MODULE 32: JACK ROTHMAN’S MODELS OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE
Module details Name
Subject Name Social Work Education
Principle
Prof. S. Parasuraman and Prof. Manish K. Jha
Investigator
Paper Name Community Organization
Module Module 32: Jack Rothman’s Models of Community Practice
Paper Coordinator Dr. Mouleshri Vyas
Content Writer Dr. Mouleshri Vyas and Ms. Vidya Viswanathan
Content Reviewer Prof. H. Beck
Language editor Mr. Venkatanarayanan Ganapathi
Community Organization, Community Practice, Social Action,
Keywords
Social Planning, Community Development
This module will enable the student to understand
Learning 1. Conceptual Framework of Rothman’s Models of
Objectives
Community Organization
Introduction
Community organization has been considered to be the central element of the community
practice. Organizing aims at engaging with the communities to develop their local leadership
and capacities to work towards a progressive change in their social, political, economical and
personal conditions. However, there have been numerous ways of organizing communities
depending on various factors such as situations, degree of change, participants and alike.
Based on these variations, Jack Rothman introduced three basic models of community
organization in 1960s. In this module, we will understand the basic premises of these models
and its relevance to understand the community organizing interventions in the community
practice. At the end of this module, the reader will be able to understand:
• Conceptual Framework of Rothman’s Models of Community Organization
• Inter-relation of these three models in Community Practice
• Relevance of these models in developing the contemporary community practice methods
Community Organization
Community organization as a term refers to series of engagement at the community level in
order to improve the well-being of individuals, groups and neighbourhoods. According to
Murray G. Ross, "Community organization is a process by which a community identifies
needs and takes action, and in doing so... develops co-operative attitudes and practices."
One of the fundamental aspects of the community organization is the ‘Co-operative Spirit’
which unites the community members to work towards a common issue. The communities
engaged in the organizing process could be identified by their geographical locations or could
be set of people working towards a common cause from different locations. Community
organization is an ongoing process in which the adjustments and changes happen to keep up
the pace with ever-changing conditions governing community life. (Weil D. N., 2010)
The underlying principle of the community organization lies in the democratic value which
aims at collective participation of the community in the decision making process, affecting
their lives.
Rothman: Models of Community Organization Practice
To address the lack of multiple approaches in conceptualizing various community practice
methods in place, Jack Rothman introduced three models of community organization
practice. He introduced three separate frameworks to explain the various community
organization methods in practice. These are:
• Locality Development
• Social Planning
• Social Action
With an ever-changing landscape of the community organization methods, these frameworks
capture the basic essence which differentiates one method from the other. Rothman defined
these models through variables, which will help us understand the differences between the
frameworks and their relevance in the contemporary practices. (Rothman, 1996)
Locality Development: This framework focuses on the broader participation from the
community. It aims at the collective participation of the community in the entire decision
process, i.e. from goal determination to its achievement. This framework resonates with the
common understanding of the community development i.e. “Community Development is a
process which is designed to create conditions of economic and social progress for the whole
community with its active participation and the fullest possible reliance on the community’s
initiative”. This framework includes, self-help development, democratic procedures,
indigenous leadership and voluntary cooperation. Few examples of this kind of community
organization would be village level work in community development programs, community
work for adult education, neighbourhood work program by settlement houses and alike.
Social Planning: This framework refers to problem-solving technical approach for
community development. This method is generally adopted in cases such as delinquency,
mental health and housing. This method aims at rational, planned and controlled change in
the conditions of the community lives. It has very minimal scope of participation by the
community and promotes the autonomy of a subject matter expert with technical capabilities,
to make decisions. In this framework, technical experts work around to provide the desired
changes in terms of goods and services for the community with minimal or no participation
from the community. Few examples of such method are Mental Health Planning or
Affordable Housing Projects.
Social Action: This framework focuses on the significance of social justice and democracy in
the community development initiatives. It is generally adopted by the marginalised people
who organise at a larger level as a community who have been deprived of the rightful
resources, to bring about radical changes in the social institutions governing their lives. This
majorly aims at redistribution of power, resources or the authority to make decisions in the
community. Few examples of such method are Black Lives Matter, Dalit Panther and alike.
These three frameworks/models have distinctive features and have manifested through
community practices under various conditions and set-ups. However, in practice these models
are often overlapping and are constantly borrowing from each other in practice. Practice in
any of these themes would require techniques borrowed from the other theme e.g. Civil
Society Activists would be required to draw out a social plan in order to receive funding from
the concerned govt. authorities. Similarly, social planners can encourage the community
participation in drawing up plans for affordable housing projects in certain areas. Inspite of
these intermingling, the dominant orientation of any community practice defines the model it
follows. For identifying the central theme of any community practice methods, one must
understand these themes or frameworks in terms of its practice variables. These variables will
help the reader in understanding these frameworks as an ideal-type models. (Weil, 1996)
Three Models of Community Organization Practice According to Selected Practice
Variables
Locality
Practice Variables Social Planning Social Action
Development
Problem-solving Shifts in power
Self-help; with regard to relationship and
Goal categories of community capacity substantive resources; basic
Community Action and integration community institutional changes
(process goals) problems (task (task or process
goals) goals)
Community
eclipsed, anomie;
Assumption
lack of relationships Substantive social Disadvantaged
concerning
and democratic problems, mental populations, social
community structure
problem-solving and physical health, injustice, deprivation
and problem
capacities and static housing recreation and inequity
conditions
traditional
community
Crystallization of
Broad cross section Fact-gathering of
issues and
of people involved problem and
Basic Change organization of
in determining and decision on most
Strategy people to take action
solving their own rational course of
against enemy
problems action
targets
Characteristic Consensus: Consensus or Conflict or contest;
Change tactics and communication Conflict confrontation, direct
techniques amongst community action, negotiation
group and interest;
group discussion
Enabler-catalyst,
Fact-gatherer Activist-advocate,
coordinator; teacher
Salient Practitioner analyst, programme agitator, broker,
of problem-solving
Role implementer, partisan and
skills and ethical
facilitator negotiator
values
Manipulation of
Manipulation of Manipulation of
mass organization
Medium of Change small task-oriented formal organization
and political
groups and data
processes
Power structure as
Member of power
Power structure as external target of
Orientation towards structure as
employers and actions; oppressors
power structure collaborators in a
sponsors to be coerced and
common venture
overturned
Boundary definition Total community or
of the community Total geographic community segment
Community segment
client system or community (functional
constituency community)
Assumptions Conflicting interests
Common interests or
regarding interest of Interest reconcilable which are not easily
reconcilable
community or in conflict reconcilable; scarce
differences
subparts resources
Conception of the
Rationalist- unitary Idealist-unitary Realist-individualist
Public Interest
Conception of
Client population Citizens Consumers Victims
or constituency
Participants in Employers,
Conception of Consumers or
interaction problem- constituents,
Client Role recipient
solving members
Achieving objective
Building the
power for
capacity of the Finding out from
beneficiary system-
community to make consumers about
the right and means
Use of collaborative and their needs for
of impact
Empowerment informed decisions; service; informing
community
promoting feeling of consumers of their
decisions; promoting
personal mastery by services choices
a feeling of mastery
the residents
by participants
Some Personnel Aspects of the Community Organization Models
Locality
Social Planning Social Action
Development
Settlement houses, Dalit Panthers,
Resident Welfare Welfare Council, Women’s
Association, Health City Planning, Movement, Trade
Agency Type
Associations, Environmental union movements,
Consumer Groups, Planning Bodies radical political
Peace Corps groups
Village worker,
neighbourhood
Planning division
Practice Positions worker, consultant to Local Organizer
head, planner
community
development team
Public administrator,
Labour organizer,
Adult educator, non- social survey
Professional welfare right
clinical group, group specialist, planning
Analogues organizer, minority
worker specialist,
group organizer
demographer
Every practice variable has been explained in a distinct way for each model, hence looking at
these variables and their nature one can ascertain the model they fall into. These variables are
the type of client population, process goal, assumptions related to the community structure,
strategies and tactics and alike. Goals, have been divided into two parts i.e. Task Goals and
Process Goals. Task goals are mainly aimed at finding a concrete solution to a delimited
problem such as changes in a legislation, or creation of new services. Whereas, process goals
are towards maintenance of systems, establishing cooperation or self-maintaining
community, developing collective participation or encouraging organic leadership in the
community. Hence process goals are mainly concerned with the gross or generalized capacity
of the community to function over a period of time.
Professional aspects within a model also differ from one another, in the second table we have
discussed agency types, practice positions and professional analogues on the basis of these
three models. The interpretation of practice variables and the professional aspects differs
from one model to another, lending it a unique nature and type.
However, these specific and ideal-type models often play out in combination with each in
real life. Hence, now we will look into how these models interplay with each other to create a
multi-dimensional community practice approach.
Interweaving of Models
So far, we have understood the models as per the practice variable in a self-contained ideal-
type frameworks. However, in practice the methods applied on the field are often overlapping
and a mixed approach. The most suitable approach on the field might be having salient
features from one or two models at the same time. Hence, now we will discuss the mixing of
the approaches from the models to device community practice methods. To understand the
overlapping and mixing of models, we can take the example of primary colours and ensuing
secondary colours which are created through the process of inter-mixing. These intermixing
creates various hues and shades depending on the content of primary colours involved in
mixing. Similarly, through intermixing of the models community practitioners can develop
several methods of community practice, which will exhibit the features of various models
under one program or initiative.
Overlapping Intervention Modes with Varying Frequencies of Different Models
Planning/
Development
Social Locality
Planning Development
Intermixing
Action/ Development/
Planning Action
Social Action
Above, you can see the bimodal interventions, analogues to the concept of secondary colours
derived from primary colours. The center exhibits the cross-section of the models, whereas
on the peripheries are the bimodal interventions. These bimodal interventions can varying
influences of two models in them. We can now focus on the bimodal interventions with two
models primarily governing the approach at a time.
Development/Action: The best example to explain this mode of community practice is either
feminist organizing intervention. Feminist organizations focus more on empowering the
participants through capacity building and in turn promulgate collective participation in the
group, which is typical of Locality Development. However, these feminist organizations
work towards a radical change in the existing patriarchal social structures in the society,
through agitation and negotiation, which is typical of Social Action. Hence these
organizations carefully combine the assumption and goals of Social Action Intervention
mode, while it adopts the methods of Locality Development Intervention mode. Similarly,
there could be various other programs where the leaning could be towards one model with
few features resembling that of another model.
Action/ Planning: To explain this bimodal, we carefully look at the consumer protection
programs under Ralph Nader. These programs aim at exposing the consumer exploitation at
the hands of corporate and government through demonstrations, media exposure and various
other radical means used in the Social Action Intervention mode. But, this program is deeply
rooted and backed by the factual documentation and research reports by policy specialists,
borrowing from Social Planning Intervention mode. Hence this program is combination of
Social Action and Social Planning to advocate for consumer rights. Another example
explaining the bimodal intervention of ‘advocacy planning’ is when a Right-based advocacy
organization hires the services of professionals (pro-bono or paid) to prepare proposals to
raise funds or get government support in their pursuit of advocacy. These professionals may
not be permanent part of such organizations but often play an important role in formulating
plans for such organizations.
Planning/Development: To understand the fabric of planning-development model, we can
look at the Enterprise-Empowerment zones, which aims at the capacity building of local
minority communities through encouraging them to start and run their own businesses. The
stress on building the agency of community and collective participation is very high.
However, its not entirely orchestrated by the community itself, rather these programs involve
a lot of technical experts both from the government and the corporates to design the process
and program, which is technical in nature. Hence we see a combination of Locality
Development with Social Planning in such programs.
These bimodal intervention programs can be of varying configurations and weigh towards
different models of community practice. The leaning of a particular intervention can be
adjudged by the nature and influence of practice variables in these interventions. Along with
bimodal, many interventions can be influenced by all three models of interventions in varying
degrees. Such intermixed gradation is often called as the Trimodal mixtures. E.g. Community
Welfare Planning Councils, promote collective participation for planning and idea generation,
to draw out detailed plans and policies of technical nature for community services. These
agencies also actively engage in advocacy and lobbying in the city councils to introduce
fundamental change in state legislature to meet the needs of the community. Hence there is
growing need for the intermixing of various practice variables to make the community
intervention more flexible, suitable, tactful and multi-dimensional to meet the needs of the
community.
Dilemmas: Three Models of Intervention in Community Practice
Locality Development- External Linkages: This model focusses mainly on the organic
development and participation of the community. However most of the locality development
programs are often funded by the external agencies and not the community itself. These
external agencies could be municipalities, international agencies or national organizations,
which highlights the gap in the conceptual integrity of this framework.
Such interventions could be funded by both vertically-linked organisations, which are
hierarchical in nature and follow a top-to-bottom approach; or horizontally-linked
organizations such as pressure groups and other network alliances, which operate on the
social action intervention mode. Hence, under locality development intervention much of the
initiative is developed by the external agencies and not the community itself, which reveals a
contradiction to the principle of community development.
Social Planning- Policy Participation: For this intervention mode, the biggest dilemma is the
inclusion of the element of participation in the planning process. Typically, this intervention
mode involves technical planning, data-driven approach and subject-matter expertise.
However in the current scenario there is growing demand of participation in such modes to
make it more relevant for the community. However, participation could be of both kinds such
as substantive participation in the decision-making process and ancillary participation for an
informal involvement.
Substantive participation is when, the community members are involved in the decision-
making of policy implementation developed by others. This participation is often limited to
the ‘maximum feasible participation’. Whereas, ancillary participation is more of facilitative
and symbolic in nature. Ancillary participation is typically seen when the administrators
would invite participation form the community members to seek their reaction or
recommendations to the policy proposals.
Thus the inclusion of participation as an element in the planning process fractures the
conceptual formulation of this intervention mode.
Social Action- Multiple Actors and Conventional Tactics: The biggest dilemma of this
intervention mode is the complex engagement of various factors in it. This mode have three
dimensions which lend the complexity to this model. Firstly, radical change to bring about a
fundamental alteration in the society and its structure, is a very narrow framework. As, even a
subtle change in the system can also bring about a fundamental alteration in the society e.g.
moderating the content of advertisements on the television can have a fundamental impact on
the culture of the society.
Secondly, the concerned constituency for such modes have become porous off late.
Originally, these modes were designed to organise the disadvantaged and the marginalized to
raise their voices. However, with course of time, we can see such action mode being used by
right-wing political parties or the landlords, to create more fragmentations in the society.
Hence, the constituencies have expanded which essentially used such intervention mode for
community development.
Lastly, the tactics used in conventional social action intervention mode were aggressive
advocacy means and measures, however now the whole idea of pragmatism has overtaken
social action mode. Confrontation tactics are deemed ineffective whereas negotiation and
consensus-building, data collection as well as research are most sought-after tactics to
organize communities. With these changes, the true essence of Social Action Mode has
somewhat been diluted and reduced.
Conclusion
We have seen how the three models which were formulated as self-contained and ideal-type
set ups have grown to be more flexible and inter-related over the course of time. Such
changes in the nature of these models and their application highlights the growing need of
multi-dimensional community practice approach rather than rigid frameworks to forcefully
categorise community practice methods. The cross-sectional inter-mingling of practice
variables shows the changing needs and causes for the communities, to organize for. Along
with inter-mixing, these models have phasing relationship within them. We can often see how
a project which started in the social action mode gradually phases into the locality
development mode to build capacities of the community for sustainability and going further
adopt the status of bureaucratic social planning role on the account of subject-matter
expertise gained over the course of time. Hence, community practitioner must be attuned to
the transition points for switching from one mode of community intervention to another.