Augmentations to the asset-based community development model to target power systems

ABSTRACT

The asset-based community development (ABCD) approach has been criticized for neglecting external power systems’ influence on local communities. To understand ABCD’s theoretical engagement with power, this article uses a power framework from Gaventas’ PowerCube’). The analysis illuminates how ABCD engages with four specific types of power: “power with,” “power over,” “power to,” and “power within.” I then discuss the “dark side” of ABCD, namely the consequences for communities resulting from ABCD’s neglect of power systems. Drawing on anti-oppression theory and Freire’s emancipatory pedagogy, I propose augmentations to the ABCD model to resolve those shortcomings and directly target oppressive power systems. A three-part augmented model is presented that maintains consistency with the original ABCD process.

KEYWORDS:

• Community asset mapping
• public policy

Introduction: Asset-based community development

Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) developed the asset-based community development (ABCD) model in response to top-down development initiatives providing services for “needy” communities. They argued needs-based development is disempowering, destroys social capital, and fosters dependency, with potentially “devastating” consequences (p. 4). In contrast, ABCD draws on appreciative inquiry, which focuses on positivity and group success to inspire action (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). ABCD suggests if communities can recognize and mobilize their assets and strengths, they can lead themselves to a better future. As Pstross et al. (2014) articulate, ABCD positions “community members [as] the true experts on the issues that arise in the community. The ABCD researcher is charged to help (not lead) the community to together discover and amplify solutions that already exist” (p. 526).

Whereas needs-based development reinforces external practitioners’ power over local communities, ABCD aims to empower the community from the bottom-up, transforming community members from “consumers” of services to “producers” of programs and a common vision (McKnight, 1995). There is a wide variation in how ABCD is implemented. Generally, however, ABCD initiatives focus on group capacity building through participatory and collaborative processes and strengthening civil society through the mobilization of local assets and social capital (Cunningham & Mathie, 2002).

Studies have described ABCD initiatives in many contexts across the world (e.g. Dewi et al., 2018). However, despite its success, ABCD has received some significant criticism. Perhaps the most damaging criticism is that ABCD is inattentive to power (Ennis & West, 2010). Addressing power dynamics is crucial in today’s geopolitical world. Increasingly, the wealth of elites grows disproportionately to the middle and lower classes. Institutional power is accruing to corporations through unequal access to capital, while marginalized communities remain impoverished (Piketty, 2013). These power systems are inextricably linked to the problems communities face, like poverty, unequal health access, and homelessness (Phillips, 2017). To survive, communities must therefore address those power systems. Like much of the community development literature, however, ABCD does not address power (Brennan & Israel, 2008). Instead, it argues that communities can grow independently through leveraging their internal assets. Unfortunately, without attending to the sources of power causing communities’ problems, ABCD programs often do not create lasting change (Mathie et al., 2017).

This article seeks to better understand ABCD’s neglect of power dynamics and augment the ABCD model to repair those shortcomings. To analyze ABCD’s theoretical engagement with power, I apply a power framework Gaventa (2006) designed for development practitioners. My analysis illuminates the “dark side” of ABCD, namely the consequences of ABCD’s failure to consider power systems. I then propose augmentations to the ABCD process to address those shortcomings. A three-part augmented ABCD model is presented, which synthesizes the central tenets of ABCD with anti-oppression theory (Karabanow, 2004) and emancipatory pedagogy (Freire, 2000).

Analyzing ABCD through a power framework

At the center of the power typologies literature is what has become known as the “three faces” of power. The first face was conceptualized by Robert Dahl (1957), and postulates that power is exerted through observable and intentional action:

“A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.’ (pg. 202–203)

While Dahl focuses on how A coercively forces B to do something, highlighting the “productive” capacities of power, the “second face” (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962) highlights its ability to prevent adverse events from happening:

“Power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to (actions such that) B is prevented … from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set of preferences”. (p. 948)

Steven Lukes (1974), in a seminal work, added to these two more overt forms of power by conceptualizing a more “insidious” form of power:

A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants. (p. 23)

Building on this typology, Gaventa (2006) constructs a power framework specifically designed for practitioners to analyze power structures. He combines four closely related definitions of power – power over, power to, power with, and power within – into the framework. “Power over” is a finite resource that people, institutions, or ideologies use to dominate and oppress others. “Power to” refers to the agency of people to act, and “realize their rights, citizenship, and political voice” (p. 24). “Power with” refers to cooperative power that is realized through relationships. Finally, “power within” is the power associated with self-confidence and personal capacity. Gaventa claims that “transformative, fundamental change happens … when social movements or social actors are able to work effectively across each of the dimensions simultaneously” (pg. 30).

How does ABCD engage with power through this framework? Clearly, ABCD initiatives are likely to create “power with” in communities. ABCD strongly emphasizes social capital, mobilization of local associations, community vision development, and collective action, all of which add to “power with.” However, ABCD does not target other types of power effectively. Firstly, ABCD prioritizes “power with” over “power within.” That is, ABCD prioritizes capacity building at the group level rather than within individuals, arguing “communities must drive the development process” (Mathie & Cunningham, 2003, p. 482). While spillovers might occur from people recognizing their skills and talents or finding confidence in a shared vision, those processes are primarily intended to inspire collective action, not “power within.”

Secondly, ABCD does not promote externally focused “power to.” While ABCD does promote collective agency, it is aimed at internal action rather than political direct action. As I will describe in this paper, communities must take direct action to tackle the power systems that cause their suffering. A notable example of this is the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU). VANDU has organized campaigns and actions which have forced decision-makers to offer vital services for Vancouver’s poorest community (Lupick, 2018).

Relatedly, ABCD does not attempt to directly combat external sources of “power over” the community. Instead, it focuses on internal community empowerment (Pstross et al., 2014). ABCD’s neglect of external sources of “power over” is highly problematic and can compromise the efficacy of development initiatives (Christensen & Levinson, 2003). This point is significant and is therefore the focus of the following section. I also discuss the implications of this shortcoming, as well as other perverse consequences stemming from ABCD’s inattention to power dynamics.

Dark side of ABCD

Part 1: ABCD’s neglect of external power structures

It is widely accepted that external power systems cause many local community problems. Amartya Sen (1988), for instance, describes how famine and poverty are partly a result of dominant power structures devaluing oppressed peoples’ rights. Similarly, research shows stigmatization of marginalized communities is a “fundamental cause” of their poor health outcomes (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2013).

ABCD imagines that personal capabilities and local assets can autonomously drive communities’ development. This “hyper-local” focus, however, neglects the fundamental causes of community problems (MacLeod & Emejulu, 2014, p. 435). Fursova (2018) strongly criticizes ABCD, arguing it is “consistent with the neoliberal practice of individualizing societal problems while hoisting the responsibility for dealing with these issues to the community … shortcomings are presented as key targets for capacity building while systemic inequalities and structural causes … are downplayed if not dismissed” (p. 126). Fisher and DeFilippis (2015) agree ABCD exaggerates community capabilities and removes the community from the surrounding neoliberal political system.

When external power systems are ignored, ABCD initiatives often reinforce those systems. Capitalist power structures prevail, and local assets and capacities become commodities that community developers can exploit. Meanwhile, the actual sources of communities’ problems are neglected (Fursova, 2018). Freire (2000) called such intervention “false charity,” where dominant power holders ostensibly give generously but fail to address the oppressive systems responsible for the community’s suffering. Instead, their generosity “is nourished by death, despair, and poverty” (p. 44).

ABCD initiatives can also perpetuate external power systems’ narratives about communities. For example, Jewell (2016) advocates for ABCD to specifically help “the homeless” (p. 3). The study investigated a charity addressing homelessness through ABCD. However, throughout the study people are labeled as “homeless” which is a needs-based construct (Parsell, 2011). People can only experience homelessness; defining them as “homeless” creates what Farrugia (2011) calls a “symbolic burden” that marginalizes them further. Therefore, despite the potential usefulness of ABCD in Jewell’s study, its language perpetuates the needs-based systems it ostensibly seeks to eliminate. ABCD initiatives generally must avoid unintentionally harming communities through oppressive narratives.

Part 2: ABCD’s neglect of “power within” and internal power dynamics

If ABCD fails to address those narratives it can also damage “power within” if community members remain unaware of their oppressive influence. Through what Freire (2000) called the “doctrine of personal culpability,” marginalized people are likely to perceive themselves as personally responsible for their social position and believe it reflects their self-worth (Farrugia, 2011). Consequently, ABCD’s neglect of “power over” can also negatively impact community members’ “power within.” Evidence shows people who identify with deficiency-based categories consistently have low self-esteem and blame themselves for their social position (Bryant-Davis & Tummala-Narra, 2017; Chalk, 2016).

Beyond undermining “power within,” failing to inform community members of dominant doctrines can significantly undermine the ABCD process’s integrity. If community members are not aware of those narratives and escape their influence, the ideology may still inform their behavior and goals. For example, people deemed “mentally ill” often believe they need psychiatric medication, which is the prescription of needs-based ideology (Masterson & Owen, 2006). Similarly, studies show “homeless people” frequently report housing as a primary personal goal (Laan et al., 2017).

While these services are not always harmful, the doctrines’ influence prevents community members from truly redefining themselves and identifying their own best course of action. The doctrines have what Lukes (1974) famously described as “power over” the community’s own beliefs and preferences. When such insidious external control exists, even community-driven solutions may reinforce oppressive power structures. Although measuring this type of power is difficult, evidence supports these ideas. Mead (1991) and Auerbach (1993) found marginalized people frequently make choices and set goals that reinforce the status quo. Others agree that “without challenging the dominant discourse … all other forms of empowerment will bring limited results” (Masterson & Owen, 2006, p. 29).

Figure 1 illustrates how external power systems corrupt the ABCD process. I have included several examples of power structures such as poverty and neoliberalism and the arrows illustrate the resulting oppression. While ABCD imagines that community development can operate independently, external power systems’ oppression is too pervasive and inevitably infiltrates the ABCD process. Although a naïve observer may observe improvements from an ABCD program, the external systems insidiously continue to damage community outcomes.

Figure 1. The Original ABCD Model and External Power Systems.

An additional problem is that ABCD initiatives do not acknowledge internal power dynamics within the community. This can lead to disproportionately powerful groups within the community manipulating the ABCD process to serve their own interest. (Kramer et al., 2012). As Weber describes in his Theory of Community, dominant communities target “negatively privileged status groups” which results in oppression and occludes equal opportunity (Neuwirth, 1969). Indeed, powerful groups’ manipulation of collaborative processes is well-documented (e.g. Brisbois & de Loë, 2017).

In response to these criticisms, Mathie et al. (2017) argue through case studies that some ABCD initiatives do change power dynamics. Yet, because ABCD does not give explicit attention to power, these results cannot be guaranteed. Fursova (2018) describes an example of an ABCD program that insufficiently targeted power and argues “if [community developers] help people to adapt to … the system as it is without challenging or questioning it, community development contributes to maintaining hegemonic power relations contrary to the claims of enhancing democracy” (p. 128). De Beer (2013) also describes an ABCD initiative in a rural context that failed because it lacked broader institutional change. Even Mathie et al. (2017) acknowledge that many ABCD initiatives are primarily “feel-good” initiatives, that “do little to change the circumstances of people’s lives or challenge top-down service-delivery models” (p. 4). Generally, place-based development experts agree development must involve a “dual strategy” that combats oppressive power systems in addition to community-level solutions (Hopkins & Ferris, 2015).

Clearly, the ABCD approach should be improved to account for and combat oppressive power systems. The next section describes augmentations to the ABCD model I selected to target power. The model includes additional strategies that target internal and external power structures while retaining the original ABCD process’s key tenets. Freire’s (2000) emancipatory pedagogy and anti-oppression organizational theory (Karabanow, 2004) inform the augmentations. Emancipatory pedagogy was selected because it directly addresses ABCD’s shortcomings with regards to “power over” and “power to.” Moreover, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (2000) has been used to inform anti-oppression activism across the world (Nouri & Sajjadi, 2014). Similarly, anti-oppression theory was selected because its original application in social work empowers clients to fight oppressive power systems (Barnoff & Moffatt, 2007, p. 57). Like ABCD, anti-oppression theory spurs practitioners to focus on community members’ strengths rather than deficiencies. In addition to its application in clinical practice, anti-oppression theory has increasingly been applied at an organizational level (Karabanow, 2004).

Emancipatory pedagogy and anti-oppression theory both focus on educational processes to create a critical consciousness amongst community members of oppressive power structures. Additionally, they both emphasize community members leading their development process and collectively fighting power systems through organized nonviolent action. Through synthesizing ABCD with anti-oppression theory and emancipatory pedagogy, the augmentations should theoretically enable communities to strengthen their local assets and capabilities while simultaneously destroying oppressive external power structures.

Augmenting the ABCD Model to target power

Part 1: Disindoctrination

As discussed, ABCD’s failure to inform communities of the dominant doctrines that oppress them significantly undermines its efficacy. Therefore, I propose ABCD begin with educators and community developers facilitating a participatory education process aiming to “disindoctrinate” community members (Grossi, 1981) from oppressive narratives.

Disindoctrination is a core tenet of both emancipatory pedagogy and anti-oppression organizational theory. The aim is to help marginalized community members understand that external forces contribute to their social position and encourage them to analyze how dominant power structures can be changed. This is what Freire (2000) described as a “critical consciousness,” where community members can “perceive social, political, and economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 19). This necessarily involves community members identifying oppressive power structures and understanding how local problems result from them (Young, 2018). Similarly, anti-oppression theory promotes such critical thinking amongst community members to understand that power systems have caused the problems the community faces (Karabanow, 2003).

The objective of this disindoctrination process according to Freire is “complete emancipation,” which is achieved when oppressed people understand and take ownership of their situation (2000). Likewise, anti-oppression organizations aim to create a “symbolic space,” where people are not defined based on their needs but treated as humans and able to develop strengths and new identities (Karabanow, 2004). Disindoctrinated community members can then lead others through the same process, resulting in a cyclical process of increasing emancipation (Young, 2018). Evidence shows this sort of educational process can allow people to escape their “symbolic burden” (Farrugia, 2011), see the systemic sources of their oppression, and break free (Hall, 1992).

Part 2: Local ABCD in an Anti-Oppression Organizational Framework

The second part of the augmented model is asset-based development essentially as Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) originally described. It is the component that focuses on strengthening local assets and personal capabilities, rather than needs-based intervention. However, the original ABCD model failed to recognize internal power imbalances. It is widely accepted that disproportionately powerful community members are likely to exploit collaborative processes such as ABCD for their own gain (MacLeod & Emejulu, 2014). Consequently, less powerful groups are likely to remain marginalized and disempowered. Therefore, I present a revised set of steps to Kretzmann’s and McKnight (1993, p. 345) that accounts for internal power imbalances:

Part 1: Create the anti-oppression organizational framework

1. Organize community developers to structure an anti-oppression framework to facilitate the process. Ensure developers promote awareness around effective leadership structures, internal power dynamics, and citizen-led decision-making.

2. Organize previously “disindoctrinated” locals (see part 1) to lead the process.

3. Identify and combat internal power imbalances and empower internally oppressed groups.

Part 2: Facilitate local ABCD

1. Create an “Asset Map” describing, linking, and mobilizing the assets and capacities of community members, associations, and local institutions.

2. Hold community-wide meetings to develop a shared community vision and goals, as well as to self-evaluate progress and redesign initiatives.

3. Leverage activities, investments, and resources from outside the community to support asset-based, locally defined development.

Karabanow (2004) provides guidelines for step one, i.e. implementing an anti-oppression organizational framework. Anti-oppression organizations should define the problem structurally and from the community’s perspective, focus on human capital development, and ensure community members are all actively participating. Practitioners must also always be aware of internal power dynamics, including those between them and community members. Community developers’ role in this process is to maintain a supportive organizational structure, rather than to directly manage community members’ behavior (Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005).

Step three involves identifying and tackling internal power imbalances in addition to the external power structures the rest of the augmented model targets. Within marginalized communities, disproportionately powerful groups can corrupt collaborative processes (De Vente et al., 2016). BIPOC perspectives, for example, may be underrepresented or unrecognized. Community leaders must strive to recognize these power imbalances and implement processes to empower marginalized groups. Purdy (2012) suggests distributing control over decision-making equally between different groups. Asking the question “who is not here” at the onset of group processes and addressing underrepresentation is another effective strategy (Lorimer, 2013). Importantly, group leaders must remain aware of these power imbalances and continually strive to rectify them through intervention and critical thinking.

Step five highlights the need for ABCD initiatives to set goals and self-evaluate. Unfortunately, evaluation in ABCD projects is rare (Komro et al., 2016). One effective method of evaluation comes from the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF; Boyte, 2010). The IAF recommends collective self-evaluation after major events. The process involves “rounds” where each participant shares positive and negative feedback. The inclusive nature of the evaluation process encourages internally marginalized groups to participate. Finally, the immediacy of the evaluation after events helps community members learn quickly from their mistakes and take ownership of future changes that are needed.

Part 3: Organized direct action

Following the six-step internal asset-mapping process in part 2, the community must turn its attention outwards. As discussed, the original ABCD model imagines that communities can create internal transformative change independently of the power systems around them. However, those power systems often are the fundamental cause of the problems communities face. Instead, the community must tackle those oppressive systems directly and intentionally. This final component of the augmented ABCD model is nonviolent direct action campaigns. Like the other components, emancipatory pedagogy and anti-oppression theory support direct action as a critical component of creating change. Freire (2000) articulates that the oppressed must engage in praxis, the “action and reflection of men and women upon their world in order to transform it” (p. 79). Complete emancipation cannot be achieved without praxis, according to Freire. Moreover, this action must be completed in an organized collective. “No one liberated himself by his own efforts alone, neither is he liberated by others” (Freire, 2000, p. 66).

Similarly, anti-oppression organizational theory emphasizes mobilization of marginalized communities to engage in direct action campaigns. Nonviolent direct action campaigns have been a critical method for changing negative power systems over the past century (Mayton & Daniel, 2001). An anti-oppression organization in Montreal, for example, mobilized “street youth” to combat oppressive systems through public demonstrations (Karabanow, 1999). In Denmark, the “Danish Drug Users Union” engages in direct action campaigns to promote its members’ rights and their “power to” influence policy. They focus on deconstructing problematic power structures and elevating their position in the social hierarchy (Anker, 2016). Through these organizations, community-based narratives can challenge and replace dominant neoliberal discourses (Griffiths et al., 2014).

Another drug users’ union, the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) provides an excellent example of direct action campaigning. VANDU is an organized group of people who use drugs in Vancouver’s poorest community, the Downtown Eastside (DTES). The DTES is well-known for its high levels of homelessness, mental illness, and addiction. VANDU has taken effective action against oppressive sources of “power over” in the past. In the early 2000s, a powerful business association lobbied successfully for a temporary moratorium on essential drug user services. In response, VANDU organized its members to storm Vancouver’s city hall carrying a large black coffin to symbolize the death the moratorium would cause. They interrupted council and demanded an end to the moratorium, which was granted.

VANDU has engaged in other actions to raise awareness about drug users’ suffering. For example, they planted thousands of wooden crosses in a park, each marked with the name of an overdose casualty. They have also conducted public protests and participated on provincial health boards. These actions have led to widespread recognition of the need for harm reduction services. In fact, VANDU was responsible for the establishment of the first safe injection site in North America, which opened in Vancouver in 2003 (Lupick, 2018).

VANDU illustrates the need for communities to take action outside their communities. Due to inadequate services, the community has been unable to overcome high levels of drug addiction. As a result, the fentanyl crisis has killed thousands of people each year (Brar et al., 2020). Yet the power to create policy solutions related to opioids lies with the federal Canadian government. Similarly, safe injection sites were only possible through funding from the provincial government (Lupick, 2018). External governments and power systems control the DTES’s livelihood. This truth is at odds with ABCD’s assumption that communities can thrive through internal development alone. Moreover, external power systems consistently favor affluent neighborhoods, businesses, and non-users. Without direct action, therefore, those systems would consistently worsen drug users’ health and livelihood. The business association’s proposed moratorium on essential drug user services is evidence of this reality. Those who are unhoused or drug-addicted are devalued, dismissed, and forgotten. Direct action is essential to resolve this problem.

As a result of external oppressive systems, marginalized populations are often exceptionally socially disorganized (Sampson & Wilson, 1995). Community developers may therefore be required to help initiate the process of self-organization. In Vancouver, Ann Livingston, a non-user, was instrumental in the formation of VANDU (Lupick, 2018). However, in keeping with ABCD, outsiders must “lead by stepping back” (Moore & Puntenney, 1999) and the community directs the process. As I outlined in this paper, the focus should be on education and empowering community members to lead their path to full emancipation. Trust between community members and practitioners is essential. The preceding components of the augmented model can help foster that trust (Karabanow, 2004).

Figure 2 shows the augmented ABCD model. The diagram is similar to Figure 1, although it includes the augmentations I described. Whereas external power structures infiltrated and corrupted the original ABCD model, the augmented model actively combats those structures. Through disindoctrination, asset-mapping in an anti-oppression framework, and direct action campaigns, the augmentations enable the community to tackle external sources of “power over” while promoting “power within” and “power to” toward collective action. Through targeting internal and external power structures, the augmented ABCD model facilitates communities’ movement toward complete emancipation.

Figure 2. Augmentations to the ABCD Model to Target External Power Systems.

Conclusion

This article aimed to analyze the ABCD model’s interaction with power, understand the implications of it neglecting specific power types, and provide augmentations to address some of those shortcomings. Gaventa’s (2006) power framework allowed me to explore ABCD’s theoretical engagement with “power with,” “power within,” “power over,” and “power to.” The analysis illuminated the extent to which ABCD neglects external and internal power dynamics. As a result of its strong focus on community empowerment, ABCD prioritizes “power with.” However, it deemphasizes “power within,” and completely neglects “power over” and “power to.” ABCD imagines that the community can transform independently of surrounding power systems. Yet those systems cause many of the community’s problems. Furthermore, ABCD does not prescribe measures to actively combat those external structures. Consequently, those systems continue to damage ABCD programs and their community members. Anti-oppression action is critical for communities to create lasting change.

In response to the need for anti-oppression measures, I proposed several augmentations to the ABCD model grounded in Freire’s (2000) emancipatory pedagogy and anti-oppression theory (Karabanow, 2004). The first augmentation was a participatory educational process called “disindoctination.” In this component, practitioners inform community members of the surrounding systems of oppression and the resulting local problems. This is what Freire called the creation of a “critical consciousness.” Disindoctrinated community members can then lead others through the rest of the augmented model.

The second augmentation remodeled asset mapping through an anti-oppression framework. I provided revised steps closely following McKnight and Kretzmann’s original steps (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993, p. 345) of asset mapping and identifying local skills and capabilities. However, because powerful community members are likely to exploit collaborative processes, I included steps to counter internal power imbalances and empower marginalized groups. The third and final augmentation was organized direct action. To combat the external power systems, community members should form organized collectives and run nonviolent direct action campaigns. Anker (2016) highlights some notable examples of vulnerable populations self-organizing and successfully advocating for themselves. Emancipatory pedagogy and anti-oppression theory both necessitate direct action as critical for communities to achieve complete emancipation and redefine their lives.

In a world where the economic elite thrive at the expense of the most vulnerable, governments and agencies must learn how to effectively support marginalized communities. While the original ABCD model shed light on those deficiencies and previously defined by deficiencies and needs, its inattention to power significantly undermines its utility. However, not all is lost for asset-based community development. This article has attempted to show how augmentations to the ABCD model can enable it to challenge power structures while continuing to promote community-led solutions. Oppressive power systems are dominant and deeply seated; however, through informing citizens of their agency, allowing all to collaborate, and promoting organized resistance through collective action, asset-based development can still enable communities to build themselves from the inside out.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).