Critical Reflection 6: Strategies For Community Development
Ayanna Berg
Emily Wu
CASC 3400
18 November 2019
Critical Reflection 6
In Alison Mathie and Gord Cunninghams article “From clients to citizens: Asset- based Community Development as a strategy for community-driven development”, both authors outline four key characteristics of the ABCD model. These characteristics involve: 1. Exploring the theories and practices of appreciative inquiry, 2. Examining social capital as an asset for community development, 3. The theory of community economic development, 4. And the products that followed the links of citizenship, civil society, and participatory development. The goals of the ABCD model is essentially outlining a “strategy for sustainable community-driven development.” (Mathie Cunningham 475) Meaning that unlike the CED model, which focuses on more of the “theoretical contributions of community development” (Mathie Cunningham 481), the ABCD model explores a consistent revision of community driven initiatives, and connecting them to the respective community. Following this revision, it will push for an emphasis of policy redevelopment, to meet the needs of the community.
Both authors explain that social capital is “the store of goodwill and obligations generated by social relations”. (Mathie Cunningham 479). Systems and social norms, are examples of social interactions that have been generated through social capital. With community partner organizations like RotaCare, assets to social capital within the organization,would be the volunteers, like SL students like myself. RotaCare itself is an asset of social capital that many undercounted community members utilize. They come to get free healthcare, provided by people who take personal time to help the community, and try and bridge the gap of social inequality. Hard-to-Count members, as explained by both authors, will only utilize these services, when there is a positive push of social support and obligation, from the community partner organization. Without that, Hard-to-Count members are deterred from utilizing the services provided to them. With the community engaged interaction and learning, community partner organizations have the ability to develop interpersonal relationships with members, and educate them on census information, therefore promoting outreach. The more people that are assisted through these organizations, the higher the demand there is for the organization. As Census outreach continues through community-partners, the more Hard-to-Count community members would understand how important counting truly is. This may push for an increase in funding. This model somewhat reminds me of the idea, and study of cultural competence and sensitivity. The more community partner members understand the historical, and socio-economic, dynamics of the Hard-to-Count community members, the more they are able to properly assist and develop relationships with them. Trust is key in this dynamic. Since Hard-to-Count communities are generally distrusting of the government, generally they are dissuaded from accurately counting. With the close trusting interpersonal relationships of community partners, they act Trusted Messengers, advocating for an accurate count so that they can properly help these members. Trust in community-partners, though the ABCD model, may be key to increasing an accurate count.
