community & social development program: community social ... fall 2012... · equality &...

Community & Social Development

Program: Community Social Worker

Core Services & Competencies

CSW Core Services & Competencies| August 2011|

Background

Generalist and Youth Community Social Workers (CSW) in each

Neighbourhood Services office (East, North, South and West) fall under the

Community & Social Development Program, funded by Family Community

Support Services (FCSS). The CSW Core Services and Competencies had not

been reviewed in many years and a Review team was established in 2009 to

undertake this task. Additionally our funder FCSS asked all funded agencies

and programs to create a Theory of Change (ToC). This created an

opportunity to align the CSW Core Services and Competencies Review with

the development of the ToC, as well as Council priorities, Community Services

& Protective Services (CS&PS) business planning and Community &

Neighbourhood Services (CNS) key lines of business.

An Advisory committee was formed and comprised of CSWs from each area

office, two NS managers and external stakeholders. Additionally a consultant

team was contracted to work on the review.

The Theory of Change articulates an approach to community development

(CD) that in some cases is different than current practice. The job of The City

of Calgary Community Social Workers is community development: an

intentional approach helping community members to come together and

achieve common goals that improve their collective economic, social,

cultural and/or environmental situation. It is recognized the CSW will play a

key role in engaging community members with the intention of increasing

capacity to mobilize, devise and carry out plans to address specific issues

identified by residents in the neighbourhood. Over the longer term, it is

intended that communities will have sufficient knowledge, leadership,

organizational and practical skills to resolve issues. Inherent in the Theory of

Change is the recognition that CSWs are employed by the City of Calgary to

perform Community Development within a Municipal context.

Community

development: an

intentional approach

helping community

members to come

together and achieve

common goals that

improve their collective

economic, social,

cultural and/or

environmental situation.

HIGHLIGHTS

3 Overview of Process

5 Community

Development Theory of

Change

6 Overview of Core

Services and

Competencies

8 Community Social

Worker Framework of

Practice

10 Overall Required

Competencies for CSW

Framework of Practice

11 Community Social

Worker Core Services

and Competencies

THE CITY OF CALGARY | Community & Social Development Program: CSW Core Services & Competencies 2

In order to build capacity within a community, the CSWs will need to further

develop skills in the key areas as outlined in the Core Services and

Competencies document. Capacity building support will be required to assist

CSWs to shift to this new ‘way of working’. This CD approach requires both a

philosophical reorientation as well as an organizational structure that not only

supports CSWs but also provides the infrastructure and supervision required to

transition to this new way of working. Mark Cabaj’s1 table illustrates this

central challenge in neighbourhood work - the balancing of two approaches

and the opposing tensions inherent in formal institutions and neighbourhood

environments.

Tendency of Formal Institutions

(i.e. traditional social programming) Nature of Community Development

Certainty Unpredictable. Messy. Risky

Short term focus Long term focus

Vertical accountability Multiple stakeholders

Fixed, standardized responses Customized and evolving responses

City/region wide perspective Neighbourhood perspective

Community development work is best viewed from a complexity lens with the

ability to deal with uncertainty found in most CD endeavours. This new way of

working requires learning and relearning of ‘how’ to build the capacity of

neighbourhood residents and organizations to lead and produce changes.

This requires a community orientation that may not always come naturally to

those more familiar working within a program and service orientation.

The key is that community residents are recognized as agents of change,

rather than just beneficiaries or clients. This requires CSWs to understand how

to work with residents as co-partners in neighbourhood efforts. From a

community partnership lens it is more about the relationship with the

community, listening to and working with the community, along with a

combination of organizational creativity, innovation and responsiveness. It

requires the ability to execute, adapt and evaluate how the work is playing

out in practice with communities. This work benefits from a practice grounded

in an asset-based approach that is accountable to the community.

1 Cabaj, Mark. (nd). Community development in neighbourhoods. Presentation at the

Community Development Framework Learning Forum, Ottawa. Retrieved from

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/cdf/forum_presentation_en.html

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/cdf/forum_presentation_en.html


Overview

The following provides an overview of the process used to develop the CSW

Core Services and Competencies for The City of Calgary, Community &

Neighbourhood Services, Community & Social Development Program.

Data Sources

Two main data sources contributed to the following Core Services and

Competencies document:

Synthesis of internal data sources: the information comes from meeting

notes from April 6th, 2011 Neighbourhood Services (NS) CSWs/Managers

meeting; meeting notes from the four NS Area Office conversations and a

Youth CSW conversation conducted in April/May 2011 with

CSWs/Managers; and a large group session with CSWs/NS Managers on

June 1st, 2011.

Synthesis of the literature on community development core services and

competencies/skills: in particular, the information comes from Mississippi

State University, the Government of Australia, the Government of the

United Kingdom, and the City of Edmonton.

Approach

A collaborative approach was utilized for this phase of the work. Data was

compiled from the above data sources, analyzed and then synthesized in

order to identify and analyze key patterns. Data analysis used inductive

methods, making sense of the data in an iterative process.

Process

CSWs and NS Managers were consulted on what they saw as best practices in

the area of community development. This material was reviewed for patterns

and linkages to the Community Development Theory of Change. Once this

was completed the consultants reviewed the literature on CD initiatives (as

noted above) in order to begin to identify best practices.

Participatory Validation Procedure

Step 1: The two draft reports (Area office input and Literature Review on core

services) were brought to the Advisory Committee for preliminary discussion

on May 11 th, 2011. The Advisory Committee recommended that a comparison

of the synthesized data from the two sources be conducted.

Step 2: The two draft reports and an analysis of similarities and differences

between the two reports were brought to the four NS Managers for review,

dialogue and input on May 16 th, 2011. The NS Managers provided input and

recommended a compilation report on core services be produced from the

two data sources (Area Office and Literature).


Step 3: The compiled core services report was presented to a large group

meeting of CSWs and NS Managers on June 1 st, 2011 for further review,

dialogue and input. The input received was incorporated into the docu ment

and draft competencies were added to the report. The competencies were

reviewed against the literature and overall skills, abilities and knowledge

areas identified.

Step 4: The revised and expanded compilation report of Core Services and

Competencies was presented to the Advisory Committee on June 8 th, 2011

and to the NS Managers on June 13 th, 2011 for further review, dialogue and

input. Minor revisions were made and the report was adopted by the NS

Managers on June 13 th, 2011.

Step 5: On June 27 th, 2011 The Advisory Committee presented the Core

Services and Competencies document to the Director of Community &

Neighbourhood Services, FCSS Manager and 4 NS Managers. The document

was adopted with suggested minor revisions.


Community Development Theory of Change

As described in the Community Development Theory of Change document (see Appendix), the community

development process involves 7 distinct but inter-related steps. The following Core Services are derived from

these steps.



Overview of Community Social Worker Core Services and

Competencies

CSW Framework of Practice: Understanding and Facilitating community

development to bring about change founded on social justice, equality &

inclusion.

The CSW Framework of Practice is the overseeing function required to

develop and manage community initiatives WITH residents. Guiding the

Framework of Practice are core values and responsibilities that CSWs manage

within a Municipal context as a City of Calgary employee. In order to

successfully work within the CSW Framework of Practice, CSWs will have to

work across all of the Core services and corresponding Competencies as

explained below.

CORE SERVICES AND COMPETENCIES

Core Service: Community Engagement & Participation: Engaging and

supporting a broad range of community members in community building

strategies to ensure the community is always involved in deciding what needs

to be done, then designing and delivering the solution and taking ownership

of the solutions.

Competencies:

1. Community Context and Assessment: Get to Know the Community

2. Community Engagement: Build Relationships

3. Facilitate Participation: Convene, Connect, Commit

Core Service: Community Capacity Building : Providing community members

with the opportunities to realize and share their assets, increase their

skills/knowledge and strengths to build capacity towards collective action.

Competencies:

1. Developing Human Capital and Leadership

2. Determining Resource Needs

3. Supporting Neighbourhood Connections (Supporting Bonding and

Bridging Social Capital)

4. Supporting Organizational Development

Core Service: Empowerment (Collective Efficacy) and Mobilization :

Supporting and mentoring community members to create and pursue a

shared community action plan that addresses identified issue(s), articulates

and identifies the steps/resources necessary to achieve the desired results.

Competencies:

1. Empowerment: Fostering and Supporting Neighbourhood Efforts

The CSW Framework of

Practice is the

overseeing function

required to develop

and manage

community initiatives

WITH residents


2. Mobilization: Facilitating Community Action

3. Supporting Community Advocacy

Core Service: Action and Results : Supporting and mentoring community

members to implement the action plan based on the identified need(s) and

evaluate/learn from the results.

Competencies:

1. Moving Planned Activities to Action

2. Evaluation & Reflection: Supporting Community Learning From Shared

Experiences


COMMUNITY SOCIAL WORKER (CSW) FRAMEWORK OF PRACTICE

In alignment with the Community Development Theory of Change document, the CSW Core Services and

Competencies are grounded in the following Framework of Practice.

CSW Framework of Practice

Understanding & facilitating community development to bring about change founded on social

justice, equality & inclusion. Values that Guide the Framework of Practice

The CD process is underpinned by a set of values on which practice is based. These relate to CSW roles and

actions. These values will guide the work of CSWs as they engage and mobilize community residents:

Social Justice Strength-based

Equality & Anti-discrimination Diversity, Inclusion & Participation

Trust, Respect & Openness Accessibility & Affordability

Creative, Flexible & Responsive Continuous Learning

CSW Responsibilities within the Framework of Practice

The mandate of The City of Calgary Community & Neighbourhood Services Community Social Workers is

community development: an intentional approach helping community members to come together and

achieve common goals that improve their collective economic, social, cultural and/or environmental

situation. It is recognized the CSW plays a key role in engaging community members to increase resident

capacity to mobilize, devise and carry out plans to address specific issues as identified by community. Over

the longer term the intention of CD work is to support communities to gain sufficient knowledge, leadership,

organizational /practical and advocacy skills to resolve issues. This Framework of Practice is conducted by

CSWs within a municipal context as a City of Calgary employee.

Overall Framework of Practice

1. Understanding and Applying Community Development:

Knowing the values, processes and methods of community development in order to organize/mobilize

resources for action and manage the complexities inherent in CD practice.

Sub components include:

Communities: working with different communities, the history and dynamics of diverse communities,

how to relate to diverse communities;

Power, inequality and justice : able to navigate social justice issues/theory and how this impacts

individuals and communities, power dynamics, poverty, structural and systemic barriers, oppression

and discrimination, and systems interrelatedness;

Decision making :able to utilize and role model democratic decision-making processes, participatory

techniques, conflict management methods and diplomacy;

Reflective practice: utilize a reflection and action process - a participatory technique for continuous

learning though experiential opportunities with each other, including other colleagues, managers,

partners and residents.

2. Developing Community Initiatives:

Understanding community development as a process that enables people to organize and work together to:

(a) identify their own interests/issues related to improving their neighbourhood; (b) take action to exert

influence on decisions that affect their lives; and, (c) improve the quality of their own lives and the

community in which they live. An overseeing function is essential to develop and manage community

initiatives with residents.

Sub components include:

Work from values that underpin a CD practice;

Create intentional engagement strategies;

Facilitate broad-based participation bringing diverse representation to the table;

Ensure democratic participatory planning, implementation and project management;

Support and facilitate group process development;

Develop and support community collaborations; and

Evaluate community change- both process and outcome.


OVERALL REQUIRED COMPETENCIES FOR CSW FRAMEWORK OF PRACTICE2

COMPETENCY Explanation

Community Development

Process & Method

Understand and apply the process of community development to the CSW

role and areas of responsibility.

Facilitation

Use skills and practices that help individuals to create a dynamic group

setting in which people collaborate to develop creative solutions and make

sound decisions.

Conflict Management

Establish positive working relationships with key neighbourhood stakeholders

(residents, agency partners, funders, formal and informal organizations etc.)

that will help proactively prevent and/or manage conflicts within

neighbourhood work.

Communication Communicating and listening in a compelling and articulate manner;

ensuring the message is clear, understood and consistent.

Analytical & Critical Thinking Understand and analyze information; critically reflect on how to best

develop methods and processes to address community needs and priorities.

Adaptability Change own behaviour and opinion in light of new information, changing

situations and/or different environments.

Creative Thinking, Problem

Solving & Risk Taking

Respond to challenges with innovative solutions by questioning conventional

measures and use intuition, experimentation / new perspectives to make

decisions that involve risk.

Organizational & External

Awareness

Understand the alignment of the CSW work within the structure and culture

of The City of Calgary as well as the local /global political, social and

economic context. Ensure this information informs and guides the work.

Networking & Partnership

Development

Seek and maintain working relationships and/or networks of contacts to

build strategic partnerships and collaborative arrangements that are

instrumental in achieving overall goals.

Strategic Planning,

Organizing & Resource

Management

Plan the best way to achieve objectives by defining tasks and setting targets

while ensuring the optimal use of resources such as financial, human,

physical and information resources.

Decision Making &

Accountability

Make informed decisions in a responsive and open manner based upon a

mixture of analysis, collaboration with others, experience and judgment.

Take responsibility for these decisions and actions.

2 The following skills, knowledge and abilities are based on an overview of key CD literature and the City of Calgary

Competency Dictionary.


COMMUNITY SOCIAL WORKER (CSW) CORE SERVICES & COMPETENCIES

Within the CSW Framework of Practice there are four Core Services and corresponding Competencies. In order

to successfully work within the framework CSWs must work across all of the four Core Services.

Core Service: Community Engagement & Participation

Engaging and supporting a broad range of community members in community building strategies

to ensure the community is always involved in deciding what needs to be done, then designing

and delivering the solution and taking ownership of the solutions. Community Engagement & Participation

I. Community Context and Assessment: Get to Know

the Community

Maintain a community presence - get to

know the community by being as present and

visible as appropriate;

Determine your own role(s) and changing

roles in the CD process;

Build relationships –support mutual reciprocity

opportunities between residents to build

relationships across the community;

Learn about the community context - the

wider social, cultural, economic and

environmental context and the subsequent

impacts on communities;

Undertake community assessments - identify

community needs, gaps, strengths and assets

utilizing multiple means and tools;

Determine community readiness.

Competencies

I. Community Context and Assessment

Community assessment processes and

methods - community mapping,

environmental scans, stakeholder

identification, community situational analysis;

Community dynamics (demographics,

economics, power structure, resources and

sustainability) ;

Relationship building strategies;

Social research knowledge & understanding.

II. Community Engagement : Build Relationships

Utilize different methods/styles of engaging

people, organizations /groups in communities

to ensure diverse representation and

participation;

Meet people where they are at, creating an

atmosphere of safety to build relationships;

Develop intentional processes to engage

residents through facilitation and multiple

engagement strategies/techniques;

Engage with people to identify what they are

concerned about and what excites/mobilizes

them;

Identify key stakeholders and resources, work

with pre-existing groups, link groups and build

networks;

Identify community leaders – formal, informal,

potential and emerging leaders;

Identify/address barriers and challenges to

engagement;

Develop strategies to engage more isolated

residents;

Support groups beyond their differences by

using proactive conflict management

strategies, problem solving and diplomacy.

II. Community Engagement

Community engagement processes and

tactics (creative tools) - using social media as

an engagement tool;

Effective meeting skills and facilitation;

Program planning;

Conflict management;

Relationship building strategies;

Community research;

Community consultation processes.


III. Facilitate Participation: Convene, Connect,

Commit

Create opportunities for people to come

together, make connections and dialogue

with each other;

Ensure diverse participation representative of

the community;

Work with people to find meaningful ways to

contribute by harnessing their strengths,

assets and motivation to get involved in their

community;

Provide opportunities for community

members to become involved with each

other in their community through collective

and participatory planning and organizing

opportunities;

Support residents to collectively identify their

interests and build their own community

agenda - start with where the community is

at;

Seek commitments from people to

participate in community activities;

Support community members to rally around

an issue that is likely to be resolved

successfully and /or shorter-term community

building projects (quick wins) as means to

building longer term participation;

Link and bring in networks - interested

community organizations, agencies,

businesses and stakeholders together with

community members;

Identify potential partners - assess their

collaborative potential, understanding of

community development and willingness to

work with community members as partners;

Support community members’ understanding

of current and emerging community

opportunities/efforts – issues that the

residents may have concerns about, issues

brought forward by other stakeholders

(internal and external to the community),

issues/initiatives in other communities;

Utilize communication skills to build strong

relationships – active listening, asking

probing questions, clarifying issues,

identifying areas of need, being open,

friendly, welcoming and encouraging.

III. Facilitate Participation

Collective / participatory planning and

organizing techniques for involving people

with different perspectives and needs;

Role clarification and adjustment;


Participatory decision making processes;

Cultural competence and techniques for

engaging diverse representation;

Assessing community readiness;

Issue identification;

Facilitation;

Effective meeting skills;

Network development;

Communication skills;

Asset development strategies and methods.


Core Service: Community Capacity Building

Providing community members with the opportunities to realize and share their assets, increase

their skills and knowledge and strengths to build capacity towards collective action. Community Capacity Building

I. Developing Human Capital & Leadership

Coordinate, nurture and support local

informal /formal leadership development

opportunities for both identified and potential

leaders. Leadership development

opportunities include but are not limited to

building skills, knowledge and abilities in:

problem solving; planning; organizing;

financial, human resources management;

collaborative relations/partnerships; and

group process skills;

Facilitate multiple paths/mechanisms for

leadership development to occur;

Facilitate collective approaches to group

dynamics;

Seek out ‘hands on’ experiential opportunities

to practice learned skills, include mutual peer

learning opportunities and build in reflective

learning;

Ensure volunteer opportunities that identify

and build on leadership strengths and

capacities.

Competencies

I. Developing Human Capital & Leadership

Coaching;

Group processes and group dynamics;

Training and facilitation;

Leadership development techniques;

Volunteer management;

Reflective learning practice techniques.

II. Determining Resource Needs

Facilitate community members to be

resources to one another;

Determine with community members

resources required for their undertaking(s)

and assist with accessing these – these may

be found within the community or external to

the community;

Advocate for resources required when

necessary;

Meet information needs of the community -

conduct needs/capacity assessments with

community residents and partners;

Assist community members to develop basic

fundraisings and resource development skills;

Provide support in the development of

presentations and grant proposals;

Connect the group with various resources,

knowledge, people and stakeholders;

Share knowledge of processes and institutions

to support residents in their planning and

organizing;

Provide various roles depending on group

needs - coordinator, broker, mobilizer,

informant around resources/information

sharing, informal leadership role, support,

organizer, networker, connecter, motivator,

educator.

II. Determining Resource Needs

Project/program planning and management;

Human resource management;

Financial management;

Resource / fund development support and

training;

Event organization support and training;

Marketing / media promotion;

Basic advocacy skill development;

Research and information management.


III. Supporting Neighbourhood Connections (Bonding

& Bridging Social Capital)

Work with residents to create deliberate

opportunities in establishing a higher level of

connectivity in the neighbourhood;

Identify/assist potential community partners

(agencies, formal/informal organizations) to

play a role in resident led initiatives;

Assist community members to identify and

establish connections to secure the support of

high-level champions and external supporters

such as members of the media, local schools,

and local businesses, and to develop

reciprocal supportive relationships with other

communities;

Identify and establish positive connections

between community members and decision-

makers, including political representatives and

public service providers;

Assist community members to form new

and/or build on existing community

associations/platforms/committees with

cooperative/participatory decision-making

structures and processes;

Work with community to develop public

relations and communications strategies;

Represent community members and advocate

effectively on their behalf to set the stage for

residents to advocate for their community.

III. Supporting Neighbourhood Connections (Bonding

& Bridging Social Capital)

Group processes, group dynamics;

Facilitation;


Media knowledge;

Public speaking and presentations;

Resident driven action planning techniques;

Communication ski lls;

Network building, relationship building and

trust building;

Collaboration & partnership development.

IV. Supporting Organizational Development

Support emerging and established groups with

organizational capacity needs;

Assist community groups with governance issues

and board development;

Provide information and support for incorporation;

Provide information on funding / fundraising skill

requirements and organizational sustainability

planning;

Coach and support organizational board and

management skill development.

IV. Supporting Organizational Development

Organizational assessments;

Board and management development;

Fundraising and sustainability planning;

Coaching;

Facilitation;

Organizational planning.


Core Service: Empowerment(Collective Efficacy) & Mobilization

Supporting and mentoring community members to create and pursue a shared community action

plan that addresses identified issue(s), articulates and identifies the steps/resources necessary to

achieve the desired result. Empowerment (Collective Efficacy) & Mobilization

I. Empowerment: Fostering and Supporting

Neighbourhood Efforts

Facilitate a process and understanding

among community members that they do

have influence and the collective power to

affect change;

Identify opportunities to support residents to

grow, build confidence and take on

leadership roles;

Work to involve community residents in

decision making that impacts them and

supports them to have a voice in issues

affecting their lives;

Support inclusive and collective CD

approaches/practice;

Provide mentoring/ coaching and support to

community groups planning community

change efforts. Allow for small tangible

outcomes and celebrate/acknowledge

often;

Promote and support effective relationships

between communities and public bodies;

Work with citizens to navigate The City of

Calgary departments as required.

Competencies

I. Empowerment

Facilitation;

Leadership development and support;

Mentoring / coaching;

Project/program management;

Community organizing approaches;

System navigation;

Inclusive practice techniques for diverse

representation.

II. Mobilization: Facilitating Community Action

Support community leaders to work together

in inclusive, mutually-supportive and

constructive ways;

Clarify/ manage expectations as well as

negotiate/ balance different ideas and

perspectives;

Promote group functioning, democratic

processes, strategic planning and facilitation;

Provide flexible leadership that leads from

behind by providing knowledge, direction

and guidance;

Develop partnership with others that will assist

in the community work;

Link and connect residents with different

systems to enhance partnership efforts

towards desired change;

Bridge and link with internal and external

stakeholders to mobilize resources – agencies,

other levels of government and/or municipal

government departments;

Assist community members to complete any

background research and documentation

required to pursue community action.

II. Mobilization

Networking;

Partnership development;

Accessing and understanding research;

Strategic planning;

Facilitation;


Marketing, promotional and communication

planning;

Democratic decision making;

Action planning.


III. Supporting Community Advocacy

Understand and use models of advocacy that

are inclusive and support the empowerment

of communities;

Inform/educate community members on how

public bodies are regulated and managed;

Encourage and support public bodies to build

effective relationships with community

residents;

Support community advocacy, community

action and change.

III. Supporting Community Advocacy

Communication skills;

Understanding and applying different types

and models of advocacy;

Community action planning;

System navigation;

Policy and legislative processes;

Relationship building;

Resident driven media engagement.


Core Service: Action & Results

Supporting and mentoring community members to implement the action plan based on the

identified need(s) and evaluate/learn from the results. Action & Results

I. Moving Planned Activities to Action

Assist and provide support to residents in the

on-going organization of the initiative;

Provide technical expertise as required for

collective action, such as a petition or letter-

writing campaigns;

Work with residents in securing

funding/resources as required;

Provide policy support – to inform/advocate

for policy and systems changes;

Support community members to effectively

implement the community development plan;

Guide residents through transitions and

leadership changes;

Identify and secure

connections/links/meetings with individuals

who are responsible for making decisions

about the identified community issue (e.g.,

elected officials, other City of Calgary

departments, other levels of government);

Utilize inclusive/ participatory techniques to

negotiate, agree, review /evaluate common

objectives and planning to achieve shared

goals;

Monitor to ensure residents are the leaders in

identifying, planning and taking action.

Competencies

I. Moving Planned Activities to Action

Participatory action research knowledge and

skills;

Project/program implementation and

management;

System navigation;

Collective action techniques;

Organizational development skills ;

Knowledge of policy and legislative

processes;

Coaching / mentoring;

Supervision/volunteer management skills ;

Communication skills/public speaking;

Resource management.

II. Evaluation & Reflection: Supporting Community

Learning From Shared Experiences

Celebrate community successes and

acknowledge residents/partners throughout

the process;

Use reflective, participatory evaluation

methods for encouraging learning from

diverse experiences, perspectives and

practice;

Monitor and report on community

improvements, thereby developing

opportunities for learning among community

members;

Share results to inform future community

actions as well as inform social, political and

other systems including other City of Calgary

departments.

II. Evaluation & Reflection

Monitoring and evaluation - methods and

practices – in particular participatory and

collective evaluation and monitoring;

Report writing, accountability reporting;

Sustainable leadership development;

Multi-media use;

Budgeting and financial reporting;

Reflective practice processes.


June 2011

Appendix

Community development is a deliberate, democratic,

developmental activity (i.e., a planned intervention)

undertaken by an existing social or geographic grouping

of people to improve their collective economic, social,

cultural, and/or environmental situation.

Community may refer to a geographical community or a

community of interest or affinity. Within Community

Development, work with communities of interest or

affinity must be undertaken within the context of

community development at the neighbourhood level.

The idea of community development has at its core the fundamental principles of social justice, defined in the Budapest Declaration: Building European Civil Society Through Community Development to include human rights, social inclusion, and equality and respect for diversity.1 “Community” may refer to a geographical community or a community of interest, identity, or affinity. Community development is premised on the assumption that “communities can be effective agents for change by influencing policies and practices that affect their quality of life, and that, when people are given the opportunity to work out their own problems, they will find solutions that will have a more lasting effect than when they are not involved in such problem-solving.”2 In its broadest sense, it is a way of strengthening democracy and civil society by ensuring that communities’ perspectives and actions are reflected in social, economic and environmental policy.3 While definitions of community development are legion, all focus on the process of bringing community members together to achieve a specific common goal, usually related to improving their quality of life. The literature is very clear that community development must be initiated and undertaken by community members.4 This is the key feature distinguishing community development from social programming approaches to community change: “Social programming approaches are organized around established institutions or service delivery systems and are controlled by the institutional or system heads. Although community members may be offered opportunities to participate on advisory councils, they generally have little control of the resources or the decision-making process.”5 Most descriptive and directional papers comment that, while some “quick wins” might be achieved through community development within a year or two, genuine, sustained development can take a decade, and for very comprehensive initiatives, sometimes even longer, depending on the pre-existing capacity of the community.6 It is also noted in the literature that, over the past several decades, the terms “community” and “community development” have been used somewhat ubiquitously, sometimes as a “spray-on additive,”7 in the context of a disparate range of activities that take place at the community level, whether or not such activities feature any sense of community ownership or reflect the core values of social justice.8

To ensure clarity of meaning and purpose within, this document combines two complementary and widely-used definitions of community development,9 as follows:

Community development is a deliberate, democratic, developmental activity (i.e., a planned intervention) undertaken by an existing social or geographic grouping of people to improve their collective economic, social, cultural, and/or environmental situation.

In addition, guided by The City of Calgary’s Social Sustainability Framework and Family Community Support Services (FCSS) 10-year priorities for investment—strong neighbourhoods and social inclusion—the focus for community development work within the Community & Social Development Program is at the neighbourhood level. In other words, work with communities of interest or affinity will be undertaken as one component of an overall, intentional process to strengthen a particular neighbourhood, ideally one with a high poverty level (26% - 39%), whether or not it has been identified by FCSS as a focus neighbourhood.

The key components of a community development process It should be stressed from the outset that there is no single, “best” community development process. Among the many thousands of articles on community development in the published and “grey” literature bases, very few conceptualize the process in precisely the same way. The terminology used to describe the components and stages often differs, and the elements of each component can vary. For example, in this document, community capacity is defined to include five dimensions, whereas some researchers include up to 12 dimensions and others categorize some aspects of capacity as stand-alone components.10 Such variations are often attributable to the ultimate objective of the community development initiative described in an article. For example, the precise types of capacities required to economically revitalize a community may differ slightly from those required to improve the physical or environmental landscape, or to improve the physical health of community members. As another example, in this document, community mobilization is preceded by several other steps, including the engagement of community members and building a strong participant base, and building the capacity of those individuals, individually and collectively, to move forward. In some of the literature, community members have or are assumed to have sufficient skills and interests to immediately mobilize for change.11 The following diagram provides a model of the community development process representing the key areas of agreement in the literature in the simplest form possible. Each of these components is described in more detail below. Readers with a keen interest in diverse and more complex models and conceptualizations of community development are encouraged to explore the bibliography at the end of this document.

Basic model of community development (updated June 26/11)

Steps 1 and 2: Engagement and participation Evaluations of community development initiatives confirm that early and sustained participation by community members is needed to bring about a sense of “ownership” among community members which is, in turn, crucial to the subsequent mobilization of members and the resolution of issues. There are several definitions of “community participation,” all of which essentially identify “a process along a continuum that enables communities to maximize their potential and progress from individual action to collective social and political change.”12 It is recognized that community participation may also be considered to be a short-term outcome along the pathway to social change.13 Community participation is also essential to and a vehicle for building community capacity, as discussed below.

Community participation is “the social process of taking part (voluntarily) in formal or informal activities, programs and/or discussions to bring about a planned change or improvement in community

life, services and/or resources.”

Bracht, 1990

Community engagement refers to members participating in a meaningful way, as an active part of doing and being in the

community. It may also include sense of belonging to the

community and a commitment to work alongside others to

achieve goals. Tamarack Institute

“People’s time and trust aren’t engaged by mere talk, no matter how friendly. The activities produce the social network, not the other way

around.” LISC

Borrowing from the literature, in this document “community participation” is defined as “the social process of taking part (voluntarily) in formal or informal activities, programs and/or discussions to bring about a planned change or improvement in community life, services and/or resources.”14 Examples of indicators of community participation include a strong participant base with broad representation (measured, for example, by the amount and duration of participation by individual members, diversity of the members participating, and so on), leadership by members of the community (rather than outside agents), and commitment from members who see themselves as stakeholders in the collective well-being of the group (degree of ownership)and the willingness of these members to participate actively in that role.15 In most communities, participation is preceded and reinforced by thoughtful efforts to engage community members, particularly in low-capacity communities that are new to the community development process. For the most part, engagement begins with community members identifying one or more issues that require redress but, in some cases, outside help is required to move community members to the point where they are able to come together to clearly identify and articulate the issues, and to set the stage for community empowerment and mobilization, as discussed below. This document borrows from the Tamarack Institute and defines “community engagement” as “members participating in a meaningful way. In some cases, it may not specifically indicate that the community member was engaged in decision-making, but that they were an active part of doing and being in the community.”16 Common early engagement strategies include involving community members in a community mapping or self-assessment process, surveying members about their needs and ideas, and organizing members to engage in small, achievable projects. While engagement strategies may necessarily include “soft” initiatives to increase members’ identification with their community or build social capital among members, which is important, research indicates that genuine engagement is spurred primarily by pursuing concrete projects. As pointed out by the U.S. Local Initiatives Support Corporation, “*t+he semantics of ‘community building’ can sometimes give the impression that the task is mostly personal, involving discussions and social gatherings in which people supposedly get to know and trust one another. In reality, comprehensive community initiatives generally ‘build community’ by pursuing concrete projects — anti-crime projects, graffiti removal, policy advocacy, retail promotion, and so on. People’s time and trust aren’t long engaged by mere talk, no matter how friendly. The activities produce the social network, not the other way around.”17

Community capacity refers to the community’s ability to

bring about desired changes. Here, capacity is defined to

include five dimensions: human capital, leadership, resources, bridging social

capital, and bonding social capital/sense of community.

Community capacity building means increasing the ability

and skills of community members to work together to meet their collective goals by strengthening each of the five

dimensions of community capacity.

The importance of “quick wins” is confirmed by research. Community members are not ready for action until they believe that change is possible.18 While it is unclear at this point whether early successes can be leveraged to generate more extensive community mobilization and policy change, they have been demonstrated to increase short-term participation and mobilization,19 along with sense of community and social capital. For example, some research has shown that community garden projects have increased sense of community, social capital, and positive social interactions in the neighbourhoods in which the gardens were located.20 Indicators of community engagement are varied and often mirror those for community participation, but may also include measures of sense of belonging and satisfaction.21

Steps 3, 4 and 5: Community capacity, empowerment, and mobilization Three inter-related components of community development, which form the foundation for taking action to achieve results, are “capacity,” “empowerment,” and “mobilization,” with “capacity” reflecting the concrete skills and abilities of community members to shape and bring about change; “empowerment” referring to community members’ collective sense of efficacy, or the belief that they can, in fact, make a difference; and “mobilization” meaning the broad scale involvement of and leadership by community members in carrying out a plan to effect change.22 It is generally agreed that the relationships among community capacity, empowerment, and mobilization can be intricate and non-linear. For example, some research has shown that increased participation is associated with increased skill development (one dimension of capacity), and increased skills are associated with increased participation, empowerment, and mobilization.23 While all three components are mutually reinforcing, some degree of capacity and empowerment are necessary preconditions of mobilization. In other words, if community members don’t have both the requisite skills and the belief that they can make a difference, they are unlikely to make the effort in the first place.24 As noted earlier, some community development models include up to 12 dimensions of community capacity, often depending on the ultimate objective of the community development initiative. For Community & Social Development Program’s purposes, community capacity is defined to include five inter-related dimensions: human capital, leadership, resources, bridging social capital, and bonding social capital/sense of community.

Mobilization describes the broad-scale involvement of

and leadership by community members in carrying out a

plan to effect change.

Empowerment describes community members’

collective sense of efficacy, or the belief that they can, in

fact, make a difference.

These dimensions are consistent with those identified by the leading researchers in the field although, here, some of the other models’ dimensions have been collapsed into one, or grouped under a different component of the community development process.25 The simplified model for the Community & Social Development Program also lends itself to more practical application and assessment within the Social Sustainability Framework and the Strong Neighbourhoods priority.

Although there is no single model for community capacity building, it generally involves equipping people with skills and competencies which they would not otherwise have, realizing existing skills and developing potential, promoting increased self-confidence, promoting people’s ability to take responsibility for identifying and meeting their own and other people’s needs, and encouraging people to become more involved in their community and the broader society.26 In very high-capacity communities, little or no capacity building is required for members to identify and address common issues: The members simply come together, take action, and solve problems swiftly, capably and repeatedly. But members of high-capacity communities are rarely wrestling with serious social issues; rather, these people already have a political voice and they make frequent use of it to ensure that their position in the social order is maintained. For these reasons, community development is most often required by communities whose members are socially excluded and who may be the least likely to have the capacity to effect change for their common good. Examples of indicators for each of the five dimensions of community capacity are as follows:27

For human capital, examples of indicators include the involvement of members with the ability to solve problems, organizational management skills, human resource management skills, and technical knowledge and skills.

For leadership, examples of indicators include the involvement of members who represent the community with “hard” leadership skills, such as resource mobilization, policy and media advocacy, and data collection and analysis, along with members with “soft” leadership skills, such as conflict resolution and group facilitation, and the ability to engage and to galvanize support from other members.

For resources, examples of indicators include community access to new funding and other supports, along with mobilization of existing resources in new ways (e.g., community members become resources to one another).

Simply defined, social capital is trust, norms, and networks

that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated

actions. (Putnam) In other words, social capital is positive, useful social ties

with others.

Bonding social capital refers tp relations within a homogeneous

group; i.e., strong ties among people who share similar

backgrounds. Bridging social capital is about connections outside one’s own

tight group, weaker connections with a broader range of people who are useful in linking people

to external assets.

For bridging social capital, examples of indicators include overlap with networks within and beyond the community, established connections with external decision makers and champions (such as bureaucrats and elected government representatives), and the ability to represent members credibly and to advocate effectively on behalf of the community in the larger political arena.

For bonding social capital and sense of community, examples include strong inter-personal ties and reciprocity among community members, community members with a high sense of connection to the community and a high level of concern for community issues.

Examples of indicators of community mobilization include the involvement of all groups of people whose interests are affected by the issue, including individuals who experience barriers to participation and individuals in leadership positions have legitimacy in the eyes of those they represent and the authority to make decisions.28 Examples of indicators of community empowerment are less consistent, as they often measure changes on the desired outcomes of the community development process: “Various empowerment outcomes can be encompassed, including political, economic, and psychological empowerment (i.e., enhanced control, influence, and capacity in one or more of these domains). Also, various levels of empowerment can be encompassed, both individual and collective.”29 That being said, increased empowerment of community members can be most simply assessed by indicators of self-efficacy (e.g., belief in success, motivation, sense of agency) and knowledge of the issues and the proposed solutions in conjunction with measures of participation (e.g., mutual support, group identity, increased collective power) in the development and implementation of efforts to effect change.30

Steps 6 and 7: Activities and results Although the activities undertaken in a community development process and the results achieved are clearly the entire point of and, therefore, the most important components of the process, they are also the most difficult to succinctly summarize, as the activities amount to execution of a clear and feasible plan to effect change and bring about a specific outcome beyond the enhancement of community capacity. That being said, generic activities that are likely to be undertaken in any process include, for example, writing or compiling background documentation on the issue, creating a written case for support for dissemination publicly or to policy makers (e.g., governments), lobbying, and public outreach and education. At the neighbourhood level, the ultimate goal of community development is to improve one or more of the components of strong neighbourhoods: social inclusion and cohesion; built and natural environment; amenities, programs, and services; and economic development. Clearly, a wide range of community development initiatives, from small to very comprehensive, could be undertaken to strengthen one or more of these four components, depending on the will and capacity of community members.

Community development process summary table

7 Steps Examples of what would be developing/happening in the community

7. Results Improvements in one or more of the measurable components of strong neighbourhoods: social inclusion; built and natural environment; amenities, programs and services; and economic development

E.g.; changes in service delivery or coordination, training, funding; changes in community conditions (economic well-being, educational opportunities, reduced racism); new or modified policies or legislation to reflect desired changes where appropriate

6. Activities/self-advocacy to effect change

Identifying the issue, summarizing the research/consultations with key leaders, reviewing the existing policies and programs

Delineating priorities, options, and alternatives for action

Setting out the agenda for change, undertaking change efforts, plan for monitoring progress and determining results

5. Mobilization Increased numbers of community members:

involved in community organizing, coalition development

organizing/attending/presenting at meetings

reaching out beyond the community, e.g., participating in or represented on community and organization boards, councils, associations (e.g., school, sport, neighbourhood), wherever support for change can be obtained

4. Empowerment (collective efficacy)

The process of gaining influence over conditions that matter to people who share neighbourhoods, workplaces, experiences, or concerns PLUS

The belief that members have the power to effect change

3. Capacity building: 5 dimensions

Human capital

Ability to solve problems

Organizational management skills

Technical knowledge and skills

Financial and human resource management

Leadership

Skills (hard)

data collection/analysis

problem solving

program planning

resource mobilization

policy and media advocacy Skills (soft)

group process, facilitation and conflict resolution skills

member engagement and support

responsive and accessible style participation from a diverse network of community participants

sharing of information and resources by participants and organizations

inclusion of formal and informal leaders and cultivate the development of new leaders

Resources

Existing assets mobilized in new ways to achieve movement in a project

Better utilization of internal and external resources

Participants become resources to each other

Improved grant applications and increased numbers from communities

Attract new money

Bridging social capital/networks/ political ties and champions

Reciprocal links/mutual help with other groups

Frequent supportive interactions

Overlap with other networks within the community

The ability to form new associations

Cooperative decision-making processes

Ability to represent members credibly and advocate effectively on their behalf in larger political arenas

Bonding social capital/ sense of community/ cohesion among members

High level of concern for community issues

Respect, generosity, and service to others

Sense of connection with the place and people

Fulfillment of needs through membership

2. Participation Strong participant base with broad representation

Commitment from members who see themselves as stakeholders in the collective well-being of the group and the willingness of these members to participate actively in that role

1. Engagement STARTING POINT A process where community members come together to identify issue(s) and determine priorities

Aligning the current CSW activities with the new CD model

Current CSW activities (the 5 “bubbles”)

Where these activities occur in the new model

1. Creating opportunities for dialogue The CSW may be called upon to create or facilitate opportunities dialogue from Step 1, Engagement to Step 4, Empowerment.

2. Community assessment and planning

The CSW may be called upon to facilitate and support community assessment and planning in Steps 1 & 2, Engagement and Participation. Note that assessment and planning can also contribute to Step 3, Capacity Building.

3. Community mobilization and planning In the new model, “community mobilization” (Step 5) is something the community does, and the CSW can support, but it is not a CSW activity per se.

“Planning” (extrapolated from above)

As a CSW activity, planning would occur with respect to identification of where and how Community & Neighbourhood Services (CNS) resources

should be directed. Otherwise, planning is something the community does from Step 1, Engagement to Step 6, Activities, and the CSW can support, but

it is not a CSW activity per say.

4. Community initiatives

CSWs may spearhead basic initiatives to kick off a CD process and lay the foundation for Step 1, Engagement and Step 2, Participation. Otherwise, community initiatives are something the community does, mostly in Step 6, Activities.

5. Advocacy

The current description of advocacy as outlined in the CNS Advocacy Policy (2009) is consistent with Step 3, Capacity building, Step 4, Empowerment, and Step 6, Activities/self-advocacy: Empowering individuals and groups is a primary strategy for working towards desired changes. CNS staff will facilitate, through the promotion of self-advocacy, citizens to empower themselves and to act on their own behalf to gain greater control, power and ownership over all aspects of their lives and environment.

ENDNOTES

1 ______. 2004. The Budapest Declaration: Building European Civil Society Through Community Development, p. 2. Cited and described in Craig,

G. 2007. “Preface: Defining Community and Its Development.” Journal of Community Practice, 15(1/2), xxiii-xxvii. 2 Lindsey, E.; Sheilds, L.; Stajduhar K. 1999. “Creating effective nursing partnerships: relating community development to participatory action

research.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(5), 1238–1245. 3 See, for example, Craig, G. 2007. “Preface: Defining Community and Its Development.” Journal of Community Practice, 15(1/2), xxiii-xxvii. 4 For good discussion on this point, see LaBonte, R. 2005. “Community, community development and the forming of authentic partnerships:

some critical reflections.” In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press). See also Shediac-Rizkallah, M.C.; Bone, L.R. 1998. “Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice, and policy.” Health Education Research, 13(1), 87-108.

5 Kibel, B.; Stein-Seroussi, A.. 1997. Effective Community Mobilization: Lessons From Experience. (Rockville, ML: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services), p. 13. The authors are summarizing the seminal work of Chavis and Florin in several papers including Florin, P.; Chavis, D.M. nd. “Community development and substance abuse prevention.” Paper prepared for unpublished report: Community Development, Community Participation, and Substance Abuse Prevention. County of Santa Clara, CA, Department of Health, Bureau of Drug Abuse Services’ Prevention Office and the work of Florin and Wandersman in Florin, P.; Wandersman, A. 1990. “An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organizations, and community development. Insights for empowerment through research.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 41-54.

6 See, for example, Torjman, S.; Leviten-Reid, E.; Cabaj, M. 2004. Who Does What in Comprehensive Community Initiatives? (Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute); Standing Conference for Community Development. 2001. Strategic Framework for Community Development. (Sheffield, UK: SCCD); Frank, F.; Smith, A. 1999. The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to Build Community Capacity. (Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada).

7 Bryson, L.; Mowbray, M. 1981. Community: The spray-on solution.” Australian Journal of Social Issues, 16(4), 255-267. Cited and described in Craig, G. 2007. “Preface: Defining Community and Its Development.” Journal of Community Practice,15(1/2), xxiii-xxvii.

8 See, for example, The Budapest Declaration: Building European Civil Society Through Community Development, 2004, p. 2. Cited and described in Craig, G. 2007. “Preface: Defining Community and Its Development.” Journal of Community Practice,15 (1/2), xxiii-xxvii.

9 Christenson, J.A.; Robinson, J.W. 1989. Community Development in Perspective. (Ames: Iowa State University Press). Cawley, R. 1984. "Exploring the dimensions of democracy in community development." Community Development. 15(1), 15-25, cited in Christenson & Robinson, both cited in Mattessich, P.W.; Monsey, B.R.; Roy, C. 1997. Community Building: What Makes it Work. A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building. (St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation), p. 57.

10 See, for example, Goodman, R.M.; et al. 1998. “Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement.” Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258–78; Raeburn J. M. 2004. Community Capacity Building and Mobilization: Current Dimensions of Community Action in Health Promotion. (Geneva: Department of Chronic Disease and Health Promotion); Restrepo; H. E. 2000. Increasing Community Capacity and Empowering Communities for Promoting Health. Technical report prepared for 5th Global Conference on Health Promotion. Mexico. All cited in Raeburn, J., et al. 2006. “Community capacity building and health promotion in a globalized world.” Health Promotion International, 21(1), 84-90. See also Aspen Institute Rural Economic Policy Program. 1996. Measuring Community Capacity Building: A Workbook for Progress IN Rural Communities. (Queenstown, MD: Aspen).

11 See, for example, Gyarmati, D.; et al. 2008. Engaging Communities in Support of Local Development. Measuring the Effects of the Community Employment Innovation Project on Communities. (Ottawa, ON: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation); MacLellan-Wright, M.F.; et al. 2007. “The development of measures of community capacity for community-based funding programs in Canada.” Health Promotion International, 22(4), 299-306; Public Health Agency of Canada, Alberta/NWT Region. 2007. Community Capacity Building Tool: A tool for planning, building and reflecting on community capacity in community based health projects. (Edmonton: PHAC); Subban, J.E. 2007. “Adult literacy education and community development.” Journal of Community Practice, 15(1), 67-90; Blunsdon, B.; Davern, M. 2007. “Measuring wellness through interdisciplinary community development.” Journal of Community Practice, 16(1), 217-238; Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2006. “Mobilizing residents for action: The role of small wins and strategic supports.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 143-152; Chaskin, R.J. 2001. “Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies form a comprehensive community initiative.” Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291-323; Midgley, J.; Livermore, M. 1998. “Social capital and local economic development: Implications for community social work practice.” Journal of Community Practice, 5(1), 29-40.

12 Israel, B.A.; et al. 1998. “Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.” Annual Review of. Public Health, 19, 173–202.

13 See, for example, Butterfoss, F.D. 2006. “Process evaluation for community participation.” Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 323-340. 14 Bracht, N. 1990. Health Promotion at the ComPrevention for munity Level. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), cited in Butterfoss, F.D. 2006. “Process

evaluation for community participation.” Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 323-340. 15 See, for example, Butterfoss, F.D. 2006. “Process evaluation for community participation.” Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 323-340;

Granner, M.L.; Sharpe, P.A.. 2004. “Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: A summary of measurement tools. Health Eduation Research, 19(5), 514–532; Granner, M.L.; Sharpe, P.A. 2003. An Inventory of Measurement Tools for Evaluating Community Coalition Characteristics and Functioning. Available at http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/CoalitionEvalInvent.pdf; Goodman, R.M. 1998. “Principles and tools for evaluating community-based prevention and health promotion programs.” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 4(2), 37-47. See also the seminal work by Rifkin in, for example, Rifkin, S.B.; Mueller, F.; Bichmann, M. 1988. “Primary health care: On measuring participation.” Social Science and Medicine, 26, 931-940.

16 Tamarack, An Institute For Community Engagement. nd. Approaches to Measuring More Community Engagement. (Toronto, ON: Tamarack Institute), p. 3.

17 Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC). 2002. The Whole Agenda: The Past and Future of Community Development. (New York, NY: LISC).

http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/CoalitionEvalInvent.pdf

18 See, for example, Chaskin, R., et al. 2001. Building Community Capacity. (New York: Aldine Degruyter). 19 Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2006. “Mobilizing residents for action: The role of small wins and strategic supports.” American Journal of

Community Psychology, 38, 143-152; Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2007. “Building an active citizenry: the role of neighborhood problems, readiness, and capacity for change.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 91-106.

20 Alaimo, K.; Reisch, T.M.; Allen, J.O. 2010. “Community gardening, neighborhood meetings, and social capital.” Journal of Community Psychology, 38(4), 497-514; Ohmer, M.L.; et al. 2009. “Community gardening and community development: Individual, social and community benefits of a community conservation program.” Journal of Community Practice, 17(4), 377-399; Glover, T.; Shinew, K.; Parry, D. 2005. “Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening.” Leisure Sciences, 27, 75–92; Glover, T. 2004. “Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners.” Leisure Sciences, 26, 143–162. For more information on community gardening in Canada, see also Wakefield, S.; et al. 2007. “Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto.” Health Promotion International, 22(2), 92–101.

21 One compilation of engagement indicators used by 12 different initiatives is provided by The Tamarack Institute in Tamarack, An Institute For Community Engagement. nd. Approaches to Measuring More Community Engagement. (Toronto, ON: Tamarack Institute).

22 See, for example, Yoo, S.; et al. 2009. “The 6-Step Model for Community Empowerment: Revisited in Public Housing Communities for Low-Income Senior Citizens.” Health Promotion Practice, 10(2), 262-275; Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2007. “Building an active citizenry: The role of neighbourhood problems, readiness, and capacity for change.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 91-106; Yoo, S.; et al. 2004. “Collaborative community empowerment: An illustration of a six-step process. Health Promotion Practice, 5(3), 256-265; Bolland, J.M., McCallum, D.M. 2002. “Neighbouring and community mobilization in high-poverty inner-city-neighbourhoods.” Urban Affairs Review, 38(1), 42-69; Chaskin, R.J. 2001. “Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies form a comprehensive community initiative.” Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291-323; Brown, L.; La Fond, A.; Mcintyre, K. 2001. Measuring Capacity Building. (Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill); Scottish Community Development Centre. nd. National Standards for Community Engagement. (Edinburgh, Scotland: Communities Scotland, Scottish Executive); Dodd. J.D.; Boyd. M.H. 2000. Capacity building: Linking community experience to public policy. (Halifax, NS: Health Canada, Population and Public Health Branch, Atlantic Regional Office); Nye, N.; Glickman, N.J. 2000. “Working together: Building capacity for community development.” Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), 163-198; Goodman R. M.; et al. 1998. “Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement.” Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258-278.

23 Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2001. “Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–61; Butterfoss, F.D.; et al. 1998. “CINCH: An urban coalition for empowerment and action.” Health Education and Behavior, 25, 213–25; Butterfoss, F.D.; Goodman, R.M.; Wandersman, A. 1996. “Community coalitions for predicting satisfaction, participation and planning.” Health Education Quarterly. 23(1), 65–79.

24 See, for example, Bolland, J.M., McCallum, D.M. 2002. “Neighbouring and community mobilization in high-poverty inner-city-neighbourhoods.” Urban Affairs Review. 38(1), 42-69.

25 See, for example, Chaskin, R.J. 2001. “Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies form a comprehensive community initiative.” Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291-323.

26 Cooper, M. 2006. Pathways to Change: Facilitating the Full Civic Engagement of Immigrants and Members of Ethnocultural Minority Groups in Canadian Society. (Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada, Alberta District and Alberta Community Development, Human Rights and Citizenship, Government of Alberta). See also Easterling, D.; Gallagher, K.; Drisko, J.;Johnson, T. 1998. Building Health by Promoting Community Capacity: Summary. (Denver, Colorado: The Colorado Trust); Labonte, R.; Laverack, G. 2001. “Capacity building in health promotion, part 1: for whom and for what purpose?” Critical Public Health, 11, 111–127; Labonte, R.; Laverack, G. 2001. “Capacity building in health promotion, part 2: Whose use and with what measurement?” Critical Public Health, 11, 129–138.

27 See, for example, Tamarack, An Institute For Community Engagement. nd. Approaches to Measuring More Community Engagement. (Toronto, ON: Tamarack Institute); Glickman, N.J. 2000. “Working together: Building capacity for community development.” Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), 163-198; Goodman R. M.; et al. 1998. “Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement.” Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258-278; Kibel, B.; Stein-Seroussi, A. 1997. Effective Community Mobilization: Lessons From Experience. (Rockville, ML: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services); Chaskin, R., et al. 2001. Building Community Capacity. (New York: Aldine Degruyter).

28 See, for example, Communities Scotland. nd. National Standards for Community Engagement. (Edinburgh, SC: Scottish Executive, Scottish Government).

29 Maton, K.I. 2008. “Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive social change.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 4-21, p. 5.

30 See, for example, Albertyn, R.M. 2005. “Increased accountability through monitoring empowerment programs.” Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 33, 31-35; Yoo, S.; et al. 2004. “Collaborative community empowerment: An illustration of a six-step process. Health Promotion Practice, 5(3), 256-265; Perkins, D.D.; Hughey, J.; Speer, P.W. 2002. “Community psychology perspectives on social capital theory and community development practice.” Journal for the Community Development Society, 33, 33–52; Canadian International Development Agency. 1997. The Why and How of Gender-sensitive Indicators: A Project-level Handbook. (Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works); Zimmerman, M. 1995. “Psychological empowerment.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5):581-599; Speer, P.; Hughey, J. 1995. “Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and power.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 729–748.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alaimo, K.; Reisch, T.M.; Allen, J.O. 2010. “Community gardening, neighborhood meetings, and social capital.” Journal of

Community Psychology, 38(4), 497-514. Albertyn, R.M. 2005. “Increased accountability through monitoring empowerment programs.” Journal of Family Ecology and

Consumer Sciences, 33, 31-35. Anderson, S.G.; Zhan, M.; Scott, J. 2006. “Developing financial management training in low-income communities.” Journal of

Community Practice, 13(4), 31-49. Andresen, M.A.; Savoie, J.; Bédard, F.; Collins, K. 2006. “Neighbourhood characteristics and the distribution of crime on the

Island of Montréal.” Crime and Justice Research Paper Series. Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85-561-MIE (007). (Ottawa, ON: Minister of Industry).

Aspen Institute Rural Economic Policy Program. 1996. Measuring Community Capacity Building: A Workbook. (Queenstown, MD: Aspen).

Atkinson, R.; Kintrea, K.; Austin, M.; Baba, Y. 2001. “Disentangling area effects: the contributions of place to household poverty.” Urban Studies, 38, 2277–2298.

Beauvais, C.; Jenson, J. 2002. Social Cohesion: Updating the State of the Research. (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks).

Bell, J.S.; et al. 2002. Reducing Health Disparities Through a Focus on Communities. (Oakland, CA: PolicyLink). Beyers, J.M.; et al. 2003. “Neighborhood structure, parenting processes, and the development of youths’ externalizing

behaviors: A multilevel analysis.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1/2), 35-53. Block, P.; McKnight, J. 2010. The Abundant Community: Awakening the Power of Families and Neighborhoods. (San Francisco,

CA: Berrett-Koehler). Blunsdon, B.; Davern, M. 2007. “Measuring wellness through interdisciplinary community development.” Journal of Community

Practice, 16(1), 217-238. Bolland, J.M., McCallum, D.M. 2002. “Neighbouring and community mobilization in high-poverty inner-city-neighbourhoods.”

Urban Affairs Review, 38(1), 42-69. Born, P. 2008. Community Conversations: Mobilizing the Ideas, Skills, and Passion of Community Organizations, Governments,

Businesses, and People. (Toronto, ON: BPS Publishing and Tamarack Institute). Boyle, M. H.; Lipman, E.L. 1998. Do Places Matter? A Multi-variate Analysis of Geographic Variations in Child Behaviour in

Canada, Paper W-98-16E. (Ottawa, ON: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada).

Bracht, N. 1990. Health Promotion at the ComPrevention for munity Level. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage), Bradford, N. 2002. Why Cities Matter: Policy Research Perspectives for Canada. (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research

Networks). Brantingham, P.J. 2007. Hot Spots of Crime in Vancouver and Their Relationship with Population Characteristics. (Ottawa, ON:

Department of Justice). Brodsky, A.; O’Campo, P.; Aronson, R. 1999. “PSOC in community context: Multi-level correlates of a measure of psychological

sense of community in low-income, urban neighbourhoods.” Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 659–679. Brown, L.; La Fond, A.; Mcintyre, K. 2001. Measuring Capacity Building. (Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina Population Center, University

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Bryson, L.; Mowbray, M. 1981. Community: The spray-on solution.” Australian Journal of Social Issues, 16(4), 255-267. Buck, N. 2001. “Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion.” Urban Studies, 38(1), 2251-2275. Buckner, J.C. 1988. “The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion.” American Journal of Community

Psychology, 16(6), 771–791. Butterfoss, F.D. 2006. “Process evaluation for community participation.” Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 323-340. Butterfoss, F.D.; et al. 1998. “CINCH: An urban coalition for empowerment and action.” Health Education and Behavior, 25,

213–25. Butterfoss, F.D.; Goodman, R.M.; Wandersman, A. 1996. “Community coalitions for predicting satisfaction, participation and

planning.” Health Education Quarterly. 23(1), 65–79. Canadian CED Network. 2002. Investing in Canada's Communities: CCEDNet's Policy Framework. (Victoria, B.C.: CCEDNet). Canadian International Development Agency. 1997. The Why and How of Gender-sensitive Indicators: A Project-level Handbook.

(Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works). Cawley, R. 1984. "Exploring the dimensions of democracy in community development." Community Development. 15(1), 15-25. Chaskin, R., et al. 2001. Building Community Capacity. (New York: Aldine Degruyter). Chaskin, R.J. 2001. “Building community capacity: A definitional framework and case studies form a comprehensive community

initiative.” Urban Affairs Review, 36(3), 291-323.

http://www.amazon.ca/Abundant-Community-Awakening-Families-Neighborhoods/dp/1605095842/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

Chavis, D.; Florin. P.; Felix, M. 1992. “Nurturing grassroots initiatives for community development: The role of enabling

systems.” In T. Mizrahi & J. Morrison (Eds.) Community Organization and Social Administration: Advances, trends, and emerging principles. (Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth).

Chavis, D.M.; Wandersman, A. 1990. “Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation and community development.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 55–77.

Christenson, J.A.; Robinson, J.W. 1989. Community Development in Perspective. (Ames: Iowa State University Press). Chung, H.L.; Steinberg, L. 2006. “Relations between neighborhood factors, parenting behaviors, peer deviance, and delinquency

among serious juvenile offenders.” Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 319-331. CMHC. n.d. Residential Intensification Studies. Built Projects. Garrison Woods, Calgary, Alberta. (Ottawa, ON: Canada Mortgage

and Housing Corporation). Coley, R.L; Kuo, F.E.; Sullivan,W.C. 1997. “Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public

housing.” Environment & Behavior, 29, 468-494. Communities Scotland. nd. National Standards for Community Engagement. (Edinburgh, SC: Scottish Executive, Scottish

Government). Community-University Institute for Social Research. 2002. Building a Caring Community: Quality of Life in Saskatoon.

(Saskatoon, SA: CommunityUniversity Institute for Social Research, University of Saskatchewan) Connor, J.A.; Kadel-Taras, S. 2003. Community Visions, Community Solutions: Grantmaking for Comprehensive Impact. (St. Paul,

MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation). Cooper, M. 2006. Pathways to Change: Facilitating the Full Civic Engagement of Immigrants and Members of Ethnocultural

Minority Groups in Canadian Society. (Department of Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada, Alberta District and Alberta Community Development, Human Rights and Citizenship, Government of Alberta).

Cooper, M.; Bartlett, D. 2005. Strong Neighbourhoods: Building the Foundation for a United Way Neighbourhood Investment Strategy. (Calgary, AB: United Way of Calgary and Area).

Craig, G. 2007. “Preface: Defining Community and Its Development.” Journal of Community Practice, 15(1/2), xxiii-xxvii. Creative City Network of Canada. nd. Building Community Identity and Pride. Available at www.creativecity.ca/news/special-

edition/05-building-community.html. Crowe, J. 2010. “Community attachment and satisfaction: The role of a community’s social network structure.” Journal of

Community Psychology, 38(5), 622-644. Cummins, S.; et al. 2005. “Neighbourhood environment and its association with self rated health: evidence from Scotland and

England.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(3), 207-213. Dahl, T.; Ceballo, R.; Huerta, M. 2010. “In the eye of the beholder: Mothers’ perceptions of poor neighbourhoods as places to

raise children.” Journal of Community Psychology, 38(4), 419-434. De-Souza-Briggs, X. 1997. “Moving up versus moving out: Neighborhood effects in housing mobility programs.” Housing Policy

Debate, 8, 195–234. Diamond, J. 2007. “Urban form, transportation, and sustainability.” Ideas That Matter, 4(1), 4-7, p. 7. Dietz, R. 2001. Estimation of Neighbourhood Effects in the Social Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review. URAI Working

Paper #00-03, Urban and Regional Analysis Initiative, Ohio State University. Dines, N.; Cattell, V.; Gesler, W.; Curtis, S. 2006. Public Spaces, Social Relations, and Well-being in East London. (York, ENG:

Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Dinh, K.T.; Bond, M.A. 2008. “The other side of acculturation: Changes among host individuals and communities to their

adaptation to immigrant populations.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 283-285. Dodd. J.D.; Boyd. M.H. 2000. Capacity building: Linking community experience to public policy. (Halifax, NS: Health Canada,

Population and Public Health Branch, Atlantic Regional Office). Dornbusch, S. M.; Ritter, L.P.; Steinberg, L. 1991. “Community influences on the relation of family status to adolescent Easterling, D.; Gallagher, K.; Drisko, J.;Johnson, T. 1998. Building Health by Promoting Community Capacity: Summary. (Denver,

Colorado: The Colorado Trust). Ellen, I.G.; Mijanovich, T.; Dillman, K.N. 2001. “Neighborhood effects on health: Exploring the links and assessing the evidence.”

Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(3-4), 391–408. Farrell, S.; Aubry, T.; Coulombe, D. 2004. “Neighborhoods and neighbors: Do they contribute to personal well-being?” Journal of

Community Psychology, 32(1), 9–25. Florin, P.; Chavis, D.M. nd. “Community development and substance abuse prevention.” Paper prepared for unpublished

report: Community Development, Community Participation, and Substance Abuse Prevention. County of Santa Clara, CA, Department of Health, Bureau of Drug Abuse Services’ Prevention Office.

Florin, P.; Wandersman, A. 1990. “An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organizations, and community development. Insights for empowerment through research.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 41-54.

Fogel, S.J.; Smith, M.T.; Williamson, A.R. 2008. “Creating new patterns of social and economic activity through planned housing environments.” Journal of Community Practice, 15(4), 97-115.

Forrest, R.; Kearns, A. 2001. “Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood.” Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143, p. 2133.

Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2006. “Mobilizing residents for action: The role of small wins and strategic supports.” American

Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 143-152. Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2007. “Building an active citizenry: the role of neighborhood problems, readiness, and capacity for

change.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 91-106. Foster-Fishman, P.G.; et al. 2001. “Building collaborative capacity in community coalitions: A review and integrative framework.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–61. Frank, F.; Smith, A. 1999. The Community Development Handbook: A Tool to Build Community Capacity. (Ottawa, ON: Minister

of Public Works and Government Services Canada). Fraser, M.W.; Galinsky, M.J. 2010. “Steps in intervention research: Designing and developing social programs.” Research on

Social Work Practice, 20(5), 459-466. Freiler, C. 2004. Why Strong Neighbourhoods Matter: Implications for Policy and Practice. (Toronto, ON: Strong

Neighbourhoods Task Force). Gittell, R., Vidal, A. 1998. Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. (Thousand Oakes, CA; Sage). Glickman, N.J. 2000. “Working together: Building capacity for community development.” Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), 163-198. Glover, T. 2004. “Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardeners.” Leisure Sciences, 26, 143–162. Glover, T.; Shinew, K.; Parry, D. 2005. “Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community

gardening.” Leisure Sciences, 27, 75–92. Goodman R. M.; et al. 1998. “Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for

measurement.” Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258-278. Goodman, R.M. 1998. “Principles and tools for evaluating community-based prevention and health promotion programs.”

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 4(2), 37-47 Goodman, R.M.; et al. 1998. “Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for

measurement.” Health Education and Behavior, 25, 258–278. Graham, K.A.; Phillips, S.D. 1998. Citizen Engagement: Lessons in Participation from Local Government. (Toronto, ON: IPAC). Granner, M.L.; Sharpe, P.A. 2003. An Inventory of Measurement Tools for Evaluating Community Coalition Characteristics and

Functioning. Available at http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/CoalitionEvalInvent.pdf. Granner, M.L.; Sharpe, P.A.. 2004. “Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: A summary of measurement

tools. Health Eduation Research, 19(5), 514–532. Grogan-Kaylor, A.; et al. 2007. “Predictors of neighborhood satisfaction.” Journal of Community Practice, 14(4), 27-50. Gutierrez, L.M.; et al. 2007. “Research for community practice.” Journal of Community Practice, 14(4), 1-4. Gyarmati, D.; et al. 2008. Engaging Communities in Support of Local Development. Measuring the Effects of the Community

Employment Innovation Project on Communities. (Ottawa, ON: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation);. Hawkins, J.D.; Shapiro, V.B.; Fagan, A.A. 2010. “Disseminating effective community prevention practices: Opportunities for

social work education.” Research on Social Work Practice, 20(5), 518-527. Hipp, J.R.; Perrin, A. 2006. “Nested loyalties: Local networks’ effect on neighbourhood and community cohesion.” Urban

Studies, 43, 2503-2524. Israel, B.A.; et al. 1998. “Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.”

Annual Review of. Public Health, 19, 173–202. Jackson, S.F.; et al. 2003. “Working with Toronto neighbourhoods toward developing indicators of community capacity.” Health

Promotion International, 18(4), 339-350. Jacobson, M. 2007. “Food matters.” Journal of Community Practice, 15(3), 37-55. Kahn, M. 2008. “Building powerful community organizations: A personal guide to creating groups that can solve problems and

change the world.” Journal of Community Practice, 16(1), 129-130. Kearns, A.; Parkinson, M. 2001. “The significance of neighbourhood.” Urban Studies, 38(12), 2103-2110, p. 2109. Kibel, B.; Stein-Seroussi, A. 1997. Effective Community Mobilization: Lessons From Experience. (Rockville, ML: Center for

Substance Abuse Prevention for Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Department of Health and Human Services).

Kim, J.; Kaplan, R. 2004. “Physical and psychological factors in sense of community.” Environment and Behaviour, 36(3), 313–340.

Kretzman, J.; McKnight, J. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. (Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research Neighbourhood Innovations Network).

Kretzmann, J.P.; McKinght, J.L. 1997. A Guide to Capacity Inventories: Mobilizing the Community Skills of Local Residents. (Chicago, IL: ACTA Publications).

LaBonte, R. 2005. “Community, community development and the forming of authentic partnerships: some critical reflections.” In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press).

Labonte, R.; Laverack, G. 2001. “Capacity building in health promotion, part 1: for whom and for what purpose?” Critical Public Health, 11, 111–127.

http://prevention.sph.sc.edu/tools/CoalitionEvalInvent.pdf

Lindsey, E.; Sheilds, L.; Stajduhar K. 1999. “Creating effective nursing partnerships: relating community development to

participatory action research.” Journal of Advanced Nursing, 29(5), 1238–1245. Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC). 2002. The Whole Agenda: The Past and Future of Community Development. (New

York, NY: LISC). MacLellan-Wright, M.F.; et al. 2007. “The development of measures of community capacity for community-based funding

programs in Canada.” Health Promotion International, 22(4), 299-306. Maloff, B., Penman, Y. 2000. Strengthening Community: Action Framework for Health and Wellness. (Calgary, AB: Calgary

Regional Health Authority). Maton, K.I. 2008 “Empowering community settings: Agents of individual development, community betterment, and positive

social change.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 4-21. Mattessich, P.W.; Monsey, B.R.; Roy, C. 1997. Community Building: What Makes it Work. A Review of Factors Influencing

Successful Community Building. (St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation). McKay, M.M.; et al. 2010. “It takes a village to deliver and test child and family-focused services.” Research on Social Work

Practice, 20(5), 476-482. McMillan, D.W.; Chavis, D.M. 1986. “Sense of community: A definition and theory.” Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. Mendez, J.L.; et al. 2009. “Parental engagement and barriers to participation in a community-based preventive intervention.”

American Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 1-14. Midgley, J.; Livermore, M. 1998. “Social capital and local economic development: implications for community social work

practice.” Journal of Community Practice, 5(1), 29-40. Month, S.B. 2001. Inclusion for All: A Canadian Roadmap to Social Cohesion. Report prepared for the Department of Justice

Canada. (Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada, Library of Parliament). Moxley, D.P.; et al. 2005. “Teaching community practice, educating community practitioners.” Journal of Community Practice,

13(1), 1-7. Nelson, G.; Lord, J.; Ochocka, J. 2003. “Shifting the paradigm in community mental health: Towards empowerment and

community.” Australian Social Work, 56(3), 287-289. Nye, N.; Glickman, N.J. 2000. “Working together: Building capacity for community development.” Housing Policy Debate, 11(1),

163-198. O’Brien Caughy, M.; Murray Nettles, S.; O’Campo, P.J. 2008. “The effect of residential neighborhood on child behavior

problems in first grade.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 39-50. Ohmer, M.L.; et al. 2009. “Community gardening and community development: Individual, social and community benefits of a

community conservation program.” Journal of Community Practice, 17(4), 377-399. Overman, H.G. 2002. “Neighbourhood effects in large and small neighbourhoods.” Urban Studies, 39(1), 117-130. Perkins, D.D.; Hughey, J.; Speer, P.W. 2002. “Community psychology perspectives on social capital theory and community

development practice.” Journal for the Community Development Society, 33, 33–52. Peters, A. 2002. “Is your community child-friendly?” Canadian Social Trends, Winter 2002, 2-5. Pinderhughes, E.E.; et al. 2001. “Parenting in context: Impact of neighborhood poverty, residential stability, public services,

social networks, and danger on parental behaviors.” Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 941-953. Power, A. 2000. “Poor areas and social exclusion.” In A. Power & W. Wilson. Social Exclusion and the Future of Cities. CASE

paper 35, London School of Economics. Public Health Agency of Canada, Alberta/NWT Region. 2007. Community Capacity Building Tool: A tool for planning, building

and reflecting on community capacity in community based health projects. (Edmonton: PHAC). Raeburn J. M. 2004. Community Capacity Building and Mobilization: Current Dimensions of Community Action in Health

Promotion. (Geneva: Department of Chronic Disease and Health Promotion). Raeburn, J.; et al. 2006. “Community capacity building and health promotion in a globalized world.” Health Promotion

International, 21(1), 84-90. Restrepo; H. E. 2000. Increasing Community Capacity and Empowering Communities for Promoting Health. Technical report

prepared for 5th Global Conference on Health Promotion. Mexico. Rifkin, S.B.; Mueller, F.; Bichmann, M. 1988. “Primary health care: On measuring participation.” Social Science and Medicine, 26,

931-940. Schroepfer, T.A.; et al. 2009. “Community readiness assessment: The scoring process revisited.” Journal of Community Practice,

17(3), 269-290. Schuller, T. 2001. “The complementary roles of human and social capital.” Isuma – Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1),

20. Scottish Community Development Centre. nd. National Standards for Community Engagement. (Edinburgh, Scotland:

Communities Scotland, Scottish Executive). Shediac-Rizkallah, M.C.; Bone, L.R. 1998. “Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual

frameworks and future directions for research, practice, and policy.” Health Education Research, 13(1), 87-108. Shelton, J. 2008. “Citizen lobbyists: Local efforts to influence public policy.” Journal of Community Practice, 16(1), 131-133.

Speer, P.; Hughey, J. 1995. “Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and power.” American Journal of

Community Psychology, 23, 729–748. Standing Conference for Community Development. 2001. Strategic Framework for Community Development. (Sheffield, UK:

SCCD). Strong Neighbourhoods Task Force. 2005. Strong Neighbourhoods – A Call to Action. (Toronto, ON: United Way of Greater

Toronto). Subban, J.E. 2007. “Adult literacy education and community development.” Journal of Community Practice, 15(1), 67-90. Sun, Y. 2002. Development of Neighbourhood Quality of Life Indicators. (Saskatoon, SA: Community-University Institute for

Social Research, University of Saskatchewan). Tamarack, An Institute For Community Engagement. nd. Approaches to Measuring More Community Engagement. (Toronto,

ON: Tamarack Institute), p. 3. Torjman, S. 1998. Community-based poverty reduction. (Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy). Torjman, S.; Leviten-Reid, E.; Cabaj, M. 2004. Who Does What in Comprehensive Community Initiatives? (Ottawa, ON: Caledon

Institute of Social Policy). Torjman, S.; Leviten-Reid, E.; Cabaj, M. 2004. Who Does What in Comprehensive Community Initiatives? (Ottawa, ON: Caledon

Institute of Social Policy). Toye, M. 2007. Social Cohesion: The Canadian Urban Context. PRB 07-56E. (Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada, Library of

Parliament). United Way of Greater Toronto and the Canadian Council on Social Development. 2004. Poverty by Postal Code: The Geography

of Neighbourhood Poverty, 1981 – 2001. (Toronto, ON: United Way of Greater Toronto). Wakefield, S.; et al. 2007. “Growing urban health: Community gardening in South-East Toronto.” Health Promotion

International, 22(2), 92–101. Wallis, A., Crocker, J., Schechter, B. 1998. “Social capital and community building: Part one.” National Civic Review, 87(3), 253-

271. Wilkins, R.; Berthelot, J-M.; Ng, E. 2002. “Trends in mortality by neighbourhood income in urban Canada, 1971 to 1996.”

Supplement to Health Reports, 13, 1-26. Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82-003. Wilkinson, D. 2007. "The multidimensionality of social cohesion: Psychological sense of community, attraction, and

neighboring." American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 214-229. Williams, A.M.; et al. 2001. “Quality of life in Saskatoon: Achieving a healthy, sustainable community.” Canadian Journal of

Urban Research, 10(2). Winkleby, M.; Cubbin, C.; Ahn, D. 2006. “Effect of cross-level interaction between individual and neighborhood socioeconomic

status on adult mortality rates.” American Journal Public Health, 96(12), 2145 – 2153. Woolcock, M. 2001. “The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes.” Isuma – Canadian Journal of

Policy Research, 2(1), 11-17. Worpole, K.; Knox, K. 2007. The Social Value of Public Places. (York, ENG: Joseph Rowntree Foundation). Yoo, S.; et al. 2004. “Collaborative community empowerment: An illustration of a six-step process. Health Promotion Practice,

5(3), 256-265. Yoo, S.; et al. 2009. “The 6-Step Model for Community Empowerment: Revisited in Public Housing Communities for Low-Income

Senior Citizens.” Health Promotion Practice, 10(2), 262-275. Zakocs, R.C.; Edwards, E.M. 2006. “What explains community coalition effectiveness? A review of the literature.” American

Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(4), 351-361. Zimmerman, M. 1995. “Psychological empowerment.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5):581-599.

community & social development program: community social ... fall 2012... · equality &...

Documents