Rothman's model of community organization

Further Information on Models of Community development

(Typology of community intervention)

Minkler, M. & Wallerstein, N. (2005). Improving health through community organization and community building. In. M. Minkler (Ed), Community organizing and community building for health 2nd Ed. (pp. 26-50). New Brunswick, USA: Rutgers University Press. E-reserve 26 July2014 http://library.ecu.edu.au/search/r?SEARCH=hst2120&x=52&y=13

Note the examination on pp 29-30 of the concept of community and presentation of models of community development on pp. 30-33.

As noted in Braum (2008)…” a classic definition of types of community intervention was first presented by Rothman and colleagues in the 1970’s. This has been updated and more recently adapted by Minkler and Wallerstein (2005) to incorporate more recent thinking about community organising and building and as shown in figure

Source Minkler and Wallerstein (2005) p32

Ife (2006 ) (p184, 277) refers to consensus building as cooperation in decision making. He notes that everyone doesn’t have to agree but agree on process and be satisfied that outcome of process represents the best decision that could be reached in the interest of group.

Ife (2006) suggests in a conflict model, the emphasis is on winning, outmanoeuvring an opponent (who might be a local authority, a mining company or some other ‘villain’) or achieving something at the expense of something or someone else. The conflict approach is a competitive model of decision making.

This need-based approach is conceptualised as either more consensual (community development) or conflict based (social action). The newer strength-based models contrast a capacity-building approach with an empowerment-oriented social action approach. New public health community initiatives usually have a mix of these types of interventions. Community initiatives form within state-funded institutions can rarely adopt a ‘pure’ social action. Even if community members and workers are committed to such an approach, they are generally limited by the constraints of ensuring fungi continuity. Often this means adopting a social planning approach that gives the appearance, at least, of rationality.

http://library.ecu.edu.au/search/r?SEARCH=hst2120&x=52&y=13
How this relates to Rothman’s model and application for the first assessment task where you are asked to :

Discuss the programs in relation to:

Models of community development (such as: locality development, social planning or the social action model) and distinguish whether the programs or projects take consensus building and/or conflict approaches…

1. The Locality development (process-oriented, stressing consensus and cooperation and aimed at building group identity and a sense of community) aligns with the area of community development and needs based in the above diagram.

2. The Social Planning (task-oriented, focussed on rational-empirical problem solving, usually by an outside expert) however there is generally capacity building and is strength based focusing on community building in the above diagram.

3. The Social Action (both task and process-oriented concerned with increasing the community’s problem-solving ability and achieving concrete changes to redress imbalances of power and privilege between oppressed of disadvantaged group and the larger society. Generally seen to have conflict strategies that primarily use advocacy and coalition-building strategies.

Further details of Rothman model is found in an online site http://www.infed.org/community/b-comorg.htm August 08. Rothman identified three distinct types of community organizing:

Locality development: typifies the methods of work with community groups used by settlement houses and in 'colonial' community development work. A major focus is on the process of community building. Working with a broad, representative cross section of the community, workers attempt to achieve change objectives by enabling the community to establish consensus via the identification of common interests. Leadership development and the education of the participants are important elements in the process. In this approach great store is set by the values of both participation and leadership.

Brieger (2006) refers to this as Normative re-educative in approach, Builds on community capacity, Goal is for problem-solving ability to be sustained and emphasises community control. The change agent is a facilitator who is the primary expertise in the process. Emphasis on local knowledge where there are mechanisms to organise for change and local technologies to enable change.

Social action: is employed by groups and organizations which seek to alter institutional policies or to make changes in the distribution of power. Civil rights groups and social movements are examples. Their methods may be, often are, abrasive, and participation is the value most clearly articulated by those who use this approach. Both leadership and expertise may be challenged as the symbolic 'enemies of the people'.

Brieger (2006) more recently refers to communality members organise themselves to redress imbalances in power, distribution/access of resources. Process redresses imbalances of power resource allocation within a community. It concerns empowerment and acknowledges that this is something people do for themselves. Can have a power-coercive approach to change where change agent as organiser helps the community identify pressure points. Media advocacy plays a role in getting the attention of decision makers.

Social planning: is the method of community organization traditional to health and welfare councils although its scope and arena were enlarged in the 1960s to encompass city planners, urban renewal authorities and the large public bureaucracies. Effort is focused primarily on task goals and issues of resource allocation. Whereas the initial emphasis of this approach was on the co-ordination of social services, its attention has expanded to include programme development and planning in all major social welfare institutions. Heavy reliance is placed on rational problem solving and the use of technical methods such as research and systems analysis. Expertise is the cherished value in this approach, although leadership is accorded importance as well.

Brieger (2006) refers to typical agency-centred (expert) approach. Is a prime example used in metro and regional planning authorities and local governments? Generally about planning about a problem, not about the people and appels to ready responders and ofen relies on social marketing.

These elements are drawn in a fairly extreme way. There is considerable overlap between the elements - but the focus on difference is useful in that it points attention to dimensions such as process, the role of the plan, and the tension between the state and dominant groups and those who believe themselves to be excluded.

This book link by Minkler 2005 p30 pro0vide additional back ground info on Rothmans model and other expansions of community development.

M. Minkler (2005) Community organizing and community building for health 2nd Ed. (pp. 26-50). New Brunswick, USA: Rutgers University Press

Baum, F (2008) The New Public Health 3 ed Melbourne: Oxford Press

Brieger, W (2006) Community Change Models, Bloomberg: John Hopkins School of Public Health

http://www.infed.org/community/b-comorg.htm