Social work theory · Volume F: Community, Collective & Social Change

Community development theory

Community development theory explains how people who share a place, identity or concern can work together to identify their own needs, build their capacities and change the conditions that affect them.

1. What it is

Community development theory explains how people who share a place, identity or concern can work together to identify their own needs, build their capacities and change the conditions that affect them. It treats the community as both the site and the agent of change. Its central commitments are participation, self-determination, local knowledge and social justice (Ife, 2016). In social work, community development sits alongside casework and group work as one of the profession’s three classic methods, and it is the main vehicle through which practitioners address problems that individual interventions cannot resolve (Popple, 2015).

Community development theory is less a single explanatory theory than a body of principles, models and practice frameworks. Some writers emphasise consensus and the strengthening of local relationships; others emphasise conflict, power and structural change (Ledwith, 2020). The approaches below represent the main positions taught in Australian social work.

Ife’s community development. Jim Ife’s work is the most influential Australian account of community development. Ife (2016) grounds practice in two perspectives: an ecological perspective, which stresses sustainability, interdependence and the limits of growth, and a social justice and human rights perspective, which stresses equity, empowerment and challenges to structural disadvantage. From these he derives principles that include change from below, valuing local knowledge, skills and resources, the importance of process as well as outcome, and the integration of the local with the global. Ife argues that development should be led by communities themselves, with the worker acting as facilitator and ally. His later work places this within a context of uncertainty, where workers cannot rely on fixed plans and must respond to changing local and global conditions (Ife, 2016).

Kenny’s approach. Susan Kenny’s Developing Communities for the Future has been a core Australian text since its first edition in 1994. Kenny (2011) defines community development as a process of working with communities so that they can take collective control over decisions that affect them. She places strong emphasis on active citizenship, on the rights of communities to define their own problems, and on the relationship between community development and the state. Kenny examines how different ideologies (neoliberal, social democratic and radical) shape what community development is permitted to achieve, and she cautions that government funding can redirect community work towards service delivery and away from collective empowerment (Kenny, 2011).

Rothman’s three models of community intervention. Jack Rothman’s typology, first presented in 1968, distinguishes three modes of community practice (Rothman, 1996). Locality development seeks change through broad participation of local people in identifying and solving their own problems; it emphasises consensus, self-help and the building of community competence. Social planning is a technical, task-oriented process in which experts use data and rational analysis to address substantive problems such as housing or health. Social action assumes that a disadvantaged population must organise to demand changes in the distribution of power and resources; it uses advocacy, campaigning and sometimes confrontation. Rothman (1996) later stressed that the models are ideal types, and that real practice often mixes or phases them, for example moving from planning to social action when consultation fails.

Asset-based community development (Kretzmann & McKnight). Asset-based community development (ABCD) starts from the strengths and resources a community already has. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) argued that needs-based approaches cast residents as clients and deficient, and that they direct resources to outside agencies. ABCD instead maps the capacities of individuals, associations and local institutions, and then connects these assets to one another to build local initiative. Mathie and Cunningham (2003) describe ABCD as a shift from treating people as clients to recognising them as citizens and co-producers of their own development.

2. Historical development

Community development has roots in several traditions: the settlement movement, adult education, colonial development administration, and radical organising. Its theoretical identity comes from combining ideas about participation and democracy with critical analyses of power drawn from structural and emancipatory theory (Popple, 2015). It became an independent body of theory because practitioners needed frameworks that took the community as the unit of analysis and intervention. This also distinguished it from social planning carried out by government bureaucracies.

In social work, community organisation was recognised as a method by the 1950s (Ross, 1955). Rothman’s models gave the field a common language, and the radical social work movement of the 1970s reinforced the link between community work and structural change. In Australia, community development has been shaped by the work of Ife and Kenny, by local government and neighbourhood house networks, and by the self-determination demands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled organisations (Ife, 2016; Kenny, 2011).

3. Practical guidance

Community development theory supports the following practice principles.

• Begin with the community’s own definitions. Spend time listening before acting. Ask residents what they see as the problem and what they want to change, and record local knowledge alongside any formal data (Ife, 2016).
• Map assets as well as needs. Use capacity inventories to identify the skills of residents, the strengths of local associations and the resources of institutions such as schools and libraries (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).
• Choose the mode of intervention deliberately. Use Rothman’s (1996) models to decide whether a situation calls for building local relationships, technical planning or organised advocacy, and be explicit with the community about the choice.
• Value process as much as outcome. How decisions are made, who participates and who is excluded are part of the result. Inclusive process builds the confidence and skills that sustain change after the worker leaves (Ife, 2016).
• Clarify the worker’s role and accountability. Workers employed by government or funded agencies should be open about the constraints of their position and about whose interests they represent (Kenny, 2011).
• Support community control in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander settings. Work through community-controlled organisations and cultural authority structures, and respect self-determination as a right.
• Link local work to wider structures. Connect local issues to policy and structural causes so that communities are not left to manage problems produced elsewhere (Ledwith, 2020).

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Community development theory offers social work a collective, participatory and justice-oriented alternative to individualised intervention. It respects local knowledge, builds capacity that outlasts professional involvement, and aligns with the AASW Code of Ethics (2020) commitments to social justice and self-determination. Rothman’s models give practitioners a clear way to analyse options, while Ife’s principles provide a coherent value base. ABCD has been widely adopted because it reframes communities in positive and practical terms (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003).

Limitations. Consensus-based approaches can overlook conflict within communities and the unequal power of different groups. ABCD in particular has been criticised for shifting responsibility for disadvantage onto residents while governments withdraw resources; Macleod and Emejulu (2014) describe this as neoliberalism with a community face. The term “community” can romanticise local life and conceal exclusion based on class, gender, race or disability (Ledwith, 2020). Outcomes are also slow and difficult to measure, which creates tension with short-term funding cycles (Kenny, 2011).

Overall importance. Community development remains the central practice theory of macro social work in Australia. It links social work’s values to concrete methods of collective action and offers a framework for working with communities in ways that respect their autonomy. Used critically, with attention to power and structure, it gives practitioners the means to address problems at the level where they are produced and experienced.

5. References

• Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals: A practical primer for realistic radicals. Random House.
• Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of ethics.
• Ife, J. (2016). Community development in an uncertain world: Vision, analysis and practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Kenny, S. (2011). Developing communities for the future (4th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. ACTA Publications.
• Ledwith, M. (2020). Community development: A critical and radical approach (3rd ed.). Policy Press.
• Macleod, M. A., & Emejulu, A. (2014). Neoliberalism with a community face? A critical analysis of asset-based community development in Scotland. Journal of Community Practice, 22(4), 430–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.959147
• Mathie, A., & Cunningham, G. (2003). From clients to citizens: Asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development. Development in Practice, 13(5), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452032000125857
• Popple, K. (2015). Analysing community work: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
• Ross, M. G. (1955). Community organization: Theory and principles. Harper & Brothers.
• Rothman, J. (1996). The interweaving of community intervention approaches. Journal of Community Practice, 3(3–4), 69–99.