Block-2 Community Organisation For Community Development

6
Community Organisation:
Concept, Value Orientation and
Assumptions
*Neera Agnimitra
Introduction
There are three basic methods of working with people
(individuals, groups and communities). You have already
studied two methods namely social case work and social
group work. While social case work is oriented towards
helping individuals on one to one basis, social group
work aims at facilitating the growth and development
of individuals through the medium of a group. The third
basic method of working with people is community
organization. This method aims at developing the
capacity of the community to function as integrated unit.
This empowers the community to take planned and
collective action to handle its own needs, problems and
objectives. Community organization is a well established
method in social work. It has value orientation and its
practice is guided by a set of general principles.
Meaning and Definition of Community

Organisation
Meaning
In the earlier chapters, you have been oriented to the
definition and concept of community, as also the profiles
* Dr. Neera Agnimitra, University of Delhi, New Delhi

Community Organisation: Concept, Value Orientation... 105
of rural, urban and tribal communities. The community

provides the setting and its needs, problems, issues
and concerns provide the focus for community
organisation, as a method of social work practice.
Community is one of the several levels of intervention
in society. There are personal or interpersonal
interventions with individuals and families; and
macroscale efforts to influence public policy in the larger
society. Community interventions are the ones that take
collective action and mediate between the individual
and the society (Weil, 1997).
The terms community work, community practice,
community organization and community empowerment
are often used in social work literature. Sometimes they
are used to refer to the same type of work, while at
times they are used to refer to different types of work.
In general however, the ter ms community work,
community practice and community organization are
treated synonymously, both in the liberal as well as in
the tradition of community intervention. In the more
contemporary context, the term “community practice”
is acquiring greater usage as it encompasses within
itself of four central processes: development,
organization, planning and action for progressive social
change. Together, these processes form social work’s
major method of actively working for social justice (Weil,
2005).
Definitions
To study and to be able to engage in community
organization practice, it is necessary to have a clear
definition or set of definitions. There are several
definitions available in literature. These have evolved
at different times and in differing contexts. Let us look
at some of the more widely accepted definitions of
community organization.
106 Community Organization Management for Community Development
1. Lindeman: Lindeman’s book in the year 1921 was

the first to appear on what became known in North
America as Community Organization. He defined
community organization as “those phases of social
organization which constitute a conscious effort on the
part of a community to control its affairs democratically,
and to secure the highest services from its specialists,
organizations, agencies and the institutions by means
of recognized interrelations.”
2. Murray G. Ross: In the second half of 1940s, a
number of works on community organization appeared,
perhaps the best of which was that by Murray G.Ross
in 1955. His work contributed to the immense
popularization of the practice of community organisation
in the U.S. He saw community organization as “a process
by which a community identifies its needs or objectives,
develops the confidence and will do work at these needs
or objectives, finds the resources (external and internal)
to deal with these needs and objectives, takes action in
respect of them, and in doing so, extends and develops
cooperative and collaborative attitudes and practices
in the community”. He goes further to identify three
main approaches to community organization: (i) the
`specific content’ approach, whereby a worker or an
organization identifies a problem or set of problems and
launches a programme to meet them; (ii) the `general
content’ approach, whereby a group, association or
council attempts a coordinated and orderly development
of services in a particular area; (iii) the `process’
approach, where the objective is not the content
(facilities or services), but initiation and sustenance of
a process which will involve people within the
community in identifying and taking action in respect
of their own needs and problems. All these three
components related to `content’ and `process’ find a place
in his definition.
3. Harper: Harper (1959) perceived community

organization as an effort to “bring about and maintain
progressively a more effective adjustment between social
welfare resources and social needs”. It is concerned with
(i) the discovery and definition of need; (ii) the
elimination and prevention of social needs and
disabilities; (iii) the articulation of resources and needs;
and (iv) the constant readjustment of resources in order
to meet the changing needs better. On a similar note
Arthur Dunham (1958, 1970) who was another important
contributor to the practice of community organization
felt that social work methodology most commonly
associated with society, as opposed to individual change
is community work, alternatively defined as community
development or the new community organization. This
was “a process of bringing about and maintaining
adjustment between social welfare needs and social
welfare resources in a geographical area or a functional
field”.
4. Younghusband: In 1973, Younghusband defined
community organization as “primarily aimed at helping
people within a local community to identify social needs,
to consider the most effective ways of meeting them
and to set about doing so, in so far as their available
resources permit”.
5. Peter Baldock: Peter Baldock’s (1974) concept of
community work was very close to the definition of
community organization given by Ross and
Younghusband. Baldock opined that community work
“is a type of activity practiced by people to identify
problems and opportunities and to come to realistic
decisions to take collective action to meet these problems
and opportunities in ways that they determine for
themselves. The community worker also supports them
in the process of putting decisions, to help them develop
their abilities and independence”.
6. Kramer and Specht: Another definition by Kramer

and Specht in 1975, referred to community organization
as “a method of intervention, whereby a professional
change agent helps a community action system,
composed of individuals, groups, or organizations to
engage in planned collective action in order to deal with
social problems within a democratic system of values”.
Further, according to them, this method of intervention
involves two interrelated concerns: (a) the interaction
process, which includes identifying, recruiting and
working with members and developing organizational
and interpersonal relationships among them, which
facilitates their efforts; and (b) the technical tasks
involved in identifying problem areas, analyzing causes,
formulating plans, developing strategies and mobilizing
the resources necessary to have effective action.
7. Mc Millan: Mc Millan also contributed to the
understanding of the concept of community organization
by describing it in a generic sense as “deliberately
directed efforts to assist groups in attaining a unity of
purpose and action”. He further elaborates its character
by specifying that “it is practiced, though often without
recognition of its character, whenever the objective is
to achieve or maintain a pooling of talents and resources
of two or more groups on behalf of either general or
specific objectives”.
Contemporary Definitions of Community Organisation

In a more contemporary context, Murphy and
Cunningham (2003) have defined community organizing
as “the systematic process for mobilizing and advocating
by using communal power”. They opine that “Organizing
for Community Controlled Development (OCCD)
combines community organisations’s mobilization and
advocacy power with neighbourhood investment
strategies to build a strengthened and revitalized
community”. They stress on community organizing as it

relates to the small place communities. Further, they
characterize `place based community organising’ as “a
process in which local people, united by concern for
renewing their own small territory, plan and act together
to form an organizational base that they control. It is a
practice that involves collective human effort centred
on mobilization, advocating, planning and the
negotiation of resources”. In this practice, `mobilisation’
includes the building and maintenance of an
organizational base, `planning’ includes fact gathering,
assessment and strategic and tactical thinking and
`negotiation’ refers to persistent pressure and bargaining
for sufficient resources to achieve goals.
According to this perception, community organizing as
a process of change continuously operates on two tracks,
the first being the path of pursuit of agree-upon
programme goals, and the second is the path of building,
maintaining and continually renewing an organizational
base. The ultimate aim of this process is to build
‘strengthened’ and ‘revitalised’ communities, where
strengthening pertains to the unifying and educating
initiatives of the residents to meet their social, civic
and economic responsibilities and ‘revitalizing’ refers
to making the place livable, democratic, equitable and
tolerant, thereby helping its residents to live with dignity
and moral integrity.
Marie Weil has been instrumental in popularizing the
broader term ‘community practice’ to instead of
community organization. Community practice includes
“work to improve the quality of life and increase social
justice through social and economic development,
community organizing, social planning and progressive
social change”. She visualized it to be “a cooperative
effort between practitioners and affected individuals,
groups, organizations, communities and coalitions”. It
is also interesting to delve a little deeper into the four

central processes of (a) Development, which focuses on
empowering citizens to work in united ways to change
their lives and environments in relation to their living
conditions, economic conditions, and social, employment
and opportunity structures; (b) Organizing which
includes the processes of community organizing that
engage citizens in projects to change social, economic
and political conditions. It includes neighbourhood
organizing, development of local leadership and coalition
development; (c) Planning, which relates to social
planning engaged in by citizens, advocacy groups, public
and voluntary sector planners to design programmes
and services that are appropriate to given communities
or regions. It also involves design of more effective
services and the reform of human service systems; and
(d) Progressive change, encompassing the actions taken
by groups to effect positive social, economic and political
change.(Weil, 2004)
Scholars and practitioners like Rubin and Rubin,¸ in
2005, added another dimension to the definition of
contemporary community organising. Their definition
as also other definitions based on the consensus models
of community organizing have sought theoretical
grounding and support from scholars like Putnam who
have studied social networks and ‘social capital’. Putnam
studied associational behaviour and proposed that
“joining enabled people to build social capital, which
was much like economic capital. People could rely on
social relationships and use them as an exchange for
support and assistance”. (Putnam, 2000)
Putnam’s work was quickly adopted by, those working
with communities, and ‘social capital’ has subsequently
been as the core of community organizing.
Rubin and Rubin incorporated this core element in their
definition of contemporary community organization. The
process of community organization has been described

by them as “the process of helping people understand
the shared problems they face while encouraging them
to join together to fight back”. According to them,
“organizing builds on the social linkages and networks
that bring people together to create firm bonds for
collective action. It creates a durable capacity to bring
about change”. (Rubin and Rubin as cited in Weil, 2005)
In a similar vein, Loffer defines community organization
as “the process of building trusting relationships, mutual
understanding and shared actions that bring together
individuals, communities and institutions. This process
enables cooperative action that generates opportunity
and/or resources realized through networks, shared
norms, and social agency”. (Loffer et al, 2004)
Similarly, Staples (2004) focuses on a definition that
includes “dual emphasis on participatory process and
successful outcomes” and the establishment of
disciplined and structured organizations as vehicles for
change. This conception of community organization
includes both community or social development in which
people use cooperative strategies to create improvements,
opportunities, structures, goods and services that
increase the quality of community life, and social action
in which people convince, pressurise, or coerce decision
makers to meet predetermined goals. Therefore,
according to contemporary practitioners like Staples,
community building models that encourage consensus
and social action models that promote conflict can be
used simultaneously or sequentially.
An examination of the aforementioned definitions of
community organization reveals certain important
elements. These are:
1. Community organization has been perceived both
as a ‘process’ and a ‘method’. The use of the word
‘process’ brings into focus the movement from the

identification of an objective or a set of objectives
to the attainment of the same. It also signifies the
capacity of the community to function as an
integrated unit, as it deals with one or more common
problems. Moreover, this process may be conscious
or unconscious, voluntary or involuntary, short or
of long duration. The use of the word ‘process’ to
describe community organization also connotes a
course of action aimed at preparing the members of
the community for developmental action. This
course of action includes a number of inter-related
steps including: (a) Identification of needs, problems
and objectives; (b) Prioritisation or ranking of the
needs, problems and objectives according to their
relative importance and urgency; (c) Developing
confidence and determination among community
members to meet their needs and solve their
problems; (d) Helping them to take appropriate
decisions in all these regards; (e) Mobilising
resources, in the form of men, money and materials
from within the community and outside, necessary
to deal with their decisions and plans; (f) Executing
their plan of action with proper monitoring of the
activities, and taking corrective measures, if
required; and (g) Educating others on the strength
of collective action, collaborative attitudes and
processes of self help.
When described as a ‘method’, community
organization implies the use of a systematic,
structured, ordered and conscious way of action
used by the change agent or the community
organizer to achieve certain pre-determined aims/
objectives. The use of specific skills at the level of
the organizer ensure that this method of community
organization is distinct from the occurrence of
sporadic community events which break the

otherwise normal community life.
2. Community organization is directed towards the
achievement of both short-term and long term
objectives. While the short term objectives involve
identifying and ranking the needs and problems of
the community and conscious intervention by the
change agent to facilitate the community to fulfill
needs or overcome problems, the long term
objectives are oriented towards building the capacity
of the community to function as an integrated unit.
The latter involves helping the community to develop
its problem solving and self help qualities, so that
it can address the recurrence of the problem or the
emergence of newer problems or work towards
fulfillment of its future needs with full confidence
and autonomy. Viewed in this perspective,
community organisation is an empowering and
capacitating enterprise.
3. Community organization involves working with the
community system, and thus entails working at the
level of individuals, groups, organizations,
community and coalitions.
4. Community organization has also been viewed as a
process of change which concurrently operates at
two levels, the first being the pursuit for
achievement of certain programme/service oriented
goals, the second being the path of building,
maintaining and continually renewing an
organizational base. Thus, community organization
as a concept focuses both on development oriented
goals as also the ultimate goal of “getting organized”.
Organizing is the process by which people develop
some sort of structure for joining together over time.
It takes its most basic expression when individuals
form a coherent unity and establish a mechanism
for systematic planning and limited effort. This

organizing is the key dynamic in the process of
community change (Biddle and Biddle, 1965). In fact,
as the community goes through the drill of planning,
procuring, operating and reviewing, it produces a
unique organization shaped by its local social,
political and economic conditions. Building,
maintaining and renewing this organizational base
is of immense significance for community change.
5. The process of community organization may not
always be a natural, spontaneous process. It may
also be a deliberative and engineered one. While it
may sometimes evolve without the assistance of the
professional change agent, it often has to be
initiated, nourished and developed by a professional
worker, who has the requisite skill and the
experience to help people to plan and progressively
move toward achieving their agreed on goals.
6. Community organization is not value free, as it
adopts democratic values; accepts the cultural
fabric of the community and aims at creating
equitable, tolerant and socially and economically
just communities. It operates on the basis of
building consensus and self help and simultaneously
directs the community towards a positive change
through appreciation of this value system.
7. ‘Community practice’ and ‘community work’ are
more broad-based terms which find a greater usage
in contemporary context. They are used to describe
the cooperative effort between the practitioners and
the community system. They include work to achieve
social and economic development of the community,
community organizing, social planning and
progressive social change. Thus, community
organizing, which encompasses neighbourhood
organizing, local leadership development and
coalition development is one core component of

community practice
8. Social capital has been recognized as a core
ingredient in community organizing. It refers to the
connections among individuals and the norms of
reciprocity and trust worthiness that facilitate civic
engagement, social solidarity and cooperation for
mutual benefit. It is therefore the fundamental
source of strength for the community. In
communities with strong social capital, the
community organization process is fostered. On the
other hand, in communities with weak social capital,
people find it difficult to cooperate, collaborate and
join together for collective action.
9. Community organization as a conception has been
shown to include both community or social
development and social action. In other words,
community building models that encourage
consensus, and social action models that promote
conflict often co exist and can be used
simultaneously or sequentially. While the
community building model is also the prevailing
model used in many international settings,
endeavors to bring about large scale systemic
changes are also increasingly being undertaken and
they represent the social action approach. (We will
however consider Social Action as a distinct method
of social work and will focus on it as a separate
block altogether).
Community Organisation in Social Work

We have discussed the meaning and definition of
community organization in the last section. Now let us
briefly locate its position in the domain of social work
practice.
Although community residents have always worked

collaboratively on common needs and concerns, the
evolution of formal practice interventions for community
work has its origins in the United Kingdom and the
United States in the late 19 th century. With the
formalization of social work as a profession, community
organization came to be recognized as a method of social
work practice. As a result, an increasing number of
professionals began working in communities. During
the initial phase, community work was primarily aimed
at trying to help community members to enhance their
social adjustment, and viewed in this context it was
recognized as a method of social work. It was also viewed
as a means to coordinate the work of voluntary agencies.
In India, the experience of working with a slum
community in the city of Mumbai led to the
establishment of the first institution of social work in
the year 1936. Community work, as a method of social
work in the Indian context has been largely seen as a
process of developing local initiatives, especially in the
area of education, health and agricultural development.
The focus of work has been, to encourage people to
articulate their needs and facilitate them to avail the
existing resources to meet their needs. Further, in the
situation where there exists a gap between needs and
resources, further efforts are made to initiate new
services/programmes.
In social work literature, we find the terms “community
work”, “community organization”, community
development” and “community practice” being used. At
times these terms are used interchangeably for the work
undertaken with communities. Some authors have used
these terms for the same type of work while others have
used them to refer to different types of work with
communities. For example, Dunham has used the terms
community work, community development and new
community organization alternatively, to refer to the

same type of work. According to him the social work
methodology most commonly associated with society as
opposed to individual change is community work,
alternatively referred to as community development or
the new community organization. (Dunham, 1958, 1970).
Peter Baldock’s concept of community work is very close
to the definitions of community organization given by
Ross and Younghusband.
Ross has identified three approaches to community
organization: (i) the ‘specific content’ approach; (ii) the
‘general content’ approach; and (iii) the ‘process’
approach (which have been elaborated in the previous
section). However, while he has included all these
elements in his definition of community organization,
he describes community organization as essentially a
“process by which the community identifies its needs
or objectives…….and develops cooperative and
collaborative attitudes and practices in the community”.
In essence, when engagement with the community takes
the form of a “process”, comprising of a series of
interrelated steps or stages, it can be characterized as
Authors like Marie Weil have popularized the usage of
the term “community practice”. According to her
“communities are the context of all social work practice,
and community practice emphasises working mutually
with citizen groups, cultural and multicultural groups
and organizations, and human service organizations to
improve life options and opportunities in community”.
Additionally, she describes it as “work to improve the
quality of life and enhancement of social justice for the
community through social and economic development,
community organizing, social planning and progressive
social change”. In other words community practice relies
on community organizing as a means to achieve its goals.
The Encyclopedia of Social Work (20th Edition), 2008

also describes “social work that has emerged from the
focus on community issues as community practice”. So
in the contemporary global context, the term “community
practice” is being applied to denote the broad set of
interventions with geographic and/or functional
communities, and is therefore, finding a much wider
usage as compared to the term “community
organization” or “community work”.
Thus, we see that the aforementioned terms may be
used to represent different components/areas of
community work or may be used inter changeably.
However, it is easy to see that there are fundamental
similarities in their interpretation and usage and their
meanings are found to be overlapping.
What is also important for us here is to understand
that the community has not only been a context and a
setting for social work practice ever since the genesis of
the profession, but has also been a means and a vehicle
to usher in social change. Being a core method of social
work, community work is used to attain the same basic
objectives as case work and group work. Like all methods
of social work, it is also concerned with the initiation of
that process which enables the community to overcome
those blocks (apathy, discrimination, dependency,
injustice, vested interests etc.) which prevent the
community from working together; facilitate release of
potentialities; encourage use of indigenous resources
and promote growth of cooperative attitudes and skills
which make possible achievement of increasingly
difficult community objectives.
Another important aspect that needs to be understood
is the change in the stance assumed by the definitions
of community work/organization. Most definitions which
arose in the western context in the earlier time frame
represented the consensual approach to community
work. This concept of community work/organization

primarily looks at the community as a well defined
geographical or functional unit, and the process of
community organization is seen as an effort to meet the
needs of the target population through internal resources
and initiative coupled with outside help, in the form of
expertise and resources.
Viewed in this framework, community work was
primarily concerned with affecting social change through
a process of analyzing social situations and forming
social relationships with different groups to bring about
desirable change. The three main objectives of
community work were (1) To involve people in thinking,
deciding, planning and playing an active part in the
development/operation of services; (2) To facilitate
achievement of personal fulfillment of belonging to a
community; and
(3) To work under constant tensions between people’s
diverse, often conflicting demands and the scare
resources available to meet them.
Gradually, interpretations of community work started
acquiring a more radical tone. As early as 1968, the
Gulbenkian Study Group set up by the Gulbenkian
Foundation argued that community work is a means of
giving life to local democracy and is a part of a protest
against apathy and complacency and against a remote
and anonymous authority. Others like Ecklein (1972)
also felt that community organizers are concerned with
“advancing the interests of the disadvantaged
groups…..with redistribution of power and influence”.
Community work in the West was primarily conceived
in urban locales with incidence of poverty, delinquency,
unemployment and poor housing. It laid stress on
providing necessary expertise in getting people to be
better organized and to identify more efficient strategies
for meeting their needs.
The important factors that were expected to facilitate

people’s participation in community work were (a) the
leisure time available to people; and (b) the level of civic
and social consciousness which helped people to take
initiative. However, the situation has been quite different
in the Indian context, where people neither have the
time, nor civic and social consciousness. The socio
economic milieu, high rates of unemployment and
absolute poverty, coupled with the dominance of caste,
religion and regional affiliations make it difficult for a
civil society to emerge community work in India
therefore throws up concerns which are vastly different
from those which pertain to the west. These however
form the focus of another unit elsewhere in this block.
Additionally, at this stage we also need to be cognizant
of a number of contemporary challenges confronting
community workers. They must grapple with much more
rapid and far reaching social changes than in the past.
The shift to a global economy, increased privatization,
the decline of the welfare estate, changes in information
and communication technology represent significant and
difficult challenges for community workers today. We
shall delve deeper into some such challenges confronting
community work in another section. At present it
suffices to understand that it is this increasingly complex
and multidimensional nature of the modern society
which makes the increasing use of community
organization method an essential pre-requisite for the
smooth functioning of the society itself.
Guiding Values And Purposes of Commu-

nity Organisation
Community organization, as we have understood it so
far is an integral part of social work practice. In the
practice of community organization some questions arise
as to how it should be undertaken. Are there any guiding

values and purposes of community organization? Are
there any guidelines or principles that may guide it in
deciding as to what is sound or socially desirable in the
community organization process? How do we ensure
better chances of success in achieving the objectives of
community organization? We will deal with such
questions in this section.
Value Orientation in Community Organisation

Community organization derives from a unique frame
of reference, the nature of which is based on a particular
value orientation. As in social work, the focus of
community organization practice is also guided by a
system of personal and professional values.
What are these values? Values are beliefs that delineate
preferences about how one ought or ought not to behave.
Such formulations of values obviously have some
subjective element. We seek a position or an objective
we prefer; we value what we think embraces human
dignity. There may not be any data to prove that this is
“right”, “better” or “desirable”. It is largely a matter of
choice based upon preference for a particular position
or objective. There may be a combination of wisdom,
experiences and facts that may support this position,
but ultimately it is a matter of choice and preference.
The value orientation of community organisation as of
all social work methods derives from acceptance of
certain basic concepts and principles as a foundation
for work with people. These core values which are now
increasingly being reflected in the professional code of
ethics in many countries are also reaffirmed in the
international definition of social work, given by the
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) in
the year 2000. This is as follows:
“The social work profession promotes social change,

problem solving in human relationships, and the
empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well
being. Utilizing theories of human behaviour and social
systems, social work intervenes at the points where
people interact with their environments. Principles of
human rights and social justice are fundamental to
social work” (IFSW 2003).
The core values reflected in the aforementioned
definition of social work as also those which find a place
in the code of ethics adopted by professional associations
of social workers include: dignity and worth of the person,
importance of human relationships, social justice,
human rights and human dignity, integrity and
competence, and professional conduct.
Ross has provided certain articles of faith which
represent the value orientation to community
organization (and, indeed all of social work). Among these
are: (i) the essential dignity and ethical worth of the
individual; (ii) the possession of potentialities and
resources in each person for managing his own life; (iii)
the importance of freedom of expression of one’s
individuality; (iv) the great capacity for growth within
all social beings; (v) the right of the individual to basic
physical necessities; (vi) the need for the individual to
struggle and strive to improve his own life and
environment; (vii) the right of the individual to help in
time of need and crisis; (viii) the need of a social climate
which encourages individual growth and development;
(ix) the right and the responsibility of the individual to
participate in the affairs of the community; (x) the
practicability and importance of discussion, conference,
and consultation as methods for the solution of
individual and social problems; (xi) the importance of a
social organization for which the individual feels
responsible and which is responsive to individual feeling;
and (xii) “self help” as the essential base of any

programme of aid. Ross refers to these and other
orientations as constituting the “bias” of social work,
which condition its goals and precludes certain types of
action as being more useful (Ross, 1967).
So we see quite clearly that community organization a
method of social work practice is value-oriented and
dedicated to the implementation of those goals which
are implicit in the value orientation of the social work
profession. As a method, community organization strives
to secure certain value laden goals.
Guiding Purposes of Community Organisation

To engage with community groups, community workers
must also be able to define specific purposes for such
engagement. These purposes should be developed in
conjunction with those with whom the practitioner works
and provide the central motivation for practitioners and
community members to move toward a common
mutually supported goal.
Weil and Gamble have provided a set of eight purposes
which provide the basis for most community practice
engagement. (Weil and Gamble 2004). These
purposes are:
1. Improving the quality of life of the members of the
community.
2. Extending human rights by developing participatory
structures and opportunities and deepening
democracy for citizens who are excluded and feel
powerless to influence policies that have an effect
on their lives.
3. Advocacy for a community of interest, such as
children; for a specific issues such as political and
social rights for women and marginalized
populations.
4. Human social and economic development to assure

social support, economic viability and sustainability
by expanding participation and building grassroots
leadership; building economic, social and political
assets for the poor in impoverished urban and rural
areas.
5. Service and programme planning for a newly
recognized or re-conceptualized need or to serve an
emerging population.
6. Service integration developing local to national and
international means of coordinating human services
for populations in need.
7. Political and social action to build political power
for the economically and socially marginalized,
protect the weak and the poor, foster institutional
change for inclusion and equity, and increase
participatory democracy and equality of access and
opportunity in local, regional and international
efforts.
8. Social Justice to build toward human equality and
opportunity across race, ethnicity, gender and
nationality.
In conclusion, the community worker who has a focus
on values and purpose, and who makes those explicit
with community groups, will have a greater capacity to
develop mutually respectful relationships with the group
members and to work as a facilitator to find sufficient
common ground for collaborative action.
Assumptions Regarding Method

According to Ross, community organization derives from
a unique frame of reference, which assumes a distinct
form due to a particular value orientation which stems
from traditional religious values which have been
expanded to form the basis of social work philosophy; a

particular conception of the problems confronting
modern man in the community and certain assumptions
that influence the method (Ross, 1955). While we have
covered the first component in the previous section,
and we will cover the second component in another unit,
let us look at the assumptions that influence the method
of community organization, which derive in part from
the value orientation of, and in part from experiences
in social work. Some of these are as follows:
1. Communities of people can develop capacity to
deal with their own problems. This implies that
the community people may confront situations in
which they feel disenchanted and hopeless, but they
can nevertheless develop attitudes and skills which
permit them to work towards shaping their
community appropriately to meet their needs.
2. People want change and can change. This implies
that communities of people constantly change their
ways of life and are interested in making their lives
better. The will to change is often paralysed by
challenging social forces, but if blocks to free
thinking and feeling are removed, all people will
participate in changes which aim to meet their needs
more adequately.
3. People should participate in making, adjusting,
or controlling the major changes taking place in
their communities. This assumption implies that
people should have the opportunity to organize to
achieve their own common goals, plan the
adjustments which must be made in response to
certain changes which are beyond their control, and
to regulate their own communities as far as
possible.
4. Changes in community living which are self-

imposed or self-developed have a meaning and
permanence that imposed changes do not have
In the community, people as they strive towards
achievement of their goals, modify and develop
capacities consistent with these goals. In the process
the culture as a whole adjusts to the changes that
are taking place. Changes such as these are self
imposed and determined last longer than those that
are externally imposed, because in the latter
situation, the community does not feel any sense of
participation or conscious planning for adjustment
to such changes.
5. A “holistic approach” can deal successfully with
problems with which a “fragmented approach”
cannot cope. This implies that social problems can
be dealt with by adopting more coordinated
approaches rather than piecemeal initiatives by the
separate social agencies working apart from each
other. Most of the problems have multiple causation
and a single specialized approach to the problem
will have limited value.
6. Democracy requires cooperative participation
and action in the affairs. Of the community, and
that people must learn the skills which make this
possible. There must be active participation in the
development and use of an effective communication
process, which facilitates the identification of
common objectives and implementation of collective
action. People may require practice and the help of
experts to establish and maintain democratic
community institutions.
7. Frequently, communities of people need help in
organizing to deal with their needs. This help may
be of diverse types, ranging from advice, to
resources/inputs, or programme designing etc.

While people may possess their own resources and
capacities, they may often require professional help
in mobilizing them effectively.
The aforementioned assumptions condition the nature
of community organization, the methods used by the
community organizer in the field and the principles
applicable in the process.
Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to provide you guidelines to
understand the basic concept of community organization
as a method of social work practice. We have discussed
in detail the meaning of community organization and
also provided the different definitions in a chronological
order, along with their explanations. You have also been
oriented to the more contemporary definitions and
understanding of community organization and
community practice. An analysis of the definitions has
also been undertaken to reveal the core components of
Having explained the meaning and definition of social
work, this unit also highlighted the role and importance
of community organization as a method of social work
practice. Additionally, we have discussed the value
orientation, purposes and assumptions underlying the
method of community organization. Having done this,
you are now in a position to recognize and appreciate
the importance of the values and assumptions and will
be able to integrate them while practicing community
organization in the field.
Reference
Baldock, Peter. (1974). Community Work and Social
Work, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Biddle, W.E., & Biddle, L.J. (1965). The Community
Development Process: The Rediscovery of Local
Initiatives, Holt, Rinehard, & Winston, New York.
Dunham, Arthur. (1957). Community Welfare
Organisation: Principles and Practice, Thomas Y.
Crowell Company, New York.
Ecklein, Joan. (Ed.). (1972). Community Organisers,
Johan Wiley and Sons, NewYork.
Gangrade, K.D. (1971). Community Organisation in
India, Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
Harper,E.B., & Dunham Arthur. (1959). Community
Organisation in Action, Association Press, New York.
Henderson, Paul. & Thomas, David. N. (Eds.). (1981).
Readings in Communty Work, George Allen and
Unwin, London.
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). (2003).
Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles, http:/
/www.ifse.org?GM2004//GM-Ethics-draft.html
Kramer, Ralph. M., & Specht, Harry. (1975). Readings
in Community Organisation Practice, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Lindeman, E. (1921). The Community, Association Press,
New York.
McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of
Community: A Definition and Theory, Journal of
Community Psychology, 14:6.
Murphy, P.W., & Cunningham, J.V. (2003). Organising
for Community Controlled Development: Renewing
Civil Society, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
C.A.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and

Revival of American Community, Simon and
Schuster, New York.
Ross, M.G. (1967). Community Organisation, Harper and
Row, New York.
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I. (2005). The Practice of
Community Organising. In M. Weil (Ed.), The
Handbook of Community Practice, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, C.A.
Staples, L. (2004a). Roots to Power: A Manual for
Grassroots Organising (2nd ed.), Praeger, Westport,
CT.
Siddiqui, H.Y. (1997). Working with Communities, Hira
Publications, New Delhi.
Weil, M. & Gamble, D. (1995). Community Practice
Models, In R.L. Edwards, (Ed.). Encyclopedia of
Social Work, Nineteenth Edition, NASW, Washington,
DC.
Weil, Marie. (Ed.). (1997). Community Practice: Models
in Action, The Haworth Press Inc, New York.
Weil, M. (2005b). The Handbook of Community Practice,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, C.A.
Younghusband, Eileen. (1973). Which Way for Social
Work, Community Development Journal, 8(1).
7
History of Community
Organisation
*Neera Agnimitra
Introduction
An orientation to the history of community organization
helps us to understand the genesis and evaluation of
what we now recognize as community organization. It
enables us to familiarize ourselves with the problems
and challenges faced by the human service professionals
in different phases of practice, the strategies and
approaches developed to overcome them, and the concrete
lessions learnt for maximizing possibilities of change in
the context of present day action.
In a broad sense we can say that the history of
community organization is as old as the history of
mankind. Wherever people have lived together, some
form of organization must have always emerged and
functioned in order to achieve some common goals or to
meet certain common needs of the community.
Gradually, together with these informal associations,
formal organizations also must have been set up to give
a more formal shape and form to such initiatives of
societal welfare.
Community organization as a process and a method is
aimed at solving the contemporary problems existing in
a specific time frame, by adopting democratic principles
and people participation. Viewed in this context, the

History of Community Organisation 131
beginning of community organization for social welfare

can be traced to seventeenth century England, when
the Elizabethan Poor Law (1601) was set up to provide
services for the needy persons. The formation of the
London Society for the organization of Charitable Relief
and Repressing Mendicancy and the origin of the
Settlement House Movement in 1880 were the other
landmarks in the history of community organization.
Although little has been documented about the history
of community organization, it has been practiced as a
method of social work in many western countries
including Australia and the United States of America.
Apart from the United Kingdom, it has had a long and
active history in the United States of America. The
practice of community organization in these two
countries has influenced the practice of community
organization in the Indian context.
As students of social work, especially of community
organization, it is important to understand the past,
draw lessons from it, and develop and evolve new
models, methods and strategies required to work with
the new and emerging problems confronting
contemporary communities. In this chapter, we will be
tracing the history of community organization in the
United Kingdom and the United States of America,
followed by a brief historical profile of community
organization practice in India
Community Organisation in the United

Kingdom
British community work emerged from the charity work
of the Anglican Church and the University Settlement
Movement. It was primarily a response to the suffering
of the people in the clutches of urban poverty. In other
words we can say that the genesis of community work
in the U.K. was inspired by philanthropic motives;

particularly of the church.
As the 20th century progressed, there began to emerge a
gradual transition away from charity and benevolent
paternalism towards a philosophy of liberation. This in
turn led to a change in class and gender consciousness.
It was during this time that people like Sylvia Pankhurst
and groups like the Women’s Housing Association
adapted ideas of self help from the Chicago settlement
that Jane Addams had modeled based on Toynbee Hall.
Pankhurst set up a cooperative factory to provide
employment, and a crèche based on education through
play. She also initiated community action when during
the First World War (1914-18), she supported families
to occupy empty houses, in the wake of escalating rents.
The Women’s Housing Association organized a mass
tenants strike, leading the government to regulate rents.
Thus, collective action became popular throughout the
early years of the 20th century, ending in the General
Strike of 1926.
Community centres were also built with the aim of
integrating the marginalized groups, and were seen to
offer a form of social work response to the needs of the
working class and an intervention to control unrest.
In the 1950s, community work practice in the U.K.
became influenced by the theory that emerged from
North America, based primarily on the work of Murray
Ross. This inspired a new approach to neighbourhood
and interagency work (Popple, 1995).
Community work began to emerge as a distinct
occupation with a strong educational component in the
1960s, following the Younghusband Report (1959),
which identified community organization as a key
component of social work, based on the American Model.
Community organization was perceived to be an
approach to help people identify and define their own

needs, and identify ways in which these could be met.
In this context, Kuenstter (1961) presented the first
collection of community work material, relevant to the
British context. This was really the beginning of British
Community Work.
The term ‘community development’ gradually came to
be applied to community work that was based on local
neighbourhoods. In 1968, the Gulbenkian Report, based
on research into the role of community work in the U.K.
projected community work as an “interface between
people and social change” (Calouste-Gulbenkian
Foundation, 1968). It defined community work as a full
time professional practice based on neighbourhoods,
which helped local people to decide, plan and take action
to meet their needs with the help of outside resources.
Within this, the key components were recognized as
improving the delivery of local services; developing
interagency coordination; and influencing policy and
planning.
A number of other influential reports were also
published which had impact on the development of
community work in the country. One of these was the
Seebohm Committee Report, 1968, which
recommended the expansion of community work
especially through social service provision and the
Skeffington Report, 1969, which recommended
increased public participation in urban planning.
The British Community Development Projects were
launched in 1969 as one among a series of initiatives
designed to deal with urban deprivation. The projects
aimed at evolving cost effective welfare measures to
tackle the high concentration of deprivation and adopted
a variety of strategies to work with the communities.
While some projects operated on ‘dialogue model’ of
social change, and focused largely on ameliorative

activities, some rejected such approaches, as they only
provided ‘support for the status quo’. By and large, the
projects rejected conflict-based community action as a
means of achieving their goals, as it was felt that such
action was sporadic, alienated the decision-makers and
led to group instability. In their view the way to achieve
change at the local level was to increase access to, and
democratic control over the resources that were already
available. Its goal was to radically change the
organization of resources within the local area, and not
to act as an outside pressure group.
The findings of some projects however argued that people
affected by inequality need to be facilitated to influence
the way in which their needs are tackled and therefore
saw value in conflict-based community action. These
projects recognized the wider structural issues. They
recommended a ‘social planning’ strategy, concluding
that the provision of empirical evidence was the most
useful strategy for influencing policy.
In the period since 1968 a substantial number of those
professionally engaged in community work became
advocates of ‘community action’, a form of community
work whose main features included a support of
disadvantaged groups in conflict with authority and an
accompanying reformist or Marxist perspective on
society. There were a number of reasons for this
development. The impulse of urban community action
was encouraged to some extent by the example of urban
action among the blacks in the U.S. from Martin Luther.
Secondly, developments in community work practice in
the form of the Urban Programme in 1968 and the Twelve
Community Development projects which emerged from
this programme in 1969 also impacted the emergence
of community action. The Projects which focused on
twelve poor communities, closely reflected on the impact
of poverty on people’s lives and advocated that it was

the radical/structural Marxist analyses of discrimination
which was responsible for the continued existence of
poverty and the plight of the urban poor.
Thirdly, the work of community organizers like Gramsci,
Paulo Freire and Saul Alinsky started impacting the
community work practice in the subsequent phase. They
wee strong advocates of the radical tradition of
community action were largely instrumental in
popularizing the radical stance in community work.
Fourthly, the early seventies had witnessed an
increasing recognition and expansion of community
work, both through the voluntary and government
sectors. However as the decade progressed, there was a
greater emphasis on state sponsorship of community
work. This resulted in some inherent contradictions.
While community workers were working with the local
people to organize them and to facilitate them to demand
better public services, they were employed by the very
state which was responsible for the provision or the
‘non’-provision of these services.
As a result of all of the aforementioned developments,
two spilt/distinct approaches to community work arose.
The first approach believed that there is a multiplicity
of competing power bases in society which are mediated
by the state and that community work is only capable
of ameliorative small scale neighbourhood organizing
and small scale reforms. This approach was
conservative, with an emphasis on consensus and
cooperation. On the other hand, the alternate approach
strongly proposed community work as the locus of
change within the struggle for transformation of the
structures of society that were recognized to be the root
cause of all oppression. This approach, also known as
the radical approach to community work, took on the
‘hard issues’ of social justice and sustainability, while

the former ‘consensus’ approach focused on the local
‘soft issues’ such as provision of services and interagency
work.
Many community practitioners realized the advantages
in combining these two approaches, which had in
common the ultimate objectives of enabling people to
cope with their life situations and of developing improved
provision of services/resources. It was also felt that
both approaches could support each other. Community
action might ignore the immediate needs of people, in
the interest of collective cause, while provision of social
services might ignore the importance of such conditions
and attempt to deal with community problems as though
they were individual problems. However, working with
and against the state continued to pose an ongoing
challenge for community work, with the state acting as
both employer and oppressor.
After the election of the Thatcher government, the anti-
state approach of radical community work became an
increasingly ineffective mechanism to challenge the
Neoliberal ideology that emerged and which embraced:
a free market economy; minimum government;
acceptance of inequalities; nationalism and the welfare
state as a minimal safety net (Giddens, 1998). The
welfare state ideology which had survived until the
1980s now started receding in the wake of economic
recession and the immense welfare burdens on account
of rising unemployment. Ideals of collective responsibility
which had formed the basis of the welfare state, gave
way to a competitive culture driven by consumerism.
Under Thatcherism, social reforms devoured rights and
reduced benefits for some of the most vulnerable groups
in society. These risks of poverty were further multiplied
on account of class, gender, ethnicity, age and disability,
all of which went to imply that poverty was not a result
of personal failings of an individual but arose on account

of structural anomalies.
With the election of the Blair government in 1997, a
small change took place. Community and civil society
came to be recognized as the interface between the people
and the state. With the state playing an enabling role,
voluntary organizations were encouraged to tackle the
new needs. There was increasing concern about those
neighbourhoods which had a high incidence of poverty,
unemployment and associated problems of crime, poor
health, poor service delivery, poor quality schools etc.
The focus therefore became the regeneration of poor
neighbourhoods. In the year 2000, the National Strategy
for Neighbourhood Renewal was initiated for this
purpose. Area based programmes emerged to tackle the
specific local problems. The idea of community cohesion
was revised. Although it is too early to assess the impact
of the National Strategy, limited research evidence has
shown that the community involvement programmes
are poorly planned, inadequately resourced and not very
effective (Burton, 2003).
Thus, in the contemporary phase of community work in
the United Kingdom, both the radical perspective and
the more moderate and consensus based approaches to
community work co-exist. There is no consensus on
which approach is more effective and workable in dealing
with the current dilemmas faced by community work
professionals.
Community Organization in the United

States of America
The movements in England also impacted the turn of
events in the United States. In 1880, the Charities
Organisation was set up to put rational order in the
realm of charity and relief. The development of
community organization within American communities

since 1865 was concerned both with community
activities in which professionals were engaged and also
with indigenous community efforts, especially within
oppressed groups.
For the purpose of analysis American history can be
divided into five phases (Gavin and Cox, 2001). These
are as follows:
1865 to 1914
During this period between the end of the Civil War and
the beginning of World War I, a number of social issues
emerged in the US and these had a strong impact on
the welfare practices. These included the rapid
industrialization of the country, the urbanization of its
population, problems emerging out of immigration and
changes in oppressed populations. These issues
highlighted the need for the emergence of community
organization practice. Immediately after the Civil War
there were organizations that sought to support and
sustain the newly won civil rights. The black
community, the Chicanos * , the Native American
community and the Asian American Community were
all confronted with problems related to poverty, race
relations, cultural conflicts and marginalization.
Community organization activities during this period
can be divided into two categories: the first being those
which were carried out by institutions related to present
day social welfare activities and the second category of
activities were those conducted by those with no direct
connection to contemporary community organization
programmes, but which nevertheless have been of
interest for community practitioners. The latter include
the organization of political, racial and other action
groups.
A number of factors had contributed to the development

of the Charity Organization Societies in England in 1869
and by 1873 in the United States. These Societies
initially came into existence to coordinate the work of
the private agencies which provided for the needs of the
poor. Soon they began to offer direct relief and other
services. A number of social factors contributed to this
development. These included the movement of large
populations into cities like those defended from
Mexicans, large scale immigration to meet the
manpower needs of growing industries and the
emergence of many social problems associated in the
wake of these, like poverty, inadequate housing,
declining health status and exploitation. This led to the
development of agencies directed to ameliorating these
conditions. Separate efforts were also made by groups
associated with different neighbourhoods, as also ethnic
and religious groups.
The main functions of the Charity Organization
Societies(COS): were (a) cooperative planning among
charitable institutions for the amelioration of various
social problems and the creation of new social agencies
and the reform of old ones. They were actively engaged
in securing reforms in tenement housing codes,
developing anti-tubercular associations, obtaining
legislation in support of juvenile court and probation
work, establishing programmes for care of dependent
children, beggars and vagrants. Some of the most
significant contributions of the COS to community
organization included the development of community
welfare planning organizations and social survey
techniques.
Social Settlements emerged fifteen years after Charity
Organization Societies with Toynbee Hall being one of
the first settlements in the slums of East London in
1884. Stanton Coit who visited Toynbee Hall in 1886
established the University Settlement in New York later

that year. Unlike the COS, settlements had no
predetermined scheme for solving the problems of
society. Their leaders saw environmental rather than
individual factors as responsible for the prevailing
conditions. Services like kindergartens and clubs for
children, recreational programmes, evening schools for
adults etc. were the major thrust of their programme
and social reform was the most basic focus point of
settlements. Settlement workers fought for laws to
protect employed women and abolish child labour. One
important component of social settlements was stress
on participation and democracy. Residents involved
themselves in the life of the community and helping
neighbours to develop their potentialities to deal with
their problems more effectively. The settlement idea
spread very rapidly and by 1910 there were over four
hundred settlements in the U.S.
During this era, a number of associations were created
in many ethnic groups. In 1890, the Afro-American
League of the United States was created to procure
funds, legal and voting rights for the black Americans
coping with their shifting status in American life. The
Committee on Urban Conditions among Negroes in New
York city later become the National Urban League, and
in this many social workers were employed. From the
1880s many organisations came into existence to
preserve a Mexican-American way of life. Organisations
for the benefits of women also emerged. They showed a
concern with the poor working conditions for women
and equal rights. The women’s suffrage movement and
the movement for the abolition of slavery became
important.
As far as social work education was concerned,
community organization as a specialization had not yet
emerged as a separate entity. There were individuals
concerned with coordinating charity, organizing

neighbourhood settlements, or mobilizing protest in
racial matters, but they had little professional identity.
Some training activities began to emerge in 1898 when
the New York COS initiated a summer training course,
expanded to a one year programme later. By the end of
World War I, seventeen schools of social work came into
existence. The Association of Training Schools for
Professional Social Work was also formed. The emphasis
however was more on case work than on community
organisation.
1915 to 1929
After World War I, several new conditions emerged that
had a significant impact on community organisation
practice. The development of community organisation
institutions like the Community Chest and United Fund
was one such condition. This period saw an increase in
the number of welfare institutions, which generated
demands for coordination, and better fund raising
methods. While the philanthropists established the
Community Chests or United Funds to supply aid, the
professionals supported the community welfare council
to dispense this aid. Community Chests were initiated
by large contributors and most of the work was handled
by volunteers. World War I gave great impetus to the
development of chests like war chests.
The Council of Social Agencies and the Community
Welfare Council developed as a result of the increasing
professionalism among those who helped the poor. The
friendly visitor was replaced by the paid agent. The COSs
founded schools of philanthropy, which became graduate
schools of social work. A growing cadre of welfare
professionals with the support of many volunteers were
interested in organising a rational, systematic approach
to the welfare needs of communities. They formed
councils which were often assigned the responsibility

of distributing the money raised by community chests.
The Social Unit Plan became a very important
development in community organisation. It was launched
in 1915 and led to the development of block councils,
block workers and federations referred to as Citizens
Councils.
By 1920 Joseph K. Hart had written a text entitled
“Community Organisation” and between then and 1930
at least five books were written on the subject. Case
work emphasis had hitherto existed in view of the
prevalent ideologies and emphasis on individual
conformity to the “System”. In fact community
organisation practice during this period was largely
aimed at enhancing agencies orientated towards
personal adjustment. Except for workers in settlement
houses, and the Social Unit Plan, little thought was
given to changing social institutions. Nevertheless some
different ideas began to emerge Linderman spoke of the
value of “an attempt on the part of people who live in
small compact local group to assume their own
responsibilities and guide their own destinies”
(Linderman, 1921).
1929 to 1954
Social Work in this period was deeply affected by the
depression and the World War II. There was a vast
increase in unemployment, as also bank and stock
market failures. The expansion of government
programmes was a direct result of the depression. The
government became the most significant planner and
promoter of welfare prgrammes through the enactment
of legislations and social security and minimum wages.
The Federal government through its agencies became
the main impetus for social planning. While this was
not really a period of innovation in community

organisation, it was a time during which efforts were
made to conceptualise the nature of community
organisation practice. The relation between community
organisation and social work was examined, the
objectives of community organisation were reflected
upon and the role of the community practitioner was
deliberated upon.
The depression also stimulated a major upsurge of trade
unionism. The passage of legislation showed that the
government was facilitating the development of unions.
Many minority communities and depressed classes got
a major boost of strength due to this development.
However, in the period the community organization
agencies found themselves unable to cope with the
massive needs of the country. This period marked a
shift of emphasis in operations from local and private
to regional or national and public. The government
became the main impetus for social planning.
As far as development of the profession was concerned,
this was a time during which intensive efforts were
made to conceptualise the nature of community
organization practice. There were three overriding
concerns. These were: (i) the relation between
community organization and social work. While one
school of thought contended that community
organization was not really a legitimate form of social
work practice, the other school made efforts to establish
community organizations affinity to the basic values
and concerns of social work (ii) an interest in the
objectives of community organization, ranging from
strengthening community cohesion to prevention/
amelioration of a wide ranging set of social problems,
and (iii) the appropriate role for the practitioner, which
was envisaged to “strike a balance between giving help
and fostering self determination of the community”.
1955 to 1968
The growth of the Civil Rights Movement, the end of
legal school segregation and the rising dissatisfaction
of the black Americans gave birth to a number of
organisations which sought to end the inequality of
opportunity for the black people. Martin Luther King,
Jr emerged as a leader in this struggle. As these
organisations fought for black pride, they also demanded
autonomy in black affairs including neighbourhoods.
Subsequently, other minority groups also started
asserting themselves, claiming their rights and their
special identity. Thus, there was a growing effort to
create ethnic minority institutions, including
neighbourhood control of schools, business, professional
societies, labour unions, interest groups and rights
organisations.
Late in this period, other groups also asserted
themselves. These included the elderly, the gay men
and lesbians, the handicapped and women. Student
activism also increased phenomenally. Many student
activists turned to social work and particularly to
community organisation in search of a career compatible
with their personal commitments. Many were influenced
by the community organisation projects carried out by
the students for a Democratic Society, and also by the
dynamic organizing style of Saul Alinsky and the many
organisations he helped found.
The Federal government took increasing responsibility
for dealing with a wide range of social problems, like
mental health, alcoholism, physical disability etc.
through grants-in-aid to state and local governments.
Many programmes encouraged preventive measures in
the local communities, a process requiring community
organisation skills. Programmes like VISTA,
Neighbourhood Youth Corps, Adult Education, and other
community action programmes offered opportunities for
local initiatives. Programmes like Model Cities

Programme were also established in 1966 to solve urgent
urban problems.
This was the time when on the one hand, the American
people supported the development of responsibilities of
the government in solving the problems of welfare and
on the other hand, there was a renewed emphasis upon
participatory democracy and “maximum feasible
participation”. Along side there was also a strong sense
of disengagement from society on the one hand and of
opposition to those who controlled society on the other.
These currents were also reflected in social work, with
some students taking up government jobs, while others
participating in anti-establishment grass-roots
organisations. Moderation and social planning formed
the dominant orientation of community organisation.
Training for community organisation grew substantially
and by 1969 the number of schools of social work
providing training programmes for community
organizers increased to forty eight. Efforts were also
made to clarify the nature of community organisation
and give recognition to the development of community
organisation as a specialized form of practice within
social work. In 1962, the Council on Social Work
Education gave formal recognition to community
organization as a method of social work comparable with
casework and group work. An effort to develop
curriculum for training community organizers was
initiated in 1963. One of the most important development
during this period was the recognition that community
organization practitioners required professional training,
different from that in other social work specializations.
1969 and After

The year 1969 marked the beginning of the Nixon
administration, followed by the Carter and Reagan
administrations. The thrust of these administrations

was on reducing the role of the government, particularly
the national government in social welfare. Three main
developments during the period, specifically in the
eighties and thereafter shaped the social conditions and
the trends in social work practice at the community
and societal levels. These were: (i) The emergence of an
information society, characterized by “high technology”
in every sphere of life; (ii) The growth of a world economy,
leading to vast shifts in investment patterns and inter-
organisational relationships on a global scale; and (iii)
Decentralisation, leading to the increased role that state
as opposed to national government started playing in
the U.S., and the vast increase in neighbourhood
organizations and the shift of population to rural areas
and small towns (Naisbitt, 1982).
The most important development with the most impact
on the current phase of community organizing is the
belief in the value of self-help activities. Hundreds of
organizations have arisen for mutual aid in the last
many years and continue to be created on almost a
daily basis in the U.S. The move towards participation
has grown, together with a rise in initiatives, activism
and a greater say of people in determining their own
affairs. Another important trend which has emerged
according to Naisbitt is “networking”, particularly that
enabled by computer utilization, in which people seek
ways of locating that American society has moved
towards becoming a society of even more diversity. This
is reflected in the many forms that the family is taking.
The options available to women to work and to play any
family role is accepted, and if not, is fought for. The
traditional family has given way to blended families,
one parent families, gay male and lesbian couples and
“living together” families.
As far as development of community organization

institutions is concerned, the major shift in community
organization practice since the seventies has been the
withdrawal of the federal funding and the termination
of many community oriented federal programmes.
Nevertheless, the number of grassroots organizations
has expanded substantially. These organizations have
generated many alternative forms of support including
state and local governments, voluntary donations, fund
raising efforts, support from multiple constituencies like
labour organizations, churches and businesses.
Organizations have developed in all ethnic communities
and among all socio-economic groups.
As far as the development of the profession is concerned,
a major shift has taken place during this period and
this is a shift to thinking of community organization
activities as part of “macro” practice that also includes
interventions at organizational and societal levels. This
shift recognizes that social change takes place through
a set of activities that sometimes focus on a single
organization, sometimes on a community, and
sometimes on a society as a whole. The skills that the
practitioner uses are specific to the particular level,
but more often are appropriate to several levels.
Opportunities to practice include roles which may be
oriented towards management within an organization,
organizing within a community, or policy creation and/
or implementation within regional and societal
institutions. The tools available to practitioners have
grown over this period as has knowledge regarding
organizational, community and societal phenomena
drawn from major advances in social sciences,
particularly sociology, social psychology, anthropology,
political science and economics. A unity of thinking
among all social workers regarding micro and macro
practices of change has been encouraged by the spread
of systems-oriented and ecologically based thinking.
Social workers are increasingly recognizing the necessity

for systems changes and the participation of the
consumer of social services in these changes.
(Rothman,Erlish and Tropman, 2001).
History of Community Organization in

India
Community work preceded social work education which
formally began in India in 1937. The experience of
working with slums in the city of Mumbai led to the
establishment of the first institution of social work
education, which was the ‘Tata Institute of Social
Sciences’, followed by the ‘Delhi School of Social Work’
in the year 1946. No serious cognizance of community
work was however taken before the 1950s. It was only
in the year 1951 that a massive government programme
of community development, the first of its kind in post-
independent India was launched.
Community work in India was largely seen as a process
of developing local initiatives, particularly in the areas
of education, health and agricultural development. This
was to be undertaken by liasoning needs with available
resources. The major thrust was on motivating people
to express their needs, and to avail themselves of existing
resources. (Siddiqui 1997).
From 1937 to about 1952, community work in india
was fairly dormant. This was the time when the social
work profession was in its infancy and trainees were
primarily absorbed as case workers in different settings.
While community organisation was being taught as a
method of social work, there were hardly any job
opportunities which provided avenues for community
practice. Some opportunities only emerged with the
launching of the Community Development Programme
in India in 1952.
In this initial phase a prominent advocate of community

development in India, was Mukherji. He described
community development as “a movement designed to
promote better living for the whole community, with
the active participation and if possible at the initiative
of the community”. Further, he emphasized that
“whenever the initiative is not forth-coming, efforts
should be made to arouse and stimulate this initiative”
(Mukherji 1961). Mukherji contributed significantly to
the development of community work in India. He
perceived community development as an amalgamation
of two processes: `extension education’ and `community
organisation’. `Extension education’ was expected to
improve the knowledge and skill base of people; and to
change their attitudes to make them progressive and
desirous of improving their living conditions.
`Community organisation’, on the other hand entailed
setting up of three institutions in the village. These
were: the village panchayat, the village cooperative and
the village school. Other associated organisations such
as women’s organsiations, youth groups, farmers and
artisans associations were also sought to be developed
to assist the three main institutions in achieving the
overall development of the community.
In U.K. something similar had transpired in the second
phase of community development, from 1930 to 1950,
wherein people were encouraged to look for solutions to
social problems in their own neighbourhoods. However,
while in the U.K., this effort was initiated by voluntary
associations, in India the programme was launched by
the government. Moreover, while the focus of community
work in India was primarily rural, in the U.K. and U.S.A.
and in other European countries, community work was
largely urban in nature. In India, a variety of people
from diverse fields like health, education, agriculture
and administration were a part of the team working at
the block level. Specific methods to work were however

not evolved. Urban community development was very
limited and very limited number of social workers were
involved in the same. In such a context, it would not be
wrong to say that in this phase, community work in
India, by and large remained rural, whereas social work
education and practice remained urban, both in location
and character.
In the 1970s, the nature of community work largely
remained ameliorative, and not radical or conflict-
oriented. Social workers started working in urban slums
in sizeable number. This was primarily on account of
the fact that a large number of voluntary organisations
started undertaking work in the realm of literacy,
provision of basic amenities of life, women and children’s
development etc. Many other organizations, previously
confined to institutional work started adopting a
community focus. This led to a wider practice of
community work, where ‘community’ mainly implied
target population in a defined geographical area or
neighbourhood.
The current phase of community work in India is
characterized by a growing dissatisfaction largely on
account of the slow and less than envisaged outcome
of practice. The impact of globalization and privatization
and the following neo-liberal offensive on welfare,
accompanied by a gradual withering away of the state
has led to a weakened community fabric and substantial
erosion of the notions of popular participation. While
much of this will be covered in a separate section in a
subsequent unit, it suffices to mention here that the
rapidly changing community context and a new set of
community issues necessitate rethinking on ways of
engaging the communities in purposeful action to
promote better living for themselves.
Over the years, there has been a growing recognition of

an alternate approach to community organizing which
is more ‘radical’ in its stance. It pre-supposes the
existence of a disadvantaged section of the population
that needs to be organized in order to make demands
on the larger community for increased resources or equal
treatment (Bobo, Kendal, and Max, 1996). The style is
highly adversarial and intervention seeks to redistribute
power and resources, change legislative mandates and
promote social justice. This approach has come to be
known as the Social Action approach. In fact, Social
Action has found recognition as a distinct method of
social work practice. While some schools of social work
treat it as a part of the broader community organisation
method, some treat it as a separate method in itself.
As far as the practice context is concerned, social work
professionals in India have not been prominent in the
social action arena, although there has been
participation on a small scale basis. By and large,, the
nature of community practice has remained
ameliorative, welfare oriented or having the usual
‘problem-solving’ roots.
An important factor that has impact on the contemporary
nature and scope of community work undertaken by
social work professionals has been their employability.
Most community practitioners work in context of
community based voluntary organisations, which in turn
are increasingly governed by the mandates of funding
organisations. Thus, the nature of community work in
India is often project oriented and ‘externally’ driven
i.e. originating from outside the community. This sets
limits on the practice of community work that can
actually be undertaken.
Since the early nineties, the popularization of
Community Outreach (in context of health, education,
child guidance, disability rehabilitation etc.) and more

recently the involvement of business houses and
corporates in promoting welfare in their neighbourhoods
(commonly referred to as Corporate Social
Responsibility) has also broadened the scope of
involvement of professionals in community practice. This
has also provided the much needed boost to the practice
of community work.
In the same time frame, there has also been a
discernable movement into the notion of capacity
building, which stresses the fact that people have the
right to an equitable share in the world’s resources,
and to be authors of their own development.
Strengthening people’s capacity to determine their values
and priorities and to act on these is increasingly being
recognized as the basis of community practice. Capacity
building as part of community organization is being
perceived as an approach to development rather than a
set of pre packaged interventions. Capacity building is
not doing development for the needy, it is in essence
assisting people to plan and exercise their choice of
development. However, although there is a strong case
for expediting the incorporation of these notions in real
life community organizing, this has not really been the
case. Presently, these notions are visible more in
theoretical deliberations than in practice situations.
Nevertheless, exceptional initiatives at the grass roots
level in several parts of the country raise the hope and
confidence of professionals that desirable changes in
the practice of community organizing are on the anvil.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have discussed the history of
community organization as a method of social work
practice. We have seen how the early efforts of the social
reformers and the activists to improve the living

conditions of the deprived communities in the West
gradually evolved and transformed into a formal method
of social work.
Besides elaborating on the genesis and evolution of
community organization in the U.K., the chapter also
traces the development of this method in the USA. A
profile of the history of community organization in the
Indian context has also been presented to enable us to
understand the nature and trends in the practice of
this method from the commencement of social work
education in 1936 to the present time. This chapter
facilitated us to develop a comprehensive insight into
the developments which have shaped the contemporary
practice of this core method of social work.
References
Burton, P. (2003). Community Involvement in
Neighbourhood Regeneration: Stair way to Heaven or
Road to Nowhere? Available at
<www.neighbourhoodcentre.org>
Dunham, Arthur. (1958). Community Welfare
Organisation, Principles and Practice, Thomas Y. Crowell
Co., New York.
Friedlandder, W. A. & Robert, Z. (1982). Introduction to
Social Welfare, Prentice-Hall India Pvt. Ltd.
Gavin, C.D., & Cox, F.M. (2001). A History of Community
Organising Since the Civil War with Special Reference
to Oppressed Communities. In J. Rothman, J.L. Erlich,
& J.E.T ropman, (Eds.), Strategies pf Community
Intervention, F.E. Peacock, Itasca, IL.
Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social
Democracy, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gulbenkian Study Group. (1968). Community Work and

Social Change, Longman, London.
Kuenstler, Peter. (1961). Community Organisation in
Great Britain, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Naisbitt, John. (1982). Megatrends: Ten New Directions
Transforming Our Lives, Wanner Books, New York.
Rothman, J.L. Erlich, & J.E. Tropman. (Eds.). (2001).
Strategies of Community Intervention (6 th ed), F.E.
Peacock, Itasca, IL.
Siddiqui, H.Y. (1997). Working with Communities: An
Introduction to Community Work, Hira Publication, New
Delhi.
Stener, F.D. (1958). Community Organisation, The New
Century Co., New York.
8
Community Organisation as a
Method of Social Work Practice
*Neera Agnimitra
Introduction
Community organization is one of the core methods of
social work, just as case work, group work, social welfare
administration, and social work research. While the
context of the caseworker is the “individual”, and that
of group worker is the “group”, the community organizer
operates in the “community” context. The caseworker
seeks to help the individual client identify his/her
problems; develop the will to deal with these problems;
facilitate action with respect to them; and in doing so,
increase the individual’s understanding of himself/
herself and his/her capacity for integration. Similarly,
the community organizer works with the whole
community as the `client’. He/she deals with its
major subcultures; enables the community to
identify its important needs and problems; develop the
collective will to deal with these; and to take action
with respect to them; and in doing so, enhances the
capacity of the community to function as an integrated
unit. In short, the term community organization is used
to describe a method of social work used to intervene in
the life of a community in order to solve community
problems.

Community Organisation as a Macro

Method
Work with communities when viewed from the
humanitarian perspective, is as old as society itself.
One or the other form of community work has always
been existing. But when viewed from the perspective of
methods of social work profession, community work is
of relatively recent origin. It was the Lane Committee
Report (1939) which first recognized community
organization as a method of social work.
Community organization is considered as a Macro
method of practice in social work (Fink 1978) or macro
level social work, as it is used to address the broader
social problems that affect a large group of people. The
term ‘macro’ is used because of ability of this method
to involve a large number of people in solving the social
problems collectively. This method thus enables us to
enhance the scope/degree of intervention. Unlike case
work, which deals with only one individual at a time or
group work, which deals with a limited number of
participants, community organization deals with a large
number of people at any given time.
Individual approach is not practical in a context where
the magnitude of problem/s faced is alarming. In such
cases we have to use a method which can concurrently
help a large number of people. This is especially true in
case of developing countries where the magnitude of
several problems faced by people is immense and so
there is an urgent need to work with larger
constituencies. In such a context, the community
becomes an important level of social work intervention
and community organization emerges as an effective
method of social work practice to ameliorate the
widespread economic and social problems faced by these
countries.
Community Organisation as a Method of Social Work Practice 157
Community organization is also characterised as a

macro method because it can be successfully
implemented at the local level (i.e. at a locality/
neighbourhood level) or at state level or even at the
regional or international level, depending on how we
define the ‘community’ in community organization.
Community Organisation as a Problem

Solving Method
As mentioned earlier, for community organization
method, the community is the client. Just as the other
methods of case work and group work, the method of
community organisation also strives to solve the
problems and fulfill the needs of its ‘client’, which is
the community.
It is also concerned with:
a) the release of its latent potentialities;
b) the optimalised use of its indigenous resources;
c) the development of its capacity to manage its own
life; and
d) the enhancement of its ability to function as an
integrated unit.
The end goal is the development of self confidence and
self help; the emergence of cooperative and collaborative
attitudes, skills and behaviour, which then form the
basis of sustainable action and change in the client
system.
Like the other methods, community organization also
relies on similar assumptions, namely the dignity and
worth of the client, the resources possessed by the client
to deal with its own problems; the inherent capacity
that the ‘client’ possesses for growth and development;
and the ability to choose wisely in the management of
its own affairs. A case worker assumes that often
individuals become overwhelmed by the complexities of

life and thereby become psychosocially paralysed, which
in turn curtails their own capacity for response by way
of action. But with appropriate facilitation, this stage
can be overcome, and the normal process of growth can
be resumed for the individual concerned. Moreover, like
the case worker who accepts the client as he/she is;
develops a professional relationship with the client;
starts from where the client is; and helps the client to
become functional and autonomous, the community
organizer also has the same general orientation and
relies on a similar approach in working with the
community, which is the client for him/her.
Community organisation therefore shares a common
base, and a common core of philosophy and method
with case work and group work. It is also committed
towards solving problems and facilitating change in the
client system. The nature of problems dealt with in the
context of Indian communities relate to poverty,
unemployment, exploitation, lack of access to basic
services and denial of social justice/rights. The problems
may also be more group specific i.e. as they relate to
particular groups like women, children, youth, elderly
or the backward classes.
While there are common objectives, assumptions and
certain generalized approaches to be followed by all
social work practitioners, there are also significant
differences between community organization and the
other methods. As the social work practitioner moves
from the general to the specific context, he/she has to
develop certain distinctive ways of dealing with the
problems of the individual, the group and the
community. In addition to the fact that some of the
same insights and methods develop differently in
different settings, each process has distinctive insights
and methods of its own.
Since the worker in community organization works on

a larger canvas, he/she is (a) concerned with the
different sub-groups and sub-cultures within the same;
(b) has to develop insights about the value systems,
behaviour patterns, social organization, formal and
informal leadership as they pertain to the diverse groups;
(c) understand the interests and problems that these
groups have in common; and (d) assess the degree of
cooperation and competition that exist in them. The
methods of understanding and operation used will
therefore be different from that of the case worker or
the group worker.
In any process of problem solving there are three basic
steps viz. study, diagnosis and intervention/treatment.
First, the problem has to be studied by collecting
information. From this information, the main causes
leading to the problem have to be identified. This step
is referred to as ‘diagnosis’. Based on the diagnosis, a
solution or intervention is evolved called ‘treatment’. In
any context, problems can be solved only after following
this three step procedure.
In the context of a community, this problem solving
procedure can be used only with the collective
involvement of the people who are individually and
collectively the stakeholders in the causation and the
solution of the specific problem being dealt with. For
e.g. people in a certain community may be confronted
with the problem of high incidence of morbidity. With
the help of the community organiser this problem first
has to be studied. The link between the commonly
prevalent disease/s and their causal factors may be
established. In case these causal factors are related to
the accumulation of stagnant water in the open drains
outside the houses and/or an ineffective system of
garbage collection, then it is only with peoples’
participation that a treatment/intervention can be
devised. The latter will be in the shape of a collective

endeavour at the level of all the people affected by the
problem, whereby a participatory system of garbage
collection/disposal and timely cleaning of the community
drains can be established. The lesson learnt through
this illustration is that often problems confronting
individual members of the community have their roots
in the community and therefore their solution also lies
in the community. Unless the community works out a
collective solution and acts on it, problems such as the
one illustrated above cannot be solved.
Relationship Between Community

Organisation and Other Methods of
Social Work
1) Community Organisation and Case Work
Case work forms an integral part of community
organization. When the community organizer enters the
community, he/she interacts with people on an
individual basis, identities their needs and works
towards their mobilization into groups and organizations.
In other words, work with individuals and families
become the beginning point for community mobilization.
Individual contact strategy is also used to create
awareness on relevant issues/problems.
The community organizer also has to deal with a number
of significant individuals in the community. These may
be (a) individuals who may be expected to oppose and
resist change; (b) individuals in special positions like
leaders, power holders; (c) individuals belonging to
weaker/marginalized sections, who may be lacking the
will and the capacity for participation. It is in such
instances that knowledge and skills related to case work
become an absolute must for successful community
work.
2) Community Organisation and Group Work

The community can be understood as a collectivity of
groups, existing in a web of interlinked social chains.
In the course of community organization, the organiser’s
most prominent preoccupation is to deal with the small
and large groups and subgroups. Community
organization therefore is also described as inter-group
practice. An understanding of group work helps the
community organizer to strengthen inter group
relationships and facilitate their convergence on a
common platform. He/she often identifies small groups
where a beginning can be made and then strives to
develop inter -group linkages to achieve wider
participation on commonly perceived needs. In such a
context, dealing with groups and group processes
becomes an integral part of community organization.
It is therefore clear that, a community organizer has to
work with individuals, families and groups to achieve
community goals, and should possess case work and
group work skills, apart from community organization
skills.
Community Organisation and Social Work Research

During the process of engagement with communities,
the community organizer has to also rely on research
knowledge and skill sets. Community organization as a
process has to start with fact finding. Use of research
is inevitable in locating, identifying and understanding
the community. It is also relied upon to undertake need/
problem assessment, which requires an objective and
systematic gathering of quantitative and qualitative
data. Research also furnishes important qualitative data
on priorities and preferences of people, their attitudes
and perceptions towards an issue or a problem. It may
also be used for specific purposes like conduction of
epidemiological studies or for the study of social

indicators. Monitoring and evaluation also requires an
ongoing use of research through the conduction of
baseline and end line surveys.
In contemporary context, participatory research
techniques are increasingly relied upon to elicit
community participation in assessing and prioritizing
needs, as also in drawing up preferred community
interventions.
Relevance of Community Organistion for

Community Development
Community organization and community development
are interrelated. To achieve the goals of community
development the community organization method is
used. According to the United Nations, community
development deals with total development of a
community, that is in its economic, physical, and social
aspects. For achieving total development, community
organization is used as a means. In community
development the following aspects are considered as
important:
a) Democratic procedures
b) Voluntary cooperation
c) Self-help
d) Development of leadership
e) Educational aspects.
All the above aspects are relevant from the perspective
of community organization. (a) Democratic procedures
deal with allowing all the community members to
participate in decision-making. It is possible to achieve
this through community organization. The selected or
elected members or representatives are helped to take
decisions. Thus democratic procedures help people to

take part in achieving the community development goals.
The community organization method also values
democratic procedures for enlisting people’s
participation. (b) Voluntary cooperation means that the
people volunteer their participation. For this they have
to be first convinced. They should feel that they need to
involve themselves in the process of development
without inhibitions. This attitude is supported by the
community organization method. People’s emotional
involvement is necessary for successful community
organization. If discontentment about their conditions
is created, then people will volunteer for participation.
Community organization emphasizes the
discontentment aspect only to make them initiate
participation. (c) Self-help is the basis for community
development. It deals with the capacity of people to
mobilize internal resources. Self-help is the basis for
self-sufficiency and sustainable development. Even in
the context of community organization, self-help is
emphasized and promoted. (d) Development of leadership
is an important aspect in community development.
Leadership deals with influencing and enabling people
to achieve the stipulated goals. Community organization
also places great emphasis on leadership development.
It is only with the help of leaders that people are
motivated to participate in action. (e) Educational
aspects in community development imply helping people
to know, learn, and accept the concepts of democracy,
cooperation, unity, skill development, effective
functioning etc. In community organization the above
mentioned aspects are considered to be extremely
important. Thus, both emphasize the educational
aspects for the progress of the community. All this
supports the statement that community organization
and community development are interrelated and
mutually supportive. Both emphasize democratic method
and self-help principles. So, in community development

programmes, the community organization method is
used as the implementing method.
Distinction Between Community

Organisation and Community
Development
There are many similarities between community
organisation and community development. But for
theoretical purpose it is possible to differentiate between
community organization and community development.
a) Community organization is a method of social work
while community development is a programme for
a planned change send development.
b) Community organization emphasizes the process,
but community development emphasizes the end or
goals.
c) Community organizers are mostly social workers
and social change agents. But community
development personnel can be from other
professions including agricultural experts,
veterinary experts, and other technical experts.
d) Community organisation is not time bound. It is
achieved step by step according to the pace of the
people. But community development is time bound
and time is specified for achieving the development
objectives.
e) In community organization people’s participation is
important. But in community development people’s
development is more important.
f) In community organization the assistance provided
by the government and external agencies is not a
critical factor. But in community development
external assistance from the government or other

agencies is considered important.
g) Community organization is a method of social work
and this method is used in many fields. But unlike
community organization, community development
is considered as a process, a method, a programme,
and a movement for planned change.
h) Community organsiation is used in all the fields
but community development is mostly relied upon
in context of economic development and for
enhancing the living standards of the people.
i) In community organization planning is undertaken
by the people but community development planning
is mainly carried out by an external agency mostly
belonging to the government.
j) In community organization people are organized to
solve their problems, but in community development
goals have to be achieved and it is for this purpose
that people are organized.
k) Community organization is universal to all
communities, but community development
programmes differ from people to people depending
upon whether the area is rural, urban or tribal, as
also other characteristics of the area.
Thus, we see that even though there are differences,
both community development and community
organization are interrelated. The ideal community
development takes places where community organization
method and its various steps and principles are
effectively put into practice.
Principles of Community Organisation

The principles of community organization can be
understood as the generalized guiding rules. They also
refer to a “rule of right action” or “a value judgment as

to what is sound or good community organization”. It
follows therefore that principles are usually expressions
of value judgments.
Moreover, principles are shaped and limited by the frame
of reference of community organization, as has been
discussed in the previous sections, and in harmony with
the nature and spirit of social work in a democratic
society. This implies that we become concerned with
the dignity and worth of individuals, their freedom,
choice of options and right to self determination,
security, participation, all of which could lead to a more
wholesome and abundant life for them. It also implies
that these principles are in alignment with such general
principles of democracy such as self-reliance,
cooperation, partnership, transparency and
sustainability.
These principles are also shaped by an understanding
of the social forces which impinge on the individuals
and the groups comprising the community, as also the
planning process, and some knowledge of the empirical
work in groups and communities (Ross, 1955).
In the literature on community work, we find various
sets of principles evolved by different practitioners to
inform community practice. These are as follows:
A) Dunham, in 1958 suggested a set of twenty eight
principles of community organization, broadly
categorized under seven headings:
1. Democracy and social welfare.
2. Community roots for community programmes.
3. Citizen understanding, support, participation and
professional service.
4. Cooperation
5. Social welfare programmes.

6. Adequacy, distribution, and organization of social
welfare services, and
7. Prevention.
In identifying these principles, Dunhan broadly
conceptualized community work as a process of
delivering social welfare services in a community. The
community which formed the context for evolving his
set of principles was a typical urban middle class
neighbourhood in a western society. Thus, this
community was vastly different from a typical Indian
community in which a professional community worker
is expected to work.
As can also be observed from the aforementioned
headings, Dunhan visualized an ideal type of social
service network and highlighted the benefits of
democracy, participation, cooperation and adequacy of
programmes to meet the needs of the community. In
essence, the principles formulated by Dunham were
really a broad based set of guidelines or ideal conditions,
rather than specific principles of community
organisation.
B) Murray, G Ross also developed an elaborate set
of thirteen principles to guide community
organization
According to him, the process of community organization
requires some kind of structure and social organization.
The task or problem is expected to be dealt with by
some group, committee, council, commission or some
other form of organization, formal or informal. Since
this organization or association becomes the main
channel through which the community organization
process moves, the principles which guide the
development and work of this association therefore
become the relevant principles of community

organization. The thirteen principles identified by Ross
were:
1) Discontent with existing conditions in the
community must initiate and/or nourish the
development of the association
This implies that some deep and widely shared feelings
of discontent with some aspect/s of community life will
be a more effective springboard for the creation and
development of the organization/association. Although
discontent is not the only motivational factor leading to
community participation, it is likely to lead to a more
dynamic involvement than other motives. Such dynamic
involvement of people is desirable, if the community
association is to sustain, and overcome the many
difficulties that come its way. Only if there is a profound
conviction about community problem(s), and “a deep
feeling that the prevailing community situation is wrong
and must be righted”, does the group get common
motivation to overcome the problem.
It is when the often dormant discontents are expressed
and agreed upon, that a community association may
emerge, or become dynamic so that the community is
facilitated to resolve cooperatively some of its common
problems.
2) Discontent must be focused and channelled into
organization, planning and action in respect to
specific problems
Discontent per se is of doubtful value. In fact unfocussed
discontent is often a major block to any purposeful
action, because it then translates into a situation of
chronic dissatisfaction. Only when discontent is focused
and ordered that it becomes a suitable and healthy
motive for action. Discontent should therefore be specific
and focused in terms of specific achievable goals.
3) The discontent which initiates or sustains

community organization must be widely shared
in the community
Community organization, according to Ross, is not a
minority movement. It cannot be initiated solely by
reason of needs or discontents which appeal to only a
very small group in the community. The discontent must
therefore be recognized by the major parts of the
community, so that they all may be motivated to do
something about it.
Community organization is not concerned simply with
solving certain problems, important as they may be,
but also with developing the capacity of the community
to deal with its own problems. It is essential, therefore,
that the discontent focus on those problems about which
there is, or can be, unanimous agreement, so that they
can provide a common framework for cooperative work
by the community. If such widespread agreement is not
always possible, efforts to “spread the area of shared
concern” need to be necessarily made.
4) The association must involve leaders (both formal
and informal) identified with, and accepted by,
major subgroups in the community
Community organization requires the participation of
people of the community. However, everyone in the
community cannot always be involved in face to face
contact with all other members of the community,
especially if the size of the community is large. Therefore,
some means must be evolved for participation through
representation. This is made possible by first identifying
all major groupings of people in the community and
subsequently, identifying the leaders of these groups.
The major groupings should not only include the formal
groups but also the multiplicity of informal groups which
sometimes exist in communities and which hold the
allegiance of the people. These groups can be brought

into dialogue with each other around some common
problem/s. This can be done most effectively through
the accepted group leaders, both formal and informal.
These leaders know their people and in turn are known
by their people. They can therefore act as effective
communication links between the diverse groups.
5) The association must have goals and methods of
procedure of high acceptability
The association brings together different groupings of
people, each having their specific interests, attitudes
and behaviour. The task of integrating these groups into
a unified association which can work on a cooperative
basis is a difficult one. If the association is to sustain,
it requires a statement of general goals and methods of
procedure. These should be known and accepted by the
people so that they provide a way of life for the
association and for carrying on its business. These will
constitute the common frame of reference, which in
periods of disagreement and conflict can be referred to
as a means of finding direction and emphasizing the
common purpose for which the association exists.
6) The programme of the association should include
some activities with emotional content
To bind together the diverse groupings of people
comprised in the community and to develop cohesion,
common ideas, feelings, traditions, celebrations and
festivities play an important role. These contribute to
the building of the community sentiment which is so
important for community integration. Thus there is need
to encourage activities directed towards providing rich
emotional experiences to the members. Rituals which
symbolize the values for which the association stands
are valuable because they reinforce loyalty to those goals
and unify the group around these goals.
7) The association should seek to utilize the manifest

and latent goodwill which exists in the community
According to Ross, there are extensive sources of good
will and support in the community which can be
mobilized in cooperative community initiatives. They may
be in the form of people who may be willing to contribute
and participate in any constructive community effort;
other professionals who may be keen to associate with
the community practitioners; or leaders who may
represent groupings of people who could be associated
with the community endeavor
However, this goodwill is seldom recognized and rarely
utilized. Its underutilization is primarily on account of
two reasons: (a) lack of awareness about the existence
and sources of goodwill at the level of the community
workers; and (b) inability to tap, release or utilize this
goodwill due to lack of compatibility of the proposed
initiative with people’s real needs, concerns and
interests. The latter is important as the association
needs to orient its work in such a way that it fits into
the experiences and belief systems of the people, so
that the initiative becomes meaningful to the people
and thereby receives their whole hearted support.
First of all, community leaders can be utilized to
understand (a) how to communicate with community
groups; (b) the real and ‘felt’ needs and concerns of
people; and (c) methodologies of seeking support from
them becomes imperative in this scheme of things.
Secondly, appeals for support should be made on a
personal basis to people, as person-to-person contacts
are much more helpful in establishing contacts and
strengthening the community spirit. Thirdly, people
should be given the opportunity of participating and
contributing at the level at which they are comfortable
and in a manner that has meaning for them.
8) The association must develop active and effective

lines of communication both within the
association and between the association and the
community
Communication, which is undoubtedly the essence of
community life is a process by which the area of common
understanding and shared values is widened in the
community. Such a process does not often emerge/
develop easily.
To begin with, effective communication within a group
or between groups depends on the quality of
relationships between the people. When negative
emotions predominate in these relationships,
communication is likely to be far less effective than in
situations where there are positive feelings of
friendliness, respect and trust. Therefore the essential
task in the association devoted to community
organization is the development of an atmosphere in
which participants feel safe and are able to express
themselves freely.
Secondly, the way in which communication is structured
also becomes important. Practitioners of community
organization have recognized the advantage of small
groups if meaningful interaction between members is
to take place. Communication is also likely to be more
effective in situations where leadership functions are
shared, and where informal and intimate discussion of
problems is undertaken. Accordingly, if a real
understanding of the community organization process
is to be achieved, the content of a single interaction
must be limited to a few manageable items, and sufficient
time must be provided for interaction. This is based on
the assumption that people need time and opportunity
to understand, assimilate and use new ideas and new
information. It is a known fact that messages move more
effectively through ‘accepted’ channels than through new

channels. These ‘accepted’ channels may vary in all
communities and only a study of the local customs will
yield information about them. Community groups are
also likely to be more receptive if messages are
transmitted to them by their own leaders instead of an
outsider. It makes sense to tap the wisdom of the local
people themselves as they are the best judge of what
kind of communication and what media are most
effective.
9) The association should seek to support and
strengthen the groups which it brings together
in cooperative work
The association, which seeks to be an organization of
the community, is made up of community groups. If
these groups are disorganized or apathetic, the
association is likely to have a narrow base of
participation and support. Therefore, if the association
is to emerge as a strong one, the groups composing it
must be strong and cohesive units. There needs to be
consistent efforts to help the constituent groups to
achieve cohesion and capacity to function cooperatively,
as also independently. The weak groups must be
capacitated to identify their problems and undertake
action for the resolution of the same.
10) The association should be flexible in its
organizational procedures without disrupting its
regular decision-making routines
Acceptance and establishment of rules and methods of
procedure lead to a sense of security in the operation of
the association. Flexibility in the association does not
imply any disruption of these established procedures.
What is however implied is the opportunity to use a
variety of methods in undertaking the proceedings of
the association. The use of studies, visits, appointment
of committees, camps etc. may be contemplated for

acquiring data and generating consensus, without
impinging on the decision making responsibilities of the
group assigned to do so.
11) The association should develop a proper pace for
its work and relate it to the existing conditions
in the community
First, the association must obtain a proper pace for its
own work. This develops as members learn to work
together, when procedures are established and
responsibilities are accepted. Establishment of objectives
with agreed upon time schedules help to bring about a
pace of work in the association to which all gradually
adjust.
Further, the pace at which a community will involve
itself in a community initiative is very important. Just
as in case work, where we try to adapt treatment
procedures to the pace at which the client is comfortable,
the same principles also apply to the practice of
community organization. Here our ‘client’ is the
community. Any community project requires adjustment
to the change that is created in its wake. Based on the
disposition and capacity of the people making the
change, a time period is certainly required to adjust to
the change. Establishing a pace that is consistent with
that of the community and comfortable for it therefore
becomes imperative.
12) The association should seek to develop effective
leaders
Development of those leaders who will facilitate the
community organization process; help the association
to be productive; and contribute to the development of
morale both in the association and the community is
an important requirement. It is more realistic to accept
that instead of one central figure, there are actually

many persons contributing to the leadership of a group.
For eg. “popular leader” and a “task leader” may both
be desirable. While the latter may keep the group
engaged in its work, the former may help to maintain
and restore group unity and keep members happy. The
customs and expectations of the group may determine
how many, and what kind of leadership functions, the
central figure should assume. Any change in the sharing
of leadership functions should be made with all members
of the group actively participating. Such a process of
group training can be the most realistic and effective
means of leadership training.
13) The association must develop strength, stability,
and prestige in the community
Community organization seeks to increase cooperation
among community groups, as they deal with community
projects. The successful achievements of the association
can facilitate this. The association must have strength
both in terms of the involvement of accepted group
leaders and its ability to work through difficult
community problems. Only such an association will win
the participation and support of the people and become
a symbol of community cooperation.
Due to the heterogeneous membership of the constituent
groups, the association must be prepared to face
outbursts of hostility, scapegoating, withdrawals or
failure. These must be worked through. It is only through
self understanding, will the association be able to
achieve cohesion, stability and productivity.
C) In the context of working with actual practice

situations in India, Siddiqui (1997) also evolved
a set of eight principles to guide community
organization practitioners. These are briefly
described below:
1) The Principle of Specific Objectives

It is difficult to organize the community as a cohesive
unit, particularly in the early stages of work. The
community consists of different client groups, all of
whom may have differential needs, thus necessitating
differential programmes. For example in the Indian
context, a separate forum for women is required due to
cultural constraints. The principle of specific objectives
prescribes the practice of consciously formulating specific
objectives of working with different client groups on the
one hand, and formulating specific community oriented
objectives, on the other. This enables the worker to make
a beginning at the group level, which otherwise is
difficult to achieve.
2) The Principle of Planning

The worker must adhere to meticulous planning of
community work. This implies developing a blue print
for the entire work to be undertaken in terms of
programmes, financial/resource requirements,
personnel requirements, space etc. Planning also helps
to anticipate problems one is likely to face in
implementing the programme and devising contingency
plans for meeting them. For example, a community
worker may disregard the cultural milieu of the
community and try to encourage girls to attend a co-
educational school. This is an example of lack of
planning, leading to failure of the programme and even
community displeasure.
3) The Principle of People’s Participation

People’s participation is the most important component
of any community cooperative venture. Ambitious plans
of community development in the Indian context have
failed partly due to lack of peoples effective participation.
Eliciting and sustaining people’s participation often
requires special insights and years of experience of
working with people. Identification of the ‘felt needs’ of
people; critical examination of the project feasibility;
development of a realistic strategy to involve people;
assumption of a pace of work which is in consonance
with community’s adjustment and capacity; adherence
to community’s right to self determination and giving
equal importance to all groups/factions are some ways
to elicit people’s participation. Helping people to
participate in accordance with their capacity is a better
strategy than expecting them to participate in all issues.
4) The Principle of Inter-Group Approach

Small communities as described by Robert Redfield in
his book ‘The Little Community’, have four defining
qualities of distinctiveness, small size, self sufficiency
and homogeneity. But such communities seldom exist
in contemporary context. Most communities consist of
people of different backgrounds, occupations, castes,
religions and political affiliations. There are what can
be described as “communities within communities” and
“overlapping communities”. The community worker is
therefore expected to first identify the smaller groups
with whom he can make a beginning and later develop
inter-group linkages for achieving targets which require
involvement of people on a larger scale. These groups
can function independently to a certain extent but can
also come together to form a wider network of community
people in order to deal with the common problems. The
inter-group approach can also work on the basis of
dividing the geographical area of the community into

smaller units (clusters or lanes) and then forming groups
in the same.
5) The Principle of Democratic Functioning

This principle is based on the belief that there is a
tendency among common people to remain passive and
allow others to take decisions for them. In this process,
a few people tend to dominate and take control of all
resources and benefits. The community worker therefore
has a primary obligation to educate people and to create
appropriate mechanisms to facilitate a wider
participation and to curb the tendency of domination
by a privileged minority. The principle of rotating
leadership is also a step in the same direction.
6) The Principle of Flexible Organisation

The creation of a formal organization is difficult task,
as people in general are not used to confirming to rules
and set procedures, and often do not immediately
perceive the benefits of allocating specific roles and
responsibilities to specific people. Thus, it is better if
community workers opt for a more flexible approach to
organization in order to accommodate people with varied
abilities to function effectively. Informal arrangements
work better in the initial phase. Rules and procedures
are very important, but they should be made to facilitate
rather than hinder participation. Formation of various
committees may also prove more helpful as more people
can thereby obtain the valuable experience of taking
the lead in participating and decision making.
7) The Principle of Optimum Utilisation of
Indigenous Resources
Countries of the third world are generally short of
resources. The governments are unable to provide
adequate basic services like housing, drinking water,

sanitation, health etc. The community worker therefore
has to largely depend on the mobilization of resources
from various sources, including the government. In the
context of the given shortages, efforts to mobilize
indigenous community resources become imperative.
These include indigenous human resources in the form
of voluntary labour (Shramdan) and locally trained
community volunteers (to undertake health, education
and other programmes) as also space (in the form of
available buildings like schools, panchayat ghars etc.
or open spaces like playgrounds, chaupal etc.). It is
also an accepted practice to avoid provision of free
services and to encourage people’s contribution for the
services provided. It promotes the self esteem of people,
and curbs dependency on outside help. It also results
in the proper utilization of services as dependence on
indigenous resources leads to greater sustainability of
programmes.
8) The Principle of Cultural Orientation

In most third world countries, traditions and customs
are very important. It becomes important for the
community worker to be oriented to the cultural milieu
of the community and show respect to its customs,
traditions, values etc. This will enable her/him to gain
the acceptance and respect of the community. However,
this does not imply that the worker should support such
customs which may harm the people or are detrimental
to them (e.g. belief in supernatural powers, early
marriage, sati etc.). In such cases, a gradual effort to
change community’s perception and practices is called
for.
Based on the above elaboration of the sets of principles,
the following are most relevant for guiding the practice
of community organization in the Indian context; These

are as follows:
a) Community organization is a means and not an end

Community organization is a process by which the
capacity of the community to function as an integrated
unit is enhanced. It is therefore a method or a means to
enable people to engage in planned collective action in
order to deal with their own needs and problems on a
sustainable basis.
b) Community, like individuals and groups are
different
Each community has its own peculiarities, unique
points, problems and needs. To deal with communities
effectively, they must be individualized.
c) Communities like individuals have a right to self-
determination
In community organization, the worker enables the
community to develop its own policies, plans and
programmes. They should not be superimposed. This is
based on the premise that people are the best judge of
their own situation and the process should originate in
the experience of the people themselves.
d) Community welfare rather than agency self
interest should be the first consideration in
determining programme
The programmes of an organization should be defined
in relation to the programmes of other agencies, and in
relation to the needs of the community. Moreover, no
agency should cover so large a portion of the community
problems or so large a geographical area as to inhibit
the development of other organizations as the overall
problem is apparently beyond its own resources. The
welfare and development of the community assumes

paramount importance for the agency initiating
community intervention.
e) Community organization is to promote
community solidarity and the practice of
democracy
Community organization should seek to overcome the
disruptive influences which threaten community
solidarity and vitality of democratic institutions.
Discrimination, segregation and exclusion should be
discouraged while integration, inclusion and
cohesiveness should be promoted.
f) Community organization requires a clear
identification of the community
The client of the community organization process is the
community. It follows as a first prerequisite that this
community be clearly identified.
There are various interpretations of the community and
these have been covered in an earlier section. It is
important to determine and define the community, its
nature and limits. Once the community is identified,
the entire community must become the concern of the
community practitioner. The welfare of the whole
community is always more important than the interest
of any one section/group in the community.
g) Community organization should have its roots in
the community
Proper fact finding and assessment of community needs
is the pre-requisite to starting any community
programme. Community organization should have its
origin in the real “felt” needs of the community and
should not be superimposed from outside.
h) Community Organisation requires the

identification and mobilization of available
resources, both external and indigenous
The fullest possible use should be made of the existing
resources or services. In the absence of resources/
services, the same have to be tapped from various
sources such as government, non-government agencies
and the community. Use of indigenous community
resources must be stressed. These include both physical
and human resources.
i) Participation is the basis of community
organisation
The concept of self help is the core of community
organization. Participation of the community throughout
the process of community organization should be
encouraged, both from the perspective of democratic
principles and feasibility. Participatory planning,
followed by participatory implementation and evaluation
should be encouraged and fostered.
j) Reliance on Voluntary Cooperation
Community organization must be based upon mutual
understanding, voluntary acceptance, and mutual
agreement. It should be free from authoritarian
pressure, repression and regimentation. It should not
be imposed from above or outside, but must be derived
from the inner freedom and will to unite all those who
practice it.
k) Emphasis on coordination of effort
The practice of community organization should be based
on the spirit of cooperation and coordination, rather
than competition.
Emphasis on collaboration and cooperative attitudes
and practices does not imply elimination of all differences
or tension, or of conflict. In fact, these latter forces
provide life and vitality to any process. However, it is

important to keep in mind that conflict can be both
disruptive and destructive, or positive and creative. What
is required is that the community organization worker
identify such forces and modify them so that they
become beneficial to the community as a whole.
l) Limited use of authority is preferred
Application of authority or coercion may sometimes be
required in community organization, but it should be
used as sparingly as possible, for as short a time as
possible, and only as a last resort. Such a situation
should be followed as soon as possible, by resumption
of the cooperative and collaborative process.
m) Community organization structure should be kept
simple
The structure of the community organization should be
kept simple and as per the preferences or traditions of
the community. Sometimes too much of machinery bogs
down and gets in the way of the process.
n) Recognition and involvement of indigenous
leadership is necessary
While people’s participation in the process of community
organization is imperative, everyone in the community
cannot be involved in face to face contact with all others
in the community. Therefore, it is important to identify
the leaders (both formal and informal) who are accepted
by the different groups and sub-groups in the
community. Inclusion of these leaders is an important
step in community integration, as they act as important
communication links with their groups/sub-groups.
o) Dynamic and flexible nature of programmes and
services is desirable
Social welfare agencies and programmes must be
responsive to the changing conditions, problems and
needs of the community. The community is a dynamic

entity, which constantly changes and evolves.
Additionally, the circumstances, needs and concerns of
the people also keep changing. Therefore, it is necessary
that the programmes and services be flexible to
accommodate such change/s.
q) Broad representation should be given to all groups
Every group/sub group or faction in the community
should be given the opportunity for participation and
for explicit voicing of its interests in the organization.
r) Services/benefits must be distributed equitably
The social services, resources and benefits of the
programme/intervention should be made available
equally and without discrimination to all members who
need them.
s) Barriers to communication must be broken down
Community organization should result in free contacts
among different social groups in the community.
Attitudes of concern for the welfare of the total
community must be developed through opportunities to
work together on common projects.
The greater the differentiation in community life, the
greater is the need to develop an understanding of the
needs and contributions of the other groups.
t) Communities often need professional help
Sometimes communities organize spontaneously to make
way for change. However, in most cases, the professional
worker is required to help the community discover,
identify, plan and implement to meet its needs. The
success of community organization depends in large part
upon the ability of the worker to bring about voluntary
participation in achieving common goals. The worker
however has an obligation to make the community
autonomous and not to create undue dependence on

himself/herself.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have discussed the significance of
community organization as a macro method of social
work practice and as a problem solving method in the
community context. We have also deliberated on the
relevance of community organization for achieving the
ends of community development. The significance of
using community organization in integration with other
methods viz. case work, group work and social research
has also been highlighted in some detail.
Finally, a detailed depiction of the principles underlying
the community organization method have been
discussed. These will facilitate a meaningful engagement
with the community as the ‘client’ of the community
organizer.
References
Chekki, A. Dan. (1979). Community Development, Vikas
Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Cox, M. Fred & Erlich, L. John. (1987). Strategies of
Community Organisation, F.E. Peacock Publishers
Inc, Illinois.
Fink, Arthur. E. (1978). The Fields of Social Work, Holt
Rinehart and Winston, New York.
Harper, E.B. & Dunham, Arthur. (1959). Community
Organisation in Action, Association Press, New York.
Ledwith, Margaret. (2006). Community Development: A
Critical Approach, Rawat Publications, New Delhi.
Murphy, Patricia. W. & Cunningham, James. V. (2003).

Organising for Community Controlled Development:
Renewing Civil Society, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks.
Ross, Murray. G. (1955). Community Organisation,
Harper and Row Publishers, New York.
9
Models and Approaches of
Community Organisation
*Neera Agnimitra
Introduction
The previous chapters have given you a reasonably good
understanding of the concept of community organization;
its application as a method of social work practice at
the community level; its relationship with other methods
as also its historical growth and development in the
U.K., U.S.A. and India. You have also been provided
a detailed orientation to the general and specific
principles underlying community organization.
In this chapter, we will be presented a detailed
description of the models, approaches and strategies of
community organization. They will serve as a reference
for work and give you a clear understanding of what
you can expect in specific contexts. They will guide you
in assuming a specific stance and direction based on
the needs and the problem condition of the community
at hand. Additionally, the series of steps to be followed
in engaging the community for purposeful action have
also been highlighted to elaborate on the ‘process’
orientation of community organization.
Steps in Community Organisation

As mentioned earlier, community organization is a
“process”. This process is representative of a movement,

which may be conscious or unconscious, voluntary or

in voluntary, from the identification of a problem or
objective to the solution of the problem or attainment of
the objective/s identified by the community. From the
beginning to the end, this process involves a series of
steps which although distinct may overlap in real
practice. The sequence of these steps or stages may
also vary, depending on the specific context in which
they are applied.
These important steps or stages in the community
organization process are presented below:
1) Role Searching
The first step in the community oranisation process is
an analysis of the proposed goals that the worker or the
implementing agency proposes to pursue. In practice
this decision is usually influenced by the objectives of
the parental organization which employs the worker
directly or which funds the organization which employs
him.
However, if a community organizer wants to achieve
some degree of conviction in his efforts and wishes to
avoid failure, he should subject his idea and the
organization’s objectives to a critical analysis. Are the
objectives in line with the needs of the community?
How will the proposed programme help? These questions
can help the organizer to become clear about his work.
He may not be in a pposition to change agency policy/
programmes, but clarity will help him to see what he
can or cannot achieve in his work. Moreover, an analysis
of the resources that the organizer/agency possesses
or hopes to invest (including time inputs, financial
resources, human resources etc.), as also the selection
of the geographical or functional community needs to
be undertaken at this initial stage.
Models and Approaches of Community Organisation 189
2) Enlisting People’s Participation

The organizer is expected to develop a positive and
purposeful rapport with the people in the community.
He may either adopt a formal way of introducing himself
directly or through a known community contact like a
leader, school teacher, or anganwadi worker, or utilize
an informal approach, wherein he may simply start
visiting the community and meeting people. The basic
purpose is to acquaint himself with the community and
to explain his presence.
It is important to remember that at this stage the
organizer should not give false hopes to the people or
make false promises just to elicit a positive response
from the people. He should also avoid developing
relationships based on caste, regional or religious
affiliations, as it could prove counter productive.
Excessive reliance on any particular leader or group to
establish initial rapport and working base in the
community should also be avoided. The organizer should
convey the impression of being open, flexible and
accommodating.
3) Developing a Community Profile
A community profile is information about the community
and its members. It is necessary to include a variety of
information to provide a good description of the
community. The knowledge should be acquired in
partnership with the community. The knowledge should
be acquired in partnership with the community members
and its key persons.
The important components of a community profile are:
i) Identification Data, including the name,
geographical location, part of the administrative
division etc.
ii) Local History, including the genesis, changes in

population/resources, important events etc.
iii) Transportation and communication, including the
spatial dimensions, nature of transportation and
communication links with the community.
iv) Population characteristics, including
a) Total approximate population
b) Distribution as per age, gender, caste, religious
affiliation, regional background, languages
spoken.
c) Educational background, in terms of average
education level, position of women in terms of
education, identification of disadvantaged groups
with respect of education.
v) Employment and Income Features, including
sources/types of employment for the community/
for women/for disadvantaged social groups; average
family income.
vi) Housing Pattern and Characteristics, including
prevailing housing types, ownership dimensions,
size of dwellings, layout and its basis.
vii) Resources Available/Infrastructure, including
a) Health related infrastructure: nature and types
of facilities available; analysis of accessibility,
availability and affordability.
b) Educational facilities: types, capacity,
management, availability of teachers, teacher-
pupil ratio, gender division, etc.
c) Drinking water facilities and Electricity supply.
d) Issues related to sanitation.
e) Availability of financial institutions like banks,
cooperatives, markets etc.
f) Non-governmental organizations, like voluntary

organizations, women’s clubs, youth clubs etc.
g) Community recreation centres.
h) Agricultural and veterinary services.
i) Public Distribution System: Eligibility, process.
j) Governmental schemes/programmes
k) Places of worship
l) Other facilities like library, panchayat ghar,
barat ghar/community hall, police station.
viii) Major Problems in the Community, like
a) Health related issues
b) Income/livelihood related issues
c) Education related concerns
d) Potential for inter-group tension
e) Other problems or issues with specification
4) Needs Assessment
The community organizer has to assess and understand
the needs and problems faced by the community people.
The needs could range from:
i) Basic needs such as housing, electricity supply,
water supply, sanitation etc.
ii) Economic needs such as need for employment,
increase in agricultural productivity, procurement
of credit etc.
iii) Educational needs, such as needs for non formal
education, remedial coaching, improvement in
quality of education, available/infrastructure, need
for vocational courses etc.
iv) Health needs, such as need for health facilities/
staff.
v) Recreational needs such as need for sports facilities,

community centre, reading room, playground, park
etc.
vi) Information needs, with regard to available resource
centres, services, schemes/programmes being
implemented.
During needs assessment/problem identification, the
following points should be kept in mind:
a) It is important to differentiate between the ‘felt’
needs of the community people and the needs
perceived by the community organizer. Often, the
organizer presents his own appraisal of community
needs and initiates action based on this appraisal.
However, such action is neither relevant to the
community nor is it sustainable, as it is not based
on the real needs of the people.
The ‘feeling about’ is therefore the prime determinant
of the importance of a need or a problem, and such
needs are therefore referred to as `felt’ needs. It is
only when the felt needs of the community are
identified and form the basis of action, that the
process is likely to be productive and sustainable
from the perspective of the community.
b) There is often a gap between expressed needs and
actual needs of the community. People may express/
articulate the need for literacy, while their actual
need may be stable livelihood options. This confusion
often leads to the initiation of programmes which
may not elicit people’s long term participation.
c) Many a times the community organiser assumes
that a consciousness of the different needs/
problems exists in the minds of the people. However,
this may not be so. People often live with their unmet
need/problems for so long that they learnt to accept
them or adjust to them to such a degree that their
feelings about them lie deeply buried. In such cases,

the community organizer is expected to facilitate
the process of bringing these feelings to a conscious
level. It is only when people explore and reveal their
latent feelings that their genuine needs, concerns,
hopes and expectations are identified.
d) There may also be diversity in the concept of need.
In such a context it becomes important to
understand what people mean by a certain
articulation of a need. For example, when people
express the need for housing, what exactly do they
mean? Do they want regularization of their land, or
require low income dwellings or financial help for
repairs/additions? Exploring the diverse
expectations is important, as the programme has
to cater to people’s real aspirations.
5) Ordering/Prioritizing Needs
All the identified needs and problems of the community
are first listed by the community with the help of the
community oraniser. This is a process which makes the
people understand their own situation. This involvement
of the community in listing their needs and problems
will ultimately lead to their participation in the solving
of the problems or fulfillment of the needs.
Further, amongst the host of needs and problems listed,
all cannot be considered together for further action.
They will have to be analysed for their magnitude,
severity, symptoms and causes. Based on this they will
have to be ordered and a priority will be given to them.
It will be in this order/priority that they will have to be
taken up for action.
6) Problem Analysis and Redefinition
The selected need/problem has to be examined, analysed
and stated in order to be fully understood in its multiple
dimensions by the people. This step is also imperative

in order to undertake purposeful planning and action.
Need/problem analysis involves (i) making a statement
of the need or problem, in a way that it most clearly
express the difficulty experienced by the affected people;
(ii) identifying the direct causes and direct effects of
the core problem/s; and (iii) stakeholder analysis.
The latter will involve the identification of the
stakeholders who are affected by the problem; those
who cause the problem; those who may contribute in
dealing with the problem; and those who may resist/
work against the proposed action. Thus, the need/
problem has to be thoroughly analysed, redefined and
clearly stated at this stage.
7) Formulation of Achievable Objectives
The redefined need/problem is converted into achievable
objectives for further action. At times the objectives/
goals will have to be split into many parts, so that they
could be converted into specific programmes and
activities oriented towards fulfilling the needs and solving
problems.
Let us assume that low educational attainment of girls
is a problem identified by the community. However, non
availability of the school is not a reason for the same. It
is analysed and found that parents do not send their
girls to the community school. Again this arises not so
much from the low priority accorded to girl’s education
at the level of the parents, as from the absence of female
teachers in the school. When the cultural milieu of the
community does not favour the teaching of girls by a
male teacher, the root cause of the problem is the
absence of female teachers, while the general problem
externally appears to be a general low educational
attainment by girls.
8) Development of Community Confidence and

Willpower
Many communities identify needs and problems which
they feel incompetent to achieve or deal with. This is
particularly true of those communities in which apathy,
indifference, and complacency has set in. In such
circumstances, identifying, analyzing and stating the
needs/problems is of little use if the people do not find
the will and confidence for action. Communities lacking
these will find it difficult to mobilize for action.
Sometimes a crisis situation shakes them and mobilizes
them for action. For example, a demolition of a slum
cluster or the occurrence of a disaster or an accident in
the community may spontaneously awaken the
community and prepare it for purposeful action.
However, often support has to come from an external
agent, such as the community organizer whose
stimulation, encouragement and support is essential to
give them the confidence that “we can do it”.
9) Work Out the Alternatives
Based on the objectives, different options are explored
by the community through brain storming. In order to
solve the selected problem the community has to
generate a number of alternatives to address the
problem. For example, the problem of a high drop out
rate from the school in the community may be directly
related to the defective functioning of the school. What
are the different options open to tackle this problem?
The concerned teachers can be met and advised. The
defective functioning can be brought to the notice of the
higher authorities in different ways. The higher
authorities can be met by representatives or a signature
campaign may be conducted or a protest march could
be organized. There could be many such options which
could be either exercised singly or in combination with
others.
10) Selection of an Appropriate Alternative

Among the proposed alternatives, the best alternative
or set of alternatives is selected for dealing with the
selected problem. Often one starts with exercising a
mild option, and gradually going on to other more strong
measures. If nothing works out the use of the radical
social action method also offers a possibility.
11) Work Out a Plan of Action
To meet the selected need or deal with the selected
problem, an action plan is proposed in which
responsibilities are assigned and a tentative
organizational structure is prepared. The time frame,
resources required and personnel involved are decided
at this stage. Suppose the drop out problem considered
earlier is to be tackled, it may be decided to first meet
the school authorities and present a petition. This has
to be planned in terms of date, time, who, how many,
where, etc.
12) Mobilisation of Resources
To implement the proposed plan of action, requisite
resources are to be assessed, identified and mobilized.
These resources may be in the form of money, time,
manpower and material. An estimate is made and the
sources are identified for mobilization.
It is important to strike a balance between internal and
external resources. The organizer must involve the
community in identifying the potential sources (internal
and external) from which to obtain resources. The
internal resources of the community are of primary
importance and they have to be tapped. The community
can provide resources in the form of space, materials,
money/service charges, manpower in the form of
volunteers and its traditional/indigenous wisdom.
However, where necessary drawing upon resources from

outside the community also becomes important. External
resources may be in the form of funding, expert advice,
technical assistance etc.
What is required in dealing with most community needs/
problems is an awareness in the community about “what
we can do for ourselves” and “where we need outside
help”. To attempt to deal with the problems for which
local resources are inadequate may simply cause
frustration and a sense of failure in the community
people in the long run. At the same time, too much
reliance on external resources often leads to over
dependency on outside help.
Communities like individuals seldom use their own
resources to the full. In communities where the process
of community organization is initiated and continued,
people are often surprised at their resources and
capacities to take part in community initiatives.
13) Implementation of Action
Taking action is the most vital component of the
community organization process. While implementing
the plan of action, the active participation of people
through acceptance of responsibilities has to be ensured.
The people have to be prepared and guided to hold
responsibilities and become partners in the problem
solving process. There has to be a gradual taking over
by the community and a simultaneous withdrawal of
the agency/worker to facilitate sustainability of the
process.
In the community organization process, it is this tangible
practical action leading to some achievement, even
partial, which ultimately tests and proves the validity
of the process. If something is accomplished, the
difficulties will be suffered, and a new satisfaction,
confidence and strengthened resolve will develop in the

community participants.
14) Evaluation of Action
The implemented plan is evaluated to assess the success
and determine the limitations/constraints faced during
implementation. Maintenance of accurate records of all
work done and development of a framework for analysis
are necessary pre-requisites for objective evaluation.
The positive and desirable results need to be appreciated
and the shortfalls/undesired results need to be
identified, analyzed and discussed.
Evaluation can be undertaken either on a periodic basis
or at the end of a phase or at the end of the programme/
activity. Again, it can be either undertaken by the
organizational personnel in collaboration with the
community or by an outsider or an expert. It is desirable
to have both types of evaluation, as community
participation in evaluation leads to capacity building in
community members. Moreover, it strengthens the
feeling of responsibility and accountability in them.
Evaluation should be done with reference to possibilities
for the future and should be perceived positively by all
concerned.
15) Modification
Based on the evaluation, necessary modifications are
planned and incorporated. The learning derived through
the evaluation process enables the community to identify
the strong points and the weak points of its action plan.
In order to enhance the effectiveness of the intervention
and to bring about a permanent solution of the selected
problem, modifications are imperative. These
modifications facilitate a more effective response to the
need/problem taken up for collective action.
16) Development of Cooperative and Collaborative

Attitudes
While all the aforementioned stages are important and
in fact inseparable, certainly none is more important
than the final one viz. the development of cooperative
and collaborative attitudes and practices in the
community.
What is implied here is that as the process of community
organization evolves and progresses, people in the
community come together to understand, accept and
work with one another. In the process of fulfilling a
common need or dealing with a common problem/s, the
diverse sub groups and their leaders become aware and
inclined towards cooperation with other sub groups in
similar endeavors.
This process may not necessarily lead to the eradication
of all differences between the subgroups and subcultures
within the community or the achievement of complete
homogeneity, but it often leads to an increased ability
of the groups to understand this diversity and accept
the same. They will be more inclined to develop the
skills of overcoming the conflicts which may arise from
time to time. At the same time it may also lead to the
development of a common frame of reference within
which all can work together for common ends.
Through this experience, the community will be in a
better position to deal more readily and skillfully with
similar problems which may arise in the future, by being
able to recognize them earlier and by being better
equipped to cope with them as they arise.
Thus, community organisation is not simply concerned
with the development of a new community centre or a
water system or a balwadi, but more important is the
development of an enhanced capacity to undertake other
collaborative projects in the community. For many

persons participating in the process it will be the
accomplishment of the immediate objective which will
be more important, but for the professional worker, it is
the long term goal of development of the community’s
capacity to function as an integrated unit with respect
to its needs, problems and common objectives. This goal
will gradually come to be understood and cherished by
the community too.
Models of Community Organisation

What is a Model?
A model can be understood as a medium through which
a person looks at the complex realities. It serves as a
reference for the work undertaken and gives a clearer
understanding of what could be expected. A model can
also be understood as a strategy or an approach for
accomplishing a vision, and the appropriate steps to be
followed to get there. Some models have evolved out of
the specific ideologies of change, while some have arisen
in response to certain concrete situations or experiences.
A number of persons have attempted to develop a
classification of models of community organisation.
A. Murray. G. Ross (1955) preferred to use the term
‘approach’. He identified three main approaches to
community organization. These are:
1) The General Content Approach
2) The Specific Content Approach
3) The Process Approach
1) The General Content Approach

The focus of this approach is on the coordinated and
orderly development of services in the community. This
approach incorporates two sub-approaches viz. (a) the

strengthening of the existing services and (b) initiating
new services. The general objective is effective planning
and organization of a group of services in the community.
2) The Specific Content Approach
This approach comes into operation when an individual
organization or the community itself becomes concerned
with some specific issue of concern or some requisite
reforms, and consciously launches a programme to
achieve the stipulated goal/s or objective/s. Thus, this
approach involves specific issue oriented organization
of services.
3) The Process Approach
This approach does not focus so much on the ‘content’,
as on the initiation and sustenance of a ‘process’ in
which all the people of the community are involved,
either directly or through their representatives. It
involves identification of problem/s and taking
purposeful action with regard to the same. The emphasis
is more on building the capacity of the community for
self-help initiatives and collaborative enterprise. Four
factors are very important for this approach. These are
(i) Self determination of the community; (ii) Indigenous
plans; (iii) People’s willingness to change; and (iv)
Community pace.
B) In the year 1968, Jack Rothman introduced three
models of community organization. These were:
1) Locality Development
2) Social Planning
3) Social Action
These three models construct were revised and refined
by him in the year 2001 (Rothman, 2001), taking into
account the changes in practices and conditions in
communities. Instead of referring to the three

approaches as the ‘Models’, he preferred referring to
them as the ‘Core Modes of Community Intervention’.
Moreover, these three approaches or modes are
described as ideal-type constructs, which to a very large
extent do not exist in pristine, full blown form in the
real world, but are useful mental tools to describe and
analyse reality.
According to Rothman, these three modes of intervention
to purposive community change can be discerned in
contemporary American communities and
internationally. Community intervention is the general
term used to cover the various forms of community level
practice, and has been used instead of the term
community organizing, as it has been found to be a
useful overarching term to employ. The three modes of
intervention are:
a) Locality Development
b) Social Planning/Policy
c) Social Action
Mode A: Locality Development

This approach presupposes that community change
should be pursued through broad participation by a wide
spectrum of people at the local community level in
determining goals and taking civic action. It is a
community building endeavour with a strong emphasis
on the notions of mutuality, plurality, participation and
autonomy. It fosters community building by promoting
process goals: community competency (the ability to
solve problems on a self help basis) and social
integration (harmonious inter -relationships among
different ethnic and social class groups). The approach
is humanistic and strongly people-oriented, with the
aim of “helping people to help themselves”. Leadership
is drawn from within and direction and control are in

the hands of the local people. “Enabling” techniques
are emphasized.
Some examples of locality development include
neighbourhood work programmes conducted by
community based agencies, and village level work in
community development programmes.
While locality development is based on highly respected
ideals, it has been criticized by people like Khinduka,
who characterize it as a “soft strategy” for achieving
change. Its preoccupation with process can lead to a
slow pace of progress and may divert attention from the
important structural issues. Embracing consensus as
a basic modus operandi, those who stand to lose from
the proposed reforms may be in a position to veto
effective action. Moreover, in contemporary context,
locality is steadily losing its hold over people and
powerful national, regional and global forces are
influencing the patterns of life of people.
Mode B: Social Planning/Policy

This approach emphasizes a technical process of problem
solving regarding substantive social problems, such as
housing, education, health, women’s development etc.
This particular orientation to planning is data-driven
and conceives of carefully calibrated change being rooted
in social science thinking and empirical objectivity. The
style is technocratic and rationality is a dominant ideal.
Community participation is not a core ingredient and
may vary from much to little depending on the problem
and the circumstances. The approach presupposes that
change in a complex modern environment requires expert
planners who can gather and analyse quantitative data
and manoeure large bureaucratic organizers in order to
improve social conditions. There is heavy reliance on
needs assessment, decision analysis, evaluation

research, and other sophisticated statistical tools.
By and large the concern here is with task goals:
conceptualizing, selecting, arranging and delivering
goods and services to people who need them. In addition
fostering coordination among agencies, avoiding
duplication and filling gaps in services are important
concerns here.
Planning and policy are grouped together because both
involve assembling and analyzing data for solving social
problems.
Two important contemporary constraints impacting this
mode, according to Rothman are: (1) Planning has
become highly interactive and diverse interest groups
rightfully go into the defining of goals and setting the
community agenda. It involves value choices that go
beyond the purview of the expert or bureaucrat; and (2)
Impact of reduced governmental spending on social
programmes, due to economic constraints, leading to a
lower reliance on the elaborate, data driven planning
approach.
Mode C: Social Action

This approach presupposes the existence of an aggrieved
or disadvantaged segment of the population that needs
to be organized in order to make demands on the larger
community for increased resources or equal treatment.
This approach aims at making fundamental changes in
the community, including the redistribution of power
and resources and gaining access to decision making
for marginal groups. Practitioners in the social action
domain aim to empower and benefit the poor and the
oppressed. The style is primarily one in which social
justice is a dominant ideal (Karp, 1998).
Confrontational tactics like demonstrations, strikes,

marches, boycotts and other disruptive or attention
gaining moves have been emphasized, as disadvantaged
groups frequently rely heavily on “people power”, which
has the potential to pressure and disrupt’. Practitioners
of this approach mobilize low power constituencies and
equip them with skills to impact power. This approach
has been used widely by AIDS activists, civil rights power
groups, environmental protection organizations, feminist
groups, labour unions and radical political action
movements. Human service professionals have not been
prominent in the social action area, but there has been
participation on a small scale basis. Modest salaries,
absence of professional expertise and need for long term
commitment are important deterrents in this approach
becoming more widely used.
Three Community Intervention Approaches

(Rothman, 2001)
The aforementioned table lists a set of practice variables
that help describe and compare each of the three modes
of intervention. These include goal categories;
assumptions; basic change strategy; change tactics;
practitioner’s roles; orientation towards power structure;
definition of beneficiary system; uses of empowerment
etc. The three approaches differ in terms of most of
these practice variables.
Rothman further points out that each community
intervention mode is not as self contained and mutually
exclusive as it appears to be. Actually intervention
approaches overlap and may be used in mixed form in
practice. (Rothman, 2001).
Selected Practice Locality Development Social Planning/ Social Action
Variables Policy
Goal categories of Community capacity Problem solving with Shifting of power
community action and integration; Self regard to substantive relationships and resources;
help (process goals) community problems basic institutional change
(task goals) (task or process goal)
Assumptions concer- Community lacks viable Substantive social Disadvantaged
ning community relationships and problems exist like populations, social injustice,
structure and problem problem solving poverty housing, deprivation, inequality
conditions capacity health etc.
Basic change strategy Involving a broad cross Gathering data about Crystallizing issues and
section of people in problems and rational mobilizing people to take
determining and solving decision making action against enemy
their own problems enabling an effective targets
course of action.
Characteristic change Consensus; communi- Consensus or conflict Conflict confrontation,
tactics and techniques cations among community direct action, negotiation
groups and interests;
group discussion
Practitioner roles Enabled-catalyst coordi- Fact gatherer and Activist advocate: agitator,
nator, teacher of analyst, programme broker, negotiator or,
problem solving skills implementer, expediter partisan
and ethical values
Models and Approaches of Community Organisation
Medium of change Guiding small, task Guiding formal organi- Guiding mass organizations
oriented groups zations and treating and political processes
data
Orientation toward Members of power Power structure as Power structure as external
power structure structure as collaborators employers and target of action: oppressors
in a common venture sponsors to be coerced or overturned
Boundary definition of Total geographic Total community or Community segment
the beneficiary system community community segment
Conception of Citizens Consumers Victims
beneficiaries
Use of empowerment Building the capacity of Finding out from Achieving power for the
a community to make consumers about their beneficiary system-the right
collaborative and needs for service; and the means to impact
informed decisions informing consumers community decisions;
about their service promoting a feeling of
choices mastery by participants
207
C. Another categorization of models of practice quite

similar to the one suggested by Rothman, has been given
by Siddiqui (1997). This also comprises of three models
which are outlined below:
1) Neighbourhood Development Model
2) System Change Model
3) Structural Change Model
1) Neighbourhood Development Model
The general assumption underlying this model is that
people living in a community (neighbourhood) have the
basic and inherent capacity of meeting their needs/
problems through their own initiative and resources.
The worker is expected to induce a process which will
make the community realize this and consequently make
efforts to achieve a greater degree of satisfaction for its
members, individually and collectively. Recent changes
in this model of community work lay more emphasis on
the development of a self sustaining, indigenous
organization within the community to take over this
role from the worker or the agency as soon as possible.
Thus, the role of the worker is seen as unleashing
developmental energies within the community, rather
than as a provider of services.
Contrary to its name, the model’s application is not
limited to generating services to cater to people’s needs
or improving the physical/resource infrastructure of the
neighbourhood. The model can be employed to develop
new ideas too. The emphasis is to encourage thinking
on the part of people themselves, to adopt progressive
attitudes, rather than doing things for them.
This model of effecting change has the limitation of being
confined to the micro perspective only. It does not look
at linkages of the micro with the macro realities, and
the impact of the latter on the community. However,

inspite of this limitation, this model has continued to
be practiced in India and other third world countries
more commonly than the other models.
The experience of community work in India has shown
that a complete withdrawal of workers/agency, even in
the best planned neighbourhood model is not possible.
A long term involvement of the social worker/agency
due to the change process being a long drawn and
gradual one is required.
The specific steps involved in this model are:
1) Identification, local and demarcation of the physical
area
2) Entry into the community
3) Identifying the needs of different sections
4) Programme Planning
5) Resource Planning
6) Developing an organizational network in the
community
7) Partial withdrawal within a time frame
2) System Change Model
This model presupposes the existence of various
arrangements in society to cater to the basic needs of
education, health, housing, employment etc. These are
considered as independent systems, which in turn are
comprised of sub systems. The ultimate rationale for
the existence of these systems is social production and
social consumption.
These systems can become dysfunctional due to a variety
of factors, which in turn create strain and pressure on
the system. The system may become dysfunctional either
because what it is producing is not relevant for people,
or because many people do not have access to what is

being produced, on account of disparities between
different socio-economic or spatial segments of the
population. Symptoms of this dysfunction appear within
the community as a problem or a set of problems. For
these to be tackled, first the system and its sub systems
need to be understood in order to arrive at a useful
framework for understanding what one finds at the grass
roots level. Subsequently, the worker attempts a strategy
of either restructuring or modifying the system. This is
termed as a “system change” approach/model to
community work.
The specific tasks associated with this model are:
1) Collecting relevant facts about the specific
deficiencies in the system, e.g. urban bias; disparity
in access to services; lack of trained functionaries,
inadequate delivery structure; lack of funding etc.
leading to inadequacy.
2) Sharing of the findings within the community/
communities.
3) Selecting an appropriate strategy to influence
decision making bodies or to focus attention on the
issue.
4) Mobilising community and outside support to put
the plan into action.
5) Developing an organization in the community and
linking it to similar organizations in other
communities and other agencies which can help
them in demanding change.
3) Structural Change Model
This model visualizes the community as a small cell
within the larger body of society. In other words, various
tiny communities constitute the bigger whole i.e. the
society or a nation state. The model assumes that the

manner in which the relationship between different
sections of the population is structured, formally
(constitutional framework, law, policies etc.) or
informally (customs, public opinion etc.) determines the
social rights of individuals. This also determines the
relationship of the state vis-à-vis the individual or a
community, as also the intra-community and inter
community relations.
In the structural change model, the worker analyses
the link between the macro structuring of social
relationships and the micro-reality (the latter could be
the problem of unemployment in the community, or lack
of access of large sections of the people to education or
health facilities or credit/other resources). The worker
tries to mobilize the community to participate in the
radical alteration of the macro structure so as to impact
the micro reality.
This is a very complex task for the community worker
as it calls for very different kinds of skills. It also requires
the worker to possess an understanding of human
society in all its dimensions: economic, political, social
and cultural. It also calls for an understanding of the
link between micro and macro realities.
A structural change model has to work out an
alternative form of society, which will transform the
existing conditions at the micro level of the community
at hand. In other words, it would translate into the
adoption of an alternative political ideology. The ‘macro’
does not often include only the policies of the nation
state, but also factors and powers outside the nation
state. For e.g. the influence wielded by the International
Monetary Fund, World Bank and big powers on many
third world countries, which impact the distribution of
goods and services in the society. At times, therefore,
there is need to influence the larger world order, in

order to be able to bring changes in either the nation
state or a whole group of nations suffering from biased/
skewed international policies.
Thus, the complex nature of the model, a lack of
preparedness on the part of the worker, a feeling of lack
of faith/relevance within the community, and the
conflict such a model is likely to generate, make this by
far the most difficult and rarely practiced model of
community work.
The specific tasks involved in the model are:
1) To develop an understanding of the link between
micro and macro social realities.
2) To make a conscious decision about an alternative
political ideology.
3) To share this understanding with the community,
to enable it to make its own decisions.
4) To help the community identify a plan of action to
pursue its goal by locating specific issues and
consequent action to launch a long struggle.
5) To help the community sustain its interest,
enthusiasm and capacity to meet the strain which
is likely to arise out of an inevitable conflict with
the existing power structure.
This form of community work is therefore radical in its
orientation. The achievement of any goal may be the
objective; however, it is equally important that people
gain in terms of greater self confidence, organizational
and social skills and derive an understanding of the
vital issues which concern them in society. In other
words, the use of this model may be to sow the seeds for
social change.
A type of community work which is distinct from the

aforementioned three models, in terms of its scope is
termed as the Inter-Community Model of Community
Work (Siddiqui, 1997).
The Inter-Community Model of Community Work

The scope of this model is wider than the neighbourhood
model. There are certain problems/needs in the
community which may not be tackled, either within the
community or through community resources. For
example, the problem of unemployment or lack of
training facilities or health facilities cannot be tackled
within a community. Low income levels and resource
base of the community make it difficult to initiate and
sustain a programme which aims to meet some such
needs within the single community context. This calls
for an inter-community approach.
The worker locates the programme in a place where
people from different communities can come and
participate. The worker visits various communities, to
make people aware of the programme and motivates
them to participate. A community nucleus is usually
established, comprising of beneficiaries and other
influential persons, to dispense information about the
initiative. In such efforts, the representatives of the
different communities participate in deciding the
programme, its location and the mode of sharing
resources and responsibilities for its management. This
model can lead to the establishment of an organization
or council to provide specific services in different
communities.
The inter community work model is different from the
neighbourhood model, as the scope of its coverage is
wider. It differs from the other two models since its goal
is to meet local needs, rather than change the system
or structure.
Other Strategies and Approaches to

Community Organising
A) Peter Dreiver (1996), another writer has given a
typology that confines itself to locality, but in the small
community world he finds the same tripartite division
by dimensions: social, political, and economic. Dreiver
(1996) called his typology “Community Empowerment
Strategies” and identified the following alternative
directions:
1) Community Organising: Mobilising people to combat
common problems and to increase their voice in
institutions and decisions that affect their lives and
communities (a direction with political emphasis).
2) Community Based Development: Neighbourhood
based efforts to improve an area’s physical and financial
condition such as new construction or rehabilitation of
housing (a direction with economic emphasis).
3) Community-Based Service Provision: Involves
neighbourhood-level efforts to deliver social services (e.g.
child care vocational training, maternal and child health
etc.) and is called “building human capital”. (a direction
with social emphasis).
These are rather narrow directions that are insufficient
by themselves. They depend on other organizations being
around to take care of the distress not addressed by the
single-dimension approach. For e.g. if we were dealing
with a community organizing approach, then the
neighbourhood would also need the community based
development approach to work with economic distress
and a service provided to handle social distress (Murphy
and Cunningham, 2003).
B) Robert Fisher (1984) presented a much broader
perspective of approaches. He identified “three dominant
approaches”, to neighbourhood organizing. These are

as follows:
1) Social Work Approach
In this approach, the society is viewed as a social
organism and all efforts are oriented towards building
a sense of community. The community organizer plays
the role of an enabler, an advocate, a planner and a
coordinator, who helps the community to identity a
problem in the neighbourhood, attempts to procure the
requisite resources by gathering the existing social
services and by lobbying with those in power to meet
the needs of the neighbourhood. This approach is
consensual and gradualist in nature. The goals was the
Social Settlement Movement in the US and the War on
Poverty Programme of the Johnson administration in
the sixties.
2) The Political Activist Approach
This approach is characterized by militant confrontation
and heavy pressure on the power institutions of society.
Power sharing is a major goal. This method is based on
advocacy, conflict and negotiation and is used by mass
based organizations such as those initiated by Saul
Alinsky, who is also considered to be the founder of this
approach. The organizer is a mobiliser and leadership
developer, and the problem condition is social and
economic oppression arising out of powerlessness. The
ultimate goal is the elimination of social, economic and
political disparities (a direction with political emphasis).
3) Neighbourhood Maintenance Approach
This approach arose out of both the previous approaches,
and is characterized by middle-class residents and their
small business and institutional allies who seek to
“defend” their community against change and perceived
threats to property values. The “problem conditions may
include decline in municipal services, deterioration in

neighbourhood sanitation, water supply, or increased
crime. The organizer might be a volunteer community
leader or a trained specialist in urban planning,
community development etc. The method used may be
peer group pressure may be a civic association/
neighbourhood association. In the initial phase, peer
group pressure may be used to convince the officials to
deliver services to the community, but later it could
assume the form of the political activists approach as
they realize that goals can only be achieved through
confrontation.
C) Saul Alinsky (1945) one of the founders of modern
neighbourhood organizing reflected deeper into the
different approaches of community organizing. According
to him social change and community organization could
either be primarily reformist or revolutionary, depending
on how fundamental the changes are, which are sought.
Organizations with a reformist stance primarily strive
to modify or reform the system, trying to make it fall in
line with the needs of the people. On the other hand,
revolutionary organizations question core assumptions
and propose radically different alternatives to the
existing ones. For example, the latter would involve
themselves in basic changes related to gender roles, or
overthrow of casteism etc.
Saul Alinsky presented two distinct approaches or
traditions to organizing. These are:
1) The Social Mobilisation Tradition
Here the core strategic goal is to get people to act
together; to gain power through the numbers of people
involved. This is based on the assumption that such
pressure will make those in power comply with the
demands that are made.
In this tradition, emphasis is on the mobilizing effort

i.e. contacting people and encouraging them to become
socially and politically active. Social mobilization
tradition encourages people to petition vigorously;
protest; demonstrate and not to fear direct action and
confrontation. Social mobilization efforts are also labelled
as “campaigns”, as they utilize collective power to create
change. Moreover, the changes brought about through
the campaigns are sometimes less important than the
strength and unity that comes about through the
mobilization, as mobilization in itself is empowering.
2) Social Production Tradition
In this tradition, the strategic goal is to acquire services,
material goods and resources for the people in need.
The core emphasis is on achieving the outcome i.e.
helping those in need with the problems they face. In
order to achieve the core goal of acquiring goods/services
for the target group/s or to attempt redistribution of
resources/benefits, supporters of this tradition are more
likely to work with those in power. People are encouraged
to learn to participate in the political system and to
manage relationships with agencies that provide
services. The social production initiatives are usually
labeled as “projects” as they are primarily endeavors to
create services that benefit those in need.
Alinsky preferred to refer to “Community Organisation”
as “Community Organising” with emphasis on power,
pressure and high profile public actions. His favoured
approach was confrontative and rested on displays of
people’s strength through marches, parades, public
hearings, disruptive boycotts, picketing and sit-downs.
He created the “Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF)”
comprising of organisers who carried his methods all
over the U.S.
When Alinsky began his work, community organization

was a social work approach, wedded to traditional forms
of cooperation and consensus. However, throughout the
1950s, Alinsky trained residents into adopting the
confrontationist mode to tackle the chronic
impoverishment and joblessness. Many faculty and
students of social work and neighbourhood groups began
to accept power organizing.
Some 40 years later power tactics are still latent in
most organizations, but are not so widely used as during
the 1960s.
D) Hanna and Robinson (1994) also advocated the
relevance of the transformative model, as opposed to
the more traditional approaches. Like Alinsky, their
typology also sprung out of the soul of the oppressed
resident, and included the following three strategies:
1) Traditional Politics, which involves elite, non
participative efforts that bend the status quo just enough
to preserve it. It involves rational problem solving, but
income, resource, and status gaps remain.
2) Direct Action Community Organising, which
involves mass-based organizing, sometimes using
confrontation. It is power oriented and aims to empower
non elites to negotiate with the elites for a share in
power.
3) Transformative Social Change, which involves small
groups, intensive study and reflection, and people
becoming acutely aware and knowledgeable about the
oppressive forces. Emphasis is on self-directed learning
and a fully collective approach to group awareness,
decision making and social action, which liberates
participants from the mind set of dependency and
oppression.
Hanna and Robinson judged the first two strategies to

be inadequate and favoured the transformative social
change practice. They drew on the work of Friere (1972),
author of “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” to recommend
“liberating education” as an essential pre-action
component of community change, which they called
“overall transformation of a society”.
Conclusion
In this chapter we have discussed the different steps,
models, strategies and approaches to community
organization. While the steps in the community
organization process include role searching, purposeful
entry and assessment of ‘felt’ needs of the community
as the initial few steps, it usually completes the cycle
with capacity building and the building of collaborative
and cooperative attitudes among community members.
A number of writers and practitioners of community
organization have forwarded a number of models,
approaches and strategies for community organising.
Varying between the more conservative and traditional
models based on consensus, and the more radical and
transformative models and strategies, these provide us
with alternative options of engaging the community
system for collective action. Having understood and
analysed these you will become more clear about the
application of specific models/approaches in specific
settings and contexts.
References
Murphy, Patricia. Watkins & Cunninghan, James V.
(2003). Organising for Community Controlled
Development: Renewing Civil Society, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Ross, Murray. G. (1955). Community Organisation-

Theory and Principles, Harper Bros, New York.
Rothman, Jack & Erlich, John, L. & Tropman, John. E.
(2001). Strategies of Community Intervention (Sixth
Edition), F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., Itasca,
Illinois.
Weil, Marie. (Ed.). The Handbook of Community Practice,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
10
Current Issues in Community
Organisation and the Role of the
Community Organiser
*Neera Agnimitra
Introduction
A nexus of serious challenges faces community
organizers in the 21st century. While some of the issues
like persistence of poverty are old, others such as
globalization have emerged recently. The connections
between the diverse problems are becoming increasingly
complicated. In the contemporary context, community
organizers must not only deal with problems related to
poverty and marginalization but also tackle the effects
of global economics on developing countries like our
own. Globalization has increased deprivation and poverty
world wide and is playing a primary role in shrinking
the role and propensity of governments of developing
countries to fund social progammes for their populations.
In such a context, all social workers, and community
organizers in particular, need to be better equipped to
address conflicts within and across the diverse groups
comprising Indian communities, so that they can focus
on social and economic achievement for all groups that
have been marginalized.
Contemporary communities are showing a decline in
social relations, emotional bonds and sentimental ties
that characterized the communities of yesteryears.
Community consciousness and community spirit are

showing a decline. The decrease in attachment to the
geographical ‘locality’ or ‘neighbourhood’, arising on
account of the enhanced mobility of the population is
contributing to a decline in the sense of attachment,
social ownership and public responsibility. Power politics
is tending to permeate all aspects of community life
and people are getting divided into different political
groups and sub-groups. The joint family system is
disintegrating, especially in urban communities and the
tensions of daily living are leading to increased physical
and mental stress. Communal disharmony, gender based
inequality, factionalism, deprivation and
impoverishment of the marginalized, and denial of
human rights are some of the urgent issues challenging
the practice of community organization today. This unit
gives you a broad understanding of power and the impact
of power dynamics on community life. It also explains
the relevance of power in community organization.
Besides, it also gives an insight into the other issues
which are affecting community dynamics and
community functioning like gender inequality, caste/
class dynamics, factionalism and the resultant
marginalization of the weaker sections. Additionally, a
brief orientation to the major impact of globalization on
communities and community organization is also being
presented. The role of the community organizer, and
the range of skills required to tackle the challenges of
community work, are depicted in a separate section in
this chapter.
Working With the Community Power

Structure
Power is the ability to influence others, their beliefs
and behaviour. It is the ability to make things happen.
It also implies political or social ascendancy or control.
Current Issues in Community Organisation and the Role... 223
Floyd Hunter explained the nature of power and power

structure. Power appears in many forms and in a variety
of combinations. It flows from many sources like money;
votes; law; possession of information, expertise or skills;
group support; links and contacts; charisma, social roles,
access to rewards and resources; position, titles, ability
to gratify important needs; monopoly of essential
resources, alliances, conviction, courage etc. Power often
accumulates in a person or a constituency and this is
usually referred to as a power centre. Every society is
characterized by a power structure. Power is not
confined within a single or specific power centre. Every
level or organization of society is characterized by the
presence of some power. Even the so called ‘powerless’
persons and constituencies within society possess
power, only it is latent and yet to be discovered and
developed.
Generally speaking every community has a power
structure which is specific to itself. It varies from one
community to the other. Usually, some individuals or
groups of people are at the top of the power pyramid
and thus constitute the power centres. They wield
influence on the community, drawing power from diverse
sources. They may influence the community through
formal and informal connections and also through
subordinate leaders. With money being an important
source of power, it is usually the rich and the affluent
persons and groups who possess most power. In the
Indian context, the possession of land as the most
important economic resource also contributes to the
accumulation of power in certain persons and groups.
In Indian communities a multiplicity of power sources
exist. In other words, power is usually dispersed across
many persons and groups. There is often a flexibility in
the power structure that is noticed. The primary aim of
some community groups is to gain or extend their power.
While those in power are concerned with maintaining

or even enlarging their power base, those with relatively
less power strive to bring about a redistribution of power
and exerting an influence on the decisions taken by
people in power. All community groups are likely to come
up against, and have to recon with the exercise of power
in their locality.
The community organizer has to necessarily understand
the power dynamics in the community. He has to
understand who wields the power in the community
and how do these persons/groups influence the action
of others. These aspects need to be understood and
analyzed by the organizer for the effective practice of
community organization, and is known as community
power structure analysis.
Indeed the community organizer can learn a great deal
about community power by actually grapping with it in
the pursuit of the goals of community practice. But action
is likely to be more effective if it can be planned and
organized in the light of some prior analysis of the local
power distribution.
The perspective of the community as a centre for power
and conflict places power and politics front and centre
in our understanding of the community. It assumes that
communities are composed of competing groups and
power centres, which are constantly engaged in
expanding their power base and control over scarce
resources. Some groups, based on social class or caste
have less access to power and must constantly challenge
those with power to acquire access to community
resources, such as education, employment opportunities,
health care, housing, police protection etc. This ongoing
tussle/conflict can produce significant pressure for
change in the distribution of power and resources in
the community.
The idea of class conflict has its origins in the work of

the 19th century German economist and philosopher Karl
Marx, who argued that society is divided into two
groups-those who have access to wealth and power and
who control the means of production, and those who
have little or no power and are exploited by the small
privileged group. Economic power and control over
economic resources extends beyond the means of
production into the realm of politics. Economic power
is transformed into political power as the capitalist elite
use their economic resources to dominate the political
arena. This leads them to strengthen their position of
power and to further subordinate the lower classes.
In any community, people with power make important
community decisions and even control the
implementation of such decisions. For e.g. the traditional
leader or pradhan of a village is an important centre of
power. He can influence the people to act or even not to
act. If he exerts a positive influence on the community,
positive and purposeful community change becomes
possible. On the other hand, if he so desires, he can
also be instrumental in stalling any intervention for
desirable community change. Thus, community
development is greatly influenced by the power
structures of the community. People who are influential
can mobilize the participation of a major segment of the
community.
In the Indian context, the social structure becomes
important to locate power centres and leaders in society.
In rural India, power centres are found in various
contexts, such as caste, lineage, and territorial groups.
There are mainly two primary sources of power in the
rural communities. First, are those who derive power
from traditional sources like caste and kinship. As caste
and kinship still form the core of village social
organization, they go a long way in defining the power
structure and decision making process in rural India.

The second category comprises of those who derive power
by occupying positions in the organizations introduced
in the context of developmental activities like panchayat
sarpanch/members, functionaries of voluntary
organizations/community based organizations,
chairpersons of mahila mandals/nav yuvak mandals
etc. In certain cases, some persons may acquire power
due to their personal qualities and abilities, as also
their commitment/past experience at handling or
solving community problems.
Power is often dispered and there are usually several
power centres. Beginning with the joint family, the
power and authority in the joint family centres around
the senior male member of the family, who is considered
as the head or ‘karta’ of the family. His authority is
unquestionable and his decisions are binding on all
members. Heads of large and important households
enjoy a dominant position and exert great influence in
community matters. The senior member of the lineage
group (i.e. the kunba) also weilds significant power and
authority on account of his seniority and heriditory
rights. He is the leader and the representative of the
kunba, and solves the inter-kunba problems. He attends
all village meetings and is the spokesperson for his
kunba. His decisions are binding on the members/
constituents of his group. The family, lineage and kinship
groups merge into caste, which is all pervasive. The
principle of seniority in age, inherited privileges and
economic power determine the position of individuals
or groups of individuals as caste leaders. The members
of the dominant caste wield great power and influence
in the village. The headman or the lambardar usually
comes from the dominant caste.
The village temple and priest/maulvi also hold positions
of power. They are not merely religious heads but are
also consulted on a number of other issues affecting

the community, like settling disputes. Besides these
sources of power, age is another factor which has
considerable significance in determining village
leadership. Seniority in age is respected and revered.
External sources of power and outside leaders derive
power from their specialized knowledge, skills and ideas
they bear. Besides, their position or designation may
also facilitate them to acquire a position of power within
the community. They may unwillingly compete with
established leaders. They gain their position of power
and prestige and influence established groups. They may
also create new groups. School teachers, village health
workers, doctors, heads of local NGOs and block officials
comprise this category of leaders/power holders.
The Relevance of Power and Leadership in

Community Organisation
Development is influenced by the power structure of
the community. People who are influential can mobilize
a major segment of the community. There are two models
of community power structure. These are the
Stratification Model and the Pluralist Model. The
Stratification Model suggests that social class principally
determines the distribution of community power.
According to this model, the power structure in the
community is composed of the stable upper class elite
whose interest and outlook on community affairs are
relatively homogeneous. The Pluralist Model, rejects the
idea that a small homogeneous group dominates
community decision-making. It states that there are
numerous small special interest groups that cut across
class lines, which are represented in the community
decision-making process/system. These are interest
groups with overlapping memberships, and widely
differing power bases. Community decisions are the
result of the interactions of these different interest

groups. Their theoretical orientation can help the
community organizer in his action.
The organizer has to identify the members of the power
structure. He can rely on the Reputation Approach to
locate the community elites. According to this approach,
the basic procedure is to ask a group of informants who
are knowledgeable about the community to list the
people they believe to be most influential in the
community affairs. There may be variations in this
procedure with regard to how informants are selected,
and how questions are put up. By tallying those people
most frequently named as influential leaders, he can
identify the core of the community power structure.
The Position approach is another method of locating
the members of the power structure based on the
assumption of the Stratification Model. This approach
assumes that people holding the highest office in the
community are at the top of the power structure. By
scanning the executive lists of the important social,
political and economic organizations in the community,
one can compile a list of members occupying the power
structure. This approach requires fewer efforts than
the Reputation Approach.
Locating the power structure and the leaders, who may
be both formal and informal and who can influence the
thinking and behaviour of the community members thus
assumes primary importance. These power holders are
involved to induce peoples’ participation in order to
achieve the organizational objectives. If the existing
power centres are not in line with the community
organizational objectives, then a new centre of power is
identified and developed to get peoples’ commitment and
participation, and thereby facilitate purposeful
community change.
The community organizer must therefore concern himself

with the identification of those leaders who will
encourage the participation of the other members of
their groups. Some specific advantages of working with
leaders are: (1) Leaders contribute by bringing the
different factions in closer contact with the larger
community and thereby integrating groups into a more
cohesive whole. (2) By working with the power centres
and leaders of the different factions and groups, the
organizer is indirectly able to work with the whole
community. It is not possible for him to work with each
and every member of the community. However, leaders
being representatives of their respective groups facilitate
participation from members of these groups. (3) Leaders
can also be used as a leverage point for initiating a
process of change, which may eventually spread
throughout the whole system. (4) Leaders provide
readymade communication channels to reach the
community. If the organizer is able to reach the leaders,
his message is sure to reach the people. (5) In a similar
vein, leaders also provide ready made cooperative groups
for self help projects and thereby obviate the greater
amount of work that would be necessary in a less
organized and more individualistic type of society. If
the leaders are convinced about the desirability and
utility of a proposed community initiative, then they
can be instrumental in influencing/convincing the
members of their group, thereby rendering the task of
the organizer much simpler than it would otherwise be.
Thus, leadership from within the community can
facilitate mobilization, organization and participation
of the community in community initiatives and is
therefore the key to enlisting peoples participation.
However, it is important to identify and include the ‘real’
leaders, who are accepted and respected by the
community. Often, the organizer makes the mistake to
assume that the pradhan or other prominent figures

holding important offices are the leaders, but in reality
they may just be nominal leaders. There may be other
informal leaders who may be the ‘real’ leaders in the
sense of being in a better position to exert a positive
influence on the community people. It also needs to be
remembered that in Indian communities, power and
leadership is not confined to one person or source. It is
often dispersed and therefore there are several persons
whose involvement may be necessary to secure the
effective participation of the community as a whole. The
fact that leadership is spread out rather than
concentrated is an advantage to the organsier, as he/
she is bound to come in close contact with at least
some of them. Moreover, there is greater likelihood of
finding some leaders who may be progressive and
sympathetic to the new programmes/initiatives.
Gender Sensitive Community

Organization Practice
The Oxford dictionary defines gender as sexual
classification i.e. the classification of persons into males
and females. But gender is not merely a biological
attribute. It is created by society and is thus socially
defined. The social system in India, and in fact the world
over has evolved its own set of rules which have led to
socio cultural differences between men and women.
These is turn are responsible for discrimination and
subjugation of the female sex in society.
The gender system gives different values to men and
women. Society is organized around specific parameters,
the functionality of which is ensured by developing a
set of systems and institutions. The system of patriarchy
provides basis to male –female differentiation and the
unfavourable conditions that girls and women face. The
practice of male female differentiation is created and

fostered by the adoption of differential norms, codes of
conduct, life styles and discriminatory practices for
males and females. The biological differences between
males and females are extended to become the criteria
for the economic and social positioning of the two sexes.
Allocation of differential roles in a certain manner is a
core aspect of the gender system. Roles are allocated
not only in accordance with the biological function of
procreation, but are misappropriated according to the
values prescribed to males and females. Patriarchy
prescribes ‘dominating and controlling’ social functions
to males, while ‘supportive’ functions are in the domain
of females. Right from birth, males are attributed to be
superior, as they are the inheritors of resources, and
the carriers of the family name and lineage. The function
of the main earner is also attributed to the male, scaling
his position of importance. The females are expected to
be the ‘family caretakers’ and perform secondary
functions of child nurturing and running the households.
Along with role allocation, certain norms, beliefs, values,
as well as practices reinforce this male female hierarchy.
Males therefore procure access to economic resources
like land and property, inheritance, education, skills,
productive employment and the associated high status.
On the other hand, women are deprived of all such
privileges, including nutrition, medical care, education,
skill development and opportunities for productive
employment. Multiple social handicaps and atrocities
keep them in a position of subjugation. The declining
sex ratio and increasing incidence of female foeticide
and infanticide are grim reminders of this unfortunate
reality. The practice of male-female differentiation
results in deprivation and oppression for the female at
all stages and in all spheres of life.
Community organization and community development,

if they are to be consistent with the social justice
perspective must take into account the fundamental
nature of gender discrimination and oppression. The
community organization initiatives must ensure that
they do not reinforce the different forms of structural
oppression, against women, and preferably counter them
in whatever way or ways are appropriate within the
specific context.
This requires the community organizer to be aware of
the complex, subtle and pervasive ways in which gender
subjugation/oppression operate, through the media, the
education system, organizational structures, etc. It also
requires them to be critically aware of their own
backgrounds and sexist attitudes (if such exist).
Community development structures and processes can
easily reinforce the dominant structures of oppression.
For e.g. inviting male members for meetings, or calling
for meetings during a time which is unsuitable for
females or calling ‘mixed’ meetings in a context where
the cultural context restricts female participation in
the presence of men, or nominating male members for
all important positions or including male beneficiaries
in the programme can easily minimize female
participation in the initiative. An unthinking or
uncritical approach reinforces rather than challenges
structural disadvantages based on gender. More
positively, community organization should ideally
address issues of gender. While there is oppression or
disadvantage, a community will not reach its full
potential, and the goals of social justice will not be
achieved. Strategies specifically designed to overcome
such disadvantage, and based on affirmative action,
equal opportunity, consciousness raising, education and
sensitization of the male members will need to be
purposefully employed.
Community Practice with the

Marginalised Groups
Apart from gender, caste and class dimensions also act
to reinforce inequality in society. Caste and class are
both status groups, which implies an association of
individuals who enjoy a distinctive style of life and a
certain consciousness related to the group to which they
belong. While caste groups are hereditary groups with
fixed status, classes are defined in terms of the relations
of production. The members of a class have a similar
socio-economic status in relation to other classes in
the society, while the members of a caste have either a
high or a low social status in relationship to other castes.
Caste
Caste is understood to be both a structural and cultural
phenomenon. As a unit, it can be defined as a ‘closed
rank status group’, that is, a group in which the status
of the members, their occupation, the field of mate
selection and interaction with others are all fixed. As a
system, it refers to interrelated status and patterned
interaction among castes characterized by an
aggregation of restrictions like restrictions on change
of membership, occupational mobility, marriage and
communal relations. In understanding caste as a system,
there is a pre-supposition that no caste can exist in
isolation and that each caste is closely linked with the
other castes in a network of economic, political and
social relationships. As a cultural phenomenon, caste
may be viewed as a specific set of values, beliefs and
practices.
Class
A social class is “one of two or more broad groups of
individuals who are ranked by the members of the
community in socially superior and inferior positions”

(Ginsberg, Morris, 1961). Thus, the social class is
characterized by (a) a feeling of equality in relation to
members of one’s own class; (b) a consciousness that
one’s mode of behaviour will be in harmony with the
behaviour of those with similar standards of life; (c) a
choice of occupations within a limited range; (d) a feeling
of inferiority in relation to those who stand above in the
social ranking; and (e) a feeling a superiority in relation
to those falling below in the social hierarchy.
The axis of inequality of caste, class, and gender
results in marginalizing large sections of the
population. Not only does it restrict the mobility of these
sections, it leads to the practice of untouchability,
bondage, oppression and the prevalence of social evils
like dowry system, purdah system, female foeticide, child
marriage etc. Thus, these three principal forms of
structural disadvantage namely caste, class and gender
can be considered to be fundamental, in that they are
all pervasive and identifiable in most, if not all social
issues, social problems, and inequities. For this reason,
the victims of caste, class and gender oppression must
come first in any consideration of the disadvantaged in
modern society. Included among the victims of class
oppression must be the poor and the unemployed, as it
is their relationship to the means of production which
has resulted in their disadvantage. These forms of
oppression and marginalization obviously interact and
reinforce each other, thus to be a dalit woman in poverty
is to be trebly disadvantaged.
There are other groups which can also be regarded as
disadvantaged and marginalized, while not necessarily
being the victims of the primary structural
disadvantage. They include the aged, the disabled
(physically and intellectually), the tribals and the
indigenous people.
The Notion of Empowerment

The notion of empowerment is itself a complex one and
is central to a social justice strategy. It is central to
community work and many community organizers
choose to define their role in terms of an empowerment
process. Simply stated, empowerment aims to increase
the power of the disadvantaged. It involves giving
power to individuals or groups, allowing them to take
power into their own hands and redistributing power
from the ‘haves’ to the ‘have nots’. (Ife, 1995)
As we have already seen, power is a complex and
contested notion, thus giving us different perspectives
of empowerment.
The pluralistic perspective visualizes empowerment as
a process of helping the disadvantaged groups and
individuals to compete more effectively with other
interests, by helping them to learn and use skills in
lobbying, using the media, engaging in political action,
understanding how to ‘work the system’, and so on. The
work of Saul Alinsky in empowering the black
communities in the USA was based on the pluralistic
perspective. Alinsky, one of the most influential figures
in community work did not aim to change the American
political system, but simply aimed to teach the
disadvantaged group how to work more effectively within
that system and to become more skilled in competing
with other groups for power through social action,
political pressure, covert threats, publicity, etc.
The elite perspective to power and empowerment requires
not only learning the ability to compete for political
power and learning political skills, it also entails focus
on the power elites. The latter is achieved either by
joining them to change or influence them (wherein the
activist joins the group to change its policy or have
some involvement in, and influence over, local decisions),
or to seek alliances with powerful elites (e.g. by enlisting

the help of the legal profession in pursuing issues of
human rights or anti-discrimination legislation and
practices) or by seeking to reduce the power of the power
centres through more fundamental change (for e.g.
limiting power by legal challenge).
The structural perspective views the empowerment
agenda as much more challenging, as it can only
effectively be achieved if the forms of structural
disadvantages can be challenged and overcome.
Empowerment is therefore considered to necessarily be
a part of a wider programme of social change, with a
view to dismantling the dominant structures of
oppression. Thus, a broad based agenda specifically
addressing the issues of class, gender and caste becomes
imperative.
The post-structural perspective visualizes empowerment
as a process of challenging and changing discourse. It
differs from the other three perspective in that its
strategy for empowerment is primarily intellectual rather
than activist; it emphasizes understanding, analysis,
deconstruction, and education rather than action.
From the point of view of a community organizer, there
is some value in each of the aforementioned
perspectives. The specific choice of a particular
perspective or the option of intermixing more than one
perspective to define one’s strategy will have to be made
by the community organizer based on the specific context
and the ideological base of the organization to which
he/she belongs. However, important and rich insights
can be obtained from a broad understanding of the
different perspectives to empowerment.
There still remains the important question as to what
sort of power is involved in the term ‘empowerment’, i.e.
what kind of power is it that we as community organizers
wish to enhance? While this is primarily a value

question, we can identify certain parameters of power,
as they obtain in community based empowerment
strategies. Jim Ife (1995) identifies seven main categories
of power. These are:
1) Power over personal choices and life chances
Many disadvantaged groups have little power to
determine the course of their lives and make decisions
about their lifestyle and occupation. This may arise out
of consequences of poverty, patriarchal structures and
values, caste based restrictions or oppression against
indigenous people and minorities. Cultural norms and
values can also restrict people’s options. An
empowerment strategy will therefore seek to maximize
people’s choices, to increase their power over decisions
involving their lives.
2) Power over the definition of need
‘Dictatorship over needs’ implying that needs often tend
to be determined and defined not by the person who is
experiencing them but by others (the state, professionals
etc.). This is disempowering, and an empowerment
perspective would require that people be given the power
of defining and prioritizing their own needs. This may
require education and access to information.
3) Power over ideas
Empowerment should necessarily entail the power to
think autonomously, and not have one’s world view
dictated by force or by being denied access to alternative
frames of reference. It should legitimize the expression
of these ideas in a public forum and the capacity of
people to enter into dialogue with each other. This
approach emphasises the educational aspect of
empowerment.
4) Power over institutions

A good deal of disempowerment comes from the effect of
social institutions, such as the education system, the
health system, the family, etc. An empowerment strategy
should therefore aim to increase people’s power over
these institutions and by changing these institutions
to make them more accessible, responsive and
accountable to all the people.
5) Power over resources
Many people have little access to resources and little
discretion over how these resources will be utilized. This
applies to both economic and non-economic resources
such as education, opportunities for personal growth,
recreation, health etc. An empowerment strategy to
maximize the effective power of all people over the
distribution and use of resources and to redress the
inequality of access to resources is necessary.
6) Power over economic activity
The basic mechanisms of production, distribution and
exchange are vital in any society, and to have power,
one must be able to have some control over and access
to, these mechanisms. This power is unequally
distributed, and is a cause of significant
disempowerment. An empowerment process would,
therefore, seek to ensure that power over economic
activity be more evenly distributed.
7) Power over reproduction
Control over the process of reproduction has been a
significant issue for feminist critique. It not only
includes the process of birth, but also child rearing,
education and socialization: all the mechanisms by
which the social, economic and political order is
reproduced in succeeding generations.
Achieving Empowerment
The various strategies which can be adopted by the
community organizer to achieve the empowerment of
the marginalized and disadvantaged groups can be
broadly classified under the following headings:
1) Policy and Planning
Empowerment through policy and planning is achieved
by developing or changing structures and institutions
to bring about more equitable access to resources,
services and opportunities to participate in the life of
the community. Apart from facilitating people to use
existing policy provisions, programmes and services,
through widespread awareness generation, and helping
in setting up of appropriate mechanisms for redressal
of problems pertaining to lack of access, the community
organizers can focus on pressing for more progressive
policies of affirmative action or positive discrimination
to redress the existing disadvantages faced by the specific
groups.
2) Social and Political Action
This approach emphasises the importance of political
struggle and change in increasing effective power. It
emphasises the activist approach and seeks to enable
people to increase their power through some form of
direct action.
3) Education and Consciousness Raising
Empowerment through this approach emphasises the
importance of an educative process adopted to equip
people to increase their power. This incorporates notions
of consciousness raising: helping people to understand
the society and the structures of oppression and giving
them the vocabulary and skills to work towards effective
change. These forms of empowerment provide the basis
for an empowerment model of community work practice.
Globalization and its Impact on Commu-

nity Practice
The advent of economic globalization has led to a
transformation of the environment of community
practice, in both industrialized and developing countries.
While the implications for both the block of countries
are distinct, certain fundamental changes are common
to both sets. Globalization has fundamentally changed
the relationship between the market and the state, with
serious consequences for low income people and low
power constituencies. The growing dominance of market
mechanisms has affected policy making at the national
and local levels in ways community organizers are just
beginning to understand. The spread of privatization
and the concentration of transnational corporate power,
as also the influence of such organizations as the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) is impacting the local,
national and regional frameworks. The emergence of
the well integrated global market is leading to a number
of changes including the shift of manufacturing and
service industries to those areas of the world which
have the cheapest labour and least restrictive
regulations; the increasing use of technology; the need
for fewer workers with high skills; a decline in the
gender distinction of work with its resultant impact on
family and work relations, and a widening gap in income,
wealth, education, skills and status between different
groups. Many of the changes that underlie globalization
are particularly damaging to the poor nations and to
the low-income or disadvantaged communities.
Governments of poor nations like India have been forced
to divert human resources and funds away from the
more urgent development priorities, such as education,
public health, and the social service sector. The choice
of the development strategy is increasingly being

influenced by the powerful nations and international
organizations and is therefore moving away from public
debate. Removal of subsidies in agriculture, removal of
import restrictions, dilution of the Public Distribution
System, unrestricted entry of foreign MNCs into the
country, acceptance of intellectual property rights and
many such changes are already having serious
implications on both rural and urban communities.
While on the one hand, the public sector is forced to
effect funding cuts on social programmes, the private
sector is quite naturally concerned with lowering the
costs of production, especially wages and benefits. All
this will ultimately result in the destabilization of long
standing institutions and communities, particularly in
the subsistence model economies like India.
Globalization is also leading to environmental
degradation and commercialization of the natural
resources, which often form the basis of livelihood
sustenance for the poor and marginalised communities.
In such a context, community organizers have to
reassess their strategies and approaches in order to
effectively respond to the consequences of economic
globalization. They need to recognize that previous
strategies, which viewed communities and nations in
isolation from the international environment are no
longer adequate. Community organizers will need a
strong international knowledge base and the ability to
analyse the complexity of local and global situations.
They will have to create new approaches to respond to
the growing gaps in employment, income and wealth.
The focus of community practice at the local level will
have to shift to take into account the changing priorities
of national policies and their consequences. In the
context of the withdrawal of state welfare intervention,
a larger role will have to be played by the non-profit
organizations in resolving community problems.

Community based planning will increasingly become
the responsibility of local NGOs, self help groups and
volunteers. The organizers will have to facilitate the
creation of alternative economic and political institutions
at the local level, such as cooperatives and peoples’
organizations, and focus on how communities can
become self sufficient centres of alternative, life
sustaining culture through grassroots empowerment.
(Weil, 2005) There will have to be a renewed emphasis
on building social capital at the community level and
on developing innovative models of fund raising and
resource mobilization. Skills in facilitation of groups
and organizations as the key to enlarging the focus of
coalitions to represent communities to respond to their
problems will need to be developed and utilized. Their
skills as advocates and facilitators to prepare groups,
communities and organizations to participate in social
action and social movements will also need to be
mobilized.
Thus, community organizers will have to assume
responsibility to influence the direction of major
economic and political trends by combining long standing
principles of self determination, social justice, and
democratic participation with updated skills and
knowledge that reflect new social and technological
realities. As the South African proverb states “we will
learn the road by walking”.
Roles of Community Organiser

The community organizer having the essential
characteristics and skills as also knowledge about the
principles, process and steps of community organization,
will be in a position to apply the same in the community
setting through the assumption of appropriate roles.
The diverse roles of a community organizer are discussed

here. These roles are neither exhaustive nor mutually
exclusive.
1) Guide
The primary role of the community organizer is that of
a guide who helps the community to discover the ways
and means of achieving its own goals. As a guide, he
helps the community to move effectively in the direction
which it sets for itself. While the organizer has some
responsibility to help the community choose this
direction wisely, based on the many factors which may
operate in the given context, the choice of direction and
method of movement must ultimately be that of the
community. Thus, he is not a person to shoulder the
responsibility or solve problems of the people. Instead,
he provides the various options or avenues, and shows
different ways of dealing with the community problem/
s. As a guide, he is required to provide the much needed
information and ideas which the community may
initially lack. For example, in a community facing the
problem of unemployment, he should be able to provide
information about the various employment schemes,
options for self employment, the terms, conditions and
sources of availing credit, and other relevant information
to those seeking employment. The ultimate choice and
means of deriving employment/income generation rests
with the community.
In a situation where the community organizer perceives
the need and relevance of a particular project for
community development, he may stimulate a need with
respect to this project. He may encourage discussion
on the project and may suggest the advantages of action
on the same. But his role as a guide does not permit
him the liberty of launching action on this project unless
the community is ready and is desirous for such common
action.
2) Communicator
The community organizer transfers or transmits
information and knowledge to the community. Often
community members demonstrate an ignorance of
information and ideas. Sharing of information enables
the community to use this information to meet its needs
or resolve its problems. Thus, the organizer being an
essential link between the community and the outside
world is expected to play the role of an effective
communicator. The communication between him and
the community may be handled through diverse forums,
including individual contacts, group meetings, group
discussions, public meetings, written material etc.
The community organizer can also rely on the use of
different techniques like skits, role plays, street theatre,
and audio-visual shows to disseminate the requisite
information. A greater reliance on the locally accepted
and indigenous channels of communication is desirable,
as it leads to more effective communication. Local
leaders, and local groups like women’s groups, youth
groups, children’s clubs etc. are some such options.
The ability of the community organizer to play this role
effectively will, to a very large extent, determine the
quality and the intensity of the community organization
process.
3) Enabler
The community organizer plays the role of an enabler
by facilitating the community organization process. As
mentioned earlier, he is not expected to carryout the
work by himself but is expected to enable the community
to plan and execute work related to achievement of its
needs/problems autonomously. It is through the
performance of this particular role that the community
organizer is able to facilitate a process of capacity
building and empowerment of the community.
Within the ambit of his role as an enabler, the community

organizer enables by first awakening and focussing
discontent about some community condition/s, followed
by facilitating members to verbalise their discontent.
Thereafter, he helps them to see the commonality of
their feelings and nourishes the hope that something
can be collectively done about the same. He further
enables the community to organize to act. The role of
the enabler requires judgment about how much of
encouragement can be given, how much anxiety relieved,
how much support provided at different stages so that
the community is able to move at a comfortable pace
and with sufficient self confidence. Enabling the
community to maintain good interpersonal relations,
cooperative and collaborative attitudes and practices,
and to deal with inter-group tensions, conflicts and other
blocks also fall in the domain of the community
organizer.
4) Expert
As an expert, the organizer’s role is to provide
information, knowledge and advice in a number of areas
about which he has specialized expertise. Often, the
organizer has to provide research data, technical
experience, and resource material, advice on methods
which the community may need and require in the
process of achieving its goals.
The organiser may serve as an “expert” in community
diagnosis and analysis and may help the community to
understand its own structure, dynamics, potentialities
and constraints. He is expected to be skilled in research
methods, able to conduct studies and formulate research
policy. He may also have expert knowledge of
organization and procedure. He should also be well
informed and able to provide information about
programmes, policies, legislation as also resources
provided by government departments, private agencies,

international organizations, and ways of securing the
same. He should be able to facilitate the bridging of
gaps between community’s needs and available
resources.
The worker as an expert does not superimpose or insist
on the acceptance of his “expert knowledge”. This is
only offered for consideration and discussion, to be used
as effectively as the community is able to adopt it.
5) Counsellor
The community organizer initiates work by developing
an intensive understanding of the community. Often he
is expected to enable the community to understand itself
in terms of its multiple dimensions. It may entail
diagnosis and treatment of the community as a whole.
He may help the community to face its underlying forces
and attitudes which may be creating tension and conflict
among the groups in the community. Further, after
enabling the community to recognize these deep rooted
ideas and practices, verbalise about them, and begin to
cope with them, the community is helped to develop a
capacity to function more effectively as an integrated
unit. Thus, as a counselor and social therapist, the
organizer deals with the deep-lying and often latent
forces which threaten to disrupt the community
organization process.
6) Animator
In the process of community organization, the organizer
encourages and provides direction to the community to
carry out collective, self help initiatives. In developing
societies like India, people are often victims of a chronic
‘dependency syndrome’ and therefore fail to
spontaneously mobilize of action or even take crucial
decisions on their own. In such a context, the organizer
as an animator helps the people to come forward and
participate in all phases of the process, from planning

to evaluation. By raising suitable questions/issues, he
assists in conscientising the community and stimulating
people to overcome their attitudes and blocks to
participation.
7) Collaborator
The community organizer collaborates with his
colleagues, co-professionals and other organizations
working in the community. In contemporary context,
the importance of maintaining collaborative
partnerships with other organizations is well recognized.
In the situation where there are also other organizations
working towards similar problems, a collaborative effort
is not only more desirable but also more productive and
feasible. Therefore, the community organizer is expected
to network with such other organizations to establish
effective linkages and collaborations.
8) Consultant
The community organizer enjoys the trust and confidence
of the people and is often relied upon to advise them
about matters of vital importance to them. His expertise
and experience is relied upon by the people, who often
seek his guidance and expert advice. As a consultant,
he makes himself available to people, who are in need
of his inputs. He is also able to furnish his expertise to
community groups and community organizations.
9) Model
The community organizer is often perceived as a role
model and a source of inspiration by the people. He
needs to be conscious of the influence that he is able to
exert on the community. His behaviour and approach
are often emulated by the people who look up to him for
his knowledge, skills and expertise. He also sets
innovative models of working on community issues
which could be replicated in other communities facing

similar circumstances/problems. By proper planning
in approaching a problem and executing the plan and
documenting the whole process will be of great help to
others. The problem solving process sets a model for
others to follow.
10) Innovator
The community organizer innovates, performs and
constantly strives to improve upon the techniques
through the process of community organization. This
gives a lead to the people of the community and enables
them to try out new ways and means to find solutions
to their needs and problems. Community organization
is not merely for solving problems, but the broader goals
of capacity building of individuals, groups and the
community as a whole have to be meaningfully achieved.
Innovative ways of improving the capacity of the people,
introducing new and more effective ways of community
building, as also reviving the traditional and indigenous
systems from within the community form an integral
part of the role expected from the organizer.
11) Motivator
The community organizer stimulates and sustains active
interest among the people for reaching a solution to
their needs and problems. The community organizer
encourages the community to take up a minor task and
complete it successfully. This in turn enables the people
to take up more difficult tasks. In such a process, the
people at times may not take any initiative or may be
content to live with the existing situation. In such a
context, the organizer motivates the people by making
them observe, analyse, understand and respond to the
situation. When people are discouraged, because they
are not able to achieve what they wanted or there is
resistance and opposition, in such situations the
organizer plays the role of a motivator to help them

continue efforts inspite of difficulties.
12) Catalyst
In the process of community organization, the
community organizer enables the people to become
empowered by gaining accessibility and control over
resources and acquiring skills in decision making. He/
she accelerates the actions and reactions of people so
that they are able to achieve the desired results. As a
catalyst, the organiser is able to increase the response
level of the people. The catalyst role further enables the
people to become independent and become better
equipped in responding to their own needs and problems.
13) Advocate
The role of the advocate is to represent or persuade the
members of the community and prepare them to
represent their issues to the concerned authorities in
order to bring about an effective solution to their unmet
needs. The advocacy role is an important one in the
present context of community work. The needs and
problems of the people have to be presented at
appropriate forums and the required support and
networking obtained in order to increase the pressure
on the oppressive forces. In the role performance of the
advocate, the community organizer champions the rights
of community groups. He/she speaks on behalf of the
community to gain access to services or to improve the
quality of services provided. Thus, as an advocate, the
community organizer argues, debates, bargains,
negotiates, and confronts the forces working against
the interest of the community.
14) Facilitator
The community organiser helps the community to
articulate its needs, clarify and identify its problems,
explore appropriate strategies, select and apply

intervention strategies, and develop people’s capacities
to deal with their own problems more effectively. A
facilitator provides support, encouragement, and
suggestions to the community so that people may proceed
more easily and skillfully in completing tasks or solving
problems. A facilitator assists the community in finding
coping strategies, strengths and resources to produce
changes necessary for realizing goals and objectives. A
facilitator helps client systems to alter their
environment in the desired direction.
15) Mediator
The community organizer intervenes in disputes between
parties to help them find compromises, reconcile
differences, or reach mutually satisfying agreements.
The mediator takes a neutral stance between the
involved parties. A mediator is involved in resolving
disputes between members or between the community
and other persons in the broader environment.
16) Educator
The community organizer as an educator conveys
information to the community and those in the broader
environment. The organizer provides information
necessary for coping with problem situations, assists
the community in practicing new behaviour patterns or
skills, and teaches through presentation of role models.
The community organizer makes available information
necessary for decision making.
Community organization is a macro method in social
work. The community organizer, with the required
qualities and skills will be able to work with the people.
While working with people of different backgrounds or
from different geographical settings, the different roles
can be applied. All the roles need not be, or cannot be,
applied in all the settings or in dealing with all the

problems. Moreover, there is no one role which is
superior or inferior and while dealing with any problem
the organizer has to play more than one role. Therefore,
depending upon the situation and the needs and
problems of the community appropriate roles have to be
performed.
Skills in Community Work

Community organization, like any other method, or
intervention strategy of working with people, requires
specific skills. These skills help the worker in carrying
out specific tasks with precision and with minimum
effort. “Skill” means the worker’s capacity to apply
knowledge and understanding to a given situation
(Trecker, 1948). However, to identify the different types
of skills needed for community work practice is difficult
for a variety of reasons. Firstly, as is evident from the
discussion on models, the scope of community work is
vast. Secondly, working with a community entails
working with groups and individuals. And lastly, there
is no consensus on what constitutes “skill” (Siddiqui,
1987) in social work literature. A closer analysis of the
attempts made so far to identify helping skills reveals
that usually the author tries to conceptualize the various
steps in the helping process, and accordingly identifies
skills around these steps.
McMohan (1996) has identified the following skills for
social workers and refers to them as the ‘Foundation
Skills for Social Work’. These hold relevance for the
practice of community organization:
I) Relationship skills
Listening Responding
Feeling/sensing Paraphrasing
Clarifying Information giving
Referring
II) Problem solving skills
Problem identifying Data Collecting
Assessing/goal setting Planning/task defining
Selecting and Evaluating
implementing
intervention
Terminating
III) Political skills
Advocating Taking legal action
Providing evidence Bargaining
Organizing Publicizing
Demonstrating
IV) Professional Skills
Recording Research
Time-management Teamwork
Rivera & Erlich (1995) have identified some skills along
with values and attitudes, the community organizer is
expected to possess:
1) Similar cultural and racial identification.
2) Familiarity with customs and traditions, social
networks, and values.
3) An intimate knowledge of language and subgroup
slang.
4) Leadership styles and development.
5) An analytical framework for political and economic

analysis.
6) Knowledge of past organizing strategies, their
strengths, and limitations.
7) Skills in conscientization and empowerment.
8) Skills in assessing community psychology.
9) Knowledge of organizational behaviour and decision-
making.
10) Skills in evaluative and participatory research.
11) Skills in programme planning and development and
administration.
12) An awareness of self and personal strengths and
limitations.
Siddiqui (1997) categorized skills in the following eleven
categories:
i) Skills in Rapport Building
ii) Skills in Identification of Needs
iii) Skills in Resource Mobilization
iv) Skills in Programme Planning
v) Skills in Programme Management
vi) Skills in Evaluation
vii) Skills in Recording
viii) Skills in Encouraging Community Participation
ix) Skills in Working with the Group
x) Skills in Working with Individuals
xi) Skills in mobilizing Community Action
I) Skills in Rapport Building Include:
a) Skill in developing professional relationships
with the community
b) Skill in developing rapport with funding

organizations
c) Skill in developing relationship with colleagues
II) Skills in Identification of Needs include:
a) Skill in identifying the needs of different
communities
b) Skill in classifying needs and fixing priorities
c) Skill in helping people arrive at a consensus
about the community needs
III) Skills in resource mobilization include:
a) Skill in identifying sources which can be
harnessed for resources
b) Skill in preparing a project proposal
c) Skill in locating indigenous resources
IV) Skills in Programme Planning include:
a) Skill in developing a programme in accordance
with the needs of the community
b) Skill in keeping the programme in harmony with
the cultural needs and traditional practices of
the community.
c) Skill in achieving self sustainability with
minimum resources
V) Skills in Programme Management include:
a) Skill in developing a blueprint for a division of
roles
b) Skill in finding the right person for the job
c) Skill in developing an adequate system of
monitoring and supervision
VI) Skills in Evaluation include:

a) Skill in identifying a specific set of indicators
b) Skill in data collection
c) Skill in analysis of the data
VII) Skills in Recording include:
a) Skill in process recording
b) Skill in maintaining proper records
c) Skill in keeping personal records
viii) Skills in encouraging community participation
include:
a) Skill in identifying ways to involve people in
decision-making at every stage in community
work
b) Skill in developing suitable structures to
institutionalize peoples participation
c) Skill in a gradual transfer of programme
management to people to achieve self
sustainability of the programme
IX) Skills in working with groups include:
a) Skill in analyzing the group situation
b) Skill in dealing with group feelings
c) Skill in developing inter-group relationship
X) Skills in working with individuals include:
a) Skill in identifying and accepting individual
cases
b) Skill in assessing the problem
c) Skill in using referral
XI) Skills in mobilizing community action include:
a) Skill in identifying a suitable issue
b) Skill in using multiple strategies
c) Skill in using the mass media
Weil (2005) has identified the following range of

specialized skills relevant to community practice in the
21st century:
Practice Skills
Policy practice
Lobbying
Advocacy
Programme design, implementation and
management
Financial management
Management
Organizing
Non-profit development
Social marketing
Fund raising
Facilitation
Citizen participation
Leadership development
Volunteer management
Proposal development
Contract management
Human resources management
Grassroots planning
Sectorial planning
Cross-sector planning
Campaigns
Public education
Contest skills
Confrontation tactics
Negotiating
Mediation
Position-taking and writing
Group and intergroup development
Economic and social development
Social planning
Political and social action
Coalition/network development
Research Skills
Program evaluation
Participatory research
Use of administrative data
GIS
MIS
Community assessments
Community mapping and asset mapping
Neighborhood analysis
Policy and poverty research
Cost benefit/cost-effectiveness analyses
Community analysis
Empowerment research
Action research
Statistics
Use of social indicators
Conclusion
In this chapter, you have gained an understanding of
some of the important contemporary issues in
community organization. The concept and dimensions
of power, and its relevance to community organization
have been discussed. Besides, the prevailing notions of
empowerment and how they contribute to defining more
broad based and specific strategies to combat inequality
stemming out of caste, class and gender have also been
analysed in this chapter. The chapter has also provided
you with an insight to gender sensitive community
organization practice and the scope of community
practice with marginalized groups.
Another important component highlighted in this unit
is the impact of globalization on contemporary
community practice and the role that community
organizers can play in the prevailing context. Lastly,
the unit has focused on the wide range of skills and
competencies required by community organizers to
perform their challenging roles effectively.
References
Cox, F.M. et al (Ed). (1987), Strategies of Community
Organization: A book of Readings, 4th ed. Itasca, 12,
FE Peacock.
Dubey, Muhkund (ed.) (1995), Indian Society Today:
Challenges of Equality, Integration and
Empowerment, Har Anand Publication, New Delhi.
Gangrade, K.D. (1971), Community Organization in
India, Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
Ghurya, G.S. (1961), Class, Caste and Occupation,
Oxford University Press, Bombay.
Ife, Jim (1995), Community Development: Creating

Community Alternatives-Vision, Analysis and
Practice, Longman, Melbourne.
Pascual, Gisbert S.J. (1999), Fundamentals of Sociology,
Hyderabad, Orient Longman Ltd., IIIrd Edition.
Pathania, Sunita (1999), “Globalization, Culture and
Gender: Some Issues: Globalization, Culture and
Women Development, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Paulo, Freire (1992), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Penguin
Book.
Siddiqui, H.Y. (1997), Working with the Communities:
An Introduction to Community Work, Hira
Weil, Marie (ed.) (2005), The Handbook of Community
Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.

Block-2 Community Organisation For Community Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block-2 Community Organisation For Community Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Block-2 Community Organisation For Community Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6

Meaning and Definition of Community

* Dr. Neera Agnimitra, University of Delhi, New Delhi

of rural, urban and tribal communities. The community

1. Lindeman: Lindeman’s book in the year 1921 was

3. Harper: Harper (1959) perceived community

6. Kramer and Specht: Another definition by Kramer

Contemporary Definitions of Community Organisation

community”. They stress on community organizing as it

is also interesting to delve a little deeper into the four

process of community organization has been described

‘process’ brings into focus the movement from the

sporadic community events which break the

for systematic planning and limited effort. This

coalition development is one core component of

Community Organisation in Social Work

Although community residents have always worked

community organization alternatively, to refer to the

The Encyclopedia of Social Work (20th Edition), 2008

work. This concept of community work/organization

The important factors that were expected to facilitate

Guiding Values And Purposes of Commu-

as to how it should be undertaken. Are there any guiding

Value Orientation in Community Organisation

“The social work profession promotes social change,

and (xii) “self help” as the essential base of any

Guiding Purposes of Community Organisation

4. Human social and economic development to assure

Assumptions Regarding Method

expanded to form the basis of social work philosophy; a

4. Changes in community living which are self-

resources/inputs, or programme designing etc.

Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and

* Dr. Neera Agnimitra, University of Delhi, New Delhi

beginning of community organization for social welfare

Community Organisation in the United

in the U.K. was inspired by philanthropic motives;

approach to help people identify and define their own

social change, and focused largely on ameliorative

of poverty on people’s lives and advocated that it was

‘hard issues’ of social justice and sustainability, while

of personal failings of an individual but arose on account

Community Organization in the United

community organization within American communities

A number of factors had contributed to the development

established the University Settlement in New York later

concerned with coordinating charity, organizing

councils which were often assigned the responsibility

not really a period of innovation in community

local initiatives. Programmes like Model Cities

1969 and After

administrations. The thrust of these administrations

As far as development of community organization

Social workers are increasingly recognizing the necessity

History of Community Organization in

In this initial phase a prominent advocate of community

the block level. Specific methods to work were however

Over the years, there has been a growing recognition of

child guidance, disability rehabilitation etc.) and more