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

Community empowerment

Community empowerment is the process by which groups of people with shared interests gain greater collective control over the decisions, resources and conditions that affect their lives.

1. What it is

Community empowerment is the process by which groups of people with shared interests gain greater collective control over the decisions, resources and conditions that affect their lives. It operates above the level of the individual: it concerns how people organise, build shared understanding, mobilise resources and exert influence on institutions (Laverack, 2006; Wallerstein, 1992). Most writers treat it as one end of a continuum that begins with personal empowerment, moves through small mutual groups and community organisations, and extends to partnerships, coalitions and social and political action (Laverack & Labonte, 2000). Individual empowerment, including psychological empowerment and empowerment practice with individual clients, is covered in E2. Community empowerment is the collective and structural expression of the same idea and is closely linked to community development (F1) and participatory development (F5).

Levels of empowerment. Zimmerman (2000) distinguished empowerment at the psychological, organisational and community levels. Psychological empowerment refers to a person’s sense of control, critical awareness and participation. Organisational empowerment refers to groups that build members’ skills (empowering organisations) and groups that influence policy and resources (empowered organisations). Community empowerment refers to communities whose members act together to improve collective life and whose organisations connect to wider decision-making. The levels are interdependent, so change at one level supports, but does not guarantee, change at another (Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995).

Julian Rappaport’s empowerment theory. Rappaport (1981) proposed empowerment as an alternative social policy goal to prevention and needs-based helping. He argued that helping models which define people as needy or at risk reinforce dependence, and that policy should increase people’s control over their own lives. Rappaport (1987) later defined empowerment as a mechanism by which people, organisations and communities gain mastery over their affairs. He stressed that empowerment is context-specific, takes different forms in different settings, and must be studied in partnership with the people concerned.

Nina Wallerstein’s health promotion approach. Wallerstein (1992) linked powerlessness to poor health and defined community empowerment as a social action process that promotes participation towards increased individual and community control, political efficacy, improved quality of community life and social justice. With Bernstein she adapted Paulo Freire’s (1970) problem-posing education to health education. Groups identify shared problems, examine their social causes through dialogue, and plan collective action (Wallerstein & Bernstein, 1988). Wallerstein’s (2006) review for the World Health Organization concluded that empowerment strategies can contribute to health outcomes, especially when they combine individual and collective change.

Laverack’s organisational domains. Glenn Laverack identified nine domains that describe the organisational aspects of community empowerment: participation, leadership, organisational structures, problem assessment, resource mobilisation, asking “why” (critical awareness), links with other people and organisations, the role of outside agents, and program management (Laverack, 2001). Laverack and Wallerstein (2001) proposed that these domains can be assessed and strengthened in planned programs. Practitioners and community members rate each domain together, agree on actions, and review progress over time. The domains translate an abstract idea into observable features of community capacity.

Power in community empowerment. Community empowerment theory assumes that power is expandable and can grow through collective action. Laverack (2006) described power-from-within (self-esteem), power-with (shared action) and power-over (control by dominant groups). Empowerment involves building power-with so that communities can challenge power-over. Solomon’s (1976) early social work account of empowerment in oppressed Black communities framed powerlessness as the product of negative valuations imposed by dominant groups.

2. Historical development

Community empowerment emerged from three overlapping sources: radical community organising, Freire’s critical pedagogy, and community psychology’s search for alternatives to deficit-based helping (Rappaport, 1981). Health promotion gave the concept a policy home after the Ottawa Charter, which called for strengthening community action. Health promotion researchers then needed ways to plan and evaluate empowerment, which led to Laverack’s domains and Wallerstein’s evaluation work (Laverack & Wallerstein, 2001).

Empowerment entered social work through Solomon (1976) and later through Gutiérrez’s (1990) work with women of colour. Community empowerment became distinct from individual empowerment as writers recognised that personal confidence without collective organisation leaves structural conditions unchanged (Rissel, 1994). In Australia, Ife (2016) places empowerment at the centre of community development, and Tsey and Every (2000) documented the Family Wellbeing program as an Aboriginal-led empowerment initiative that linked personal and community change.

3. Practical guidance

Community empowerment theory gives social workers a framework for planning, supporting and evaluating collective change.

• Start with the community’s own definition of the problem. Use dialogue, listening campaigns or Freirean problem-posing to identify issues that matter to members (Wallerstein & Bernstein, 1988).
• Assess capacity using Laverack’s domains. Work with community members to rate participation, leadership, resource mobilisation and other domains, then agree on specific actions to strengthen weaker areas (Laverack & Wallerstein, 2001).
• Build organisational structures that last. Support committees, networks and associations that can continue after funded programs end. Durable structures are a core indicator of empowered communities (Laverack, 2001).
• Encourage critical awareness. Help groups ask why problems exist and link local experience to wider social, economic and policy causes.
• Manage the outside-agent role carefully. Practitioners hold resources and institutional power. Plan to transfer control of program management to community members and make this transition explicit from the start.
• Respect self-determination for First Nations communities. Work through Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations where possible and support Aboriginal-led programs, consistent with the AASW Code of Ethics (2020).
• Evaluate empowerment as a process and an outcome. Record changes in participation, leadership and influence, alongside health or social outcomes (Wallerstein, 2006).

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Community empowerment shifts attention from individual deficits to collective capacity and structural causes. It offers a coherent value base consistent with social work’s commitment to social justice and self-determination (Ife, 2016). Laverack’s domains provide a practical, participatory tool for assessment and planning. The approach has evidence of benefit in health promotion and has been adapted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (Tsey & Every, 2000; Wallerstein, 2006).

Limitations. Empowerment is a broad and contested term that governments and agencies sometimes use to shift responsibility onto disadvantaged communities without redistributing resources (Rissel, 1994). Critics note that professionals cannot give power to communities, and empowerment programs can become a form of governance that shapes how communities act (Cruikshank, 1999). Measuring community empowerment remains difficult, and the domains approach can become a technical exercise if separated from political action. Communities are also diverse, so empowering some members can marginalise others.

Overall importance. Community empowerment is a central organising idea for macro social work, community development and health promotion. It links the personal empowerment of E2 to collective action and social change. Used with attention to power, culture and self-determination, it gives practitioners a clear direction for working with communities as partners.

5. References

• Australian Association of Social Workers. (2020). Code of ethics. AASW.
• Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Cornell University Press.
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). Herder and Herder.
• Gutiérrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35(2), 149–153.
• Ife, J. (2016). Community development in an uncertain world: Vision, analysis and practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Laverack, G. (2001). An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of community empowerment. Community Development Journal, 36(2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/36.2.134
• Laverack, G. (2006). Improving health outcomes through community empowerment: A review of the literature. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 24(1), 113–120.
• Laverack, G., & Labonte, R. (2000). A planning framework for community empowerment goals within health promotion. Health Policy and Planning, 15(3), 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/15.3.255
• Laverack, G., & Wallerstein, N. (2001). Measuring community empowerment: A fresh look at organizational domains. Health Promotion International, 16(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/16.2.179
• Perkins, D. D., & Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506982
• Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00896357
• Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(2), 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919275
• Rissel, C. (1994). Empowerment: The holy grail of health promotion? Health Promotion International, 9(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/9.1.39
• Solomon, B. B. (1976). Black empowerment: Social work in oppressed communities. Columbia University Press.
• Tsey, K., & Every, A. (2000). Evaluating Aboriginal empowerment programs: The case of Family WellBeing. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 24(5), 509–514.
• Wallerstein, N. (1992). Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: Implications for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6(3), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-6.3.197
• Wallerstein, N. (2006). What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve health? (Health Evidence Network report). WHO Regional Office for Europe.
• Wallerstein, N., & Bernstein, E. (1988). Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted to health education. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500402
• Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology (pp. 43–63). Kluwer Academic/Plenum.