What is a ‘strong community'?

There are many terms people are using in talking about community strength. The literature includes terms such as:
- sustainable communities
- resilient communities
- community capacity or community assets
- community development
- healthy communities.

Each of these terms make a contribution to understanding what a ‘strong community' is. A strong community is one that is sustainable over generations. It is resilient in that it can meet crises and bounce back from them. A strong community has assets, not only in material terms, but in terms of the resources, skills, and commitment of the people in the community.

Communities are never static. Literature on community development notes that there are several dimensions to community development including economic, environmental, social and safety. Likewise, the literature on healthy communities refers not only, or even primarily, to the physical and mental health of individuals or populations. Rather, the focus tends to be on the social, economic and ecological well-being of communities.

Taking this literature into account, the report recommends the following definition of community strength:
Community strength refers to the extent to which resources and processes within a community maintain and enhance both individual and collective well-being in ways consistent with the principles of equity, comprehensiveness, participation, self-reliance and social responsibility (p.31).

We considered that dimensions of ‘moral strength' should be built into the definition. Thus, a community is not strong if the enhancement of the well-being of one group in the community occurs at the expense of other groups, or even of future generations. To be strong, the well-being must be enhanced in ways which are

- equitable and sustainable, in that it is not occurring at an unreasonable cost to other groups in the community or to future generations;

- comprehensive, in that the range of basic needs is addressed, and not some dimensions at the expense of others;

-participatory, in that people are involved in processes of decision-making both about the definition of well-being and the ways of achieving it, recognising the mutual responsibilities the members of the community have towards each other (p.31).

Four types of ‘capital'

The report identifies four types of ‘capital' which contribute to community strength.

1. Natural capital includes the natural assets of a community in terms of natural resources, ecosystems and aesthetic features. The challenge for the strength of communities is to use and develop natural capital in ways which sustain and even enhance it.

2. Produced economic capital includes what a community produces in terms of manufactured or harvested good, services that can be traded and sold, and knowledge that has economic value. It includes the financial capture and the ‘hardware' of infrastructure of communities.

3.Human capital refers to the capacity of people to contribute to the community. While often measured in terms of education and skills, it is also dependent on the motivation of individuals and their capacity to adjust to changing circumstances.

4.Social and institutional capital. This includes the patterns and qualities of the processes through which people engage with each other and with various organisations and expert systems (that is, systems of specialised expertise, such as retail systems, public utility systems, financial, legal, educational, health and other systems). Bearing on these processes are community structures and features such as leadership and means of managing conflict.

Social and institutional capital

The discussion of social and institutional capital, which was the central focus of the report, took place under three headings.

Patterns of social processes

Community strength is seen in the processes through which people support one another and enhance community life. Community strength is found where people have bonds with family members and close friends who provide general support through the various contingencies of life. But a wider range of bridges with acquaintances provide a wider range of resources and possibilities on which people can draw. Further, it is found where people have links with organisations, and are able to draw on the resources and services of organisations and expert systems. For this to occur, organisations need to be ‘user-friendly'. They also need to be transparent in their operations and responsive to the needs of people.

Civic participation includes activities in which individuals work cooperatively for the sake of others, or the sake of the community as a whole. Some such work is paid and other is voluntary. Some occurs through civic groups and activities, and other civic participation occurs through processes such as voting.

Qualities of social processes
Community strength is seen not only in the quantity of social processes, but also in their qualities. Community strength is dependent on the extent to which there are trust and trustworthiness within the bonds, bridges and links with organisations and systems, and in relation to strangers with whom one might deal. Attitudes of altruism and reciprocity in which the well-being of others and the well-being of the community are given high priority are marks of a strong community.

Having shared norms, ideals and purposes contributes to the strength of community, advancing interaction and cooperative activity. So also does a shared sense of community. A community is weakened when some people feel marginalised or excluded from its activities and benefits. Thus, tolerance of diversity and the provision of equality of opportunity are marks of community strength.

While the members of a community are inter-dependent, attitudes of self-reliance in which people and communities look first to their own skills and resources to deal with their own situations are marks of a strong community.

Structures governing social processes
The nature and style of leadership can make a huge difference to a community. The report argues that a strong community has leadership that consults, develops appropriate and effective visions and strategies, and which motives collective action.

A certain level of controversy or conflict may suggest that there is a vibrancy in a community and that people are engaged in community issues. However, conflict can become disruptive of community strength. A strong community has effective mechanisms for dealing with community conflict.

Outcomes in individual and collective well-being

It has been common to measure the strength of a community by the achievement of outcomes. For example, we commonly measure the strength of the nation by the ‘Gross National Product' which is an economic measure of financial outcomes. Or we measure the strength of a community by the relative absence of unemployed people.

However, outcomes may be achieved in a variety of ways. Lower numbers of unemployed may be a result that unemployed have gone elsewhere to look for work, and not because the community has generated employment. Attention has often been drawn to the fact that where there is increased crime, the Gross National Product goes up, partly because crime circulates money, but also because people engage in economic activities such as hiring security guards to combat crime.

To measure community strength, one must take into account both the outcomes that are sought and the processes by which they are achieved. The well-being of people should include consideration of a range of areas including:
- material well-being
- health
- productivity
- intimacy
- safety
- community
- emotional well-being, and spirituality.

While the report discusses the various elements which constitute community strength, it does not consider what might be the causes of community strength. In its conclusion, the report suggests that what is important in strengthening one community may be quite different in strengthening another. For example, an Indigenous, non-English speaking community in Arnhem Land may be strengthened as it is allowed to take charge of its own affairs and as communication with non-Indigenous communities is improved, as Richard Trudgen argues in his book Why Warriors Lie Down and Die. A rural community may be strengthened by local initiatives to diversify its economy. Some urban communities may be strengthened as people act in a more neighbourly way towards each other, trusting each other and acting in more trustworthy ways.

I have argued elsewhere that religions have often played a major role in strengthening community life (Hughes, 1998). They have bound communities together by articulating common aims and ideals, identified enemies and unifying attempts to achieve aspirations. Religions have contributed to altruism as they have encouraged people to put the interests of the whole community before their personal interests and priorities. Religions have also provided the structures whereby people have physically gathered together and communicated with each other: an important facet in ensuring that bonds of support are maintained and bridges with acquaintances are built. At the same time, it is true that religions have sometimes encouraged distrust of people who are ‘different', particularly those whose religion is different. They have divided communities into sub-groups and have caused antagonism, not infrequently to the point of war.

This report provides some analytical and conceptual groundwork for identifying the strength of communities. The next stage must be empirical: identifying how the various aspects of community strength relate to one another, and what factors contribute most significantly to the quality of life in Australia's communities.

References:

Alan Black and Philip Hughes, (2001), The Identification and Analysis of Indicators of Community Strength and Outcomes, Occasional Paper no.3, Department of Family and Community Services, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. (Also available on the FaCS website - www.facs.gov.au.)

Philip Hughes, (1998) ‘Social Capital and Religious Faith', Zadok Paper S97, Melbourne. (Copies available from the Christian Research Association.)