Grassroots Support Organizations and Transformative Practices

Grassroots Support Organizations and Transformative Practices

1543-3706 1070-5422 WCOM Journal of Community Practice, Practice Vol. 16, No. 3, July 2008: pp. 1–27

Rafael A. Journal OfBoglio Community Martínez Practice

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

ABSTRACT. This essay theorizes grassroots support organizations (GSOs) as empowerment-oriented development nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and grassroots support as a growing field of communitybased practice. It offers a conceptual definition of GSOs; specifies their organizational features, functions, and goals; and differentiates them from other public and private intermediary organizations. It also details the activities carried out by GSOs and suggests how these cohere into a model of grassroots support. The article discusses the challenging issues of financing, accountability, and scale faced by GSOs. Finally, it establishes the relevance of social work to grassroots support and GSOs as fields of study and practice. KEYWORDS. Grassroots support, NGOs, community development, theory, organizations

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez, MA, MSW, is a PhD candidate in the Joint Doctoral Program in Social Work and Anthropology at the University of Michigan. The author would like to thank Professor Michael Reisch, Professor Barry Checkoway, and Professor Diane Kaplan Vinokur for their guidance and support throughout the writing of this essay. Address correspondence to: Rafael A. Boglio Martínez, PhD Candidate, Joint Doctoral Program in Social Work and Social Sciences, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, 1080 South University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109–1106 (E-mail: [email protected]). Journal of Community Practice, Vol. 16(3) 2008 Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com © 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved. doi:10.1080/10705420802255106

339

340

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

INTRODUCTION Over the last 50 years, the world has undergone unprecedented economic growth and social improvements. The world economy has grown sevenfold over this period; more people have access to goods and services, such as health care, clean water, and sanitation facilities; and both illiteracy and infant mortality rates have gone down (Seipel, 2003). Yet, the gains of economic growth and social development have not improved the welfare of all. Even the most cursory glance across the globe reveals the persistence of the most egregious forms of social and economic inequality. The lives of far too many people in both developed and developing countries are still beset by hunger, disease, unemployment, environmental degradation, an absence of political voice, and a crippling exposure to violence (Midgley, 1996b). The persistence of these forms of inequality stands as a strong indictment of the failure of successive paradigms of development over the last five decades: from centralized, state planning approaches to recent free-market initiatives. In response to these failures, recent development efforts have pursued an alternative model of development: participatory development. This model places greater emphasis on issues of social development and human well-being than previous models, which privileged macroeconomic policies and infrastructure work. Participatory development calls for a greater investment in people and their capacity for producing change as a way of promoting and securing the sustainability of development efforts (Daubon, 2002). It seeks to empower people to organize and influence change on the basis of their access to knowledge, political processes, and financial, social, and natural resources (Chambers, 1995; Slocum & Thomas-Slayter, 1995). Almost all of the empowerment work targets groups and/or communities, which accounts for the appeal of the concept of community and community organizing approaches in participatory development efforts. In fact, participatory development has helped reestablish the long-standing model of community development as a key feature of international development efforts. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) played a key role in spreading and implementing the ideas and models of practice that today are championed under participatory development, particularly those related to community organizing and community economic development (Arrosi et al., 1994; Chambers, 1995). To be sure, NGOs have a long history of involvement with development work, especially in social service provision such as health care, education, and humanitarian aid. Yet, over the

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

341

last three decades, a subset of NGOs has decided to move beyond social service provision and invest in initiatives that build the human and financial resources of impoverished communities. Focusing on diverse issues—from health and the environment to political mobilization and microenterprises—these NGOs share a common approach to the communities with which they work: They foster the long-term empowerment of impoverished populations by assisting them in decision making and the mobilization of resources and political power. This core approach is what defines these development NGOs as grassroots support organizations (GSOs). This term usefully captures the orientation of these NGOs toward their grassroots partners and aims to identify, for community activists, donors and development practitioners alike, those NGOs committed to a participatory model of development. Given their relevance to the popularization and implementation of participatory development, this essay seeks to theorize GSOs as empowerment-oriented development institutions and grassroots support as a growing field of community-based practice.

DEFINING GRASSROOTS SUPPORT ORGANIZATIONS The social work and social science literature use a number of other terms besides grassroots support to discuss similar kinds of organizations: “intermediary,” “bridging,” “broker,” “facilitator,” “support,” “infrastructure,” “self-reliance promoting,” and “development NGO” (Arrosi et al., 1994; Balbis, 2001; Brown, 1991; Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002; Carroll, 1992; Chavis, Florin, & Felix, 1993; Fisher, 1998; Lee, 1998; Rubin & Rubin, 2001; Sanyal, 2006; World Bank, 2006). This diversity of terms has resulted in a confusing proliferation of terminology, the development of different understandings and analysis of these organizations, and even an unintentional grouping of dissimilar organizations. Thus, there is a need for conceptual clarity in the literature in order to avoid being vague about our object of study. The term grassroots support organization is used in this essay to highlight very clearly the distinguishing characteristic of the organizations that have played a leading role under the current paradigm of participatory development: their relationship to grassroots activism. Building on this, GSOs are defined as development NGOs providing services and resources that enhance the capacity of impoverished communities and their organizations to build sustainable alternatives to their challenging life conditions. This definition captures the key features of GSOs: They are

342

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

development NGOs working with definable populations (underprivileged, impoverished), intervening at a particular level (community), by means of a specific method (grassroots support), and seeking a clear goal (sustainable development). This combination of sector, population, level of intervention, method, and goals places GSOs at the intersection of numerous fields of practice and knowledge, which explains the variety of conceptualizations and analysis available on them. Therefore, a clearer understanding of GSOs requires further specification of the multiple, intersecting features that define them.

GSOs as Development NGOs Located in the nongovernmental sector, GSOs are formal organizations independent from both the state and private sector but concerned with public interest issues relevant to those two sectors (Arrosi et al., 1994). GSOs can engage in economic activities but, as NGOs, cannot issue stock and distribute profit to individuals. They are voluntary, self-governed organizations usually managed by professional middle- and upper-class individuals who most likely are not of the same class or background as those with whom they work (Carroll, 1992; Fisher, 1998). As such, GSOs are distinct from the community-based organizations (CBOs) or the grassroots organizations they support. The latter are membership-based organizations representing the particular interests of groups or localities in which members share in the risks, costs, and benefits of social change efforts, and the leadership is accountable to its members (Arrossi et al., 1994, p. 45; Mamphiswana, 2000, p. 44). As support organizations, GSOs build progressive partnerships between professional elites and community-based actors. As development NGOs, GSOs exemplify Balbis’s (2001) distinction between charity and development NGOs, that is, the “distinction among NGOs between those that offer assistance or charity and those that offer promotion and social development” (p. 28). This distinction is one that is consistently made in the literature on GSOs in order to emphasize the significant differences in their orientation to social and economic problems and the populations affected by them and in the practices through which they engage communities in need (Balbis 2001; Carroll, 1992; Lane, 1995; Lee, 1998; World Bank, 2006). Charity NGOs, such as World Vision and Feed the Poor, play an important role in providing immediate alleviation to people in need by providing direct services and needed goods. Yet, these NGOs seek to

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

343

alleviate the symptoms of poverty or emergency situations without necessarily challenging the causes underlying such conditions. Moreover, the recipients of this aid are conceived and treated as passive recipients of relief rather than as individuals or groups in a position to carry out much needed projects of social change (Edward & Hulme, 1992; Lee, 1998). Lastly, the practice of distributing resources without reciprocity reinforces top-down approaches toward poverty relief in which external actors define both needs and solutions. By contrast, development NGOs such as GSOs, are organizations created with the awareness that the provision of relief services, while often necessary, does not promote a transformative process of economic and social development. Instead of aiming to meet temporary needs, development NGOs “aim to initiate long-term change and increase the capacity of people to meet their own needs” (Lane, 1995, p. 184). They do so by engaging in the “study, design, execution and assessment of development programmes and projects, in direct action with social groups and organizations” (Balbis, 2001, p. 28). Unlike charity NGOs, development NGOs promote inclusive processes of community participation as a means for grassroots groups to attain greater control over their own development agenda. Moreover, development NGOs assert and build on the “hidden” potential of socially and economically disadvantaged people, a potential that often expresses itself even in the midst of great resource scarcity (Arrosi et al., 1994). This potential is precisely what GSOs attempt to support and enhance through the provision of essential human and financial resources.

GSOs as Intermediary Organizations GSOs fill an important structural gap between grassroots groups and national and international aid agencies and foundations. As intermediaries, GSOs bring together constituents that, while diverse in terms of power, resources, and stakes, share an interest in solving development problems. Both the international development literature (Carroll, 1992; Lee, 1998; Sanyal, 2006; World Bank, 2006) and the U.S. social work and social science literature (Chavis et al., 1993; Vidal & Keyes 2005; W. K. Kellogg Foundation, n.d.) document how intermediaries aggregate resources from national and international contributors and distribute them to their various grassroots partners. Moreover, intermediary organizations serve as conduits of innovative ideas, negotiators of deals, and mediators of conflicts across the network they mediate (Brown, 1991).

344

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

While GSOs are definitely intermediary organizations, not all intermediaries are GSOs. The World Bank’s Participation Sourcebook (2006) recognizes that other organizations, such as line agencies, local government units, and private firms, can function as intermediaries. These public and private intermediaries differ significantly from GSOs in both their mission and goals. Public intermediaries, such as agricultural extension offices, are bound by the imperative to carry out the political goals of the particular government they serve, which could include the denial of services to specific minority groups or marginalized populations. Private intermediaries, such as international development firms, are service contractors accountable to the requirements of their funders. Their commitment to the vision and needs of their contractor inevitably aligns them with the latter’s political agenda, which might ignore or even contradict the needs and desires of local grassroots organizations. Nongovernmental intermediaries, such as GSOs, avoid the above dangers of political agendas and lack of accountability to the grassroots faced by public and private intermediaries. Moreover, the literature has identified a number of advantages of nongovernmental GSOs over public and private intermediaries. Their mission, driven commitment to marginalized and impoverished populations, allows GSOs to reach groups not represented in formal state institutions as well as those having limited visibility in the market (World Bank, 2006). Furthermore, these GSOs have been found to be more participatory and have a stronger field presence than their counterparts, making them more attuned to the needs and demands of specific communities (Carroll, 1992; Sanyal, 2006; World Bank, 2006). Nongovernmental GSOs also have been shown to have greater managerial and operation flexibility than both public and private intermediaries (Carroll, 1992; Sanyal, 2006; World Bank, 2006).

GSO Types and Organizational Structure The literature on GSOs offers no single typology of the various kinds of organizations that fall under this rubric. At a very general level, GSOs can be classified using the following categories (W. K. Kellogg, n.d.): • scope and level of operation—national, multiregional, regional, local • clientele—rural, urban, migrants, women, ethnic groups, landless workers • primary issue focus—housing, health care, civil rights, environment • primary functions—economic activities, networking, leadership training • mission/affiliation—religious, business

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

345

This general rubric offers a descriptive picture of the multiple levels, activities, populations, functions and orientations through which GSOs make an impact. Some researchers provide more analytical distinctions between GSOs and other support organizations that reveal some key organizational features of GSOs. Carroll (1992) distinguishes GSOs from membership support organizations (MSOs). Although both carry out similar grassroots support practices, they differ in their representation of and accountability to the base groups they assist. While GSOs are development NGOs servicing third parties, MSOs are extensions of base groups, such as national federations of labor unions. Thus, unlike GSOs’ professional staff, both the leadership and membership of MSOs comes from the base organizations themselves. Rubin and Rubin (2001, p. 388) created a typology of support organizations that groups GSOs into three clusters. The first cluster covers support organizations established by grassroots groups themselves and correlates somewhat to Carroll’s MSOs category: coalitions, networks, and federations of base organizations. The second cluster begins to include the kinds of organizations I have defined as GSOs in this essay: organizations created by professionals or experienced activists to service others. Most organizations in this cluster have a specialized focus. Technical assistance groups, like the Consortium for Housing and Assets Management in Illinois, offer support to community organizations in such areas as securing financing to help build homes and obtaining government permits. Training academies, such as the Center for Third World Organizing, specialize in teaching models of social action organizing that cover both philosophical approaches to and practical skills for organizing. Some academies also provide technical assistance to actual movements. The third cluster covers larger, technically sophisticated, nonprofit organizations carrying out grassroots support work. The Center for Community Change is an example of such an organization in the United States. This organization produces summaries of social policies, offers a publication on technical issues of organizing and campaigning, helps set up local direct-action and social production organizations, and offers grants and technical assistance. Some foundations that offer technical assistance to the groups they fund can also be included in this cluster of GSOs. The above typology and brief examples of support organizations show the diversity of organizational structures through which grassroots support is delivered: from grassroots networks servicing their members to

346

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

multipurpose support centers servicing many constituents. Although GSOs are certainly diverse, none of these typological distinctions is clear-cut since actual organizations overlap with various clusters.

Sustainability Through Empowerment and Participation Despite their organizational differences, GSOs are committed to the goals of sustainable development and empowerment of populations in need through capacity building and community participation. Yet, sustainability, participation, and empowerment have been articulated as goals by other development actors, including states, international organizations, and private companies. Some of these development experts have very instrumental and apolitical conceptions of sustainability and participation. Their interventions to promote sustainability merely seek to introduce efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources, which allows poor people to accomplish more with less. Likewise, citizen participation is often reduced to inputs that make externally conceived development projects cheaper and more efficient, such as using citizens’ free labor or obtaining their consent in order to legitimize external visions and models of development (Lane, 1994; Nelson & Wright, 1995). In both cases, sustainability and participation do not break away from top-down models of development, nor do they transfer control or power to communities. At best, these initiatives result in more locally sensitive projects; at worst, they satisfy bureaucratic imperatives and keep people in subordinate positions (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). GSOs’ notions and practices of sustainable development and participation stand in stark opposition to the above. For GSOs, sustainable development is an approach requiring that the achieved improvements persist without continued outside intervention (Brown, 1991). Therefore, GSOs invest in the creation and development of grassroots institutions and horizontal linkages among them that can sustain change efforts after they phase out their support. Likewise, GSOs conceive participation as a process in which marginalized groups share their knowledge during the decisionmaking process in order to enhance their control over the transformation of their social, political, and natural environment. Moreover, participation contributes to the long-term goal of community capacity building, that is, the ability to transfer the knowledge and skills learned in concrete actions to other issues and contexts (Carroll, 1992). Thus, through participation, GSOs aspire to enhance the capacity of citizens and their organizations to articulate demands and propose solutions to their problems.

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

347

The above reflects the particular vision of empowerment espoused by GSOs: “the process of assisting disadvantaged individuals and groups to gain greater control than they presently have over local and national decision-making and resources, and of their ability and right to define collective goals, make decisions and learn from experience” (Edwards & Hulme, 1992, p. 24). This notion conceives of empowerment as much more than the ability to integrate into an unequal system; it implies the ability to challenge it.

GRASSROOTS SUPPORT: TRANSFORMATIVE COMMUNITY PRACTICE GSOs do not pursue their social change goals by means of a methodless enthusiasm. On the contrary, GSOs have a theoretical understanding of social change and implement interventions that address problems at three levels: individual, organizational, and community (Carroll, 1992; W. K. Kellogg, n.d.). GSOs rely on strategies that have a long and proven track record of involving marginalized citizens in social change processes, such as models of community organizing, popular education, and networking (Castelloe, Thomas, & White, 2002; Lee, 1998). Furthermore, GSOs deliver their support in a particular manner characterized by Carroll (1992) as “sensitive guidance.” Thus, the support strategies used by GSOs, along with their mode of delivery, constitute a particular practice model called grassroots support. Castelloe et al. (2002) use the term grassroots support to name an emerging field of practice specialized in the delivery of the following services: “grassroots organizing, formal and informal leadership training, organizational capacity-building, peer to peer networking, on-site technical assistance and occasional grantmaking” (p. 28). These services are probably as old as development initiatives or social work itself. Yet, what they view as innovative is the “packaging” of these services into a particular model of assistance. Thus, grassroots support refers to the practice of delivering a comprehensive package of support services deemed essential to the enhancement of community-based, socioeconomic change efforts. This packaging of services distinguishes GSOs from other development NGOs that provide one or more support services but do not offer the comprehensive approach of grassroots support.

348

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

As a practice model, grassroots support emerged from the realization that marginalized communities often face overwhelming obstacles limiting their ability to contend with the multiple problems they face. This is not to sell people short. Marginalized communities have demonstrated great resilience, especially through social movements, and have brought about significant change against all odds. But, poverty and its multidimensional effects impose so many challenges that people in those circumstances could benefit from partnering with others committed to their cause. Moreover, as Rubin and Rubin (2001) point out, most community-based social change organizations often lack the technical and financial resources to battle big business and government. They claim grassroots support is an important and necessary intervention made by GSOs to enhance the impact of grassroots social change movements. The logic for packaging a set of grassroots support services comes from research findings that show the positive results of an integrated service offering to grassroots organizations. For example, Lee’s (1998) research found that successful urban environmental management movements in Bangkok received assistance in four main areas: building community organizations, improving their access to financial resources, training on managerial and monitoring practices, and coalition building between communities. While each of these strategies addressed key, individual problems of these movements, Lee found that their overall success was determined by the synergistic impact of the four strategies taken as a whole. Theoretical models also argue for the integration of multiple practice approaches. Castelloe et al. (2002) developed a model that integrates community organizing, popular education, and participatory development arguing that each makes specific contributions that compliment the others: Community organizing brings people together to solve problems, popular education helps develop critical consciousness, and participatory development emphasizes the belief in the capacity of people to bring about their own change. The complementarities of these three approaches help offset the limitations of each. For example, community organizing’s focus on winning in the short term is compensated by popular education’s emphasis on long-term-consciousness raising. Conversely, popular education is less effective as a tool for planning and implementing projects to address problems, something which community organizing is very adept. Thus, grassroots support models seek to integrate practices that complement each other’s strengths and counterbalance their weaknesses.

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

349

The Practices of Grassroots Support Theoretical models, case studies, and evaluations of GSOs consistently agree on a set of practices carried out by these organizations (Brown, 1991; Carroll, 1992; Castelloe et al., 2002; Chavis et al., 1993; Edward & Hulme, 1992; Lee, 1998; Rubin & Rubin, 2001; World Bank, 2006; W. K. Kellogg, n.d.). Not all GSOs provide the full set of support services, but all provide some combination of them (see Table 1). While each strategy has its own goals and means of delivery, they are all premised on and result in an investment in people and their organizations. As a package they help build and maximize existing capabilities and skills at the individual, organizational, and community level. Moreover, they address structural inequalities of resources, knowledge, and political agency. Lastly, the diversity of means through which these strategies are delivered points to the complexity underlying social justice struggles and the broad array of skills and experiences required of GSOs staff to carry out their grassroots support work (Table 1). Besides the particular package of support services offered, the manner in which the support is delivered is also extremely important. Carroll (1992, p. 12) argues this point in his definition of the term support: “The word support is meant to convey a sympathetic form of assistance close to the concept of tending, which implies not simply giving but a mutually respectful reciprocity between the supporter and the supported.” Grassroots support requires building a relationship of trust and solidarity between grassroots organizations and GSOs. Castelloe et al. (2002, pp. 25–26) go as far as defining a set of core values, attitudes, and beliefs as constitutive of their particular grassroots support model, Participatory Change: “justice,” “putting the last first,” “community control,” “listen,” “believe in people,” and “not clients, but people.” Moreover, following the precepts of participatory development, grassroots support has to be delivered in an open and flexible manner. Openness and flexibility reflect a long-term commitment to capacity building and a sensitivity to the different needs, stages of development, and time constraints of grassroots actors. Lastly, since grassroots support cannot be delivered in a cookie-cutter manner, community workers need to spend time learning about the immediate community and problems with which he or she will be working (Rubin & Rubin, 2001).

Lessons that GSOs can Learn Far from a panacea or universal remedy, both GSOs and their grassroots support practice model have been critiqued by researchers and

350

The transfer of knowledge and skills to enhance the human and organizational capacity of people and organizations.

On-site assistance addressing specific problems and fostering the effectiveness of community organizations or projects.

Redress public and private disinvestment in impoverished communities and promote\ income-generating initiatives.

Combat structural isolation from other grassroots groups and from public and private institutions.

Promote the generation and circulation of knowledge among community members and grassroots organizations.

Advocate for change on behalf of grassroots partners.

Technical Support

Financial Assistance

Networking

Information-sharing

Advocacy

Goal

Capacity building

Strategy

1. Pressure state and private sector 2. Confer credibility to cause

1. Foster horizontal links between grassroots orgs. 2. Foster vertical links with regional, national and international development org. 1. Provide key information to grassroots organizations. 2. Help research and disseminate information

1. Act as fiduciaries 2. Distribute resources to individuals or organizations

1. Expansion of knowledge base 2. Improvement of their skill sets: a. interpersonal b. managerial c. technological Assistance: 1. Financial 2. Legal 3. Managerial

Objectives

TABLE 1. Grassroots support practices

1. Provide information on political and economic resources 2. Facilitate participatory research initiatives 3. Start and circulatelocal bulletins 1. Lobbying 2. Change public opinion on issues 3. Buffer organizations from negative public perception

1. Create credit system 2. Support agricultural production and housing construction 3. Offer seed money for microenterprises 4. Establish saving programs 1. Act as bridging organizations. 2. Organize exchange visits 3. Build formal alliances/coalitions 4. Link to larger political system

1. Grant writing and loan management 2. Lawsuits, rights 3. Board development, fundraising, policy analysis

1. Grassroots mobilization 2. Leadership development 3. Organizational building and development

Means

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

351

practitioners. To begin, some GSOs have been criticized for implementing instrumental versions of participation that merely integrate marginalized communities into previously exclusionary systems without undermining the structures that cause the exclusion (Lane, 1995). GSOs need to remember that participation alone does not guarantee empowerment or social justice. Participatory initiatives that fail to engage with issues of power and become technical approaches to development that depoliticize what should be an explicitly political process will fall short of those goals. Thus, grassroots support participatory initiatives must redress the forms of stratification, such as gender, race, and class inequalities, that are the source of exclusions. GSOs also have been critiqued for investing in small-scale projects with highly localized impact and limited redistribution of power or allocation of resources (Edwards & Hulme, 1992). Other researchers note that GSOs often sustain uncritical and romantic notions of community, which leads them to assume community-wide consensus on issues or ignore sexism and prejudice against the poorest of the poor within marginalized communities (Chambers, 1995; Lee, 1998). Ironically, some GSOs have intensified existing inequalities and exclusions within these communities by promoting the participation of some community members to the exclusion of others, falling prey to internal power struggles and implementing projects that benefit only a few community members (Chavis et al., 1993; Nelson & Wright, 1995). GSOs have been charged with reproducing power inequalities with their grassroots partners by exerting undo influence over their agenda (Rubin & Rubin, 2001). This undue influence transforms support into a paternalistic assistance in which GSOs make decisions on behalf of their constituents and control the process of development (Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). Besides paternalism, grassroots support has also resulted in clientelistic practices, that is, the use of human and financial resources to establish relations of dependence between the GSOs and communities (Nelson & Wright 1995). This dependence results in GSOs not being able or willing to phase out their support, which hampers empowerment and capacity-building efforts. Furthermore, the facilitator-community relation has been analyzed as reproducing power imbalances and biases between middle- and upper-class professionals and impoverished populations (Chambers, 1995). GSOs themselves have been criticized for being dependant on external sources of funding, such as governments and international organizations (Arrosi et al., 1994; Brown & Kalegaonkar, 2002). This dependence often

352

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

limits their areas of work to the available “flavor of the month” funding. It also makes GSOs vulnerable to co-optation and control by funders (Fisher, 1998). Internally, GSOs face serious organizational challenges. Mismanagement of funds, inability of administrators to balance the demands from its multiple partners, and the lack of managerial capacity to adapt to changing socioeconomic circumstances and pressures have all hurt or caused the death of organizations (Brown, 1991; Chavis et al., 1993; Sanyal, 2006). Finally, GSOs are limited by state authority, which controls the wider political and economic framework within which GSOs work. Some states are not committed to eradicating poverty, addressing the needs of marginalized groups, or opening up space for civil society advocacy (Fisher, 1998). Moreover, states can impose legal and financial restrictions on GSOs, undermining their capacity to raise funds and operate legally among certain populations or issues.

RELEVANCE OF GRASSROOTS SUPPORT AND GSOs TO SOCIAL WORK Grassroots support and GSOs overlap significantly with certain macro approaches in social work. Like GSOs, social work has defined community practice as a critical component of its social change and empowerment aspirations (Cox, 2001; Weil & Gamble, 1995). Moreover, both GSOs and social work community practitioners work primarily with populations struggling with poverty or other forms of social exclusion: unemployment, lack of education, poor housing, absence of neighborhood infrastructure, high crime, environmental degradation, poor health, and family breakdowns (Craig, 2002; Guardiola, 1998; Seipel, 2003; Sherraden & Ninacs, 1998). Within the field of community practice, two social work approaches overlap with the work of GSOs: community development and community economic development (Cox, 2001; Midgley & Livermore, 1998; Mizrahi, 2001; Rubin & Rubin, 2001; Sherraden & Ninacs, 1998; Weil, 1996; Weil & Gamble, 1995). Like grassroots support, these social work community practices seek to develop people’s capacity to better meet their own needs through self-reliant local action. The social work literature on these community practices identifies similar objectives to those of GSOs: develop the organizing skills and abilities of citizens, make social planning more accessible to and inclusive of communities, advocate for

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

353

broad coalitions in solving community problems, infuse social planning process with a concern for social justice, and link social and economic development through the creation and regeneration of institutions that empower and improve the life chances of community residents. Thus, social work and GSOs share a direct involvement with similar populations and issues as well as similar work methods and goals.

Social Work and GSOs Decades of community practice experience have allowed social workers to accumulate a number of skills and competencies that could be translated to the work of grassroots support (Seipel, 2003; Sherraden & Ninacs, 1998; Weil, 1996). The experience of addressing problems at multiple levels gives social workers the diverse set of skills necessary to deliver such a comprehensive model as grassroots support (see Table 2). Besides practice skills, social work can also contribute its theoretical understanding of social systems and their problems, such as poverty (Craig, 2002; Mullaly, 1997; Payne, 2005), empowerment and social justice (Gutierrez, Parsons, & Cox, 1998; Reisch, 2002), models of community practice (Rothman, 1996; Weil & Gamble, 1995), the forms and goals of participation, and social and international development (Midgley, 1996a). Thus, social work’s theoretical and empirical literature

TABLE 2. Social work community-practice skills Interpersonal and Group

Community Organizing

Research & Evaluation

Work with diverse populations

Identify communities or populations in need

Resolve tensions between individuals Harmonize competing views and strategies among diverse populations Local leadership development

Facilitate goal setting by community Design organizations and strategies reflecting local realities and mores Organize, plan, and implement advocacy campaigns Create and mobilize social capital through coalition building and grassroots movements

Document and analyze community problems and needs Research community assets and opportunities Write proposals and grants

Deliver consciousness-raising workshops

Evaluate outcomes of public and private development initiatives Evaluate outcomes of community projects and campaigns

354

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

can make important contributions to the study and practice of GSOs and grassroots support. One of social work’s biggest limitations in its pursuit of social change is its reliance on the state as one of its main employers. Within the welfare state, social work is limited to implementing policies and programs that seek to integrate and adapt the population to an official vision of society. Craig (2002, p. 679) acknowledges this problem and calls for social workers to address it: Social workers should reposition themselves not as the agents of endless top-down government initiatives but as those working more explicitly with and for the excluded and deprived, that is, to find an appropriate and critical political distance from a position of being merely agents of change driven by government objectives. While Craig argues that this repositioning could occur within the state, GSOs offer social work an alternative site from which to radicalize the profession. As organizations committed to marginalized people and their causes, GSOs offer social work a committed site, distinct from the state’s imperative to govern, from which to pursue its core objectives of social change and social justice. GSOs can also push social work to make economic development a central focus of its agenda. Both Cox’s (2001) and Midgley and Livermore’s (1998) assessment of community practices found that social work’s commitment to economic development has waxed and waned over the years. Given the challenges globalization presents to a number of geographical and functional communities, social work can no longer afford to ignore the need for an economic development agenda. The high priority given by GSOs to economic development would certainly offer social work a stronger involvement with and commitment to issues of community economic development. GSOs also pose interesting challenges to social work education. In order for social workers to staff these organizations, schools of social work will have to expand their curricular offerings and develop new sets of skills and competencies. Community development or community organizing programs should offer training on current domestic and international development paradigms, specifically participatory ones. Community social workers also need both academic and practical training in the field of economic development. This training should provide knowledge on the workings of markets and finances as well as skills on

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

355

how to develop and run microenterprises, savings and credit programs, and incorporate both for-profit and nonprofit corporations. Moreover, schools of social work should focus on training capacity-builders not just professionals who are able to implement and administer programs. As part of this new focus, social work programs should require that students create a portfolio of capacity-building workshops around such topics as leadership development, organization development, coalition building, income-generating initiatives, and media campaigns. Finally, schools of social work should train administrators to manage GSOs. This training should offer coursework on the nonprofit sector as well as skills on how to manage collaborations with a wide array of partners, such as governments, private corporations, international foundations, and other nonprofit organizations. It is important to note that the relevance of these training areas extends beyond GSOs as potential sites of employment for social workers. Participatory models of change and the growth of NGOs as institutions from which poverty and marginalization is being fought—trends exemplified by GSOs—demand that social work update its academic training if the profession wishes to maintain its relevance in the field of community development. Social work can also make important contributions to GSOs by committing part of its research agenda to evaluating and making proposals to develop their organizational and practice models. Besides conducting impact and organizational evaluations, social work research can help determine what service package works best with different populations—youth, minorities, rural communities—as well as for specific initiatives— economic development projects, advocacy campaigns, etc. Social work researchers can use the wealth of experience accumulated by the profession in the field of community development to assess the intangibles associated with grassroots support work. For example, much more research is needed on the issue of “sensitive guidance,” that is, on the importance of flexibility, openness, trust, and solidarity in the success of grassroots support practices. Likewise, more research is needed on the time frame of grassroots support: After how long does support run the risk of creating dependence? When can the support be discontinued without jeopardizing the sustainability of the organizations and projects being helped? Finally, social work can fill an enormous gap in the literature on GSOs by conducting longitudinal studies of GSOs and the communities and organizations assisted by them. Longitudinal studies are extremely important since the goals of empowerment, development, and ending poverty can only be assessed over the long haul.

356

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

CONCLUSION Despite decades of concerted efforts by local and national governments and the international community, many people across the world today are still struggling with the inequalities produced by an unevenly developed world. In order to redress decades of failed efforts, grassroots support organizations have committed to a different kind of development agenda: investing in people and their capacity to produce change. They have translated this agenda into a concrete practice termed grassroots support that traded the old assistance approach for capacity building. Thus, GSOs stand as a strong critique of ineffective models of development that have failed to deliver on their promises of a more just and dignified future for people beset by poverty. The vision and work of GSOs demonstrate a serious commitment to ending inequality and promoting sustainable development. Yet, the work of GSOs needs to be accompanied by greater social, political, and economic changes if we are ever to achieve the kind of social change that will bring about the eradication of poverty and need in today’s world. The ability of GSOs to mobilize grassroots organizations and promote innovative economic enterprises depends on how receptive other sectors, like governments and the private sector, are to these initiatives. Likewise, the success of GSOs will depend on the support of professions like social work. GSOs and the models of practice they promote require a staff that is qualified and committed to the values of participation and empowerment. Thus, the success or failure of GSOs will serve as an indicator of not only their capacity as organizations to promote change, but also of the commitment by other actors to the work of grassroots empowerment.

REFERENCES Arrosi, S., Bombarolo, F., Hardoy, J. E., Mitlin, D., Coscio, L. P., & Satterwaite, D. (Eds.). (1994). Funding community initiatives. London: Earthscan Publications. Balbis, J. (2001). NGOs, governance and development in Latin America and the Caribbean. UNESCO, Management of Social Transformation (MOST), Discussion Paper No. 53. Paris: MOST Program. Brown, L. D. (1991). Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations, 44(8), 807–831. Brown, L. D., & Kalegaonkar, A. (2002). Support organizations and the evolution of the NGO sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(2), 231–258.

Rafael A. Boglio Martínez

357

Carroll, T. F. (1992). Intermediary NGOs: The supporting link in grassroots development. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Castelloe, P., Thomas, W., & White, C. (2002). Participatory change: An integrative approach to community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 10(4), 7–31. Chambers, R. (1995). Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development. In N. Nelson, & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development: Theory and practice (pp. 30–42). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Chavis, D. M., Florin, P., & Felix, M. R. J. (1993). Nurturing grassroots initiatives for community development: The role of enabling systems. In T. Mizrahi, & J. Morrison (Eds.), Community organizations and social administration: Advances, trends and emerging principles (pp. 42–68). New York: Haworth Press. Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny. London: Zed Books. Cox, E. O. (2001). Community practice issues in the 21st century: Questions and challenges for empowerment-oriented practitioners. Journal of Community Practice, 9(1), 37–55. Craig, G. (2002). Poverty, social work and social justice. British Journal of Social Work, 32(6), 669–682. Daubon, R. (2002). A grassroots view of development assistance. Grassroots Development, 23(1), 1–9. Edwards, M., & Hulme, D. (1992). Scaling-up the development impact of NGOs: Concepts and experiences. In M. Edwards, & D. Hulme (Eds.), Making a difference: NGOs and development in a changing world (pp. 13–27). London: Earthscan Publications. Fisher, J. (1998). Nongovernments: NGOs and the political development of the third world. West Hartford: Kumarian Press. Guardiola Ortiz, D. (1998). Trabajo social en Puerto Rico: ¿Asistencia, desarollo, transformación? Río Piedras: Editorial Edil. Gutiérrez, L., Parsons, R., & Cox, E. (Eds.). (1998). Empowerment in social work practice: A sourcebook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Lane, J. (1995). Non-governmental organizations and participatory development: The concept in theory versus the concept in practice. In N. Nelson, & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development: Theory and practice (pp. 181–191). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Lee, Y. S. (1998). Intermediary institutions, community organizations, and urban environmental management: The case of three Bangkok slums. World Development, 26(6), 993–1011. Mamphiswama, D. (2000). South African non-governmental organizations: Broadening options for transition to a new socioeconomic and political dispensation. Social Development Issues, 22(1), 42–49. Midgley, J. (1996a). Involving social work in economic development. International Social Work, 39(1), 13–26. Midgley, J. (1996b). Social work and economic development: Introduction. International Social Work, 39(1), 5–12. Midgley, J., & Livermore, M. (1998). Social capital and local economic development: Implications for community social work practice. Journal of Community Practice, 5(1/2), 29–40.

358

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE

Mizrahi, T. (2001). The status of community organizing in 2001: Community practice context, complexities, contradictions, and contributions. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(2), 176–189. Mullaly, B. (1997). Structural social work: Ideology, theory, and practice (2nd ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press. Nelson, N., & Wright, S. (1995). Participation and power. In N. Nelson, & S. Wright (Eds.), Power and participatory development: Theory and practice (pp. 1–18). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). Chicago: Lyceum Books. Reisch, M. (2002). Defining social justice in a socially unjust world. Families in Society: Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83(4), 343–354. Rothman, J. (1996). The interweaving of community intervention approaches, with personal preface by the author. Journal of Community Practice, 3(3/4), 69–99. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2001). The support sector. In H. J. Rubin, & I. S. Rubin (Eds.), Community organizing and development (pp. 388–405). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Sanyal, P. (2006). Capacity building through partnership: Intermediary nongovernmental organizations as local and global actors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 66–82. Seipel, M. M. O. (2003). Global poverty: No longer an untouchable problem. International Social Work, 46(2), 191–207. Sherraden, M. S., & Ninacs, W. A. (1998). Introduction: Community economic development and social work. Journal of Community Practice, 5(1/2), 1–9. Slocum, R., & Thomas-Slayter, B. (1995). Participation, empowerment and sustainable development. In R. Slocum, L. Wichhart, D. Rocheleau, & B. Thomas-Slayter (Eds.), Power, process and participation: Tools for change (pp. 3–9). London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Vidal, A. C., & Keyes, L. C. (2005). Beyond housing: Growing community development systems. Washington: Urban Institute. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (n.d.). Grassroots leadership development: A guide for grassroots leaders, support organizations and funders. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building community practice. Social Work, 41(5), 481–499. Weil, M. O., & Gamble, D. N. (1995). Community practice models. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 577–593). Washington, DC: NASW Press. World Bank. (2006). Intermediary NGOs. Retrieved October 13, 2006, from http:// www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sb0404t.htm