part”.
7. Friedlander (1955): “Administration of social agencies translates the provisions of social legislation and the
aims of private philanthropy and religious charities into the dynamics of services and benefits of humanity”.
8. Dunham (1962): “Administration as the process of “supporting or facilitating activities which are necessary
and incidental to the giving of direct service by a social agency. Administrative activities range from the
determination of function and policies, and executive leadership to routine operations such as
keeping records and accounts and carrying on maintenance services””.

9. Stein (1970): Administration “as process of defining and attaining the objectives of an organization through
a system of coordinated and cooperative effort”.

Points about social work administration:

1.Administration is a dynamic process keeps its continuity of reaching the goal.
2.The administrative process goes on for meeting a common purpose or goal.
3.Planning, organizing, leadership, decision making, authority and communication are essential ingredients of
administrative process.
In other organizations, the objectives will be different but in Social Work Administration the objectives
are always people’s development as whole.

1.2. Scope of Social Work Administration

 Social work administration has developed since last three decades in our country is not a new concept.
After independent, the voluntary agencies need social work administration to implement various social
policies and processes for public welfare. It was felt that there was an absence of any useful principles and
laws which could provide guidelines to our field workers and administers who are dealing social work as their
profession and manage their organization which are dedicated for public welfare. In one-word Social Work
Administration provided guidelines to social workers and trained them for a managerial look in social work
field.
It is evident from the above discussions of the discipline of social work administration
attempted above that its scope is very wide and the areas constituting the subject matter of
this study are increasing every day due to the emergence of new social problems in the dynamic
society such as population explosion , relief and rehabilitation of migrants on account of militants
activities , gas leak accidents dowry deaths and drug addiction etc. and the consequent increasing
responsibilities of the government and voluntary agencies in finding solutions for them.
The contents of social welfare administration are a variegated nature and it tasks are numerous. It is
primarily concerned with
(a) Social Problems-the diagnosis of their cause and their treatment through social reform and social
legislation.
(b) Detection of the reasons for the ineffectiveness of laws enacted for combating social evils and vices and
suggesting measures to make them effective mainly through the creation of public consciousness and opinion
in regard to the social problems.
(c) Social Services aiming at the wellbeing of the general public through the provision of health, education,
housing etc. and the upliftment of the disadvantaged and underprivileged and vulnerable sections of society
such as women and children, the old and the inform, the disabled and the handicapped.
(d) Social Security to compensate for the loss of income due to employment, disability, or death caused by
accident and old age through social insurance and social assistance.
(e) Social work helping people to solve their personal, family and community problems through enhancing
social functioning by methods of case work, group work and community organization and enabling
process of research and administration
(f) Social policy delineating the aims and objectives and the goals to be achieved for the welfare of the clientele
concerned through social action.
(g) Welfare administration related to organizational and administrative structure in state level and local level.

1.3. Management Applications in Social Work Administration. Or professionally handle the social problem
with administrative techniques.
Social work administration is the study and management of various social services, both statutory and
voluntary, which are made available to the individuals in the setting family, group and community relations for
the purpose of preventing, alleviation or contributing to the solution of recognized social problems so as to
improve the wellbeing of individuals, groups and communities. Thus, social work administration is a
cooperative and coordinated endeavor involving all members of an organization, each of whom contributes in
varied manners to the processes of goal formulation, planning, implementation, change and evaluation.
Management is cooperative endeavor for achieving a particular objective. It is regarded as collective
utilization of human resources and material in effort to reach the known goal. According to Koonz and
O’Donnel, managing is the creation and maintenance of an internal environment in an enterprise
where individuals, working together in groups, can perform efficiently and effectively toward the attainment
of group goals. Managing could, then be called “performance environment design”. Essentially, managing is
the art of doing and management is the body of organized knowledge which underlines this art.

(Differences)
1. Social work administration identifies with public, not for profit endeavors and management with the
business sector.
2. Social work administration conveys the idea of tending to or taking care of the needs of poor or sick while
management takes the care of wishes of consumers based on profit motive.
3. Social work administration can be interpreted as helping, nurturing or enabling function while management
conveys notions of control, direction and dominance.
4. Social work administration meets the philosophical orientation of a service profession like social work while
management fulfils the philosophy of getting more and more gain.
5. In social work administration democratic processes, participation and collaboration are valued
while in management domination and manipulation for getting personal gain are not alien.
Besides these differences between social work administration and management, they are coming
closer since authority is inherent in both and management incorporates a concern with participatory
decision making and the delegation and, where necessary, the decentralization of authority. Since social work
administration is a systematic process of intervention employed by administrators in service of achieving
organizational objectives, management practices in forms of tasks and activities are carried by persons
managing agencies.
These tasks are performed to create and sustain an organization’s capability for effective and efficient
delivery. These are as follows:
1. Programs are planned and developed.
2. Financial and other needed resources are required and necessary support from groups and organizations
are sought.
3. Organizational structures and processes are designed.
4. Staff capability is developed and maintained.
5. Agency’s programs are assessed.

Social Work Administrator

Understanding the big picture is imperative for those working in social work administration. Social
workers in administration roles work at the macro level, with a focus on the future. Administrators are
decision makers, concerned about the well-being of a total system versus one particular client. Working at the
macro level may not include as much face-to-face interaction with clients but it is every bit as critical as
providing direct services.

Social work administration requires knowledge about social policy and the delivery of social services.
Administrators must have an understanding of human behavior, a commitment to social work ethics and
values, and a vision for the future.

Become a Social Work Administrator

 Given the varied responsibilities of a social work administrator, the job requires a broad understanding of many
different areas.

Some essential skills that social work administrators must possess include:

 Developing budgets
 Understanding the needs of various populations
 The development of programs
 Evaluating the efficacy of existing programs
 Identifying areas where more support is needed
 Developing social work policies and regulations
 Managing community outreach initiatives
 Fine-tuning the delivery of programs
Social work administrators must also have an understanding of social services, human behavior and social
problems, as this role is still rooted in its commitment to being consumer-oriented and servicing
disenfranchised populations. It’s vital for prospective administrators to have a sophisticated understanding of
business and leadership skills.

What do social work administrators do?

Today’s agencies and human services organizations are more complex to run than traditional
businesses. A social work administrator steers the direction of an organization, working on budgets, designing
programs to fulfill the needs of the population, evaluating the efficacy of existing programs, identifying areas
that lack support, managing overarching strategy for the community or department, and working on policies.

Social work administration is a rewarding field that allows social workers to make a difference in the
communities they serve.

Social Work Administration Jobs

Those with a background in social work administration possess a unique skill set that enables them to
access a diverse range of positions. Some jobs particularly suited to those specializing in social work
administration include leadership or directive roles in:

 Family service agencies

 Child welfare departments
 Social service agencies
 School personnel departments
 Area agencies on aging
 State mental health departments
 Employee assistance programs
 Probation departments
 Hospitals and home health care agencies
 Public welfare agencies
 b) Social Planning
Introduction

Social planning practice is complex and diverse. A brief literature review reveals that it has been
practiced within a diversity of interrelated fields during the past century (Kahn, 1969), some of the most noted
being social work and community organization (Lauffer, 1978; Perlman & Gurin, 1972), social policy
development, social welfare (Townsend, 1975; Webb & Wistow, 1987; Walker, 1984), social service planning
(Moffatt, George, Lee & McGrath, 1999), land use planning/physical planning (Perloff, 1963; Gans, 1968; Park,
1935; Paris, 1982; Mumford, 1946) and social development (Midgley, 1995; Hodge, 1975; Gore, 2003). Social
planning has been conducted in one form or another by governments at all levels and of all political
persuasions, corporations, not-for-profit community organizations, and communities (Moffatt et al., 1999).
While widespread, its practice is also grounded in the urban context. As Park noted in 1935, social planning is
“as old as politics and like politics, had its origin in the city, in the polis, and in the problems of civilized and
sophisticated existence such as the conditions of city life permit and enforce” (p.19).

The scope of practices carried out in the name of social planning is vast and constantly changing (see
for example Lauffer, 1978; Perlman & Gurin, 1972; Townsend, 1975; Webb & Wistow, 1987; Walker, 1984;
Perloff, 1963; Gans, 1968; Park, 1935; Midgley, 1995; Hodge, 1975; Gore, 2003). The forces impacting on its
practice and defining its scope have also been diverse. Given Moffat’s suggestion that social planning operates
as an “instrument of … democracy” (Moffatt et al., 1999, p. 312), it is not surprising that shifting political and
economic conditions have been influenced the scope of social planning practice. Park for example, refers to
the rise of social planning in the early 1930s as “the new vogue” (Park, 1935, p.19), and others suggest that
the practice was a response to world economic crisis, lack of faith in free market forces and need for greater
regulation through planning (Moggridge, 1982, p.84; Keynes, 1926; Mannheim, 1948; Remmling, 1975, p. 83-
103). Conversely, as Bromley (2003) argues, the emergence of Thatcherism and Neoliberalism in the late
1970s and during the 1980s, marked a dramatic shift away from the role of social planning in government as
the political context created “an ideological climate in which planning for societal transformation or
redistribution seemed subversive rather than reformist” (2003, p.827).

The shifting landscape of social planning practice has also been influenced by changes in emerging
forms of knowledge. In particular, the shift in the latter half of the 20th century away from the dominance of
expert driven social science based knowledge towards a more pluralistic approach to knowledge – involving
such processes as community engagement – has been particularly influential (Merrifield & Swyngedouw,
1997; Smith, 1997; Forester, 1989; Harvey, 1973). Other significant shifts relate to the changing landscape of
planning generally, in particular, ongoing attempts to develop the social dimension of urban planning, argued
by many to have been previously dominated by physical planning doctrine (see for example Simmie, 1974;
Simmie, Tranmer, & Scheltingar-Koopman, 1973; Paris, 1982; Harvey, 1973; Duhl, 1963; Gans, 1968; Gilbert &
Specht, 1977). Earlier attempts to link social planning and urban planning were later supported by the
emergence of such frameworks as communicative planning (Healey, 1996), integrated planning (Sansom,
1993) and more recently sustainability (Prior, 2008; Sansom, 1993).
Where and how social planners work

Professional social planners are found in many government and other settings and fill numerous roles.
They have been involved in the development of legislation, evaluation of social programs, creation of
designs or models for service delivery, and in the development of advisory committees and policy boards
related to the development of human service programs. At the sub-state and community levels, they may be
employed by agencies under governmental or voluntary auspices. Frequently, they are engaged in planning
activities aimed at specific service sectors or populations – such as the judicial system, health care, mental
health, or youth services, to name just a few. Others are employed by direct service agencies or by local
government, frequently commenting on the social impact of urban planning.

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY SOCIAL PLANNING AND POLICY CHANGE?

Social planning is the process by which policymakers - legislators, government agencies, planners, and,
often, funders - try to solve community problems or improve conditions in the community by devising and
implementing policies intended to have certain results.  These policies may take the form of laws, regulations,
incentives, media campaigns, programs or services, information - a wide range of possibilities.  A community
or state Board of Health that adopts a regulation banning smoking in particular places, for example, is trying
both to protect the public from second-hand smoke and to reduce smoking in general.

There is a long history in the U.S. and elsewhere of social planning. Traditionally, this has meant that
policymakers decided what they thought was good for a community or a population, and imposed policy that
was meant to bring about the results they wanted.  At best, this has meant programs that benefited large
numbers of people - Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Head Start, various public health programs.  At worst,
social planning has been used largely for the benefit - economic or political - of the policymakers and their
friends and supporters.

In other cases, well-intentioned planning has led to negative consequences. Urban renewal in the
1950s and '60s, for instance, by clearing "slum" neighborhoods, was meant to make cities into better places to
live - safer, more attractive, and economically healthier. In fact, it often had that effect only for the people
who moved into new housing and businesses after the original population had been displaced, and given
nowhere else to go.  In many cases, it destroyed vital, unblighted communities.

Perhaps the most famous instance of this was the leveling of Boston's West End, an immigrant and
first-generation neighborhood profiled in The Urban Villagers, a well-known sociological study by Herbert Gans
(ironically, first published in 1962, two years after the neighborhood had disappeared).  Gans showed how this
urban neighborhood functioned like a rural village, with social structures and institutions that made for a
strong sense of community, even in the midst of a large, 20th Century city.  Generations of immigrants,
particularly Italians and Eastern European Jews, had become Americans there, while retaining their cultural
and family ties.

Far from being blighted, although it was composed largely of tenements, the neighborhood was a true
community with a colorful and lively street life, beloved by its residents.  It was knocked down and replaced by
a luxury apartment complex bounded by highways and surrounded by a chain-link fence.  A sign next to the
apartment complex, meant to be seen by people stuck in traffic on one of the highways, reads "If you lived
here, you'd be home now."  The residents of the West End had been "home now."  The fact that, 50 years
later, those surviving still publish a newsletter and hold reunions demonstrates just how out of touch the
planners were with what was "good for" them.
Social planning, however, doesn't have to take a wholly top-down form.  Starting in the 1960's, many
social programs carried requirements for community participation in planning and implementing programs
and initiatives. (The Model Cities Program, a cornerstone of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, is a prime
example.) While these requirements were often honored more in the breach than in the observance, they
acknowledged that social initiatives work better, and generate better policy, when those affected by them are
involved in creating them.

Top-down planning, though well-meaning, may fail to take into account the realities of the situation it is
addressing. This failure can stem from:

 Ignorance of the community, and of the fact that what works in one community may not work in
another. Community social patterns, history (especially past attempts to deal with the issue in
question), or economics may work, individually or in combination, to create a unique situation.  That
situation has to be understood before the creation of successful policy can follow.
 Ignorance of the lives of those at whom the plan is aimed. The cultural assumptions of immigrant
groups, or those from particular ethnic or racial backgrounds, may be totally foreign to those engaged
in planning for them.  Even if the division between the policymakers and the population at whom their
policies are aimed is solely economic, there may be vast differences in the ways they see the world, as
well as vast differences in the worlds they inhabit. If policymakers don't understand the culture and
assumptions - and real needs - of the people they hope to affect, their policies are doomed to fail.
 Unintended consequences that are not apparent initially.  Sometimes, a plan or policy that seems
positive on its face has results that are profoundly negative. The public housing complexes erected in
the U.S. after World War II were meant to be clean, safe, comfortable residences for low-income
citizens.  Instead, their institutional character and isolation from the mainstream life of their
communities bred alienation and despair in their residents, and led to crime and horrible living
conditions.

The Cabrini-Green projects in Chicago, notorious for drugs and crime, were recently torn down and replaced
by mixed-income housing designed to be part of the neighborhood, with a fair number of units reserved for
former Cabrini-Green residents.

 Policymakers' lack of experience in the field.  Practitioners - especially those who also have academic
credentials - know that the difference between theory and reality can often be vast.  When logical,
best-possible-scenario initiatives or interventions come up against underfunding, street culture,
political maneuvering, substance abuse, mistrust of outsiders, and turf battles, they don't always work
the way planners think they should.

In addition, social planning can be used to further goals that have nothing to do with the welfare or
advancement of those who are affected by them.  Such goals may be intended to benefit friends or supporters
of powerful politicians, or merely to generate political capital.  In these cases, they are likely to be badly
planned and administered, and to have little effect.  On the other hand, the goals may be appropriate and
praiseworthy, but aren't effectively addressed because of a lack of skill or will on the part of those assigned to
carry them out.  Citizen participation can help to prevent the social planning process from failing in these
ways.

The Community Tool Box sees social planning and policy change as a partnership between the community and
policymakers to create policy that brings about positive social change.  As a result, we will look at social
planning and policy change from two angles:

 a.  From the policymaker's perspective, i.e., how to use the social planning process to create policy
that achieves its goals with the best positive results for everyone in the community, as well as
policymakers themselves.
 b.  From a grassroots perspective, i.e., how to approach policymakers at the beginning of the process,
so that those in the community affected by the policy change can participate in planning and
implementing it.

WHY SHOULD POLICYMAKERS ENGAGE IN A PARTICIPATORY SOCIAL PLANNING

PROCESS?

We've already mentioned that many federal and other grants stipulate community participation as a
requirement for funding.  We've also mentioned, however, that determined politicians can bypass that
requirement by appointing "community boards" that merely rubber-stamp whatever policy the politicians put
forth.  In addition, community participation, as we will discuss later in this section, is a process that demands
time, commitment, organization, and a good deal of work from everyone concerned.  Why, then, is it worth it
to policymakers - who usually have the ability to impose their own plans - to involve the community in social
planning and policy change?

There are, in fact, a number of compelling reasons, both short- and long-term:

 Community participation makes it more likely that you'll come up with policy that's
effective. Without the knowledge of the history and social structure of the community that community
members can contribute, there's a risk of serious error.  Attempting to repeat something that didn't
work in the past, or assuming that particular groups will work together, when actually they've been at
odds for years, can undermine a community development effort before it starts.  Furthermore,
community members can inform policymakers and planners of the real needs of the community, so
that the most important problems and issues can be addressed.
 Community participation leads to community ownership and support of whatever initiatives come
out of a social planning effort. When people have a hand in planning and decision-making, they feel
that whatever plan is implemented is theirs, and therefore they'll strive to make it work.   The same is
rarely, if ever, true about plans that are imposed on a community from outside.
 Policymakers - particularly elected officials - can gain politically from involving the community. They
will be seen as respecting their constituents, and will also gain respect and credibility if initiatives they
sponsor prove effective.  If they can help improve the quality of life for community members, their
political capital will increase.
 Community members can inform policymakers about changes in circumstances that demand changes
in policy over time.  What is effective or appropriate today may not be in five years.  Community
 participation puts eyes and ears in the community to pick up changes that policymakers may not be
aware of, and to keep programs and initiatives from becoming outmoded or stale.
 Community participation can create community relationships and partnerships among diverse
groups who can then work together. By involving all sectors of the community, it can bring together
groups and individuals who would normally not have - or might not want - contact with one another,
and help them understand where their common interests lie.
 Community participation helps keep community building going over the long run. By placing planning
and decision-making power partly or wholly with the community, the process assures that those who
started the effort will remain interested and involved, and not be distracted by other issues, or by
changes in the political climate.
 Community participation contributes to institutionalizing the changes brought about by changes in
policy. Community members are far more likely to buy into policy that's been created with the
participation of all sectors of the community.  Their support over time will lead to permanent change.
 Community participation energizes the community to continue to change in positive directions. Once
community members see what they can accomplish, they will be ready to take on new
challenges. Community participation can change their attitude about what is possible - probably the
single most important element to creating change.

WHY SHOULD THE COMMUNITY ENGAGE IN A PARTICIPATORY SOCIAL PLANNING

PROCESS?

While it would might seem obvious that communities and grassroots groups would want to participate in
planning and carrying out policy, that's not always the case.  They may feel it's someone else's problem, or
that they simply don't have the time or energy to be involved in a planning effort.  People who haven't had the
opportunity to be decision-makers often find the prospect intimidating.  Because they haven't had experience
in functioning in meetings, planning, and other similar activities, they feel awkward, and find it easier to let
others make the decisions.  They may also feel that they have little to contribute, or that they won't be
listened to even if they are at the table.

It can take time and effort to make it possible for community members to contribute. They may need training
and/or mentoring in order to become comfortable with the procedures and assumptions of a participatory
process. They may have the skills to participate, but need to be motivated to do so. Establishing trust in the
process and the policymakers may require a lot of community organizing - door-to-door canvassing, personal
conversations, small meetings in people's houses - before the community is ready to take on the risk or the
burden of participation.

The rewards for the community, however, can be great. Many of the reasons for the community to embrace
participation are reflections of the reasons why policymakers would want it.  Some of them are:

 Participation provides the opportunity to educate policymakers to the community's real needs and
concerns.  As we've discussed, when policymakers plan a vacuum, their plans usually fail, because they
don't account for the realities of the situation and the real needs of the population they're aimed at. 
Community members can help policymakers understand their lives - the difficulties they face, the
strengths they bring, and what they feel must be addressed.
  Participation allows community members to help create policy that really works to meet their
needs.  By participating in their development, community members can see policies put in place that
actually improve their lives, rather than having no effect or imposing added burdens on them.
 Participation affords community members the respect they deserve.  Rather than being seen as
victims or nuisances, community members engaged in a participatory social planning process are seen
as colleagues and concerned citizens working to improve their community.  They are respected both as
human beings - as should always be the case, but often isn't - and for the skills, knowledge, and effort
they contribute to the process.
 Participation puts community members in control of their own fate.  The participatory social planning
and policy development process results in citizens deciding what policies will work for them, and gives
them the opportunity to change those policies if they're not working.  It puts into practice the motto of
the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council in Chicago, founded by legendary organizer Saul Alinsky:
"We, the people, will work out our own destiny."
 Participation builds community leadership from within.  Those who take part in the process both
learn and exercise leadership skills, and also start to see themselves as having the capacity to be
leaders.  The most important step to leadership, and to taking action to influence events that affect
you, is to believe that you have the ability to do so.
 Participation energizes the community to take on other issues or policy decisions in the future, and
to see itself as in control of its future.  Thus, the community development process will continue over
time.
 Participation leads to long-term social change.  As community members take more control over more
areas of their lives, as a result of the skills and attitudes gained from the participatory process, they will
create and institutionalize changes that improve the quality of life for everyone in the community.

"Community participation" can mean different things to policymakers and to community activists.  As
discussed briefly above, policymakers can pay lip service to community participation while getting around it or
ignoring it.  There are, in fact, levels of community participation, and each might be appropriate at different
times and in different circumstances.
WHEN IS SOCIAL PLANNING AND POLICY CHANGE APPROPRIATE?
Unlike locality development and social action, the other two types of community organizing discussed in this
chapter (see Sections 2 and 4), social planning originates with policymakers or their contractors.  From a
policymaker's point of view, social planning is appropriate when:

 The community asks for it. A community problem may have reached the point where the community
feels something needs to be done, and doesn't feel it knows what that is, or that it has the resources to
do it. It may ask policymakers or an outside source for help.
 An issue or problem has reached crisis proportions, and it's obvious to everyone that something must
be done.  It sometimes takes one or more specific events - the riots in many American cities in the
spring of 1968, for instance, or the 9/11 terrorist attack - to set a social planning process in motion.  In
other cases, however, the process may be a response to an ongoing condition (e.g., rising
unemployment, or increasing youth crime).
  There is a long-standing major issue - poverty, violence, housing, hunger, etc. - that has attracted
policymakers' attention. Because of media publicity or public opinion, elected officials, agencies, or
others in a position to do something about it feel the need to respond.

Extreme poverty has always existed in the U.S., but President Johnson's War on Poverty was spurred in part by
the 1962 publication of Michael Harrington's book The Other America: Poverty in the United States.  The book
shocked many Americans, who had been unaware of how serious the problem was, and forced the
government to take action.

 There are resources made available to address the issue.  The federal, state, or local government may
decide to appropriate funds for a specific purpose, for instance, or a large foundation might turn its
attention - and financial resources - to a specific issue.

The Gates Foundation is currently putting huge amounts of money into eradicating various diseases in the
developing world, a fact that makes it necessary to create structures for evaluating research, distributing
medication, teaching prevention techniques, and otherwise spending the money effectively.

 A powerful figure - a president or prime minister, a leader in Congress or Parliament, a governor, a

mayor - is concerned about a particular problem, issue, or population, and determines to do something
about it.
 A strategic or economic planning process that policymakers engage in determines that a particular
issue must be addressed, or that particular communities or populations need some kind of assistance.
 It becomes apparent - on the municipal, state or provincial, or federal level - that there is a general
economic, social, and/or environmental downhill slide that needs to be stopped.

Social planning can be appropriate from a community perspective at all these times as well.  If the community
has not already initiated some action - either to address the problem or to get help in doing so - it may need
outside assistance in order for anything to happen.

WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN SOCIAL PLANNING AND POLICY CHANGE?

Again, social planning is different from both locality development and social action. In locality development,
all sectors of the population in a town or area - rich and poor, young and old, male and female, all races and
ethnicities, etc. - should be represented in the effort.  In social action, the necessary participants are only
individuals and organizations that represent the particular population that is working to gain power.  The
number and character of the important participants in a social planning process fall somewhere between
these two extremes.

For social planning to work well, both policymakers and all stakeholders should at least be invited to
participate; the more are actually represented, the better. "Stakeholders" is a term that includes all of those
directly affected in some way by the potential policy changes or by the issues under discussion.  Some
examples of stakeholders include:

 Those whom a policy is meant to benefit.

  Those whom a policy is meant to control in some way. Land use policy, for instance, may place
restrictions on developers, so they should be represented in discussing and creating it, although their
voice should not dominate.  They are one interested party among many.
 Those who will have to administer or enforce the policy.
 Those who work with or serve a population that is directed affected by a policy. This category may
include health or human service workers, educators, clergy, etc.
 Organizations or businesses that stand to gain or lose revenue or other resources, or will have to alter
their mode of operation because of a potential change in policy.
 Policymakers and public officials.

Although policymakers are usually public officials, that is not always the case. A large corporation develops
and implements internal policies that may affect thousands of people. Individuals or organizations that own
large tracts of land or important buildings may institute policies about their use that have an impact on whole
municipalities.

HOW CAN POLICYMAKERS ENGAGE EFFECTIVELY IN SOCIAL PLANNING AND POLICY

CHANGE?

As a policymaker, you may have concerns over and above the outcomes of whatever policy you establish.  You
probably have to keep an eye on costs, deadlines, political fallout, and other factors that influence policy, but
don't necessarily relate to whether a particular policy is workable, or whether it benefits or harms those it's
aimed at.  It may be tempting to skip community participation entirely, and simply create a plan and impose it
on the community.

As tempting as it is to save time and be "efficient," it usually makes more sense to spend the time necessary to
have everyone involved enthusiastically backing - or at least accepting - any new policy and willing to support
it when it is put in place. You're likely to be most successful if you think and behave more like a community
organizer, and less like an expert who knows what's good for the community.

Community participation is an important goal for almost any community organizer, and community
participation starts one person at a time. In the previous section, we describe the process for making contacts,
building trust in the community, and ultimately involving all sectors in community assessment and in the
planning, carrying out, and evaluation of activities and policies aimed at improving the quality of life. 
Policymakers, if they're serious about community involvement and participation, should engage in that
process as well.

As a policymaker, you have advantages and disadvantages in this process. You're a known quantity, so people
are not likely to be confused about your involvement, but since you're a known quantity, with a reputation in
the community that may not always be positive, you may be distrusted from the start. You'll have to overcome
that, and convince people of your good will in order to get anything going, which may lead them to fear
contact with anyone official.

For these reasons, and because you're coming into a community with an idea of what area you're going to
address, the process of organizing is a little different than it might be for either locality development (Section 2
of this chapter) or social action (Section 4).  Something is going to go forward; the organizing task here is to
involve the community, and particularly stakeholders, as much as possible in every phase of the effort, and to
be guided, to the greatest extent feasible, by their knowledge and needs.
There's a fine line here.  The fact that people are community members doesn't mean that they necessarily
have good answers to all their problems, or to the issues facing them.  It does mean, however, that they
generally have the best perspective on what their lives are like in relation to those problems and issues, and
on what actually happens in the community.  If you want the community to run the effort completely - and
community-run efforts can be extremely effective - you may have to sponsor or provide some training for
those participating.  This depends greatly on the community, but if the one in question includes many low-
income residents, or many immigrants whose language or culture is significantly different from that of the
general population, you may find that a lot of people need some support in order to participate fully.

Once people become relatively sophisticated about what is possible and about dealing with the various
systems - political, financial, social and otherwise - they're more likely to be able to find their own solutions.   A
community that's already had experience in this area is probably ready to undertake an effort on its own, and
might need only financial and/or political support.  One that's never had the experience, or even been offered
the opportunity, will need much more.

It's absolutely crucial to be respectful and to treat community members as partners, but that doesn't mean
sacrificing best practices or your past experience, any more than it means ignoring the community.  It's a
delicate balance, but if you can strike it properly, both you and the community will be pleased with the
process and the results.
You may be working through one or more local organizations, or through a government or other agency that
has a presence in the community.  Your credibility may depend on that of the organization or agency, so
choose carefully.  If the only consideration is political, you may end up with a process that has no concern for
community participation, or even active opposition.  (Chicago's Mayor Richard Daley got around the
community participation requirement in the Model Cities Program by appointing a "community
representative" board of political hacks that answered only to him.)

The bottom line is that people have to believe you're serious about including them, and you have to be serious
about it. If you promise community involvement and don't follow through, or provide only token participation,
whatever trust-building you've done will probably evaporate, and you'll have start over again. Once again,
see Tool #1 for a full discussion of the levels of community participation, what they imply, and how and when
they might be used.

HOW-TO STEPS FOR POLICYMAKERS TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY:

The steps below refer to policymakers as "you."  The "you" here might be the policymaker herself, or whoever
has initiated the social planning process.  The actual people doing the "organizing" might be employees of a
public agency, the staff of a community-based organization funded to help develop local policy on a particular
issue, local officials, etc.

 Make contact with agencies, organizations, and individuals that know the community well, and use
their knowledge and credibility to ease your way in.  They can help you to avoid making the kinds of
tactical errors that your lack of familiarity with the community can easily lead to.   They can also
introduce you to the people whose opinions matter to those whom you want to involve, as well as to
potential participants.
o The same caution applies here as applies for all community organizers: make sure you're getting
all sides of the story and making contact with all the people you need to.  Community leaders,
 for instance, may not want, at least initially, to work with gang leaders on ending youth
violence, but if the gang leaders aren't involved, it's unlikely that the effort will go anywhere. 
Spread your network wide, and use all your contacts to make sure you're reaching everyone,
not just those that your initial contacts want you to.
 Make your goals and process clear in small meetings that lead up to a larger one.  Meet both with
formal groups - clubs, fraternal organizations, sports teams, faith-based groups, participants in health
and human service programs, unions and other workers' groups, classes - and with families and groups
of friends in people's living rooms or similar informal settings.  Take a trusted community member with
you, or make sure one is hosting or attending the meeting, to vouch for you.
 Hold a community meeting to explain your purpose and start recruiting community members to
participate in assessment and planning. Encourage as many of the people you've talked to as possible
to attend, and plan to ask for a commitment from people who are willing to be involved in the process. 
It might make sense for a someone local to convene and run the meeting - a respected community
leader or community member, or a particularly good facilitator.
o The meeting should explain clearly the issue or problem that needs to be addressed, and the
participatory process by which you intend to address it. The audience should have an
opportunity to ask questions, and should be asked for their thoughts on the issue, on what
kinds of outcomes they'd like to see, and on how the process might take place. This is the time
to recruit members of the planning group, and to ask people to pull in others they know. 
Ideally, you've already gotten a train of support through the smaller meetings.  With this large
meeting, the goal is to get the community at large on board and agree to be involved.
 Schedule the next community meeting, and start the planning process. You should continue to hold
community meetings at regular intervals to inform those who aren't directly involved in the planning
about what's happening.  At the same time, a planning group, representing all the sectors and groups
that will be affected by the policies they come up with, should begin to meet to hash out logistics
(meeting times and places, a timeline), procedures (how decisions are made, how and by whom the
process will be coordinated), and define their task.  Part of the groups' job at the beginning is to
determine what kind of support it needs. Will members need training? Are there things that they
should know (best practices, for instance, or the results of research on the issue)?

o The composition of the planning group is important. It should be truly representative of all
stakeholders, and that may mean you or members of the group have to recruit or persuade
others to join.  People opposed to the process should be included, even though that may seem
like a bad idea.  If the group establishes proper ground rules at the beginning, it should be
possible to conduct productive discussion, and for those with opposing ideas to feel that the
process is fair and inclusive, even if their ideas are not adopted.
 Provide whatever training or support is necessary. Depending on the people involved, you may want
to pair less-educated or low-income folks with mentors from health or human service agencies, or
simply to provide training in meeting skills, strategic planning, conflict resolution, and/or other areas to
everyone, to avoid singling out any individual or group. Training and support serve at least two
purposes: to make sure all involved have the intellectual and social tools they need for the task at
 hand; and to ensure the continued involvement of all the groups affected, not just those who are
educated and used to participating in meetings and social processes.
o Depending upon the scope of the change you're concerned with and the level of community
involvement you're aiming for, you may not need to go through all these steps.  In some cases,
just keeping the community informed - through regular meetings, the media, an e-mail list -
may be enough.  In others, one or two public meetings with the opportunity for community
input may be all you need. If you're hoping for full participation, however, taking the steps
above makes sense.

HOW CAN COMMUNITIES ENGAGE EFFECTIVELY IN SOCIAL PLANNING AND POLICY

CHANGE?

As we've discussed, there are several sections of the Community Tool Box that deal with how communities can
initiate policy change. When the initiative comes from policymakers, the situation is somewhat different, since
the issue of community participation may not be on the planner's agenda.  So in good measure, it's up to
community leaders and activists to raise the issue and make sure the community becomes part of the process.
If policymakers resist the idea, and can't be swayed by logic or argument, then it may be time to switch to
social action mode.  It's generally far more productive, however, if policymakers and the community can work
as partners, rather than as adversaries.

HOW-TO STEPS FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS AND ACTIVISTS TO ENSURE COMMUNITY

INVOLVEMENT

 Get to know and maintain contact with policymakers from the beginning, so that when issues of
policy arise, you'll have an open communication line.  Congresspersons, state legislators, city
councilors, county commissioners, mayor’s aldermen, selectmen, members of municipal boards - all
are concerned with what citizens think, and all are accessible at least some of the time.  If you make
the effort, you can meet them and get to know them well enough so that they'll recognize you in a
crowd, return your phone calls, and be willing to discuss issues with you.  When they initiate a policy
change process, you'll be able to approach them about making it participatory, and be heard.
 Try to anticipate the community's policy needs, and approach policymakers before they have
decided to act.  As a community member, you're apt to know more about the community than a
policymaker, and to know what's needed and when. If you initiate the conversation about policy
change, you may have a much better chance of initiating a participatory planning process as well.
 Equip yourself with as much information as possible, both about the benefits of a participatory
process and about the issue itself. Read the research and literature about social change policy and
inclusive, participatory process. Learn what other communities have done, search the web for best
practices, etc. The more knowledge you have, the more convincing you can be.
 Mobilize the community.  Preach the gospel of participatory process to your fellow citizens, so that
they'll stand with you in demanding to be involved in any policy decisions that affect them.   If it's
obvious that the community wants to be involved, it is ready to put in the necessary work, and will
support the implementation of the resulting policy, it will be hard for policymakers to resist.
IN SUMMARY

Social planning can be an effective means of community organization and development, and of policy
change, if it's entered into in a spirit of partnership with the community.  If, as either a policymaker or a
community builder, you can make it a truly inclusive and participatory process, chances are that it will have
long-lasting, positive results for both policymakers and the community.

c) Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is the idea that human societies must live and meet their needs without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. (Brundtland Report in 1987)

Specifically, sustainable development is a way of organizing society so that it can exist in the long term.
This means taking into account both the imperatives present and those of the future, such as the preservation
of the environment and natural resources or social and economic equity.
How Did the Idea of Sustainable Development Get Relevant?
The industrial revolution is connected to the rise of the idea of sustainable development. From the
second half of the 19th century, Western societies started to discover that their economic and industrial
activities had a significant impact on the environment and the social balance. Several ecological and social
crises took place in the world and rose awareness that a more sustainable model was needed.
Here are some examples of the economic and social crises that shook the world in the twentieth century:
 1907: The American banking crisis
 1923: the crisis of American hyperinflation
 1929: the financial crisis of the 1930s begins
 1968: the worldwide protests against bureaucratic elites
 1973 and 1979: oil shocks
 1982: the debt shock of developing countries

And some examples of ecological crises:

 1954: Rongelap nuclear fallout
 1956: Mercury crisis of Minamata
 1957: Torrey Canyon oil spill
 1976: Seveso disaster
 1984: Bhopal disaster
 1986: Chernobyl nuclear disaster
 1989: Exxon Valdez oil spill
 1999: Erika disaster
 But also: global warming, air pollution, the issue of the ozone layer, the loss of biodiversity…

The Tragedy of Commons And Sustainable Development [1968]

In 1968 the ecologist and philosopher Garret Hardin wrote an essay entitled the tragedy of the commons.
He argued that if individuals act independently, rationally and focused on pursuing their individual interests,
they’d end up going against the common interests of their communities and exhaust the planet’s natural
resources.
In this way, human free access and unlimited consumption of finite resource would extinguish these same
resources. Hardin believed that since man is compelled to procreated unlimitedly the Earth resources would
eventually get overexploited. To his eyes, mankind needed to radically change its way of using common
resources to avoid a disaster in the future – this would be the way to keep on a sustainable development
track.
Limits To Growth And Sustainable Development [1972]
A few years after Hardin’s essay, in 1972, Meadows et al., commissioned by the Club of Rome, ran  a
computer simulation that aimed to predict the consequences of what could happen in a planet with limited
resources.
The interactions between 5 different dimensions – world population growth, industrialization, pollution
generation, food production, and nonrenewable resource depletion – were analyzed, considering a scenario
where these variables grew exponentially and technology’s ability to increase resources was linear.
The strongest ending scenario was that an economic and social collapse would happen by the end of the
21st century if man imposes no limits to growth. After more than 4 decades, these predictions seem to be
right when it comes to pollution and its consequences – threatening sustainable development.

1st UN Conference On The Environment And Sustainable Development [1972]

As the world’s knowledge of global politics evolved the first historical conferences were organized. In
1972, it took place in Stockholm the UN Conference on the environment – the first big world leaders meeting
organized by the UN to discuss the human impact on the environment and how it was related to economic
development. One of the main goals of this gathering was to find a common outlook and common principles
to inspire and guide the world’s population to preserve the “human environment”.

The Human Development Index And Sustainable Development [1980]

Once the idea that our planet had limits that needed to be respected grew, together with the idea that
progress isn’t only about economic growth, integrated solutions started to develop – as is the case with
the Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI is nowadays a statistical tool that measures countries’
economic and social achievements.
To do so, it uses dimensions such as health, education, financial flows, mobility or human security, among
others. Every year the UN Development Programme ranks countries based on the HDI report released
together with their annual report. It works as a periodic way of monitoring the development levels of
countries.

HDI & The Ecological Footprint – Achieving Sustainable Development

Ideally, humankind should get to a point where at least the minimum HDI is achieved and live below the
maximum ecological footprint per capita. Living above the minimum HDI would guarantee that human needs
such as education or health are satisfied.
An ecological footprint represents the maximum limit of consumption per person according to Earth’s
ecological capacity. Living below it wouldn’t compromise the future generations, as the planet would be able
to regenerate itself. If we could manage to keep above the minimum HDI and below the maximum ecological
footprint per capita (a number that is decreasing as the human population increases) we’d be on track for a
sustainable future.
 But the fact is that every year the Earth overshoot day comes earlier. This day represents the date when
humankind gets in debt with the planet. Why? Because our demand for ecological resources in a given year
has been exceeding what the planet can regenerate in that same year.
We’re keeping this deficit because we’re using more ecological resources than the planet can handle to
lose. At the same time, we’re also not taking proper care of our waste. We’re dealing with it in a linear way, in
opposition to nature, where everything follows a circular approach. Today’s consumption habits are a big
threat to sustainable development.

The Brundtland Report And Sustainable Development [1987]

The Brundtland report, also known as <Our Common Future>, gave the most recognized and widely
accepted definition of the term <sustainable development> in 1987. Following this report, “the human ability
to ensure that the current development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs” was the first widely accepted definition of sustainable
development.
The World Commission on the Environment and Development also stood out that sustainable
development needed to consider that developing has limitations. According to the organization, the “present
state of technology and the social organization on environmental resources, together with the limited ability
of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities” impose limitations on sustainable development.

Climate Change & Sustainable Development [1988]

As the consciousness about the impact that climate change could have on the planet and on human life
grew, the International Panel on Climate Change was created by the UN Development Programme and the
World Meteorological Organization. Its purpose was (and still is) to develop and share knowledge about the
impact of human activities on climate change. It also aims to explore the causes, consequences, and ways of
fighting climate change.
CO2 and methane are gases that exist to help the Earth keep its ideal temperature and guarantee life as
we know it. Nonetheless, the excessive production of these gases leads to an increase in the planet’s
temperature. This happens because part of the heat the Earth irradiates and that’d go to space keeps trapped
in the atmosphere.

The Triple Bottom Line & Sustainable Development [1994]

The triple bottom line is an important assumption that’s part of the foundations of sustainable
development. It was first used by John Elkington, the founder of a sustainability consultancy firm.
This expression means that companies should consider 3 different bottom lines in their businesses – and
not only, as was usual at the time (and still is in many companies today), care about the profit and loss
account. This means that organizations should also measure how socially responsible the operations across
their value-chain are.
In addition, Elkington combined a third concern: that companies also needed to measure their
environmental impact on the planet. In the end, the idea is business needs to be concerned about its impact
on people and planet – and not only finance and profit.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment And Sustainable Development [2001]

 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was a 4 years-long investigation that started in 2001 and was
requested by the UN. Over 1200 researchers gathered to assess the consequences that ecosystems’ changes
had on human well-being. Finding the scientific basis for action needed to improve the conservation and
sustainable use of ecosystems was another goal.
The main findings of the investigation were:

 Humans have changed ecosystems more quickly and widely than ever before. This resulted in a
substantial and largely irreversible biodiversity loss;
 The changes made to ecosystems improved human well-being and the economy but have
harmed the planet and society. It wasn’t only biodiversity decreasing at a high rate. Poverty was
also still affecting many communities and climate change increased the risk of nonlinear
changes;
 The degradation of ecosystems services would probably get worse over the 21st century;
 The changes needed to preserve the ecosystem’s degradation and meet the increasing demand
for services could still be met. Nonetheless, it would involve significant changes in policies
across the public and private sectors.

Sustainable Development Today

Today’s framework on sustainable development is quite strong although there is still a huge way to go.
The latest IPCC report demonstrated that big changes will need to happen quickly regarding the reduction of
CO2 emissions to keep the Earth’s temperature below 2ºC and prevent its devastating impacts.
There are many actors working with different audiences in different areas of sustainability. They share
the same goal – to raise awareness on this topic and to create conditions for it to grow and develop. One of
the main players is the United Nations, where different teams actively work on multiple campaigns such
as #beatplasticpollution or #solvedifferent, apart from organizing the meetings between the world leaders.
On the business side, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) helps its
member companies to accelerate their businesses transition to create a sustainable world. There are also
some certifications that reward (mostly through a stamp recognition) the businesses with the best practices
for the planet, such as the B-Corp movement, the Rainforest Alliance, the Fairtrade Foundation or
the Conscious Capitalism Movement.
At the same time, entities like the Elen MacArthur Foundation are opening the way when it comes to
the circular economy and how societies and businesses can align how they use natural resources with the way
nature does it. Aligning businesses’ operations across their supply chains is also allowing different and
ecological business models to develop – such as growing mushrooms from coffee leftovers.
On 1 January 2016, the SDGs officially came into force. Over the next 15 years, the new Goals will rely
on the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and complete what they did not achieve by 2030.
There are 17 SDGs, non-binding in nature but they symbolize an unprecedented opportunity to set the world
on a sustainable course and ensure a life of dignity for all. The SDGs are universal and they provide a clear
policy framework for regulatory actions at national, regional and international level. National governments
are expected to align their political agendas with the SDGs.

These are: 
 Goal 1: No Poverty
 Goal 2: Zero Hunger
 Goal 3: Good Health and Well-Being for People
 Goal 4: Quality Education
 Goal 5: Gender Equality
 Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
 Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
 Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
 Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
 Goal 10: Reducing Inequalities
 Goal 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
 Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
 Goal 13: Climate Action
 Goal 14: Life Below Water
 Goal 15: Life on Land
 Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
 Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals

“There are so many complementarities and synergies between the UN agenda and the work of social workers;
we must find better ways to work together”
Helen Clark Director of UNDP at WSWD 2010, New York

Social Work and the United Nations: Highlights in the Relation

The origin of the three international social work and social welfare organizations IASSW, ICSW and
IFSW goes back to the first International Conference of Social Work 1928 in Paris. Already in the initial phase
the international social work organizations did not restrict their activity to the development of social work
training and profession but they knew about the interrelation of local, national and international level. They
strived to cooperate with international organizations in search of political solutions for international problems.
 The International Conference of Social Work (ICSW, today International Council of Social
Welfare) was founded in Paris including an International Permanent Secretary for Social
Workers, which later became an independent organization as the international Federation of
Social Workers (IFSW) 1956 in Munich. The International Associations of Schools of Social Work
(IASSW) was decided in Paris but formally founded 1929 in Berlin.
 The conference in Paris was made possible by the founding and technical support of the League
of Red Cross Societies and an ILO representation participated at the conference and at the
foundation ceremony in Paris.
 ILO in cooperation with IASSW and the school of social work in Geneva set up a Centre of
Documentation for social work training in Geneva, which documented social work statistics,
curricula, reports of research and seminars.
 A working relationship was developed with the Commission of Social Questions of the League
of Nation.
  Alice Salomon, founding president of IASSW, stripped from all her function in national social
Germany was given the opportunity to do some research at the ILO Documentation Centre in
Geneva in 1934. The result was a publication of the first comparative report on social work
training around the world in 1937.
In the early years of the United Nations social work was given great attention and support especially
through the Social Commission of ECOSOC. Social Work organizations engaged in the work of UN based on
United Nations Consultative Status at ECOSOC granted in 1947 as two of the first NGOs to ICSW (in Category I)
and to IASSW (in Category II) in 1947 and to IFSW in 1959. IFSW has also consultative status at UNICEF and
UNHABITAT.
 1944-47 Many social workers contributed to relief efforts in Europe and China through the UN-
Relief and Rehabilitation Agency (UNRAA). The social welfare functions were transferred to
ECOSOC, which encouraged the development of social work and social services.
 1946-70s After the foundation of the United Nations ECOSOC and especially the Social
Commission of ECOSOC estimates social work important for social development. Great
attention is put on the promotion of training, exchange and counselling /expertise programs,
SW international scholarships, international exchange of experts and international seminars.
 1950 ECOSOC and the General Assembly adopted a resolution proposed by the Social
Commission of ECOSOC on the necessity of social work and social services.
 1950 The first United Nations Survey of Social Work Education is published by ECOSOC Social
Commission making recommendation on the promotion of social work and social work training.
Following reports are published in 1955, 1958, 1965, and 1971.
 1968 The UN International Conference of Ministers Responsible for Social Welfare in New York
stated in its recommendation that social work profession developed from social welfare
practice as a direct response to the need for particular skills in applying available knowledge to
the solution of social welfare problems.
 1987 The UN Interregional Consultation on Development of Social Welfare Policies and
Programmes, Vienna recommends that comprehensive training programmes should receive
high priority. “Social -work education and social welfare training should be firmly based in the
realities of field practice and local cultural traditions, while fully taking into consideration
emerging social issues and trends.”
In the 70s there was a marked decline of the influence of social work in the UN. Social work nearly
disappeared in UN decisions, Resolution, publication and research. According to Lynne Healey (2001) IASSW
UN-representative in New York) the UN shifted its emphasis away from human resources to economic
development, a field to which social work has less to offer. Even as the focus moved toward social
development, social work was slow to adapt to the development movement.
Despite this loss of influence and relevance in the UN the international social work organizations
remained firm in their engagement for human rights, social justice, and social development. And they
continued to orient and base their activities and policies upon Human Rights, UN conventions and UN
programs.
 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is crucial for the Global Definition of Social Work
and for the Statement of Ethical Principles (IASSW, and IFSW 2014 resp. 2004).
  Over the year’s representatives of the three international social work and social welfare
organizations participated in many UN Conferences and present report and declarations.
 Social workers engaged largely in the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in
Consultative Relationships with the United Nations (CoNGO) and in diverse CoNGO committees
such as: Human Rights, Aging, Status of Women, Indigenous People, Children’s Right, Mental
Health and others.
 1994 A joint project of IFSW, IASSW and UN Centre for Human Rights resulted in the publication
of: Human Rights and Social Work. A Manual for Schools of Social Work and the Social Work
Profession, United Nations
 Since 1983 WSWD is celebrated at the UN in New York and since 2017 in Geneva, sporadically
also in Vienna, Bangkok and Nairobi with speakers from various UN-organizations: UNICEF,
UNRISE, UNDP, ILO, UNAIDS to name only a few.
 1996 policy statement on Human Rights. Permanent committee.
 IFSW publishes a set of policy papers referring to different UN-Convention women, children,
disabled, migrants etc.
 2002” A Professional Training Manual on the UN Convention. Social Work and the Rights of the
Child” (IFSW)
 In 2012 the three social work and social welfare organizations adopt the Global Agenda for
Social Work and Social Development: A Commitment to Action. The Global Agenda is a strong
commitment to promote social and economic equality, the dignity and worth of people,
environmental and community sustainability and the importance of human relationships.
Target groups of the Global Agenda are the own organization, communities and other partners
and the United Nations and other international Agencies.

d) Participatory Development
What is participatory development?
Participatory development seeks to give the poor a part in initiatives and projects that are designed by
outside organizations in the hopes that these projects will be more sustainable and successful by involving
local.

The objective of economic and social development in developing countries is to set in motion a process
of self-reliant and sustainable growth through which social justice can be achieved. Development within a
developing society aims, we believe, at building into society the mechanisms that will ultimately permit self-
reliant growth without foreign assistance, at sustaining stable growth patterns for economic development in
harmony with the environment, and at providing equal and appropriate opportunities to take part in
development to overcome income gaps, regional disparities, and inequalities between men and women.

For this to be possible, the central focus of development is not necessarily to boost production of
material goods; instead, it should be to foster and enhance people's capability to have a role in their society's
development. To this end, people should be willingly involved in a wide range of development activities, as
agents and beneficiaries of development. It is this participation that is important. We believe it is needed both
as a goal and as a tool of development.
 Our study committee regards participatory development as an approach to development that is
designed to enhance sustainability and self-reliance and to achieve social justice through improvements in the
quality of people's participation. For us, the focal point of participatory development should be the qualitative
enhancement of participation in local societies which can be defined as groups of rural communities and as
administrative and developmental units.

The government-led development approach adopted by many developing countries beginning in the
1950s and 1960s was, on the one hand, effective and efficient as a method of planned and concentrated
investment of scarce resources into industry. Given insufficient participatory capabilities of local people and
local societies, however, it tended on the other hand to put the intended beneficiaries of development these
very local people and societies in a passive position. This government-led approach to development left intact,
or even widened, deep-rooted problems including economic and social disparities between social classes,
between genders, between regions, and between urban and rural areas, in effect reinforcing the position of
the classes and regions that benefited from development. Regrettably, this has undermined and counteracted
the effectiveness and sustainability of development projects and of development itself.

Participatory development is not an attempt to replace the top-down development approach with a
local-community-led approach. Rather, it is a viewpoint that simultaneously stresses the need for the
government-led approach in terms of national-level economic planning and coordination of development
planning and the demerits of widening disparities and worsening poverty inherent in that approach when used
alone. Participatory development attempts to introduce a bottom-up style of development in order to remedy
the government-led approach's shortcomings, specifically by focusing on qualitative improvements in local
society's participation.

This participation must not be transient; it must entail the sustainable upgrading of participation
quality. For this to happen, the underlying conditions must be met to facilitate the long-term process of
participation and its self-reliant sustainability. The long-term process of participation cited here is: raising the
awareness of local people, forming community groups, upgrading their requisite resource management
abilities, and creating norms or internalizing their mechanisms, and improving capabilities for external
negotiations. The shaping and planning of this participatory process requires both a long-term vision and a
willingness to selectively improve and bolster traditional community systems as tools of development. Support
from NGOs is needed to help accumulate the organizational learnings and experiences of local groups and to
train leaders.

To create the conditions for promoting sustainable participation, governments must create and adapt
basic legislation and institutions that guarantee political and economic freedoms as well as strive to meet a
broader range of basic human needs (BHN: food, housing, health and medical care, education, etc.).
Governments also need to relax regulations in order to remove obstacles to economic participation, improve
financial management, build infrastructure, and train business people and entrepreneurs. These are important
components of good governance (discussed below), which is the basis of participatory development.

What are the principles of participatory development?

The principles are offered as an intermediary between the philosophical roots of participatory development
theory including feminism, environmentalism, and critical pedagogy and the current practice using tools such
as participatory action research, participatory rural appraisal and appropriate technology.
 The following principles are offered as a contribution to the practice of participatory development in
the international sphere. They also offer a means by which to gauge the success of meeting the promise of
participatory development. The principles are derived from the philosophical approaches to development
identified above with an emphasis on areas of practice where difficulties have arisen in translating the
philosophy into practice. Although focused on international development, these principles should also have
resonance with community development practitioners.

1. Approach each situation with humility and respect

I knew a man who died a quiet death

no music played, no wise men stood and spoke

his ashes were offered to the wind

and came to rest upon the earth

as lightly as he'd stood

He left behind no monuments to progress

no scientific breakthroughs for mankind

no empires to carry on his name

he shunned the search for fortune and for fame

Walk softly and listen to the rain

walk softly and birds might sing again

walk softly and children will no longer cry

walk softly upon the earth

Practitioners of participatory development must begin with a sense of humility, an awareness that
each person brings unique skills and knowledge to a process and that the experience and formal education
practitioners bring to a process is valuable but limited. People who have lived their whole lives in communities
and who have a direct stake in the outcome of a project have vital knowledge to contribute. Those people will
likely not share that knowledge if they are not made welcome to do so or if their knowledge and intelligence is
not respected.

Practitioners can extend this principle to the ecological sphere, moving beyond anthropocentrism.
During a recent international environment course I facilitated, one participant observed that in effect we do
not need to hone our ecosystem management as much as we need to direct our attention more to ego-system
management.

2. Understand the potential of local knowledge

Practitioners of participatory development recognize the power of local knowledge. Authors such as
Rajest Tandon, Vandana Shiva and Robert Chambers (Tandon, 1988; Shiva, 1989; Chambers, 1983) eloquently
discuss the importance and diversity of people's knowledge. Working with communities, highlights the
uniqueness of people's knowledge like no textbook can. In my practice of participatory development, I have
had the opportunity to see the power of local knowledge in many communities. Fred MacDonald Sr. was the
community facilitator for an environment course offered in the native community of Fort McKay, Alberta,
Canada, in which I participated in 1995.1 recall sitting around the fire at Fred's cabin, three hours north of Fort
McKay via the Athabasca river. The reality hit me that if I were left here to survive on my own, without a
supermarket, I would be in serious trouble. The amazing store of knowledge of 'the bush' held by elders such
as Fred MacDonald left me feeling humbled.

3. Adhere to democratic practice

All too often, in our work lives we neglect the principles of democracy our societies are supposed to be
built upon. The work world accepts a hierarchical order very readily (Saul, 1992). Participatory approaches
challenge us to extend our notions of democracy into all spheres of our lives, including work. In participatory
development practitioners recognize the tensions between democratic ideals and hierarchical structures and
work towards overcoming the barriers to truly democratic work.

4. Acknowledge diverse ways of knowing

A participatory development practitioner must be open to the notion of ways of knowing. In traditional
practice the scientific, European-based way of knowing is valued above all others. However, in communities
there still exists a tremendous diversity of knowledge systems, whether it be local experiential knowledge,
intuitive knowledge, or indigenous knowledge in all its manifestations. Participatory development
practitioners recognize and try to understand and work within the knowledge system of the community they
are working with.

In the natural world diversity is seen as a virtue. The more diverse an ecosystem, the more stable and
resilient it is. Diversity gives birth to possibility. The more diverse the opportunities to learn, the more diverse
the methods employed, the more systems of knowledge explored, the more satisfying and successful will be
the development process. Participatory methods allow that diversity to be explored to its fullest.

An acknowledgement of the diversity of ways of knowing sensitizes us to the limits of epistemological

correctness. During a course in Athabasca, Alberta, Canada, participants learned that dioxins and furans are
deadly carcinogenic compounds which result from the industrial wood pulping process (Richardson et ai,
1993). These substances we know today are deadly in minute amounts hardly detectable. In fact, ten years
ago, amounts considered dangerous today were detectable. Our science told us they did not exist and pulp
mill effluent was not harmful. People in Athabasca justifiably wonder what other undetected substances will,
in future, prove harmful.

In Petty Harbour, Newfoundland, Canada, course participants spoke with fishermen, whose ancestors
had fished the same waters for five or more generations. They told us of a decade of warnings to government
about the troublesome decline in cod stocks they were observing. But they were ignored. The state-of-the art
of marine and biological science could not detect the changes the fishermen were observing. The result of
these events is now well known.

These anecdotes all point to the phenomenon of epistemological correctness.1 Epistemology is the
theory of knowledge especially with regard to its methods and validation. In modern societies we are being
epistemologically correct when we defer to scientific knowledge, demanding that all knowledge be assessed
and validated through the scientific method, negating a diversity of other ways of knowing and understanding
the world around us.
5. Maintain a sustainability vision

Ecological collapse,

strands of the web of life are snapped

trees devoured by automobiles

rivers run dry for color TVs

flashing billboards in a sea of lights

we sell our souls, if the price is right.

Sustainable development is ubiquitous in the 1990s. However, it has lost its meaning because of the
myriad ways it is used and co-opted. Participatory development practitioners work from a 'strong' view of
sustainability, which begins with ecological sustainability (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996). In this sense,
participatory practice encompasses an expanded view of community and strives to incorporate the natural
world into participatory frameworks. Participatory practitioners act as advocates of sustainability approaches.

In my five years working in environmental education it has been reinforced to me that the discussion of
sustainability has to start with the natural environment. We inescapably live in a finite world with finite
resources (Rees and Wackernagel, 1996). There is no alternative but to recognize this and to recognize that
without functioning healthy ecosystems, human beings, human societies, even mutual funds, will not exist.
The human species is in fact a product of many billions of years of the evolution of life. We have come into
being in relationship to every other living species and cannot exist outside of the functioning ecosphere
(Swimme and Berry, 1992).

Within human society our goal is to improve our quality of life or to maintain quality of life of every
individual equitably. As an instrument to achieve this quality of life we have created an economy. This
economy exists within the human sphere is one element of it. The economic system is of the human system
and the human system is of the ecological system.

Unfortunately, in our world today we live under the illusion of a completely opposite relationship
between the ecosystem, human society and the economy. Paramount is the maintenance of our economic
system, even at the detriment of our social system. And further, we attempt to maintain our species' material
standard of living - part of our greater social system to the detriment of our ecological system.

6. Put reality before theory

Herman Daly and John Cobb in their book, entitled for the Common Good, discuss the concept of
misplaced concreteness (Daly and Cobb, 1989). They argue that in the economic realm society has applied a
misplaced concrete-ness to economic theory, and forgotten that it is only theory. I suggest that as
participatory development practitioners, we often fall into the same fallacy. In dealing on a daily basis with
community issues, the shortcomings of theory become clearly evident, and it is a challenge for those of us
immersed in our practice to recognize these shortcomings. There is the tendency to put theory ahead of
reality - to make reality fit theory. But theories are merely simplified, useful, but incomplete, approximations
of reality. It is the real issues and complexity of community which must be the starting point for learning and
transformation. In attempting to work in an open, community-based, participatory process, the walls of official
knowledge come down and you quickly learn which emperors have no clothes.
7. Embrace uncertainty

One of the hardest lessons to learn as a facilitator of a participatory process is to embrace uncertainty.
All too often our educational system is geared toward giving answers. But concrete answers do not always
exist. There are often many answers and there are often many more questions. For participatory development
practitioners and community people, accepting uncertainty is a must in participatory process. In participatory
development we see reality as best we can, we analyze it and act upon our best judgement, and then re-
assess where we are anew. As Freire and Horton said, 'We make the road by walking' (Freire and Horton,
1987).

Participatory development practitioners embrace uncertainty and, in the face of epistemological

correctness, stand by their convictions of the value of participatory methods. The adherence to a participatory
process can be a hardnosed strategy for achieving results but it is also a value-laden and moral position. We
can show results with this method, but that is not the entire story. The knowledge embedded in a
participatory process is often beyond scientific proof. Scientific proof is for science. If we value and use other
ways of knowing, we have to accept other means of assurance. Intuition, for example or the conviction that
the process itself is important independent of any other outcomes. It is immaterial to ask whether a
democratic process is efficient or economical if, from a moral position, we believe in democratic process. This
is not a judgement science can make for us. Those of us involved in a participatory process, faced with the
demand for proof, at times have to stand by our convictions and assert our ability to know in other ways.

8. Recognize the relativity of time and efficiency

Participatory development practitioners face a battle against deeply embedded notions of time and
efficiency. Saving time and working efficiently are unassailable principles of the modern world. But human
process keeps its own time and defines efficiency in qualitative as well as quantitative terms. As practitioners
we need to be aware of these tensions and work to be true to the pace of the process.

9. Take a holistic approach

Newton and Descartes were wrong we and our world, our universe are not one big machine which piece by
piece we take apart to understand the essence of the whole for who, when things are torn apart can point to
me, the soul?

A participatory practitioner recognizes the complexity of human interactions and the limitations of
human designed linear process models. In participatory practice complexity is a reality not to be eliminated
but to be understood, become comfortable with and incorporate into practice. Poetry uses metaphor to
establish and explore relationship. Susan Griffin argues in The Eros of Everyday Life that in a larger sense all of
our thought is metaphorical in that it is constructed out of the relationships we perceive and experience in the
world (Griffin, 1995). Theologians, poets, ecologists and physicists all understand the essential relational
nature of all things. Yet in the development process, we still desire to break things into small pieces to
understand the whole.

10. Exercise an option for community

In a traditional funder-consultant relationship, a funder has a goal to achieve and the consultant gets it
done. In a participatory development practitioner often mediate between the funder and the community,
advocating for the community.
 Underlying this perspective on the advocacy role is an understanding that institutions exist at the
service of community. We do not live in NGOs we do not live in universities. These are institutions created to
improve and sustain the life of our communities. We have forgotten the order of things. How can we keep our
attention fixed on the maintenance of our communities? How can we root our decisions in community? How
can we ensure that the institutions created for the advancement of our communities do not lose sight of their
reason for being, which is in a democratic society to serve community? Authors such as Daly and Cobb and
Saul have delved into this dilemma in some detail (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Saul, 1992).

In my experience, communities demand more participation and recognize the inconsistencies when it
does not happen. As presently structured, the inclusion of communities from the beginning of development
processes, from the beginning of project planning, is a daunting task. But to remain consistent with our belief
in a democratic society we have no alternative but to strive to find ways to move towards the ideal.

“The Centrality of Community Participation for All Community Development Work”

October 2017
Tobias Roberts

For seasoned community development workers, most of us understand the “rhythm” of work that
becomes seemingly inevitable as organizations grow, work expands, and stress mounts. The small grassroots
organization that sprung from the dreams, aspirations, and ideals of a community of committed and visionary
individuals eventually grows into a small institution employing dozens of people and managing several
projects in different communities all at once.

To stay on top of the accumulating stack of reports and budgets while also continually applying for
other grant opportunities to keep your organization financially afloat, the commitment to involving the
communities where you worked in every step of the development process; from conceptualizing the project
proposal to project management and execution, to monitoring and evaluation, eventually falls by the
wayside. The time needed to conscientiously and purposefully include communities in the development
process and adapt or change your own priorities and concerns based on the outcome of a truly participative
development process is often the first thing sacrificed in the rat race of today´s community development
industry.

It is worth stating at the outset, however, that development projects that don´t make a central
effort to include thorough and sincere community participation almost always end up being paternalistic,
assistance-based, and can often lead to the degradation of community coherence and autonomy.

This introductory module, then, will look at the central importance of community participation in all
development projects and efforts. It will briefly consider and review some of the literature regarding
participatory development and offer some essential definitions and concepts including the stages and
different forms of participatory development.

A Critique of a Definition of Participatory Development

One of the most commonly accepted definitions of participatory development is as follows:

“Participatory development seeks to give the poor a part in initiatives and projects that are designed by
outside organizations in the hopes that these projects will be more sustainable and successful by involving
local stakeholders in the projects goals.”

While this characterization of participatory development is certainly a far improvement over top-down
project management methods wherein mostly Eurocentric development agendas were imposed on
communities around the world, there are still several dilemmas that arise from this definition.

Firstly, we think that the end goal of any development effort should never be the success or supposed
sustainability of the project itself, but rather an increase in the sovereignty and wellbeing of the community. In
some cases, the community may determine that the predefined, written goals of a project are no longer useful
or valuable to the community, and if we are loyal and committed to truly participatory development, we need
to allow for that possibility.

Secondly, instead of simply giving the poor “a part” in development initiatives, we sustain that genuine
participatory development seeks to allow the poor to determine their own visions and establish their own
development priorities and agendas. The discrepancies between what is and is not participatory development
can be further envisaged in the differing perspectives within the widely defined theme of participatory
development to which we will now turn.

Perspectives Within the Participatory Development Agenda

The Institutional Perspective

Development organizations and institutions that want to include the contributions and views of
communities and stakeholders in a project might use an institutionalized form of participatory development.
The institutional perspective seeks the inputs of communities only to help achieve a pre-defined project goal
that was decided by someone (usually an expert from the development world) external from the community
itself.

A concise example of this perspective of development occurred recently in a small community in

northern Guatemala. A large, internationally recognized NGO had secured a large amount of economic
resources to implement HIV prevention projects. Wanting to involve as many different grassroots
organizations as possible in this project, they convened a meeting to gather baseline information regarding the
potential grassroots actors for project implementation. 

At the meeting, several community organizations asked if the only available funding was for the
narrowly defined project focus of HIV prevention. Despite the insistence by many community leaders that,
while HIV prevention was certainly important, there were other, more urgent needs, the large NGO informed
the community that funding was only available for projects expressly dedicated to prevention of HIV. Of the
dozen or so organizations present at this meeting, several walked out while others later confided to me that
they stayed to apply for funding even though they had no experience in these types of project nor any real
interest in working in this area.
 The institutional perspective of participatory development, also known as the project-based
perspective, follows from the “pecking order” inherent to the global development industry wherein
development goals are determined by external actors and in which the success of the project is the main, focal
point. Community participation is welcomed and actively sought only but only within the sometimes narrowly
defined range of the project itself.

The Social Movement Perspective

In opposition to this institutional perspective, and more in line with our conception of what true
participatory development entails, is the social movement perspective. From this perspective, participation is
the main priority and a goal in itself. Allowing for autonomous forms of community organization to direct and
guide the definition of project goals and the actual implementation of the project, or aiding communities in
the process of developing norms and organizations for self-governance, is the overarching purpose that
overrides any specific project objectives.

Full community participation allows communities to participate in processes that actively abolish
hierarchies of power (sometimes from within the development industry). The outside NGO is not relegated to
oblivion, but rather acts as an ally to self-governing community organizations that are empowered to make
independent decisions regarding their own development. On a practical level, this may very well require a
certain level of flexibility in project management to allow communities to define the direction of certain
project.

In the Wayuu communities or northwestern Venezuela, a progressive NGO which maintained a

steadfast loyalty to participatory development in the communities where they worked, recently faced a
challenge that often comes from embracing the social movement perspective of participatory development.
This NGO has secured multi-fear financing for a project aimed at helping Wayuu, pastoral communities
improve their goat herds through introducing improved goat breeds.
The community had initially agreed to the project, but once the project started, the effects of a severe drought
were punishing the community. The community leaders approached the NGO and asked if it was possible to
change the fundamental goals of the project to help secure water through building wells and purchasing a
desalinization machine. Though the focus of the community was now completely different from what the
project initially entailed, through a long (and somewhat frustrating) process of debating with the donor
agency, the NGO could allow the community to delineate its own course for development based on the felt
needs, values, and vision of the community.

The Challenge of Participatory Development

It´s important to recognize from the outset that participatory development, especially from the social
movement perspective, is never and easy and often complicates the smooth functioning of specific projects.
Nonetheless, allowing for communities to exercise their (sometimes messy) autonomous forms of
organization, to determine their own development priorities, and to be protagonists in shaping their future
will always lead to more sustainable and consequential development efforts. In the rest of this course we will
explore how those of us in the NGO world can learn the concepts, skills, and tools necessary to truly embrace
the social movement perspective of participatory development.

e) Goal oriented Project Management

In this topic as project managers you should stick and what you do must base on your Goals and
Objectives.
What is a project?
What is project management?
What is project success?
What factors determine project success?
What is ISDM?

What is a Project?
A temporary and one-time endeavor undertaken to create a unique outcome or service, which brings
about beneficial change or added value
A Project -

 Has a defined objective

 A begin & end date / deadline
 people involved
 Sequenced activities
 Unique - a onetime set of events
 Limited resources and budget
 Requires integration of knowledge & experience from various organizations
 Causing a Planned Undertaking to Happen
Project Mandate: The Essentials

 Name of the project

 Project Owner
 Project Background
 Purpose of the Project
 Goals of the Project
 Project Scope (included and excluded)
 Limitations on project work (i.e. constraints)
 Project Budget
What is project management?
Defining Project Management:

 The application of knowledge, skills, tools and techniques to project activities to meet project
requirements
 Organizing and managing resources so the project is completed within defined scope, quality, time and
cost constraints
What is project success?
Factors in Project Success

 Project Management Philosophy & Skills

 Project Management Role & Responsibility
 Project Management Principles & Practices
Project Management Philosophy
Project Management Skills -

 General management skills The ‘Golden Rule’ of Project Management

 Plan
 Organize
  Control
 Communication skills
 Interpersonal skills

Project Management Roles &Responsibilities

 Project Execution
 Create a Positive Environment
 Teamwork
 Task & Process Focus
 Maintain Client Relations
Project Management Principles & Practices

 Define Project Objectives

 Develop Project Execution Plan
 Build & Maintain Relationships
 Manage Risk
 Close Out Effectively
Define Project Objectives

 Expected Deliverables
 Required Resources
 Required Timing (starting & deadline)
 Social, Environmental & Safety Impact
 Quality / Standards
Define S.M.A.R.T. Project Objectives:

 Specific
 Measurable
 Assignable
 Realistic
 Time related
A Good Project Scope –

 Written
 Well defined
 Clearly understood
 Achievable
 Divide the project into major objectives
 Break objectives into activities
 Divide activities into sub-activities
Project Execution Plan
  Project Execution Strategy
 Project Management
 Quality
 Safety
 Risk Management
 Design/Develop/Program
 Implementation
 Documentation
 Evaluation
Basis for Project Schedule:

 Project objectives
 Project milestones
 Resource availability
Planning-

 Identification of the sequence of events necessary to complete the project

Scheduling-

 Determination of timing & assembly of project activities to give overall completion time

Critical project path:

 Identifies project priorities

 Shows activity relationships
 Promotes teamwork
Team Requirements

 Skills needed
 Individuals identified
 When are they needed
 Where are they
 Interpersonal compatibility
 Dealing with group dynamics & conflict
Project Teams and Teamwork
Teambuilding: The process of taking a collection of individuals with different backgrounds, needs,
competencies, skills and experience and transforming them into an integrated and effective work unit
What factors determine project success?
Factors Which Determine Project Team Performance
(A) Work & Team Structure
 Team participates in project definition and work plans evolve dynamically.
 Team structure and responsibilities evolve and change as needed.
 Broad information sharing.
 Team leadership evolves on the basis of expertise, trust and respect.
 Minimal dependence on bureaucracy, procedures and politics.
(B) Communication & Control 
 Effective cross-functional channels & linkages.
 Ability to seek out & process information(research).
 Effective group decision-making & consensus.
 Clear sense of purpose & direction.
 Self-control, accountability & ownership.
 Control is stimulated by visibility, recognition, accomplishments, autonomy.
(C) Team Leadership
 Minimal hierarchy in member status &position.
 Internal team leadership based on situational expertise, trust & need.
  Clear goals & direction.
 Inspires & encourages.

(D) Attitudes & Values

 Committed to established objectives & plans.

 Shared goals, values & project ownership.
 High involvement, energy, work interest, need for achievement, pride & self-motivated.
 Capacity for conflict resolution, flexibility &willingness to change.
 Team building, 
 spirit & self-development.
 Risk-sharing, mutual trust & support.
 Continuous improvement of work process, efficiency & quality.
Characteristics of ‘Good’ Project Managers

 See Systems Context of the project

 Ability to inspire Trust & Confidence
 Ability to keep abreast of all project
 Related developments
 Communication Skills
 Interpersonal Skills
 Promote Empowerment
 Ability to Motivate
 Have a Vision
 Mentoring & Guidance ability
 Make work appear enjoyable
 Take Risks & show Courage
 Knowledge & Competency
Client Relations

 Develop Communication
 Ensure Timely Participation
 Include the Customer on the Project Team
 Develop Trust & Confidence
Alignment Process
What is ISDM?
Integrated Service Delivery Model (ISDM) -
integration of developmental social welfare services in terms of:

 Intersectoral & interdepartmental integration

 Intra-departmental integration
 Integrated interventions
 Service integration is an integral part of effective quality driven social welfare services.
 Service integration refers to service providers working together to make it easier for service
beneficiaries to receive services and information they need.
 This also includes government working together with other agencies to address needs and
problems experienced by communities more effectively.
The following are some benefits of service integration:

 Better service to individuals, families, the community and organizations in the system.

 Service delivery based on outcomes for individuals, families, groups and the community needs,
not on organizational structures.
 Complex community problems can be addressed more effectively and holistically.
 Cost savings through sharing resources and getting rid of duplication.
Possible Role Players with ISDM?

 DSD
 Basic Education HET
 Labour
 Housing
 Health 
 Correctional Services
 Justice & Constitutional Development
 Social Security
 Home Affairs
 Municipalities 
 Ward Counsellors
  SAPS
 NGO/NPO’s/Faith Based
 Business /Private sector /Research

f) Gender and Women in Development

1. Definitions and terms used
Community work - Refers to those activities carried out in the Community, such as organizing church activities,
participating in self-help activities such as building of clinics, water wells or participation in the local school
Parent-Teacher Association.

Customary law - Laws based on the traditions and the governing behavior of a particular society.

Development - A term around which there has been much debate. It used to be equated with economic
development but more recently, has become synonymous with human development. Perhaps the most useful
short-hand definition is that development “…aims at the constant improvement of the wellbeing of the entire
population and of all individuals on the basis of their free, meaningful participation in development and in the
fair distribution of benefits resulting there from” (UN Declaration on the Right to Development, December
1956)

Empowerment - The process of gaining access to resources and developing people’s capacities in order to
actively participate in shaping one’s own life and community in economic, social and political terms.

Gender - A way of looking at society which focuses on women’s roles and responsibilities in relation to those
of men.

Gender roles - Functional responsibilities that are given to men and women by society and are influenced by
the cultural, political, economical, religious and social situation.

Gender equality - Where women and men have equal conditions for realizing their full human rights and
potential to contribute to and benefit from development. Thus taking into account their similarities,
differences and the various roles they play.

Gender imbalances - Inequalities that exist between men and women and are not related to their biological
roles.

Productive role - Tasks that produce goods or services with a monetary value attached, including trading,
farming and formal employment.

Reproductive role - Tasks related to child bearing, rearing and general well-being of the family.

Structural Adjustment Programme - The process of “adjusting” the economies of developing countries as a
result of the debt crisis

Sub-Saharan Africa - Those African countries situated to the South of the Sahara Desert.

Triple roles - Describes three types of work that people do to maintain households and communities. The
three categories of work are productive, reproductive and community work.

2. THEORIES OF WOMEN’S ISSUES IN DEVELOPMENT

 The question has been asked whether the issue of women’s development is an issue separate from
that of broader development. Research and practical experience has, in general, taught us the following:

● Women have not benefited from development processes, programmes and projects to the same extent as
men

● Women are very often not included in the planning or implementation of development

● Development can undermine the role, status and position of women in society

● Development affects women and men differently, often with a negative impact on women

The debates about women and to what extent they benefit or do not benefit from development have led to
the emergence of three distinctive models. These models seek to explain how development affects women
and why women and men are affected by development differently. These models are discussed in some detail
below.

Women in Development (WID)

By the 1970s it had become very clear that women were being left out of development. They were not
benefiting significantly from it and in some instances their existing status and position in society was actually
being made worse by development.

The WID approach saw the problem as the exclusion of women from development programmes and
approaches. As a result, the solution was seen as integrating women into such programmes. WID saw women
as a group being treated as lacking opportunity to participate in development. The main task, therefore, was
to improve women’s access to resources and their participation in development.

The WID approach argued for the integration of women into development programmes and planning.
This, it was argued, was the best way to improve women’s position in society. There was, for instance, a major
emphasis on income-generating projects for women as a means of integration. Welfare oriented projects
dealing with small income-generating projects and activities mostly aimed at women’s reproductive role,
where nutrition education and family planning were a main feature.

The WID approach, although it had limitations, increased the visibility of women in development
issues. WID was successful in helping secure a prominent place for women’s issues at the United Nations (UN)
and other international development agencies. The UN declared 1975 to 1985 the Decade for Women. One of
the major achievements of the decade was the establishment of women in development structures or
machineries. In Zambia, for instance, it was during this time that the Women’s League of the then ruling
political party United National Independence Party (UNIP) was formed as the national machinery to address
women’s development issues. The Women’s League developed a programme of action and a campaign to
promote the integration of women in the development process at every level.

Over time, it was felt women’s integration into development was not taking place due to the lack of an
established structure within government to plan, coordinate and monitor the implementation of policy to
integrate women. A WID Unit was established in 1986 at the National Commission for Development Planning,
the central planning and coordinating body of government. The WID unit was later elevated to a full
department. Its focus was the integration of women in development and to ensure that ministries and other
implementing bodies worked towards the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of women as the
way to ensure their total integration in development.

Although the WID approach made demands for women’s inclusion in development, it did not call for
changes in the overall social structure or economic system in which women were to be included. As such, WID
concentrated narrowly on the inequalities between men and women and ignored the social, cultural, legal and
economic factors that give rise to those inequalities in society. WID tended to focus on women almost
exclusively and assumed that women were outside the mainstream of development.

Women and Development (WAD)

As a result of criticisms of the WID approach, the Women and Development (WAD) approach arose in
the latter part of the 1970s. Adopting a Marxist feminist approach, the main argument of WAD was that
women had always been part of the development processes. WAD asserts that women have always been
important economic actors. The work they do both inside and outside the household is critical to the
maintenance of society. However, this integration has only served to sustain global inequalities. Therefore, the
WID approach that placed emphasis on integrating women into development was not correct.

The main focus of WAD is on the interaction between women and development processes rather than
purely on strategies to integrate women into development.

WAD saw both women and men as not benefiting from the global economic structures because of
disadvantages due to class and the way wealth is distributed. WAD therefore argued that the integration of
women into development was to their disadvantage and only made their inequality worse. WAD saw global
inequalities as the main problem facing poor countries and, therefore, the citizens of those countries.

WAD was very persuasive in raising the debate that women have a role not only in reproduction but in
production as well. For development to be meaningful for women both these roles have to be acknowledged.

WAD has been criticized for assuming that the position of women will improve if and when
international structures become more equitable. In so doing, it sees women’s positions as primarily within the
structure of international and class inequalities. It therefore underplays the role of patriarchy in undermining
women’s development and does not adequately address the question of social relations between men and
women and their impact on development.

It has been argued that, although at a theoretical level WAD recognizes and focuses strongly on class,
in practical project design and implementation, it tends like WID to group women together irrespective of
other considerations such as class divisions.

Gender and Development (GAD)

In the 1980s further reflections on the development experiences of women gave rise to Gender and
Development (GAD). GAD represented a coming together of many feminist ideas. It sought to bring together
both the lessons learned from, and the limitations of, the WID and WAD approaches.

GAD looks at the impact of development on both women and men. It seeks to ensure that both women
and men participate in and benefit equally from development and so emphasizes equality of benefit and
control. It recognizes that women may be involved in development, but not necessarily benefit from it. GAD is
not concerned with women exclusively, but with the way in which gender relations allot specific roles,
responsibilities and expectations between men and women, often to the detriment of women.

Development, therefore, is about deep and important changes to relations dealing with gender
inequality within society. This approach also pays particular attention to the oppression of women in the
family or the ‘private sphere’ of women’s lives. As a result, we have seen projects develop addressing issues
such as violence against women.

GAD focuses on the social or gender relations (i.e. the division of labor) between men and women in
society and seeks to address issues of access and control over resources and power. The GAD approach has
also helped us understand that the gender division of labour gives “triple roles” to women in society. The
gender division of labour operates differently from one society and culture to another and it is also dynamic.
The way these roles are analyzed and valued affects the way development projects will make certain things a
priority or not. Provision for child-care for instance is not likely to be a priority among men planning for
development but it is a crucial factor in ensuring women may take advantage of development opportunities
for their benefit.

GAD goes further than the other approaches in emphasizing both the reproductive and productive role
of women and argues that it is the state’s responsibility to support the social reproduction role mostly played
by women of caring and nurturing of children. As such, it treats development as a complex process that is
influenced by political, social and economic factors rather than as a state or stage of development. It therefore
goes beyond seeing development as mainly economic well-being but also that the social and mental wellbeing
of a person is important. Arising from the GAD analysis is the need for women to organize themselves into a
more effective political voice in order to strengthen their legal rights and increase the number of women in
decision making.

In Zambia, the response of government in 1996 to these changes in approach was to elevate the WID
department to the Gender in Development Division (GIDD) at Cabinet Office, under the Office of the President.
These changes put GIDD in a stronger position as it was given its own vote in the national budget and a better
position from which to influence policy.

Development theory has also changed from a focus on needs to support for rights. Basic rights are
those rights which flow from people’s basic needs such as water, food and housing. This is in recognition of
the fact that WID interventions which focused on meeting the practical needs of women have not been
successful. This is because they did not challenge fundamentally the structures that come in the way of
women’s participation in society on an equal basis with men.

3. PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF WOMEN

The Welfare Approach

Until the early 1970s, development programmes addressed the needs of women almost entirely within
the context of their reproductive roles. The focus was on mother and child health, child-care and nutrition.
Population control - or family planning as it later came to be known - was a major focus as well due to the link
made between population growth and poverty. The focus was clearly on meeting practical needs. It was also
assumed that broad economic strategies oriented towards modernization and growth would trickle down to
the poor and that poor women would benefit as the general economic situation improved.

But the assumptions that women’s position would improve together with general improvements in the
economy, or with the economic positions of their husbands, began to be challenged as it became clear that
women were in fact losing out. Women, as a result, were being increasingly associated with backwardness and
the traditional while men were increasingly identified with the modern and progressive. Men were assisted in
this with economic development projects, such as the introduction of cash crops, and new agricultural
technologies that excluded women.

The Equity Approach

Feminist calls for gender equality were important in bringing about this approach, the main aim of
which was to eliminate discrimination. It emphasized the revaluing of women’s contribution and share of
benefits from development. The equity approach also dealt with both the productive and reproductive roles
as a responsibility of government. The emphasis on revaluing women’s contribution and share of benefits
meant that the approach dealt with issues of policy and legal measures as a means of bringing about equity.
The equity approach, in contrast to the welfare approach, saw women as active participants organizing to
bring about necessary changes.

The Anti-Poverty Approach

This approach focuses on both the productive and reproductive role of women with an emphasis on
satisfaction of basic needs and the productivity of women. A key operational strategy required access to
income generation and waged employment. The tendency with this approach was to reinforce the basic needs
and ignore the strategic needs of women.

The Efficiency Approach

The efficiency approach targets women as workers and is a product of the 1980s’ economic reforms
known as the Structural Adjustment Programmes of the International Monetary fund and the World Bank. Its
aim has been increased production and economic growth with an emphasis on full use of human resources.
Education and training are therefore key strategies. Advocates of this approach argue that gender analysis
makes good economic sense. This is because understanding men’s and women’s roles and responsibilities as
part of the planning of development activities helps improve effectiveness and ensures that women, as well as
men, can play their part in national development.

The efficiency approach succeeded in bringing the concerns about women and gender into the
mainstream of development. However, this was done with a focus on what women could do for development,
rather than on what development could do for women.

But the economic reforms in effect undervalue paid work as they seek to restrict trade union activity
and freeze wages of workers. They also burden women due to restrictions on social spending in areas such as
health and education. Women are therefore spending much more time in caring for the ill. In so burdening
women the reforms hinder progress towards meeting women’s strategic needs.

The Empowerment Approach

 This is an approach closely associated with third world feminist and grassroots organizations. The aim
of the empowerment approach is to increase the self-reliance of women and to influence change at the policy,
legislative, societal, economic and other levels to their advantage. Its main point of reference is the “triple
roles” of women and it emphasizes women’s access to decision-making. Its main strategy is awareness-raising
and situates women firmly as active participants in ensuring change takes place. Building organizational skills
and self-esteem is an important aspect of the empowerment approach.

The empowerment approach has been instrumental in ensuring that opportunities are opened for
women to determine their own needs. However, empowerment has often been misunderstood to be an end
rather than a means. This has resulted in poor women becoming very knowledgeable about issues while
realizing little change to their material situation, which is often dire.

g) Empowerment and Resiliency Model

By focusing on competence rather than deficits in individual or social functioning, the empowerment
model supports resourcefulness and the development of skills to remove social barriers for individuals and
communities. ... An empowering approach reveals the worker's unwavering commitment to social justice.
Empowerment Method

SAU established the first MSW program with an empowerment specialization in the U.S.

The empowerment method focuses on the achievement of goals and change of systems by utilizing
available strengths, resilience, and resources. By focusing on competence rather than deficits in individual or
social functioning, the empowerment model supports resourcefulness and the development of skills to
remove social barriers for individuals and communities.

Framed by a generalist foundation, empowerment practice directs social workers to address challenges
at all levels, including those of individuals, families, groups, organizations, neighborhoods, communities, and
society. Empowerment is achieved through synchronized efforts that work with – not on – people, their
relationships, and the impinging social and political environment. These simultaneous and coordinated efforts
create a spiral of influences that initiate, sustain, and amplify empowered functioning.

Empowerment-based practice actuates a strengths perspective, centering the social work process
toward competence promotion and away from the stigmatizing notion of deficit reduction. An empowering
approach reveals the worker's unwavering commitment to social justice. This approach operates on the axiom
that we all benefit when we acknowledge every person's rights and responsibilities to contribute to and
receive from community participation in a reciprocal relationship.

Being empowered is not a static condition but rather a dynamic and cyclical one. Human individual and
social systems are in perpetual motion, either "getting better" or "getting worse" at any given moment.
Empowerment indicates a simpatico state in which one's perception of self-efficacy and essential value is
mirrored in and accentuated by social relationships and the larger environment. Empowerment is a
confluence of the individual, the interpersonal, and the sociopolitical where the experience of power in each
sphere continually replenishes the others.
 The empowered individual enters each interaction assuming success, respect, and influence; and when
these expectations are rewarded, carries back a sense of personal control and esteem. This realization of
interpersonal success builds confidence for interactions at the institutional level-feelings that drive
empowered people forward to assert their rights, develop their privilege, and fashion just environments. In
return, a just and ethical society offers equal access to power which is reflected in the lives of each individual
citizen.

Empowering initiatives at the individual level are supported and sustained only by opening pathways to
power sources in social, economic, and institutional structures. Empowering initiatives at the societal level
only have benefits when those individuals and groups previously disenfranchised rise up to meet them.

To facilitate empowerment, practitioners integrate a continuum of strategies ranging from individual

development to relationship improvement to resource acquisition and reallocation through social and
institutional change. Collaborating as partners, clients and social workers can coordinate these efforts
simultaneously or sequentially, but no part of the ecosystemic transaction can be ignored.

Empowerment efforts at the personal level provide only brief respite if they are not supported by
complementary changes within interpersonal and sociopolitical realms. Likewise, even broad-based social
improvements wane if not protected by the continuing influence of empowered individuals, families, and
groups.

As much as we wish things would 'just go our way,' difficulties are inevitable, and we all have to deal
with them. Resilience Theory argues that it's not the nature of adversity that is most important, but how we
deal with it. When we face adversity, misfortune, or frustration, resilience helps us bounce back.

This topic contains:

 What is Resilience Theory?

 6 Impactful Articles on Resilience and Mental Toughness
 What Research in Positive Psychology Shows
 Resilience Theory in Social Work
 Family Resilience Theory
 Shame Resilience Theory
 Community Resilience Theory
 Organizational Resilience Theory
 The ‘Science of Resilience’
 Norman Garmezy’s Main Findings and Contribution
 Seligman’s 3P’s Model of Resilience
 A Take-Home Message

What is Resilience Theory?

Defining Resilience
Resilience has been defined in numerous ways, including the following:
 “…the ability to bounce back from adversity, frustration, and misfortune…” (Ledesma, 2014: 1);

 “the developable capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict, and failure or even
positive events, progress, and increased responsibility” (Luthans, 2002a: 702);
  “…a stable trajectory of healthy functioning after a highly adverse event” (Bonanno et al., 2004;
Bonanno et al., 2011); and

 “…the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully” (Masten, 2014; Southwick, 2014).
 
When a panel discussion was called asking researchers to debate the nature of resilience, all agreed that
resilience is complex – as a construct, it can have a different meaning between people, companies, cultures,
and society. They also agreed that people could be more resilient at one point in their lives, and less during
another, and that they may be more resilient in some aspects of their lives than others (Southwick, 2014).

In case you’re interested, the table below from Greene and colleagues (2004) shows even more ways
resilience has been described.

Resilience Theory

So, resilience as a concept is not necessarily straightforward, and there are many operational
definitions in existence. Resilience Theory, according to van Breda (2018: 1), is the study of the things that
make this phenomenon whole: Its definition; What ‘adversity’ and ‘outcomes’ actually mean, and; The scope
and nature of resilience processes.

Are you curious to find out more about your resilience before learning more? This Brief Resilience Scale from
our toolkit is an excellent place to start.

6 Impactful Resilience Articles on Resilience and Mental Toughness

Ready to learn a bit more about resilience theory? For those who are keen to dig into the literature,
this list demonstrates precisely how widely the concept can be applied: in social work, organizational,
childhood development contexts, and more. You’ll find the full citations for these papers in the Reference
section at the end of this article.
  1. A Critical Review of Resilience Theory and its Relevance for Social Work

In this literature review, Professor Adrian van Breda considers peer-reviewed articles on resilience in
the field of social work, discussing the evolution of an (as-yet to be established) consensus on its definition. He
considers how it works, developments in the theory, looking at the study of resilience in South African cultures
and societies (van Breda, 2018).

2. Resilience Theory and Research on Children and Families: Past, Present, and Promise

Masten is known for her work on resilience and its role in helping families and children deal with
adversity. In this article, she defines resilience as “the capacity of a system to adapt successfully to significant
challenges that threaten its function, viability, or development” (Masten, 2018: 1).

Masten delves into the theory’s history and its research in this field in an attempt to integrate applications,
models, and knowledge that may help children and their families grow and adjust.

  3. Family Resilience: A Developmental Systems Framework

Professor Froma Walsh, Co-Founder of the Chicago Center for Family Health, has written extensively on
family resilience and the positive adaptation of family units. In Family resilience: a developmental systems
framework (Walsh, 2016), she considers the key processes in family resilience and gives a great overview of
the concept from a family systems perspective.

  4. Community Resilience: Toward an Integrated Approach

Fikret Berkes and Helen Ross (2013) examine two distinct approaches to understanding community
resilience – a social-ecological approach, and a mental health and developmental psychology perspective. This
article – unpacked a little more further on – is a great read for anyone with an academic interest in the
growing research on resilience at the community level.

  5. Organizational Resilience: Towards a Theory and Research Agenda

A 2007 article by Vogus and Sutcliffe attempts to define organizational resilience and examine its
underpinning mechanisms. It considers the relational, cognitive, structural, and affective elements of the
construct before proposing some research questions for those with an academic interest in the topic.

  6. Are Adolescents with High Mental Toughness Levels More Resilient Against Stress?

While there are plenty of sports psychology articles that examine mental toughness, it’s not often you
come across academic papers that consider its importance in other areas. This article by Gerber and
colleagues (2012) investigates whether mentally tough adolescents are resilient to stress, and finds that
mental toughness plays a mitigating role between high stress and depressive symptoms.

What Research in Positive Psychology Shows?

Resilience and positive psychology are often closely related. Both are concerned with how promotive
factors work, and both look at how a ‘beneficial’ construct can facilitate our well-being (Luthar et al., 2014).
 Resilience theory and positive psychology are both applied fields of study, meaning that we can use
them in daily life to benefit humanity, and both are very closely concentrated on the importance of social
relationships (Luthar, 2006; Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 2011).

So let’s look at what positive psychology research shows on resilience.

Character Strengths and Resilience

Strengths such as gratitude, kindness, hope, and bravery have been shown to act as protective factors
against life’s adversities, helping us adapt positively and cope with difficulties such as physical and mental
illness (Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013).

Empirical research in this area shows evidence that some character strengths can also be significant
predictors of resilience, with particular correlations between emotional, intellectual, and restraint-related
strengths and the former (Martínez-Martí and Ruch (2017).

In this study, hope, bravery, and zest had the most extensive relationship with positive adaptation in
the face of challenge. This led the authors Martínez-Martí and Ruch to speculate that processes such as
determination, social connectedness, emotional regulation, and more were at play.

From this particular cross-sectional study, however, no causal relationship was determined. In other
words, we don’t know whether resilience impacts on our strengths or vice versa.

The effect may work the other way around with adversity, and post-traumatic growth helps us build
character strengths, but nonetheless, it’s an example of resilience and positive psychology’s interlinkage
(Tedeschi & Calhoun, 1995; Peterson et al., 2008).

 Resilience and Positive Emotions

Most people think of happiness whenever positive psychology is mentioned, so are happiness and
resilience related? A 2009 study by Cohn and colleagues suggests that they may well be. To be specific,
happiness is a positive emotion.

According to the Broaden-and-Build Theory of positive emotions, happiness is one emotion that helps
us become more explorative and adaptable in our thoughts and behaviors – we create enduring resources that
help us live well (Fredrickson, 2004).

In Cohn et al.’s (2009) lab study of university students, findings suggest that participants who
frequently experienced positive emotions such as happiness grew more satisfied with their lives. How? By
creating resources, such as ego resilience, that helped them tackle a wide variety of challenges.

These results correspond with other evidence that positive emotions can facilitate resource growth
and findings that link psychological resilience with physical health, psychological well-being, and positive affect
(Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Nath & Pradhan, 2012).

 Its Role in Positive Organizational Behavior

Other studies have looked at resilience as one of numerous coping positive psychological resources,

alongside optimism and hope.
 Positive organizational behavior has been defined by Luthans (2002b: 59) as “the study and application
of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured,
developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace.”

A 2007 study found evidence that psychological resilience was one resource that related positively to
work happiness and job satisfaction, alongside job performance and organizational commitment.

So can training employees help encourage positive organizational behavior? Interestingly, it’s worth noting
that the jury is still out on whether this is the case (Robertson et al., 2015).

 Resilience Theory in Social Work

Over recent decades, Resilience Theory has become ever more important in the field of social work, in
particular, social work that involves children.

One of the reasons for this is the central role of community relationships to both academic fields, and
the key social work principle that people should accept responsibility for one another’s well-being
(International Federation of Social Workers, 2019).

One of the main drivers for more Resilience Theory research in social work contexts is the idea that
identifying resilience-building factors can help at-risk clients by (Greene et al., 2004):

 Promoting their competence and improving their health.

 Helping them overcome adversity and navigate life stressors.
 Boosting their ability to grow and survive.

Concerning social workers, key issues in the field include:

 Identifying protective factors and using them to inform interventions.

 Using practical applications to promote the capacity and strength of individual clients, societies, and
communities.
 Understanding how social work policy and services promote or hinder well-being, social, and economic
injustice.

 Social Work Strategies for Building Client Resilience

Greene and colleagues’ (2004) research also investigated the strategies and skills social workers relied
on to boost the resilience of their clients. Some of these included:

 Providing clients with safety and necessities when faced with adversity or traumatic events – for
example, talking calmly with distressed individuals, reassuring them of their capabilities and ability to
get through their troubles;
 Listening, being present and honest, and learning from individuals’ stories while acknowledging their
pain;
 Promoting interpersonal relationships, attachments, and connections between people in a community
or society;
 Encouraging them to view themselves as part of a society, and a valued member of it; and
 Modeling resilient behaviors, such as dealing with the stress of the job in healthy ways. 

Family Resilience Theory

 Family resilience has been defined in several ways. One way of viewing the construct is as the
“characteristics, dimensions, and properties of families which help families to be resistant to disruption in the
face of change and adaptive in the face of crisis situations’’ (McCubbin & McCubbin 1988: 247).

Another, more recent definition describes it as the “capacity of the family, as a functional system, to
withstand and rebound from stressful life challenges – emerging strengthened and more resourceful’’ (Walsh,
1996; 2002; 2003).

Both these definitions take the concept of individual psychological or emotional resilience and apply it
at a broader level; one of the key areas that interests researchers is how families respond immediately when
faced with challenges, and over the longer term (Walsh, 2016).

 Family Resilience Processes

In a meta-analysis on family resilience, Walsh (2003: 7) proposes that the concept involves nine dynamic
processes, which interact with one another and help families strengthen their ties while developing more
resources and competencies.

Source: Walsh (2016: 10)

 Making sense of adversity – e.g., normalizing distress and contextualizing it, viewing crises as
manageable and meaningful;
 Having a positive outlook – e.g., focusing on potential, having hope and optimism;
 Spirituality and transcendence – e.g., growing positively from adversity and connecting with larger
values;
 Flexibility – e.g., reorganizing and re-stabilizing to provide predictability and continuity;
 Connectedness – e.g., providing each other mutual support and committing to one another;
 Mobilizing economic and social resources – e.g., creating financial security and seeking support from
the community at large;
  Clarity – e.g., providing one another with information and consistent messages;
 Sharing emotions openly – including positive and painful feelings; and
 Solving problems collaboratively – e.g., through joint decision-making, a goal-focus, and building on
successes.

Shame Resilience Theory

Shame Resilience Theory was developed by Brene Brown, who introduced the concept in her 2006
paper Shame Resilience Theory: A grounded theory study on women and shame, and book: I Thought It Was
Just Me (but it isn’t).

The theory attempts to study how we respond to and defeat shame – an emotion we all experience.
Brown describes SRT as the ability to recognize this negative emotion when we feel it, and overcome it
constructively, in such a way that we can “retain our authenticity and grow from our experiences.” (Brown,
2008).

Read more about SRT in this excellent article by Joaquín Selva: Shame Resilience Theory: How to
Respond to Feelings of Shame.

Community Resilience Theory

A Community Resilience Concept

Some have defined community resilience as the “existence, development and engagement of
community resources by community members to thrive in an environment characterized by change,
uncertainty, unpredictability, and surprise” (Magis 2010: 401).

In other words, one approach to defining community resilience emphasizes the importance of:

 Individual mental health; and

 Personal development on a social system’s capacity to unite and collaborate toward a shared goal or
objective (Berkes & Ross, 2013).

The key focus of community resilience is on identifying and developing both individual and community
strengths and establishing the processes that underpin resilience-promoting factors (Buikstra et al. 2010). Its
goals also include understanding how communities leverage these strengths together to facilitate self-
organization and agency, which then contribute to a collective process of overcoming challenges and adversity
(Berkes & Ross, 2013).

Community resilience is considered an ongoing process of personal development in dealing with

adversity through adaptation and understandably plays a vital role in social work contexts (Almedom et al.
2007).

Relevant research questions related to Community Resilience Theory include (Berkes & Ross, 2013):

 What are the characteristics of individual and community resilience, and how can these be fostered?
(Buikstra et al., 2010);
 How is community resilience related to health, and how are health professionals able to help? (Kulig et
al. 2000; 2008; 2010); and
  How can community resilience improve readiness for disaster? (Norris et al., 2008)

Community Strengths Promoting Resilience

While community strengths vary between groups, Berkes & Ross (2013) identify a few characteristics that
have a central role in helping communities develop resilience. These strengths, processes, and attributes
include:

 Social networks and support;

 Early experience;
 People-place connections;
 Engaged governance;
 Community problem-solving; and
 Ability to cope with divisions.

 Organizational Resilience Theory

Just as people can develop their resilience, organizations can learn to rebound from and adapt after
facing challenges. Organizational resilience can be thought of as “a ‘culture of resilience,’ which manifests
itself as a form of ‘psychological immunity,’” to incremental and transformational changes, according to
Boston Consulting Group Fellow Dr. George Stalk Jr. (Everly, 2011).

With a host of factors contributing consistently to a dynamic and sometimes turbulent business environment,
organizational resilience has gained incredible salience in recent years. And at the heart of it, Everly argues,
are optimism and perceived self-efficacy.

 How To Build Organizational Resilience

A culture of organizational resilience relies heavily on role-modeling behaviors. Even a few credible and
high-profile individuals in a company demonstrating resilient behaviors may encourage others to do the same
(Everly, 2011).

These behaviors include:

 Persisting in the face of adversity;

 Putting effort into dealing with challenges;
 Practicing and demonstrating self-aiding thought patterns;
 Providing support to and mentoring others;
 Leading with integrity;
 Practicing open communication; and
 Showing decisiveness.

Read more about Positive Organizations here.

 The ‘Science of Resilience’

Are some people born more resilient than others? One well-known article, The Science of Resilience:
Implications for the Prevention and Treatment of Depression, discusses human biological responses to trauma
and looks at a sample of high-risk individuals to understand why some are more able to cope even in the face
of life-changing adversity.

Examining three samples of participants to investigate whether these individuals had a genetic
predisposition toward being more resilient:

 Special Forces instructors;

 Ex-Vietnam POWs; and
 Individuals who had suffered considerable trauma.

In doing so, Southwick and colleagues looked at the psychological factors of these individuals, their genetic
factors, and their spiritual, social, and biological factors (Southwick, 2012).

Their results:

Risk and protective factors generally have additive and interactive effects…having multiple genetic,
developmental, neurobiological, and/or psychosocial risk factors will increase all static load or stress
vulnerability, whereas having and enhancing multiple protective factors will increase the likelihood of stress
resilience.

Put succinctly, genetic factors do have an important influence on our responses to trauma and stress – the
image below gives a good overview of their findings.

Source: Southwick et al. (2012: 81)

In his article – mentioned in our References section – you can learn more about two key concepts that are
central to Resilience Theory:

 Learned Helplessness – where individuals believe they are incapable of changing or controlling their
circumstances after repeatedly experiencing a stressful event; and
  Stress Inoculation – whereby they can develop an “adaptive stress response and become more resilient
than normal to the negative effects of future stressors” (Southwick, 2012: 80).

 Norman Garmezy’s Main Findings and Contribution

Minnesota University Developmental Psychologist Norman Garmezy is one of the best-known

contributors to Resilience Theory as we know it. His seminal work on Resilience was focused on how we could
prevent mental illness through protective factors such as motivation, cognitive skills, social change, and
personal ‘voice’ (Garmezy, 1992).

His pioneering work included the Project Competence Longitudinal Study (PCLS), which contributed
operational definitions, frameworks, measures, and more to the study of competence and resilience. Started
around 1974, the PCLS was developed to enable more structured and rigorous Resilience research and look
into protective buffers that help children overcome adversity (Masten & Tellegen, 2012).

One of the more impactful discoveries that it led to was that resilience is a dynamic construct that
changes over time; another was the concept of developmental cascades, which describe how functioning in
one domain can influence other levels of adaptive function.

If you’re curious to find out more about the work of Norman Garmezy, Masten and Tellegen’s
(2012) paper is a great read: Resilience in developmental psychopathology: Contributions of the Project
Competence Longitudinal Study.

 Seligman’s 3P’s Model of Resilience

The best-known positive psychology framework for resilience is Seligman’s 3P’s Model.

These 3 P’s – Personalization, Pervasiveness, and Permanence – refer to three emotional reactions that we
tend to have to adversity. By addressing these 3 (often automatic) responses, we can build resilience and
grow, developing our adaptability and learning to cope better with challenges.

The 3P’s

Seligman’s 3P’s are (Seligman, 1990):

 Personalization – a cognitive distortion that’s best described as the internalization of problems or

failure. When we hold ourselves accountable for bad things that happen, we put a lot of unnecessary
blame on ourselves and make it harder to bounce back.
 Pervasiveness – assuming negative situations spread across different areas of our life. As an example,
losing a contest and assuming that all is doom and gloom in general. By acknowledging that bad
feelings don’t impact every life domain, we can move forward toward a better life.
 Permanence – believing that bad experiences or events last forever, rather than being transient or
one-off events. Permanence prevents us from putting effort into improving our situation, often making
us feel overwhelmed and as though we can’t recover.

These three perspectives help us understand how our thoughts, mindset, and beliefs affect our
experiences. By recognizing their role in our ability to adapt positively, we can start becoming more resilient
and learning to bounce back from life’s challenges.

A Take-Home Message
 Resilience is something we can all develop, whether we want to grow as individuals, as a family, or as a
society more broadly. If you’re interested in developing your psychological resilience, you can   click the link
Realizing Resilience masterclass uses science-based tools and techniques to help you understand the concept
better and cultivate more “bounce-back.”

Or, if you’re hoping to read more about the topic in general, you’ve got a vast range of blog articles,
worksheets, and activities in this link  Resilience & Coping.

h) Rights Based Approach

What is a human rights based approach?

A human rights based approach is about empowering people to know and claim their rights and
increasing the ability and accountability of individuals and institutions who are responsible for respecting,
protecting and fulfilling rights.

This means giving people greater opportunities to participate in shaping the decisions that impact on
their human rights. It also means increasing the ability of those with responsibility for fulfilling rights to
recognize and know how to respect those rights, and make sure they can be held to account.

A human rights based approach is about ensuring that both the standards and the principles of human rights
are integrated into policymaking as well as the day to day running of organizations.

The PANEL principles

There are some underlying principles which are of fundamental importance in applying a human rights
based approach in practice. These are:

 participation
 accountability
 non-discrimination and equality
 empowerment and
 legality.

These are known as the PANEL principles.

Participation

Everyone has the right to participate in decisions which affect their human rights. Participation must be
active, free, meaningful and give attention to issues of accessibility, including access to information in a form
and a language which can be understood.

What does this mean for us?

In relation to the care of older people this means that individuals should participate in all decisions
about the care and support they are receiving. This could range from participation in the commissioning and
procurement of social care services by local authorities to participating in daily decisions about the care and
support being received.
 There is a lot of guidance about how care providers can involve people who use care services and their
families and friends, such as the Care Commission’s guidance for care service providers, ‘Involving people who
use care services and their families, friends and supporters’ (2009). You can read this document by
clicking here

Accountability

Accountability requires effective monitoring of human rights standards as well as effective remedies
for human rights breaches.

For accountability to be effective there must be appropriate laws, policies, institutions, administrative
procedures and mechanisms of redress in order to secure human rights.

What does this mean for us?

In the care sector in Scotland there are a range of bodies which promote accountability for respecting,
protecting and fulfilling human rights. In different ways these bodies all have a responsibility to ensure that
the standards of accountability for human rights are as high as possible. These include the commissioners of
care services, care provider organizations and inspection and regulation bodies.

Non-discrimination and equality

A human rights based approach means that all forms of discrimination in the realization of rights must
be prohibited, prevented and eliminated. It also requires the prioritization of those in the most marginalized
situations who face the biggest barriers to realizing their rights.

What does this mean for us?

There are times when older people receiving care and support services can be amongst some of the
most vulnerable and marginalized people in our society - a human rights based approach means we must pay
particular attention to the protection and realization of their rights. Sometimes, because of their age, older
people are discriminated against in access to services or in opportunities to express their views. Older people
also have different identities based on their gender, ethnicity, religion and many other grounds. Each of these
identities should be respected when receiving care and support services.

Empowerment of rights holders

A human rights based approach means that individuals and communities should know their rights. It
also means that they should be fully supported to participate in the development of policy and practices which
affect their lives and to claim rights where necessary.

What does this mean for us?

This means that everyone, including older people, should understand what their rights are and how
they can claim these rights. Achieving this may require the provision of appropriate advocacy support.

Legality of rights

A human rights based approach requires the recognition of rights as legally enforceable entitlements
and is linked in to national and international human rights law.

What does this mean for us?

 Care providers and all other accountable bodies must be sure that their practices and procedures are
grounded in human rights law. Under the law they must not breach the human rights of anyone.

i) Strengths Based Perspectives

PRINCIPLES

The Strengths Perspective is an approach to social work that puts the strengths and resources of people,
communities, and their environments, rather than their problems and pathologies, at the center of the helping
process.
It was created as a corrective and transformative challenge to predominant practices and policies that
reduce people and their potential to deficits, pathologies, problems, and dysfunctions. The Strengths
Perspective emphasizes the human capacity for resilience, resistance, courage, thriving, and ingenuity, and it
champions the rights of individuals and communities to form and achieve their own goals and aspirations.
While acknowledging the difficulties that clients experience, the Strengths Perspective never limits people to
their traumas, problems, obstacles, illness, or adversity; rather, it addresses them as challenges, opportunities,
and motivators for change. Social workers are enjoined to collaborate with clients, their families, and
communities to discover and generate hopes and opportunities, to mobilize inner and environmental
strengths and resources, and to act for individual and collective empowerment and social justice. Thus, the
helping relationship is characterized by alliance, empathy, collaboration, and focus on clients’ and
communities’ aspirations and goals.

The main principles of the Strengths Perspective are for social workers to:

 Recognize that every individual, group, family, and community has strengths and resources
 Engage in systematic assessment of strengths and resources
 Realize that while trauma, abuse, illness and struggle may be injurious, they may also be sources
of challenge and opportunity
 Honor client-set goals and aspirations for growth and change
 Serve clients’ and communities’ interests through collaboration with them as directors of their own
helping process
 Mobilize the strengths and resources of clients, relationships, and environments
 Link goals to specific doable actions that activate strengths and resources
 Engage in social work with a sense of caring and hope