“Mapping Community Capacity”
by McKnight & Kretzmann
The authors of this article have an
interesting approach to thinking about low-income neighborhoods and those who
live there: look for the uplifting assets instead of the draining deficiencies.
They call these assets “capacities” and insist they are the key to rejuvenating
those areas. The first step they recommend is a psychological one: don’t think
of a neighborhood in terms of being blighted, think of it as teeming with
untapped resources and possibilities. McKnight and Kretzmann see the problem as
form-follows-function: residents of these areas are thought of by others as being
dependent and needy, so they in turn come to believe it of themselves, and thereby
continue dependent behavior patterns. This is a hallmark of what the authors
call a “needs-oriented” strategy: public and private agencies provide services
to fulfill the individual’s needs and solve their problems (for now).
The person will thus become a “client” and continually seek
out these services rather than providing a solution for themselves (aka free
riders). The biggest culprits of this needs-oriented line of thinking are the
various providers of services (federal housing programs, state food stamp
programs, local aid providers) that fulfill the immediate needs of low-income
individuals but do so in such a way as to deprive these persons of an incentive
to seek a self-based solution to their problems.
McKnight and Kretzmann believe that
within each low-income community exists resources (capacities) that can allow
residents to become productive and self-providing, thereby breaking the circle
of dependency on the “system”. They think of this strategy of helping the poor
as the “capacity focused alternative” to the needs system. Drawing inspiration
from the long-used deficiency maps of low-income areas (that usually show the
problems of an area), the authors instead offer an alternative: a capacity map
showing the latent resources in the area. They then provide a template of three
groups of “building blocks” which a neighborhood can draw from to help its
residents plan to become self-sufficient. They are:
Primary Building Blocks. These are assets
that are located and controlled by the neighborhood. These building blocks
consist of individual residents and their talents, abilities, and income, local
and home-based businesses, and local neighborhood organizations (including
citizen, business, financial, cultural and religious).
Secondary Building Blocks are those
assets located within the community but controlled from elsewhere. They
include: private and non-profit organizations like colleges and social service
agencies; public institutions like public schools, police and fire departments,
libraries and parks.
The third group is Potential
Building Blocks, which are assets from outside the area being served that are
also controlled by outsiders. These building blocks include state welfare
agencies, publicly funded capital improvement projects and public databases
(the statistical information about an area, such as percentage of inhabitable
vs. uninhabitable buildings).
McKnight and Kretzmann believe that
by developing a capacities map, a neighborhood has a chance of taking control
of it’s own destiny without being tied to a circle of dependency. They see
community-based organizations as falling into two groups: grass-roots community
organizers and the more formal community action agency (as in the now-defunct
Human Development Corporation). McKnight and Kretzmann declare that these two
groups can strive to become “asset developers” in the community by creating
capacities maps and utilizing them to create a plan of action to help the
community build itself into a self-sustaining area. Finally, they believe the
asset developers should seek to interact with other areas of society and the
economic activity found there. This in turn would help to de-isolate the area
and make it more attractive to further development.
Duhigg, C., & Bradsher, K.
(2012, January 21). How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work.
New York
Times. Retrieved January 28, 2015, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
From the standpoint of the helping professions, the authors' view is very logical. As micro-level social workers, we are trained to work with clients from a Strengths-based perspective. In addition to a needs assessment, we assist clients in identifying and building upon their strengths. It stands to reason that if this approach can be done with individuals/families; it is logical for neighborhoods and communities.
ReplyDeleteThis article was a great introduction to what a strengths-based approach looks like in a community macro practice. I appreciate that they showed how communities can map out their needs in order to find what is lacking. However, I really appreciated that it is taken much further by recognizing the limitations that come with only pointing out the negatives. This approach is empowering and sends the message that the people are the agents of change that their community needs.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this strengths-based approach is extremely logical and important in the social work profession and I hope that this approach, if it has not already, begins to become the forefront of macro practice in social work. To me, the authors talk about it like it is a new approach and I would definitely advocate for organizations to adopt it as it strongly emphasizes self-determination and honors the NASW code of ethics really well. This article also seems to act as an excellent tool for future macro work and is something I'd really like to hold on to. The list of assets are really beneficial and utilization of maps seems like an effective way to help people visualize their community strengths and assets.
ReplyDeleteComment from Daniel:
ReplyDeleteIn reading the Mapping Community Capacity, I was reminded of the Pruitt-Igoe Myth as to the assets and deficiencies of that community.
The assets of the Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project were the tenants were provided with decent housing that had adequate hot and cold water facilities. There were adequate apartment rooms for large families. For the first time people in the community had indoor plumbing and did not have to go outdoors to use the toilet. Rents was based on 25% of the families income. There was sufficient heat to keep warm in the winter. This was Horizontal Community Linkage connecting units on the inside of the community.
The deficiencies of the Pruitt-Igoe Housing Project were families who received support from the State of Missouri could not have the father in the home, causing a breakup of the families. There was no voice from the tenants as to the rules and regulations that governed the housing units. All of the decisions were made by the St. Louis Housing Authority. This was an example of Vertical Community Linkage. And one day that community exploded with a rent strike.