Checkoway, Barry, Six Strategies of Community Change, Community Development Journal, 30:1

(1995:Jan.) p.2

Six strategies of Barry Checkoway

community change

ABSTRACT This paper distinguishes among six strategies of community change:

mass mobilization, social action, citizen participation, public advocacy, popular
education, and local services development. It draws on extensive research in urban
and rural areas in industrial and developing countries. It identifies "'citizen participa
tion" - the strategy most familiar to planners - as only one of several available
approaches, challenges practitioners to fit strategy to their situation, and asks: which
strategy has the most potential to empower your community'1

Introduction
Which of the following strategies has the most potential to empower your
community? It is mass mobilization, social action, citizen participation,
public advocacy, popular education, or local services development?'
This question is increasing in importance in industrial and developing
countries. In industrial countries, political and economic changes have
shifted previously public responsibilities to local areas and challenged com
munities to develop their capacity. In developing countries, government and
non-government organizations have adopted community-oriented policies,
but resources are needed for implementation at local levels. There is oppor
tunity and need to consider choice among strategies of community change.
This question is arising in North and South America, Europe and Asia,
Africa and other areas. Community practitioners operate in public and
private voluntary settings; in functional fields such as housing, health and
human services; and in issues of class, race, and gender in urban and rural
areas. They vary from one area to another - from the banks of the Ganges
and the forests of the Amazon to the neighborhoods of Detroit - but
together they share the belief that the community is a unit of solution
(Durning, 1989).
My purpose here is to distinguish six strategies of community change.
This distinction is overdue and not trivial. Little of the growing discussion
of community change draws this distinction or carefully discriminates among
alternative approaches. Yet these are separable movements, each with its
own empirical basis and practice pattern.

1. An earlier version of this paper was presented as the Twelfth Annual Arnulf Pins Memorial
Lecture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Among those who have commented on earlier
drafts of this paper are L. David Brown, Mark Chesler, Gary Craig, John Forrester, John Gaventa,
Barbara Israel, Howie Litwin, Paul Niebanck, Beth Reed, Sari Reukin, Ruud vanderVeen, and
David Werner.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. l January 1995 pp.2-20

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Oxford University Press
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 3
Despite increasing interest in community change, the field remains rela
tively undeveloped as an area of specialization. As a result, there is a
tendency to accept either widely varying or singular notions of community
change which embrace all forms of practice. More than twenty years ago,
Jack Rothman (1968) described three models of community organization,
but new efforts are needed to encompass changes since then, and to inform
practice in the future. 2 My aim here is to provide a greater measure of
clarity in conceptualizing strategies of practice, in the hope that this will
contribute to knowledge and strengthen the field.

Perspectives on community empowerment

Which strategy has the most potential to empower your community? Let
me begin with some words of conceptual clarification.
First, about strategy. Strategy is the science and art of orchestrating
resources toward goals. It is a process of thinking, an approach to action,
and a method of moving in a desired direction. It involves choice and
sequence, staging and timing, and some combination of roles and styles.
Strategy shows commitment to think ahead, anticipate alternatives, and
achieve results.
Strategy can serve as a resource for community change, but in any
community, workers tend not to think or act strategically. Studies suggest
that although they may recognize the importance of strategy as an ideal, or
read books and receive training on strategy, many are preoccupied with
quick thinking and short-range expedience. They often operate in precarious
political or economic environments with unstable sources of support that
cause them to react to situations or struggle for survival rather than to act
strategically. But this situation only increases the importance of strategy
as a resource for community change (Hasenfeld and Schmid, 1989;
Perlmutter, 1984 ).
Second, about community. Community is a word with many meanings
and uses (Cox, 1987). It is customary to view community as a place in
which people live (such as a village or city), or as a population group with
similar characteristics (such as rural villagers or older people), or as a
concern which people share in common (such as religious freedom or status
or women). It also is customary to view community in reference to social
relations characterized by personal intimacy, emotional depth, social cohe
sion, and continuity in time (BaltzelL 1968, Nisbet, 1969). The concept of
community is often used, but less often defined. When it is defined, it is
commonly used as a noun or an adjective.
But community also is a unit of solution in society. It is a process through
which people take initiative and act collectively. It varies from one area to

2. The original article by Rothman (1968) has appeared in repnnted or revised form in success1ve
editions of Cox et a/ (1970. 1974. 1979, 1987) and elsewhere. Readers will recognize my
indebtedness to Rothman. especially in the word1ng of tre concluding sect1on.

Copyright (c) 2003 ProQuest Information and Learning Company

Copyright (c) Oxford University Press
4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 1 1995

another, but generally is based on the belief that problems in communities

have solutions in communities, and that people should participate in the
matters that affect them at the community level. Community thus is more
than a noun or an adjective, but also a verb that refers to a means of
intervention and a process of participation in society (Eng, 1988; Steuart,
1985). What is your community? What is your unit of solution?
Third, about empowerment. This word also has many meanings and uses
(Rappaport, 1981). It is common to view empowerment as a process in
which a person or community gives or gets power from another. The notion
is that power originates outside the person or community, who gives or gets
it from another. In the United States, there is a children's book called The
Wizard of Oz, in which a cowardly lion asks the wizard for courage, and
the wizard goes into the next room and returns to give it to him.
In contrast, my meaning of empowerment assumes that power is a present
or potential resource in every person or community. There is always another
person or community that can become empowered. However, the key is for
people to recognize and act upon the power or potential power that they
already have. In the children's book, the wizard gives a ribbon to the lion,
and when the lion looks at the ribbon he feels as if he has power, and when
he feels this way he also acts this way. And the wizard remarks, "I don't
know why people always ask me for what they already have."
It also is common to view empowerment as a process that operates on a
single level of practice. Thus some social workers claim that if a person
feels empowered, then empowerment has taken place even if the person has
no actual influence in the community. However, social science suggests an
emerging notion of empowerment as a process with multiple levels of
practice. For example, Gutierrez ( 1989) reviews the social work literature
on empowerment and finds that the goal of empowerment is most often
expressed as an increase in personal power, that it tends not to distinguish
the individual perception and actual increase in personal power, and that it
tends not to reconcile personal and political power. She suggests that the
goal of empowerment is not individual but multilevel and concludes: "It is
not sufficient to focus only on developing a sense of personal power or
working toward social change, but efforts to change should encompass
individual, interpersonal, and institutional levels of practice."
Building on this, I view empowerment as a multilevel process which
includes individual involvement, organizational development, and commun
ity change. Individual involvement refers to participation of a person in
decision-making. Community change refers to the impact of involvement in
the community. Organizational development refers to the structures which
mediate between the individual and community and facilitate the collective
action which lies at the heart of community change. Empowerment at its
best includes all three levels: individual involvement, organizational develop
ment, and community change.
Checkoway. Barry, Six Strategies of Community Change. Community Development Journal, 30:1
(1995:Jan.) p.2

SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 5

Strategies of
change
With this as an introduction, I now will distinguish six strategies of
community change. These are not the only strategies, but they are among
the important ones. Which strategy has the most potential to empower your
community?

Mass Mobilization
Mass mobilization aims to create change by amassing individuals around
issues. It assumes that visible public actions can generate power and compel
concessions from targets. It often operates in response to conditions but
not as an independent force, or as a way to win on issues but not as a form
of permanent organization.
Mobilization may appear as a temporary movement in which participants
act in unconventional ways to create change before losing momentum or
facing reprisals. Strategy may include forms of protest through public pro
cessions and demonstrations; active noncooperation through boycotts,
strikes, and acts of civil disobedience; and nonviolent intervention through
sit-ins, occupations, and other challenges to authority. Gene Sharp (1973)
describes more than 200 methods of mobilization used by people in past
and present societies.
Mobilization is a traditional form of community change. In Jerusalem,
Jesus Christ used personal powers to arouse audiences and become known
in the community. He recruited a cadre of disciples, built a following among
the poor and powerless, and engendered controversy which forced his mar
tyrdom and sparked a global movement which continues today (Haley,
1986). In India, Mohandus Ghandi agitated through propaganda and mass
meetings, let boycotts and marches, showed self-sacrifice through hunger
fasting, and employed nonviolent direct action in preparation for takeover
(Bondurant, 1988). In the United States, Martin Luther King, Jr. involved
people in local demonstrations to create a crisis and force issues for national
legislation. He used eloquent biblical language, led bus boycotts and
marches, held sit-ins and sojourns in jail in order to integrate facilities and
produce legislation (Garrow, 1986; Morris, 1984 ). From jail, he wrote:
"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a
tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced
to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer
be ignored."
Mobilization also is an everyday activity which affects personal and
political lives. In a barriada outside Guayaquil, Ecuador, women labor
under primitive conditions and struggle for infrastructure improvements.
They lack electricity, running water, sewerage and roads. They live on plots
connected by catwalks so perilous that many crawl on hands and feet before
venturing out, then wading through mud to acquire provisions in the city.
While waiting in lines to petition politicians for infrastructure, women meet
Checkoway, Barry, Six Strategies of Community Change, Community Development Journal, 30:1
(1995:Jan.) p.2

6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 1 1995

other women in small groups. They share experiences and strengthen con
fidence to question their situation. The protest teaches them about them
selves and contributes to their political development (Moser, 1987).
Mobilization can benefit people who perceive few other options for parti
cipation. For example, Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward ( 1979)
argue that poor people's movements sometimes succeed when they force a
crisis and compel concessions from established institutions. They examine
efforts to mobilize welfare recipients in ways which expand the welfare rolls
and produce limited reforms; and to register disenfranchised people to vote
in elections through services in soup kitchens, surplus food lines, waiting
rooms, unemployment offices, housing projects, health clinics, neighborhood
centers, and places where they live or congregate. They argue that mobiliza
tion is the "best way" for the poor to get some of what they need.
Mobilization also can provoke reactions that lessen its momentum and
worsen the situation it aims to change. Some opponents yield to demands
and concede reforms that reintegrate the disaffected and alter conditions
that nourish mobilization. Others repress mobilization by control of com
munications, psychological pressures, even arrests and imprisonment.
However, these reactions are a normal stage of mobilization, and some
practitioners provoke them as part of their strategy (Zald and McCarthy,
1979).
Scholars debate the precipitating phases and major mechanisms of mobil
ization. Traditional studies assign importance to the "hearts and minds of
the people" in which widespread grievances and group consciousness spark
social movements which select charismatic leaders who mobilize a following
(Obershall, 1973). Other studies emphasize external institutional resources
which create career opportunities and support networks for professionals
who identify issues and build momentum among people who lack awareness
of grievances (McCarthy and Zald, 1973). Yet others argue that mobiliza
tion depends on indigenous resources, social activities tied to organizations,
and effective strategies and tactics (Gamson, 1975; Morris, 1984; Tilly,
1978). Whatever its origins, mobilization is widespread in its uses, particu
larly among people who are alienated from other forms of participation.
Does mobilization empower? There are studies of individuals whose lives
were transformed by their involvement in nonviolent demonstrations and
community campaigns (Linton and Witham, 1982), and whose organiza
tions were formed when they mobilized around issues (Evans, 1980). There
also are studies of individuals whose voices were silenced and spirits were
broken by counterforce of powerholders, whose organizations were
repressed by retaliating regimes, and whose communities were crushed in
the name of public order. Mass mobilization has potential to empower, to
be sure, but does it fit your situation?

Social Action
Social action aims to create change by building powerful organizations
at the community level. It assumes that organizing can win improvements
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 7
in people's lives; make people more aware of their own power; and alter
the relations of power in the community (Booth, 1977).
Social action recognizes that organization is instrumental to power. In
pluralist theory, it is assumed that each interest is free to organize a group
and influence decisions in the community. In practice, however, some eco
nomic or political interests have disproportionate resources and ongoing
organizations, whereas others have few resources and operate in isolation
from one another. For them, organization serves to stimulate collective
action and generate power in the community.
Social action strategy can combine various elements in the process of
organizing a community campaign. Organizers may form small groups to
win victories on initial issues before enlarging groups to win victories on
more major issues. Strategy may include "goals" toward which action is
directed, "issues" which appeal to particular "constituencies" who are affec
ted, "targets" that can correct the problem, and "tactics" that move people
into action on the issues (Booth, 1977; Staples, 1990). They may organize
people to testify in public hearings, take rats from poor neighborhoods into
rich residential areas, or pour polluted water from factories on the carpets
of corporate headquarters.
In the United States, social action is increasing on issues from bank
redlining and hospital access to basics in the classroom and tougher treat
ment of criminals. For example, tenants organize and threaten a rent strike.
Consumers pressure public officials to inspect sanitary violations in a food
store. Older people confront the mayor to order the transit authority to
lower fares before an election. Boyte ( 1980) describes "how twenty million
average Americans have organized around issues of local concern." Pines
( 1982) describes "the traditional movement that is sweeping grassroots
America."
Some social action develops "from protest to program." In Baltimore
residents organized to stop an expressway from encroaching on a residential
area. They formed a coalition of block clubs and civic associations. They
later created a community development corporation, commercial revitaliza
tion program, income-producing businesses, and new social services. They
established neighborhood family services, youth counseling programs, baby
sitting cooperatives, health education workshops, information and referral
directories, a community provider council, and a natural helper network
(Naparstek, 1982).
Some analysts associate social action with Saul Alinsky, who spent several
years building grassroots organizations and using conflict to confront local
authorities. According to Alinsky, "The first step toward a solution is the
development of a people's organization" through escalating conflict and
"rubbing raw the sores of discontent." Alinsky was an influential practi
tioner with a lasting legacy, but it would be mistaken to associate social
action with him alone or to ignore his critics and limitations today ( Horwitt,
1989; Reitzes and Reitzes, 1980).
8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 1 1995

Social action can have positive effects of particular importance for

excluded groups. In Chicago, older people created an organization to repres
ent their interests in the city. They identified issues such as housing and
transit, held monthly congresses to awaken the community, and used con
frontation to increase their influence. When the mayor refused to discuss
an issue, they organized protest demonstrations and mobilized the media
against him in ways that built their organization and increased their influence
in the community.
Social action can develop grassroots leaders who experience an
empowering transformation as a result of their organizing. In a study of
such leaders, Kieffer ( 1984) found that first they feel powerless and alienated
from the world ("You feel powerless, you feel helpless."), then an immediate
threat or violation of their integrity has sufficient force to spark initial
participation ("No! I'm going to stay here and fight ... !''), then they develop
supportive relationships with an outside organizer or community counter
parts in a collective organizational structure that contributes to a more
critical understanding of social and political relations ('"It was so important
that somebody cared enough to be there encouraging me, pushing me ...
no matter how afraid I was."), then they sharpen their skills and strengthen
their sense of themselves in the political process ("All of a sudden I grew
up ... "), and then finally they view themselves as leaders and search for
personally meaningful ways of applying their new abilities and helping
others in the community ("It's changed my whole life - personal, profes
sional, everything. My values have changed. My priorities have changed.
Everything has changed.").
Critics of social action charge that conflict tactics can win minor victories
on immediate issues and give an appearance of power which is neither long
lasting nor beneficial for excluded groups that want better services rather
than more conflict in their lives. Others argue that the preoccupation with
organization can divert people from more powerful forms of community
change. They absorb the organizers in activities that draw people away from
the streets and into the board rooms, where they are unable to sustain their
militancy, where elites channel them into normal politics, and where they
increase their dependence on tangible and symbolic supports from those
who otherwise would be their targets ( Piven and Cloward, 1971 ) .
Does social action empower? There is evidence that it can give people a
sense of personal power, that it can alter the relations of power between
people, and that it can create community change. There also is evidence
that it can have personal costs, that it can organize opposing groups to
strike back and leave some people less powerful than before. Does social
action fit your situation?

Citizen Participation
This strategy aims to involve citizens in policy planning and program
implementation of government agencies. It assumes that people should take
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 9
part in their government, and that agencies should involve them in the
public matters that affect them.
Participation can promise benefits for agencies and citizens. For agencies,
it can collect and provide information, identify attitudes and opinions,
generate new ideas, and build constituency support. It also can involve
traditional nonparticipants, open up the political process, and develop com
munity organization. For citizens and citizen organizations, it can offer
opportunities to gain representation, exercise political rights and influence
policy decisions. Done with skill and commitment, participation can create
change (Checkoway, 1981 ).
In response to the rising demands from citizens, government agencies
have adopted official participation programs. In the United States, these
took the form of public hearings in agency administrative proceedings in
the 1940s, local advisory committees in the urban renewal programs of the
1950s, "maximum feasible participation" of the poor in the community
action and antipoverty programs of the 1960s, "broad representation" of
groups in human service programs of the 1970s, and the proliferation of
methods in most major domestic programs today. City governments also
have put into place a wide range of participation methods, ranging from
field offices and neighborhood city halls to multiservice centers and outreach
programs. Methods to improve communications between agencies and cit
izens have been especially numerous.
In practice, however, the record of participation appears uneven.
Exceptional agencies pursue participation with fervor. In Israel, for example,
the International Committee for the Evaluation of Project Renewal con
cluded that Project Renewal involved residents in local steering committees
in ways which strengthened self-confidence and leadership development in
the neighborhoods. It strengthened community organization by encouraging
formation of black committees and neighborhood councils. It produced
visible improvements in the physical and social infrastructure, housing and
cultural services (Hoffman, 1986).
In Tanzania under Julius Nyerere, government agencies promoted parti
cipation through the establishment of communal villages of Ujamaa. They
viewed the school as a force for participation, conducted community cam
paigns for literacy and health, and held small group discussions focused on
politics and economics. Community participation involved residents in plan
ning and implementation of improvements in infrastructure: roads, water
supplies, schools, health centers, and cattle dips. All came within the capacity
of community groups (Collier, 1986). Exceptional efforts to promote parti
cipation are documented in such areas as food and nutrition in West Africa,
water management in Sri Lanka, irrigation in the Philippines, sanitation
planning in Karachi, housing construction in Mexico, and employment
training in Jamaica (Garcia Zamor, 1985; Turner, 1988).
However, some government agencies use participation for administrative
ends without significant transfer of power. These agencies use participation
10 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 1 1995

to provide public relations for agency plans, or to diffuse antagonism of

protest groups, or to legitimate decisions made elsewhere. Studies suggest
that some agencies favor participation that is not disruptive of program
management, and oppose participation that results in citizen control over
key aspects of programs. They thus favor "safe" methods that provide
information without transfer of power to the community. In this way,
participation is not a form of decentralization, but rather a form of decon
centration in which central agencies deconcentrate functions of services to
local subareas. It is another form of centralization (Checkoway, 1982, 1984).
There are obstacles to expanding participation in government agencies,
obstacles that are administrative in nature, that arise from disparities in
knowledge among the participants, or that result from the absence of
community organization. Authorities often place an emphasis on adminis
trative values which are the antithesis of community participation. They
perceive citizens as "uninformed," regard their inquiries as a waste of time
and distraction from "work," and develop proposals before consulting with
them. Citizens themselves often lack adequate knowledge of technical issues,
or find few issues that are salient enough to capture their imaginations, or
face the opposition of these with an economic interest in limiting participa
tion. The issue is not that agencies are necessarily partisan or captured by
these groups, but rather that agency officials depend upon outside support
and respond to the most powerful inputs they receive (Checkoway, 1979).
Does citizen participation empower? There are studies of exceptional
agencies that pursue participation with fervor, but these are not typical in
the field. There also are studies of agencies that use participation for their
own ends without transfer of power, that represent the rich and powerful
rather than the general population, and that select methods of participation
that strengthen the status quo rather than to create change. Does participa
tion fit your situation?

Public Advocacy
Public advocacy is the process of representing group interests in legislative,
administrative, or other established institutional arenas. It assumes that any
group should have representation regardless of its wealth and power. It
assumes that some groups have substantial resources for representation, but
that others would benefit from advocacy.
Legislative advocates communicate with legislators about proposals that
affect the community. They may formulate strategy to shape legislative
goals, and lobby legislators to see things their way. They may derive influence
from information on the issues, personal persuasion from direct contacts,
political skill in negotiation and compromise, and constituency support in
the external environment. Advocates are not organizers, but they may build
coalitions to support their position (Berry, 1977; Dluhy and Kravitz, 1990).
Administrative advocates hold agencies accountable for compliance with
regulations. They comment on proposed rules and participate in agency
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 11
proceedings. They file complaints on behalf of community clients and "blow
the whistle" on particular practices. Also, legal advocates plead the interests
of groups in the legal system. Lawyers may advocate actions that affect a
whole class of people, such as those dependent on welfare or facing discrim
ination in housing, and use legal techniques to compel agencies to carry out
the letter of the law. Legal actions rely on lawyers rather than on residents,
but they can create change.
Some advocates form advocacy groups to address issues. These groups
generally promote personal contacts with public officials, conduct investigat
ive research and release findings to the media. They use local groups to
show grassroots support, and build coalitions with other groups to expand
resources beyond reach of any one group acting alone. For example, the
Children's Defense Fund works "to provide a strong and effective voice for
children who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves." They monitor
government policies, present an annual legislative agenda, and litigate in
the courts. They gather data and disseminate information on key issues
affecting children, maintain a network of local advocates, and develop
cooperative projects nationwide (Hughes, 1989).
Advocacy planners represent the interest of less powerful groups in the
planning system. They advocate for these groups in urban planning agencies,
in subarea planning projects, and in conflicts between local and comprehens
ive planning. In Cleveland, for example, advocacy planners tried to increase
access to transportation for the "transit dependent." They advocated for
new services and reduced costs for the elderly despite opposition from public
officials and business groups (Krumholz and Forester, 1990).
There are cases of advocacy in which traditionally excluded people advoc
ate for themselves. In Wisconsin, for example, disabled citizens testified in
transportation hearings, campaigned for home care, and petitioned city
council to install curb cuts for wheelchair users (Checkoway and Norsman,
1986). They met personally with public officials, conducted telephone and
letter-writing campaigns, and placed representatives on key boards and
committees. They helped severely multiple handicapped persons to educate
officials about needs, and helped persons with cerebral palsy to approach
transit authorities to increase access to services. A disabled person lobbied
legislators and said, "I've learned to express myself ... I used to let people
walk all over me and now I won't let them." A rural resident in a wheelchair
said, "I learned skills to become more independent, but also to work with
others. I think it's good for people with disabilities to start carrying respons
ibilities and taking leadership ourselves."
Advocates tend to be highly experienced, deeply committed, and anxious
for change. Critics charge that some advocates neither share the socially
descriptive characteristics of their client community, nor consult with or
account to the people they presumably represent, nor involve them in
identifying the issues and advocating for themselves. They charge that some
12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO.1 1995

advocates channel them toward minor modifications in established systems

rather than more fundamental forms of change.
Does advocacy empower? Advocacy can involve individuals, to be sure,
but some advocates activate themselves rather than others, impose personal
values on the community, and even exclude community members from the
process of change. Traditionally excluded people may practice self-advocacy
and experience empowering transformations, but even they do not necessar
ily build organizations or develop communities. If empowerment is not a
cluster of benefits given to people but rather a process in which people gain
greater mastery over their own destiny, then there is need for them to go
beyond advocacy to advocate meaningfully for themselves ( Kasperson,
1974).

Popular Education
Popular education aims to create change by raising critical consciousness
of common concerns. It assumes that people are able to participate but
temporarily unwilling to do so because they may lack consciousness, compet
ence, or confidence. It is a form of praxis in which people reflect critically
on objective reality and act on that reflection to "transform the world."
Popular education can take the form of small-group consciousness-raising.
In the squatters settlements of Brazil, Freire ( 1970) brought together small
groups of people for "education for critical consciousness." They describe
the themes that dominate their daily lives, convey these as problems to be
examined by the group, select several problems for dialogue and reflection
on their root causes, and formulate plans to address the problems. The aim
is to alter consciousness from conforming to reforming to transforming
society.
Popular education can take the form of a community campaign. In the
western mountains of Mexico, David Werner ( 1987, and Werner and Bower,
1982) describes health workers who bring villagers together to discuss the
causes of illness through a problem-posing dialogue that moves from the
individual to the community. They begin with the illness of a single person
and list its biological, physical, and social causes, including the economic
and political causes such as money and power. They often recognize that
social factors are more numerous than biological and physical ones, draw
a "chain of causes" illustrating the links in the chain, and select causes for
dialogue and reflection for action. The process of discovering the root causes
is reflected in the following dialogue between a health worker and a child
in the village:
"The child has a septic foot."
"But why?"
"Because she stepped on a thorn."
"But why?"
"Because she was barefoot."
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 13
"But why?"
"Because she was not wearing shoes."
"But why not?
"Because they broke and her father was too poor to buy new ones."
"But why is her father so poor?"
"Because her father is a farmworker."
"But why does that make him poor?"
"Because he is paid very little as a farmworker and must give half his
harvest to the landowner."
"But why?" etc. 3
The health workers also conduct school programs where older children
learn about health and share knowledge with siblings and families at home.
They involve villagers in sociodramas on preventive measures against alco
hol abuse and land exploitation by the rich landholders. There are people
whose lives are transformed by this process, including a disabled boy who
came to the village, received treatment and education, mobilized farmwork
ers against the land system, and started a cooperative corn bank to improve
community health. They view education as a way to promote health and
create change.
Popular education can take the form of participatory research by the
people. Gaventa (1980) describes a case in the mountains of Appalachia in
which community groups formed a task force and conducted research on
landownership. They designed the research, collected the data, and con
cluded that landownership was highly concentrated among absentee owners
and outside corporations. They made media presentations on their research,
exposed the power structure affecting the community, and formulated altern
ative strategies for action.
Communities can create schools for change. For example, Highlander
Folk School was established among the oppressed mountain people of
Tennessee. According to Horton, the basic philosophy was that people know
the solutions to their own problems and that the "teacher's job is to get
them talking about those problems, to raise and sharpen questions, and to
trust people to come up with the answers." The idea is that the answers lie
in the experience and imagination of people as communities rather than as
individuals. Potential leaders from local communities dealing with the same
problems are identified, brought to Highlander, and taught how to analyze
their situation in a group context. Then the leaders are taught how to go
back and take other community people through the same process in accord
ance with "training of trainers" principles (Glen, 1988; Horton 1989, 1990).
Popular education also derives from direct participation in the commun
ity. Krauss ( 1983) describes people who confronted toxic waste dangers and
related their personal discontents and public issues; who protested against
highway plans and made connections of state and private power; and who
3. This dialog draws on Werner (1987) and Werner and Bower (1982).
14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 1 1995

campaigned against redlining and recognized ways in which neighborhood

decline resulted from decisions outside the neighborhood. She concludes
that "In the course of their struggles, people develop a critical world view,
and they come to believe in their own ability to act. They are transformed
by the experience."
Popular education can build commitment around conscious awareness of
problems and root causes. It can bring together isolated individuals with a
history of quiescence and engage them in a learning process that strengthens
the basis for collective action. There are people whose lives have been
radically transformed by popular education, which is not a soft strategy of
community change.
Popular education can have limitations. It can take substantial time to
involve people in dialogue that may divert them from taking direct action
on immediate problems. It may mislead people into the false consciousness
of thinking that they transform the world by transforming their thinking.
It may mislead people into thinking that their self-realization and cognitive
changes alone are enough to change the community. Education can raise
consciousness, but is it enough to create community change?

Local Services Development

Local services development is a process in which people provide their
own services at the community level. It assumes that problems in communit
ies have local solutions and that residents can take local initiative and help
themselves. It is neither a form of outside advocacy for local groups, nor
of mandated participation in plans originated elsewhere, but a process
through which people strengthen themselves as well as their communities.
Some local service organizations specialize in specific services, whereas
others reach a stage at which they operate several services. In Bogota,
Colombia, a small group of older people purchased the equipment for a
bakery. They began by baking bread for sale to customers, and sent half of
weekly production to old people's homes for poor elderly. They used the
profit to subsidize a medical clinic above the bakery, established a commer
cial laundry to serve several old people's homes, created a network of
handicraft workshops in old people's homes, and opened a charity gift shop
for sale of handicrafts in the city center. They arranged for a teacher
promoter to visit the schools, give lessons on ageing, and involved students
in initiatives with older people without children of their own (Tout, 1989).
In a low income Black area of St. Louis, residents responded to a federal
antipoverty program that misrepresented the community and to a proposed
urban renewal project that threatened massive neighborhood deterioration.
They formed an independent organization emphasizing efforts to overcome
decline and rebuild their neighborhood. Working in an area that many had
considered beyond revitalization, they have built and rehabilitated housing,
delivered social services, attracted new industry and jobs, and formulated
plans for commercial development. They have operated a senior citizen's
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 15
program providing meals and transportation for the elderly, run a food and
nutrition program for children, sponsored job training for youth, and
increased information through neighborhood newspapers and radio stations.
They have developed new neighborhood leadership and produced tangible
results (Checkoway, 1985).
Local development can provide positive pychosocial benefits for particip
ants by reducing isolation and increasing interaction. It can contribute to
organizational development by setting priorities and implementing pro
grams. It can improve the delivery of services by making them more respons
ive to community needs. It can increase the accessibility, acceptability, and
availability of services, although quality may vary from one situation to
another. For example, community health centers have increased access to
primary care to medically underserved populations while involving the poor
in planning and administration of their own services (Geiger, 1984 ). Also,
community housing projects have rehabilitated units and reduced costs
through "sweat equity" while converting voluntary action into neighbor
hood ownership and providing community alternatives to governmental
programs (Mayer, 1984).
However, even exceptional local development organizations have diffi
culties influencing the larger context in which they operate. Citizens can
take hold of their surroundings and develop services for themselves. But
even the most accomplished local services cannot be expected to solve the
problems of the larger society. Community problems often result from
decisions and institutions that originate outside the community, and the
consequences flow from that process. To alter the consequences, it would
be necessary to alter the process.
Local services development is receiving a big boost as public policy in
many countries, as authorities promote local services as alternatives to
government intervention. But dangers arise when local services development
is translated into national policy. First, local services may worsen problems
in local communities that require resources from external public and private
programs, and government has a special responsibility to help communities
that cannot help themselves. Those in authority should not be permitted to
retreat from their responsibility by promoting local services development.
Second, local services may divert attention from the context in which
services operate. The shift to local initiative often places the burden on the
local community to modify its response rather than on the society to modify
the conditions that create the problems. This is bad social science and inept
social policy: The major forces affecting local communities are not local but
largely social, political, and economic in the larger society. It would be a
mistake to blame communities for the process that victimizes them
(Checkoway, Chesler and Blum, 1990).
After Kenya gained independence, Jomo Kenyatta summoned the self
help ethos of local communities into a national policy called "Harambee,"
the Swahili word for "pull together." Community groups formed to support
16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO.1 1995

national policy, building up the local infrastructure by constructing their

own roads, dams, cattle dips, health centers and schools. Community groups
provided services and improved conditions in some areas, which the govern
ment claimed was part of successful national policy. But other community
groups recognized their disadvantages, and a young school child com
mented: "Self-help is a disease which is badly affecting my country ... Some
big people are helping themselves well, but mostly the poor people suffer
from poor roads and schools and not having hospitals" (Anderson, 1987).

Toward a synthesis?
Which of these strategies has the most potential to empower your com
munity? Let me conclude with these comments:
First, it is useful to distinguish among these strategies of community
change. This distinction recognizes that these are separable movements,
each with its own empirical basis and pattern of practice. Mass mobilization
is not citizen participation, for example, and these movements are likely to
remain distinct in the future. Mobilizers who conduct demonstrations and
confront powerholders are different from agency authorities who staff com
mittees and conduct public hearings to build support for implementation.
Both seek change but differ in their orientation. In the formation of fields
like community change, it may be more useful to develop what is unique
to each rather than to attempt a grand embracing conception.
Second, this distinction recognizes that there is no single strategy which
embraces all approaches to practice. There is a tendency for some practi
tioners to become proficient in a particular strategy and then to apply this
orientation regardless of the situation. It would be as mistaken to become
captive to a single strategy as it would be to ignore the options that are
available.
Third, this distinction recognizes that there are several strategies from
which to choose. There is a tendency for some communities to become
accustomed to a particular strategy and then to depend on this orientation
regardless of the circumstance. Strategies that are learned tend to be used.
However, knowledge of several strategies can widen the choice and promote
a process that strengthens the community.
Fourth, these are separable strategies, but in reality they often overlap
with mixing and phasing of approaches in the same practice situation. This
an agency official may propose a citizen participation program that includes
social action to build support for the agency, just as a local service provider
may encourage clients to influence legislators for community-oriented policy.
Several studies suggest that successful practice requires the ability to dia
gnose a situation and apply a variety of approaches to the organizational
or community context, but that these skills are not plentiful in the field.
The key is to fit strategy to the situation.
Which of the strategies has the most potential to empower your commun-
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 17
ity? In the final analysis, the answer to this question is in you. In one
tradition of education, the teacher talks and provides information, and the
students sit quietly and listen. In another tradition, the animator asks
questions, the participants learn from one another, and both build mutual
support for community change (Hope and Timme!, 1984). You know the
question and you know the answer. The only answer to this question is the
one you will provide. Why don't you answer the question?

Barry Checkoway is professor of social work and urban planning at the

University of Michigan.
Contact address: School of Social Work, University of Michigan, 1065 Frieze
Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109-1285, USA.

Bibliography
Alinsky, Saul D., (1972), Rulesfor Radicals: A Practical Primer/or Realistic Radicals,
New York: Vintage Books.
Anderson, John and Jean, ( 1987 ), "The Dilemmas of Self-Help: A Perspective on
Community Education from Africa", In Garth Allen, et al., eds. Community
Education: An Agenda for Educational Reform, Milton Keynes: Open University
Press, pp. 257-271.
Baltzell, E. Digby, (1968), The Search for Community in Modern America, New
York: Harper and Row.
Berry, Jeffrey M., ( 1977), Lobbying for the People: The Political Behavior of Public
Interest Groups, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bondurant, Joan V., (1988), Conquest of Violence: The Ghandian Philosophy of
Conflict, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Booth, Heather, ( 1977), Direct Action Organizing: Strategy Planning, Chicago: The
Midwest Academy.
Boyte, Harry C., (1980), The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizens'
Movement, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Checkoway, Barry, (ed.), (1981), Citizens and Health Care: Participation and
Planning for Social Change, New York: Pergamon.
Checkoway, Barry, (1979), "Citizens on Local Health Planning Boards: What Are
the Obstacles?", Journal of the Community Development Society, Vol. 10 (Fall),
pp. 101-116.
Checkoway, Barry, ( 1982), "Public Participation in Health Planning Agencies:
Promise and Practice," Journal of Health Politics. Policy and Law, Vol. 7 (Fall),
pp. 722-733.
Checkoway, Barry, ( 1985 ), "Revitalizing an Urban Neighborhood: A St. Louis Case
Study", In Barry Checkoway and Carl V. Patton, (eds), The Metropolitan Midwest:
Policy Problems and Prospects for Change, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Checkoway, Barry, (1984), "Two Types of Planning in Neighborhoods", Journal of
Planning Education and Research, Vol. 3 (Winter), pp. 102-109.
Checkoway, Barry, (ed.), (1986a), Strategic Perspectives on Planning Practice,
Lexington: Lexington Books.
Checkoway, Barry and Annette Norsman, ( 1986b ), "Empowering Citizens with
Disabilities," Community Development Journal, Vol. 2 (October), pp. 270-279.
18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO.1 1995

Collier, Paul et al., ( 1986), Labour and Poverty in Rural Tanzania: Ujamaa and Rural
Development in The United Republic of Tanzania, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cox, Fred M., ( 1987), "Alternative Conceptions of Community," In Fred M. Cox
et al., (eds.), Strategies of Community Organization, Itasca: F.E. Peacock.
Dluhy, Milan and Sanford Kravitz, (1990), Building Coalitions in the Human
Services, Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Durning, Allan B., (1989), "Mobilizing the Grassroots." In Lester Brown, (ed.)
State of the World 1989, Washington: Worldwatch Institute, Chapter 9.
Eng, Eugenia, (1988), "Extending the Unit of Practice from the Individual to the
Community", Danish Medical Bulletin, No.6 (October), pp. 45-51.
Evans, Sara M., ( 1980), Personal Politics: The Roots of Women's Liberation in the
Civil Rights Movement, New York: Vintage Books.
Freire, Paulo, ( 1970), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Seabury Press.
Gaurson, William, ( 1975), The Strategy of Social Protest, Homewood, IL.
Garcia-Zamor, Jean-Claude, (ed), ( 1985), Public Participation in Development
Planning and Management: Cases from Africa and Asia, Boulder: Westview Press.
Garrow, David J. (1986), Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr.. and The
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, New York: William Morrow.
Gaventa, John, ( 1980 ), Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an
Appalachian Valley, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Gaventa, John, et al. (eds), ( 1990), Communities in Economic Crisis: Appalachia and
the South, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Geiger, Jack H., (1984), "Community Health Centers: Health Care as an Agent of
Social Change." In Victor W. Side! and Ruth Side!, (eds.), Reforming Medicine:
Lessons of the Last Quarter Century, New York: Pantheon.
Glen, John M., (1988), Highlander, No Ordinary School, Lexington: University of
Kentucky Press.
Gutierrez, Lorraine M., ( 1989 ), Empowerment in Social Work Practice:
Considerations j(Jr Practice and Education, Seattle: University of Washington
School of Social Work.
Haley, Jay, (1986), Power Tactics of Jesus Christ and Other Essays, Rockville:
Triangle Press.
Hasenfeld, Yeheskel and Hillel Schmid, ( 1989), "The Community Center as a
Human Service Organization", Non-Profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 18
(Spring), pp. 47-61.
Hoffman, Charles, (1986), Project Renewal: Community and Change in Israel,
Jerusalem: Jewish Agency for Israel.
Hope, Anne and Sally Timme!, ( 1984 ), Training for Tramformation: A Handbook
for Community Workers, Gweru, Zimbabwe: Mambo Press.
Horton, Aimee, (1989), The Highlander Folk School: A History of Its Major
Programs, Brooklyn: Carlson Publishers.
Horton, Myles, (1990), The Long Haul: An Autobiography, New York: Doubleday.
Horwitt, Sanford D., (1989), Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky- His Life and
Legacy, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Hughes, Dana, et al, (1989), The Health of America's Children: Maternal and Child
Health Data Book, Washington: Children's Defense Fund.
Kasperson, Roger E. and Myrna Breit bart, ( 1974), Participation, Decentralization,
and Advocacy Planning, Washington: Association of American Geographers.
Kietter, Charles, (1984), "Citizen Empowerment: A Developmental Perspective",
Prevention in Human Services, Vol. 3, pp. 9-36.
 SIX STRATEGIES OF COMMUNITY CHANGE 19
Krauss, Celene, ( 1983 ), "The Elusive Process of Citizen Activism", Social Policy,
Fall: 50-55.
Krumholz, Norman and John A. Forester, (1990), Making Equity Planning Work:
Leadership in the Public Sector, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Linton, Rhoda and Michele Witham, ( 1982), "With Mourning, Rage,
Empowerment, and Defiance: The 1981 Women's Pentagon Action", Socialist
Review 12 (May), pp. 11-36.
Mayer, Neil, ( 1984 ), Neighborhood Organizations and Community Development:
Making Revitalization Work, Washington: Urban Institute Press.
McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zaid, (1973), The Trend of Social Movements in
America: Professionalization and Resource Mobilization, Morristown, N.J.:
General Learning Corporation.
Morris, Aldan D., (1984), The Origins of the Civil Rights Movement: Black
Communities Organizing for Change, New York: Free Press.
Moser, Caroline 0. M., (1987), "Mobilization is Women's Work: Struggles for
Infrastructure in Guayaquil, Ecuador." In Caroline O.M. Moser and Linda Peake,
(eds.), Women, Human Settlements, and Housing, Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Naperstek, Arthur J., David E. Biegel, and Herzl R. Spiro, (1982), Neighborhood
Networks for Humane Mental Health Care, New York: Plenum.
Nisbet, Robert A., ( 1969), The Quest for Community, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Oberschall, Anthony, ( 1973 ), Social Conflict and Social Movements, Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Perlmutter, Felice D., ( 1984 ), Human Services at Risk: Administrative Strategies for
Survival, Lexington: Lexington Books.
Pines, Burton Yale, (1982), Back to Basics: The Traditionalist Movement That is
Sweeping Grass-Roots America, New York: William Morrow.
Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward, (1979), Poor People's Movements:
Why They Succeed, How They Fail, New York: Vintage Books.
Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard A. Cloward, ( 1971 ), Regulating the Poor: The
Functions of Public Welfare, New York: Vintage Books.
Rappaport, Julian, ( 1981 ), "In Praise of Paradox: A Social Policy of Empowerment
Over Prevention", American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 1-25.
Reissman, Frank, (1969), Strategies Against Poverty, New York: Random House.
Reitzes, Donald C. and Reitzes, Dietrich C., (1980), "Saul D. Alinsky's Contribution
to Community Development", Journal iJf the Community Development Society,
Vol. 11, pp. 39-52.
Rothman, Jack, (1968), "Three Models of Community Organization Practice", In
National Conference on Social We?fare: Social Welfare Practice 1968, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1968.
Sharp, Gene, ( 1973 ), The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Boston: Porter Sargent.
Staples, Lee, ( 1990), Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Organizing, New
York: Praeger.
Steuart, Guy, ( 1985 ), "Social and Behavioral Change Strategies", In S. Kiesler,
J. Morgan, and V. Oppenheimer, (eds), Social Change, New York: Academic Press.
Tout, Ken, (1989), Ageing in Developing Countries, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Turner, Bertha, (ed.), (1988), Building Community: A Third World Case Book,
London: Building Community Books.
20 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JOURNAL VOL. 30 NO. 1 1995

Werner, David, (1987), Where There is No Doctor: A Village Health Care Handbook,
Palo Alto: The Hesperian Foundation.
Werner, David and Bill Bower, ( 1982), Helping Health Workers Learn: A Book of
Methods, Aids, and Ideas for Instructors at the Village Level, Palo Alto: The
Hesperian Foundation.
Zald, Mayer N. and John D. McCarthy, ( 1979), The Dynamics of Social Movements:
Resource Mobilization, Social Control, and Tactics, Cambridge: Winthrop
Publishers.
Zimmerman, Marc A, (Forthcoming), "Empowerment: Forging New Perspectives
in Mental Health" In Julian Rappaport and Edward Seidman, (eds.), Handbook
of Community Psychology, New York: Plenum.