Asset Based Community Development
Posted by Saul Garlick, Executive Director
SMRC is preparing an in-depth training program for students on our global development internship. We are seeking to build the capacity of each individual, of course, but we are looking for a way to train them to be catalysts for change when they get to the communities. The most compelling models that we are studying to prepare the curriculum comes from the Asset Based Community Development work that is being done at Northwestern University.
One thing that SMRC knows to be true is that communities are the best drivers for change. They have assets (albeit sometimes it’s hard to tell what they are at first) and they have informal and formal structures to develop programs and projects. The inevitable truth is that SMRC members from the United States who visit the communities will always be outsiders… so the challenge is not to become insiders (for that is impossible without permanent residence) but to become partners at most, or catalysts at least.
A catalyst for change is someone who inspires an individual to leverage existing and potential resources to build a brighter future. In this context, in any community, the possibilities are endless. We will be working on this curriculum and will be doing it with some other leading considerations in mind: the value of microfinance, power of social entrepreneurship, and the importance of the Millennial Generation. What are your thoughts?
Now that’s what I’m talking about, Garlick!!
Interestingly enough Jeffrey Sachs wrote in today’s New York Times about this very issue of “Homegrown Aid,” as he calls it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09sachs.html?_r=1. Unfortunately, all the language of “locally based”, “organically grown”, or “bottom up” development is a lot of talk from a multitude of NGOs, authors, and political actors without much genuine action. Sachs points out the importance of allowing countries to propose their own needs to independent experts in order for outsiders to determine who will receive funds. Though these communities may feel some kind of empowerment in writing proposals that highlight their needs and problems, the idea of having outsiders determine who receives what resources directly contradicts the idea of “homegrown” community development. The idea of ABCD is that outsiders act as facilitators while local community members go through a process to clearly recognize their situation and use local resources to make a change that benefits the community.
Two questions come to mind:
1. If ABCD approaches explain the best way for external agencies and individuals to facilitate community development, how do we determine what external resources should be brought in and when?
2. Following that, if we’re discussing hunger RELIEF (as in Sachs article), does the ABCD approach become somewhat irrelevant because relief and development are two different worlds of intervention?
A final note, I am blown away by Terry Bergdall’s personal perspectives on the best way to facilitate social change as an outsider. Check out his article here: http://www.sesp.northwestern.edu/docs/ABCD-outside-catalyst.pdf.
Hi Saul,
Like the post. We officially adopted ABCD as our guiding development philosophy at Manna Project Ecuador last year and saw some great results. It’s a combination of both philosophy and results that makes a real difference in the way you approach your work. Philosophically it strengthens and centralizes the “we’re not here to ‘fix’ you” attitude that most modern development efforts have. It also puts it into action in many creative ways. The first thing we did was partner with a local institution to perform a thorough door to door asset mapping exercise and then base all of our programming off of those results, trying as much as possible to act as a catalyst and coordinator between local parties. We think the results speak for themselves.
The guys on the ground are now starting to play around with a model called positive deviance. As it’s explained to me it involves looking at a common affliction in the community, identifying the outlying individuals who do not suffer the affliction and seeing what traits, practices, etc. make that difference. Seems like an excellent way to find local solutions to local problems and could be worth digging into as you experiment with ABCD.
Good luck buddy.
Saul,
Love to see you thinking this way! Just remember to continue to “assess” as well — knowing something to be true is very hard in international development…
It is great to get your perspectives on this work. Definitely agree that we want to do everything in our power to reduce the “we are going to fix all your problems” from the outside swooping in that has come to dominate so much of the aid dialogue. But I concur with Vanessa that Aid and Relief are also wildly different things. Take this example:
In Kenya we worked with the community build a water dam. The dam was meant to provide easier access to water (although not the sparkling clean water we wish it were) for about 900 families. The actual work for digging the dam was rewarded with food or a very modest sum that basically helps people just pay for food. The people in the area are not suffering from conflict per se, but the immediate priority is survival and food. So we worked with them to lead a local solution to water access issues, but we did it in a way that addresses the immediate need with outside resources. In part we meet the ABCD model with that intervention, but in large part, with the outside resources, we do not. While the community is not seeking relief in the way that refugees in a war-torn country might, isn’t addressing those immediate needs better than sticking to a “you must build from local assets only, right now” approach? It is not clear to me.
Having played around with ABCD for about a year now, my answer to Saul’s question is that it is *always* our tendency in development to see needs first – and, when we can, meet them. What ABCD does, I think, is reorient our ‘defaults.’ So, in the case of the water dam, the initial question would have been, “Is it feasible for us to organize existing assets here in a way to achieve our goal without outside financial help?” If the answer might be yes – even might be – then I think the responsible thing is to head down that path. It is the more difficult path, to be sure, but like Zak says, I think the results speak for themselves.
Saul,
I hope this reached you. I am a faculty member of the ABCD Institute. I am presently in Rumbek in Sudan developing an ABCD DMI Initiative. We have just finished a 16month pilot in Pokot inrural kenya, which has been so succesful is has spread over the boarder into Uganda. I would love to share some of these stories with you, if you’re around to meet up. I travel back to Nairobi on Friday and will there until Thursday. Let me know if you’d like to meet up. Best regards, Cormac +353 879280998