See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31109751

Using a 'domains' approach to

build community empowerment

Article in Community Development Journal · February 2005

DOI: 10.1093/cdj/bsi038 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

57 972

1 author:

Glenn Laverack
University of Southern Denmark
128 PUBLICATIONS 2,090 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related
projects:

risk communication and community engagement for health

outbreaks View project

The challenges of the art and science of health promotion View

project

All content following this page was uploaded by Glenn Laverack on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Community Development Journal Advance Access published March 11, 2005

& Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2005

All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
doi:10.1093/cdj/bsi038

Using a ‘domains’ approach to

build community empowerment
Glenn Laverack

Abstract This paper provides two case study examples of how community
empowerment can be better conceptualized, planned and applied
within a programme context by using a ‘domains’ approach. What is
new about this approach is that it does not start with a blank slate
onto which participants inscribe their own problems or needs but
provides a predetermined focus through each of nine ‘empowerment
domains’: Improves participation; Develops local leadership; Increases
problem assessment capacities; Enhances the ability to ‘ask why’;
Builds empowering organizational structures; Improves resource
mobilization; Strengthens links to other organizations and people;
Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents; and Increases
control over programme management. The importance to community
development practice is that the approach provides a more systematic
means for community empowerment in a programme context.

Introduction
Community empowerment is a process that is central to community
development and yet the application of this concept has proven to be diffi-
cult. Several authors have attempted to identify the ‘domains’ or areas of
influence of community empowerment (Rifkin, Muller and Bichmann,
1988; Eng and Parker, 1994; Goodman et al., 1998; Bopp et al., 1999; Laverack,
2001) and this has been seen as a step toward making this concept more
operational in a programme context. Table 1 summarizes the identified
‘domains’ for some of the key concepts that overlap with community
empowerment.
Table 1 The identification of the domains of community participation,
community competence and community capacity
The ‘empowerment domains’ are the areas of influence that allow indi-
viduals and groups to better organize and mobilize themselves toward
social and political change. While there is considerable similarity between

Community Development Journal Page 1 of 9

Page 2 of 9 Glenn Laverack

Table 1 The domains of community participation, community competence and community

capacity

Community Community competence Community capacity Community

participation Rifkin, Eng and Parker (1994) Goodman et al. (1998) capacity Bopp
Muller and et al. (1999)
Bichmann (1988)
Participation Participation Participation
and machinery for
facilitating participant
interaction
and decision-making
Leadership Leadership Leadership
Organization Social support Sense of community, an Sense of
understanding of community
community history and
community values
Resource Resources Resources,
mobilization knowledge and
skills
Needs assessment Ongoing learning
Self-aware and clarity of Critical reflection Shared vision
situational definitions Social and inter-
Management of relations organizational Communication
with wider society networks
Management
(programme)
Conflict containment Skills
Articulateness Community power
Commitment

the domains, there is no consensus on which particular combination is the

most effective for community empowerment. Instead, the domains provide
a guide to community development practitioners (referred to in this paper
as ‘practitioners’) in their planning, application and evaluation of commu-
nity empowerment in a programme context.
In this paper I discuss the nine ‘domains’ of community empowerment
that were identified by Laverack (2001) to build more empowered or
capacity-rich communities such that a programme:

. improves participation;
. develops local leadership;
. increases problem assessment capacities;
. enhances the ability to ‘ask why’;
. builds empowering organizational structures;
. improves resource mobilization;
. strengthens links to other organizations and people;
 A ‘domains’ approach to community empowerment Page 3 of 9

. creates an equitable relationship with outside agents; and

. increases control over programme management.

Laverack (2001) identified his domains from a review of relevant litera-

ture to provide an in-depth understanding of empowering programmes.
The validity of each domain was cross-checked by two other researchers
using a confusion matrix approach as discussed by Robson (1993) and
later checked against the historic literature on community development to
ensure their face-validity (Labonte and Laverack, 2001).
Although the nine individual domains have been used by practitioners for
many years, both explicitly and implicitly in empowerment approaches,
their purposeful integration in a programme context is a more recent idea.
The role of the practitioner in using an empowerment approach has been
traditionally concerned with facilitating the movement of people along a con-
tinuum (Jackson, Mitchell and Wright, 1989; Labonte, 1990) such that changes
in power relations at the personal and small group levels are formalized into
new community organizations and partnerships. The aim is to influence
social and political policies in favour of the community. The domains give
a slightly different, and more precise, way of developing strategies for pro-
gression along the empowerment continuum. The key question practitioners
need to ask themselves is: How has the programme, from its planning
through its implementation, through its evaluation, intentionally sought to
enhance community empowerment through each domain?
Two case study are presented as examples of how the nine domains can
be incorporated together in the same programme to enhance community
empowerment. The first example addresses women living in low income
housing and the second concerns domestic violence. While both are
hypothetical, they have been built from many examples of empowering
community programmes and are designed to clearly demonstrate the role
of each domain.

Empowering women living in low income housing

Imagine a community programme in an area of low income housing, one
aware of the direct effects of poverty and unemployment, isolation and
the self-blame of people living in this type of accommodation. Consider
how the practitioner and the people who are involved in this programme
might take into account each of the nine ‘empowerment domains’.
Improves participation: Urging people to attend classroom style education
sessions is less likely to attract participation than organizing events based
around community members’ interests. The practitioner facilitated a discus-
sion of concerns that the people, who were mostly women, would like to
Page 4 of 9 Glenn Laverack

continue meeting around assertiveness, talking with their kids about sex,
and a lack of fitness facilities. The issue of fitness and body image generated
a lot of discussion and was suggested as a good theme. It involved action,
not just discussion, and would promote participation.
Develops local leadership: Developing local leaders means working with and
building on existing strengths and community capacities. The programme
used local women volunteers with good networks, cooking, organizing
and childcare skills to plan neighbourhood activities such as a children’s
picnic. These women became the leaders of activities for what eventually
became a broader approach aimed at the issue of improving poor housing.
Builds empowering organizational structures: The practitioner realized the
locality lacked strong community structures and used the fitness group
and neighbourhood activities to lay the framework for a new organization.
It may not always be necessary to create a new organization. A sufficient
number with good internal processes and ample participation might
already exist in the neighbourhood. If this is the case, they should be
strengthened, but if there are no organizations sufficiently representative
of community members, a new one may have to be developed.
Increases problem assessment capacities: The women generally already knew
a great deal about their needs and how these related to the community. The
practitioner helped to engage community members in a broader form of
problem assessment, one that incorporated their immediate needs, such
as a child play area and the broader problems in their neighbourhood,
such as security. This information became the basis of planning new activi-
ties, both short term (to keep participation active) and long term (to work on
underlying causes such as the lack of employment) for the community
organization.
Enhances the ability to ‘ask why’ (critical awareness): Rather than using an
education approach the practitioner decided to help the women by
working with them in small groups, analysing why some people had
poorer health and others did not, why some people had unhealthy living
conditions and others did not, and what local, state and national actions
might remedy their particular circumstances of low income housing. This
helped the women to increase their level of critical awareness.
Improves resource mobilization: The programme came with some resources
that were largely tied to conventional community development outcomes
such as an increase in participation. The practitioner used some of her
own time and funding to support the broader-based organizing that she
had helped initiate in the community. More importantly, the women and
the practitioner worked together to attract resources for issues that fell
outside the funders’ ideas of what were legitimate outcomes for a commu-
nity development programme in a low income housing area.
 A ‘domains’ approach to community empowerment Page 5 of 9

Strengthens links to other organizations and people: The practitioner was

interested in linking the women with others undertaking similarly broad-
based, local organizing. This included brokering ties with local politicians
and policy-makers (especially around health-housing risk conditions) and
supported by advocacy on these issues through the practitioner’s own
agency and professional statements.
Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents: The primary outside
agent in this programme, the practitioner, maintained critical self-reflection
on their own role: Were they imposing? Facilitating? Empowering? This
ongoing self-assessment was supported by their agency manager, and
evaluated periodically through discussion with community members.
Increases control over programme management: Over time, and as additional
resources were obtained, the women’s organization took on more direct
control over their activities. Here, control is generalized to the broader
range of organizing efforts such as administration, finance and management.
In the context of this example, the short-term success would be evaluated
by improvements in health behaviours such as diet and exercise centred
around the fitness programme. However, an increase in community
group activities and the work of the practitioner to enhance their ability
to question the underlying reasons for poor accommodation are intended
to lead to longer-term success such as contributing to changes in housing
policy, legislation and the level of community action.

Empowering the victims of domestic violence in Fiji

Domestic violence is a problem faced by many households throughout the
world. Yee (1997, p. 2) describes domestic violence in Fiji as ‘. . .the bullying,
beatings and any verbal abuse which occurs in a household’. Ninety-eight
percent of the victims of domestic violence in Fiji are women and these
experiences can influence health through physical harm and feelings of
low self-esteem, isolation, anxiety and depression. The role of the woman
in Fiji is seen as a provider and carer to her family and women who com-
plain of domestic abuse are viewed unsympathetically by society. Imagine
a newly formed Women’s Crisis Centre and consider how Fijian women
in their programme planning might take into account each of the nine
‘empowerment domains’.
Improves participation: Special efforts were made to ensure that individual
victims of domestic violence participated in mutual support groups coordi-
nated by the Women’s Crisis Centre. Other activities provided by the centre
included counseling, legal advice and refuge facilities. People who became
‘triggered’ into taking action by the trauma of domestic violence were given
Page 6 of 9 Glenn Laverack

the support of people with empathy gained through similar experiences, as

well as professional support from the practitioner.
Develops local leadership: The programme used local women volunteers
with skills such as empathy and administration to work in the centre.
These volunteers were supported by the practitioner and received training
and instruction in peer support. Over time the volunteers assumed the role
of leaders who took more control of running the centre.
Increases problem assessment capacities: The members of the centre were
encouraged to identify and prioritize the immediate (short-term) ‘problems’
in their lives. These included abusive relationships, lack of family support,
lack of money and ‘nowhere to go to escape the present situation’. This
became the basis for the planning of activities for the future role of the
centre and the identification of the resources necessary to support this
new role.
Enhances the ability to ‘ask why’ (critical awareness): Through group discus-
sions, facilitated by the practitioner, the women became more critically
aware of the injustice of an unsympathetic legal system and decided to
lobby their local Member of Parliament for a change in the legislation
against abuse and violence within marriage. The centre also began a publi-
city campaign to raise public awareness about the same issues.
Builds empowering organizational structures: The programme ensured that
mutual support groups for the victims of domestic violence did actually
exist. Moreover, it used these groups to strengthen the centre, thus enhan-
cing an existing organization. Some of these support groups developed
into other community-based organizations in coordination with the
practitioner and the centre.
Improves resource mobilization: The programme started with limited
resources. The people attending the centre started to raise additional
internal resources on a small scale through personal donations, fund
raising and seeking small government grants. The practitioner helped the
centre to obtain external funding through the shared preparation of grant
applications.
Strengthens links to other organizations and people: The centre used strategies
to develop partnerships with other local and international organizations
involved in running Women’s Crisis Centres. The centre invested in a com-
puter and an Internet link with the resources it had raised to help establish
contacts with other groups. The practitioner was able to assist the centre by
providing a list of suitable web sites of other organizations dealing with
domestic violence.
Creates an equitable relationship with outside agents: The practitioner played
an important role in helping the centre to raise resources, develop skills
and capacities, gain access to local politicians and policy-makers. The
 A ‘domains’ approach to community empowerment Page 7 of 9

practitioner further supported the centre through training courses and by

raising the concerns of the women at local government meetings.
Increases control over programme management: The programme was gradu-
ally controlled by the women volunteers who first worked to help run the
centre. This included management, decision-making, administration,
fund-raising, liaison with the practitioner and with other organizations
and people. The role of the practitioner diminished but remained important
to provide assistance and resource support at the request of the centre. This
was a reverse of the organizational circumstances seen at the beginning of
the programme when it was the practitioner who made most of the
decisions regarding the programme.
In the context of this example, the programme purpose was to raise
awareness about the harm caused to women and their families, to change
attitudes in society and to eventually influence legislation in regard to dom-
estic violence. The empowerment objectives of the programme would aim
to give women more control over the decisions regarding their status
within a relationship and strengthen their competencies to collectively
organize and mobilize themselves toward influencing political policy.

The implication for community development

By using a ‘domains’ approach to build community empowerment, as out-
lined in this paper, practitioners can enable people to gain a better under-
standing of the different areas that influence their lives. In turn, this can
lead to individuals and groups developing empowerment strategies to
better identify their problems and solutions to their problems through col-
lective action. What is new about the approach discussed in this paper is
that rather than starting with a blank slate onto which participants inscribe
their own problems, it provides a predetermined focus to build community
empowerment through each of the nine domains.
A drawback to this approach is that it might exclude domains that are
relevant to the participants. It is therefore important to carry out a period
of observation and discussion prior to using the approach to adapt the
meaning of the domains to meet the social and cultural requirements of
the participants. For example, the use of a working definition of community
empowerment in Fiji was found to be important to provide all participants
with a more mutual understanding of the programme in which they were
involved and toward which they were expected to contribute (Laverack,
1998).
It is also important that the approach is flexible enough to allow the
selected domains to be changed by the participants; for example, Laverack
(2003) developed and field-tested a methodology for the evaluation of
Page 8 of 9 Glenn Laverack

community empowerment that uses qualitative statements. The evaluation

was carried out by the community members or their representatives. The
participants were first provided with five statements per domain, each
written on a separate sheet that represented a range of empowering situ-
ations. The flexibility of the approach allows each statement to be rewritten
by the participants to reflect the actual situation in their community. The
participants are asked to select the statement that most closely describes
the present situation in their community. The statements are not numbered
or marked in any way and the selection of one statement is based on the
experiences of the participants.
It is hoped that the use of a ‘domains’ approach, as discussed in this
paper, will provide more clarity to practitioners about a means by which
they can more systematically plan, apply and evaluate community empow-
erment in a programme context.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Dr Kevin Brown and Dr Ron Labonte for
their contributions during the preparation of this paper.

Glen Laverack is a freelance consultant based in York, UK, with eighteen years of community
development experience in Africa, Asia and the Pacific regions.
Address for correspondence: c/o University of Auckland, School of Population Health,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. g.laverack@auckland.ac.nz

References

Bopp, M., Germann, K., Bopp, J., Littlejohns, L. B. and Smith, N. (1999) Assessing
Community Capacity for Change, Four Worlds Development, Calgary, Canada.
Eng, E. and Parker, E. (1994) Measuring community competence in the Mississippi
Delta: The interface between programme evaluation and empowerment, Health
Education Quarterly 21 (2), 199 – 220.
Goodman, R. M., Speers, M. A., McLeroy, K., Fawcett, S., Kegler, M., Parker, E., Rathgeb
Smith, S., Sterling, T. D. and Wallerstein, N. (1998) Identifying and defining the
dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement, Health
Education & Behavior 25 (3), 258 –278.
Jackson, T., Mitchell, S. and Wright, M. (1989) The community development
continuum, Community Health Studies 8 (1), 66– 73.
Labonte, R. (1990) Empowerment: Notes on professional and community dimensions,
Canadian Review of Social Policy 26, 64 –75.
Labonte, R. and Laverack, G. (2001) Capacity building in health promotion, Part 1: for
whom? And for what purpose? Critical Public Health 11 (2), 111 –127.
 A ‘domains’ approach to community empowerment Page 9 of 9

Laverack, G. (1998) The concept of empowerment in a traditional Fijian context, Journal

of Community Health and Clinical Medicine for the Pacific 5 (1), 26– 29.
Laverack, G. (2001) An identification and interpretation of the organizational aspects of
community empowerment, Community Development Journal 36 (2), 40– 52.
Laverack, G. (2003) Building capable communities: Experiences in a rural Fijian
context, Health Promotion International 18 (2), 99– 106.
Rifkin, S. B., Muller, F. and Bichmann, W. (1988) Primary health care: on measuring
participation, Social Science Medicine 9, 931 – 940.
Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research, Blackwell publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Yee, J. (1997) Domestic violence in Fiji. Fiji Times, Suva, 29 July, Opinion.

View publication stats