..
| Here
we want to measure the strength, capacity or power of a community, family
or organisation, and will use sixteen variables that contribute to that
strength. The sixteen elements and brief descriptions of them are
described in Sixteen Elements. |
.
| The
more any community or organisation has of each of those elements, the stronger
it is, the more capacity it has, and the more empowered it is. A community
is a social entity; it does not become stronger simply by adding a few
more facilities. Community strengthening or capacity building involves
social change ––
development –– and
that, in turn, involves all sixteen of the elements of strength. |
.
| Difficulties
of Measurement: |
....
| Changing
levels of strength can not accurately be measured by a researcher devising
a questionnaire. They could be better observed and verified by a discussion
led by a facilitator who calls for the observations of all community members
in a meeting, asking how much each of the above has changed. Monitoring
the physical construction of a clinic is relatively easy; they can report,
for example, that construction has reached the foundation level or wall
level. Monitoring the changing strength of a community, in contrast, means
performing a sociological measurement of the changing social characteristics
of the community. |
.
| A
lab technician can stick a thermometer into a patient to obtain a reading
of temperature, and that will yield very different results than when a
doctor asks the patient, "How do you feel?" and allows the patient
to respond. The patient does not have to understand the principles of a
thermometer, but does have to understand the question by the doctor. Unfortunately,
in sociology, questionnaires are far less objective or accurate than thermometers
because most respondents, and many interviewers, do not understand the
nature or purpose of the questions, or what they are trying to measure,
and there are no universally accepted standards of measurements as there
are for temperature. |
.
| That
means that the community members must be made aware of the goal of strengthening
and the elements of strengthening (as well as their immediate objectives
of constructing the facility), and these can not be kept only by the
researchers. It is important for the community to participate in evaluating
its own strengthening, that it be made aware of the elements of strengthening.
The facilitator must therefore explain these elements during a process
of community self monitoring its own capacity increases. |
.
| Participatory
Measurement: |
....
| It
is important for the community itself to be part of the process of measuring
strength and evaluating any increase in strength. When it builds a clinic,
it has a limited or finite objective, and it is easy to see the point at
which the clinic construction is completed. In measuring strength or capacity
of the community itself, the goal is open ended; there is no definable
finite end to the process. The community itself (its members in a group
meeting, not just a few factions or influential individuals) must be the
main source of assessing if there has been an increase in strength, which
(if any) of the above elements contribute to that strengthening, and if
it is still desired by the community. The methods of tapping community
observations, must differ between the monitoring of the construction of
a facility versus monitoring the strengthening of the community which constructed
it. |
.
| The
mobilisers who organised the community to engage in its self help activity,
did so by taking a "facilitating, not provision" approach. That approach,
bringing together the whole community in public decision making meetings,
appears to be the most useful method also of monitoring the increasing
strength of the community. Facilitating the monitoring can be done by the
same mobilisers, or by others familiar with the community and its history.
Ideally, the community as a whole will meet annually, and be led by the
same facilitator. The facilitator will list all the elements of strengthening,
explaining any that need explaining. They will then discuss the degree
that the community has changed since the last year's evaluation meeting.
A written record of the discussion will provide information to be interpreted
as indicators of the amount of strengthening since the previous such discussion. |
.
| In
the real world, facilitators change, community members come and go, not
everyone in a community can attend a meeting, total participation is not
possible, and the very changes that take place in the community affect
the perceptions and values of members. It is to be expected that in the
very early stages, for example, the community members are aware of their
poverty and see the acquisition of resources from donors outside the community
as the sole means of alleviating poverty. At later stages, as the community
members gain confidence by successfully engaging in self help activities,
they would not necessarily diminish the desire for outside donations, but
would also see the value of making decisions within the community, and
identifying and using available resources from within the community. |
.
| The
mobilising techniques start with unity organising, asking what are the
priority problems, writing responses on the board with no criticism allowed,
and when consensus is reached the facilitator changes the "problem" into
the priority "goal" of the community. |
.
....
| To
initiate a community based monitoring of the strengthening process, there
should be a facilitator, a recorder, and a community meeting. The facilitator
can start with procedures similar to the ones used in mobilising the community
members. |
.
| Similarly,
during a community monitoring session, a facilitator describes the above
elements of community strengthening then, element by element, with a blackboard
or sheets of newsprint on a wall, asks members of the community to indicate
the degree of change, and writes their responses on the board. The facilitator
asks which of the elements have changed the most, and which the least,
and why. Every item is written on the board by the facilitator, and the
recorder writes them down in a notebook, including any details that might
be missed on the board. The responses are moved on the board to indicate
which elements changed most and which least. |
.
| The
facilitator aims at consensus among the members in making the assessment.
If there have been more than one session in the past, the meeting might
then go on to see if the rate of change was greater in the previous phase
or the immediate past phase. Ensure that all members of the meeting are
aware of the meanings of every one of the elements of strengthening. A
report of the meeting should be prepared, a first draft the very same day.
It should be reviewed by both the recorder and the facilitator. If there
is time, the facilitator can show it to some selected members of the community
to cross check. |
.
| The
report should list each of the above elements, and the comments (in narrative
form) by community members against each one. You will see that it is difficult
to measure degree of change, but there will be several variations of interpretation
in the nature of the changes, as observed by the community members. Hold
a community meeting (annually) similar to mobilisation meeting. Facilitator
uses adapted brainstorming facilitation techniques. Recorder records all
details of suggestions while facilitator marks main notes on the board. |
.
| Ask
for group consensus after explaining each element: (1) relative strength
at present; (2) change over the last twelve months; and (3) change over
the previous four or five years. |
.
| Allow
for different interpretations, then aim for group consensus. Invite shy
and humble persons to speak up. Record the main points on the board while
the recorder writes details. |
.
| To
make the process easier, you may wish to use the handout, Form
for Measuring Empowerment, where the participants can first fill in
their estimates of strength before you combine their estimates in a group
session. The form also has a section where literate participants may note,
in their own words, the factors contributing to their estimates of each
element. This may be read over carefully after the session. |
––»«––
|