Lockin in on locality Development

Introduction and definition.

In the last article I looked at the theory of Community Development and the three models in which it can be separated into. In this one I am going to take a deeper look at the locality development model. The following information is compiled from live experiences research and study, and I am intentionally seeking out new Scholarly sources to keep it well rounded.

First of all, to revisit the definition. Locality development can be defined as Community development economic and social progress for the whole community, with heavy reliance on the community's initiatives. This model tends to overlap with Social Planning at times as it is wise to include the community in the planning process, however in cases of Social Planning you may see more involvement from Government institutions and Strategic planning efforts. In locality development things tend to lead more heavily to grassroots organizations. It's more about raising a community's capacity to solve their own problems than it is doing it for them.

Locality development as a model of community practice was first formally conceptualized by Jack Rothman, whose typology of community organizing outlines three primary approaches: locality development, social planning, and social action. Rothman (1968) describes locality development as a process that emphasizes broad participation of community members in identifying problems and solutions, often relying on consensus and capacity-building rather than confrontation or top-down decision-making. This model is particularly effective in communities with a shared sense of identity and sufficient internal leadership, where residents are motivated to work collaboratively toward common goals. Rothman’s framework continues to be foundational in understanding how grassroots mobilization can serve as a mechanism for both immediate and long-term community change.

Building on this, Paulo Freire’s work on critical consciousness offers another theoretical pillar supporting locality development. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), Freire emphasizes the importance of dialogical processes that enable marginalized populations to recognize and challenge the socio-political structures that affect their lives. His model of participatory development aligns with the goals of locality development in that both value knowledge derived from lived experience and encourage active community engagement. Similarly, Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach (1999) provides a human development framework that resonates with locality development principles. Sen argues that true development occurs when people gain the freedom and capacity to make meaningful choices about their lives. By centering efforts on expanding what people are able to do and be, locality development goes beyond material improvements to foster dignity, agency, and empowerment.

Practical Paradigm Application:

These theoretical insights are not only foundational in academic discourse—they are also reflected in real-world practices that empower communities from within. One way this is expressed is through localized initiatives that activate the potential of the people themselves. As one rural development study notes, “In the era of decentralized development starting from the village, welfare of the community can be achieved from the independence of the village by optimizing the utilization of its local potential” (Syahyuti, 2006). This philosophy is echoed in programs like the Northwest Wellness Project, which educates youth and addresses gaps in traditional education. It could also take the form of a PRP program providing 1 on 1 support to help a neighbor integrate into the community more effectively or a local neighborhood association providing updates to keep community members informed of how upcoming policy affects them and how they can have representation in the conversation.

If you are looking for ways to serve your local community and you believe the locality development approach to be a good one, a nice place to start is asking yourself not what can i do for my community but instead What can I do “With” my community. Every neighborhood is different in its resources, needs, wants,and feelings and building on that foundation is often more effective and more accepted than starting from scratch. This paradigm prioritizes “ people centered development, resource-based development, and institutional development “

Case Study: The Tendea Family

This model views the Village as the closest institution to the community and best positioned to lead the charge. One organization that represents this model exceptionally well is the Tendea Family that operates in the Patterson Park religion of Baltimore City. The organization was born from dorm room conversations of passionate friends attending Morgan State University and over time developed into Community Patrols, Givebacks, and a cadet program among other things. You can often find them walking through the neighborhood chanting “Our People Our Purpose” or “Our Neighborhood Our Responsibility.” and they practice what they preach. Increasing the Safety of the Neighborhood, the access to supports and resources for the community, as well as increasing the confidence and connection amongst the youth and allowing them to play an active role in supporting their community.

The Fact that this org is from the same community that they serve has several advantages. Instead of making assumptions they are able to come in with an understanding of the communities and already know for example who is dealing the drugs and where, how to engage with them in a way that can be received without being combative. They are also able to build engaging relationships with parents and gain insights into the struggles within the household and target resources and programming more directly to the needs of the population that live there.

Keys to success

These kinds of insights are rooted in real relationships and cultural understanding and demonstrate why community-based organizations are often best positioned to lead meaningful change. However, their success is not automatic. It depends heavily on the readiness of the community, the availability of local resources, and the broader context in which they operate.

The readiness of a community plays a large role into how well programs like these can take root or how much ground work may be a prerequisite to gain the needed support. Still it's worth the effort. As opposed to Other methods such as social planning that may lean towards government programs or welfare support a Locality development approach better prepares the community to be independent and self sufficient in the long run. Programs the do “for” the community can often encourage dependence ,pacify the people, and discourage creativity,

This Community participation is vital. A close relationship between stakeholders and community leads people to become more involved in making substantial decisions regarding their lives. In order to build an effective program One would need to properly identify the strengths, resources, and motivation levels within the target community. Another great example of this is the Work the Northwest Wellness Project has done in the Park Heights community. The org was able to identify that there is already a Strong local institution “ Park Heights plantation” that has made inroads with the community and also has food resources.

Leadership was able to build off this existing resource and develop education programs that teach young community members how to grow and harvest food right in their neighborhood. Along with that knowledge of agriculture came an increased capacity to create healthy eating and wellness habits early. These skills were also transferable to beautification work that increased the appeal and marketability of the neighborhood while also giving the youth the confidence to know they can transform the area in which they live. This was all done within a few years without having to rely on lengthy social planning processes nor be constrained by budget shortfalls. This same foundation also allows for a local farmers market, produce giveaways, and a range of fun and impactful community events.

Global Examples

The Northwest Wellness Project demonstrates how localized leadership and resourcefulness can yield tangible outcomes in a short period without waiting on external institutions or large budgets. But this kind of success is not limited to small, urban communities. Across the globe, we can see similar principles at work in rural and international contexts, where tapping into local potential has had equally transformative results.

Building on local potential also leads to commodities that can be exported out to other communities increasing the diversity within the city as a whole while creating wealth for the local residents. An excellent example of this can be seen in the case of the State of Michoacán (México) (Vázquez‐Barquero, 2015). Where an agrarian approach local showed that it is possible to take part in global value chains using natural resources and local cooperation as a motor force to acquire competitive advantage in environmentally worthy commercial channels. Connections with international networks promote the upgrading of local firms when working within global value chains.

Another example of Locality development on a Global scale is Medellin (Colombia),where a strategic plan, and an innovative combination of policies aimed at reducing poverty, improving the regional transportation system, reducing pollution, and increasing innovation activities were used to empower the locals, fight back against corruption, and inspire change at an institutional level.

Challenges and opportunities

The case of Medellín illustrates how strategic, community-driven innovation can yield transformational outcomes—even in areas with histories of violence and institutional mistrust. Yet, successes like these are rarely achieved without overcoming serious hurdles. As inspiring as the model of locality development can be, it also comes with its own set of challenges and opportunities that must be carefully navigated.

There are challenges as well as opportunities to use this approach and it is important to be aware of both. Some of these challenges include competition from institutions with a larger scope, resource limitations, and the obstacles and politics that come with organizing a community.

Local players and orgs must interact and collaborate for continuity of programming and effective change. The difficulty of that can be seen when observing organizations servicing Baltimore City. There are literally dozens of community organizations within the borders with similar yet diverging missions. Examples include the PLM movement, the pan-african movement, the marcus garvey foundation, the Nation of islam and many more. When you have different forms of leadership there is more conversation that is needed to reach consensus and sometimes small details that are not as relevant to the outcomes such as which org is at the head or how the event is labeled and promoted can become obstacles to implementing effective programming. In addition there are often conflicting timelines and priorities that can at times result in energy and resources being split and impact minimized.

When it comes to improved socio-economic outcomes, one of the central forces of the capital accumulation process is the organization of the productive system, and the introduction and diffusion of innovation and knowledge is an effective mechanism for economic development, since it stimulates the transformation and structural change of the productive system. Being conscious of our investment decisions allows us to convert this challenge into an opportunity to make our cities and communities centers for growth instead of destinations for decay. We see the biggest benefits when Multinational companies are willing to collaborate in impact and innovation with local firms, research orgs, and programs.

These orgs are also often competing for funding from the same grants, donors and sponsors and although it is good when everyone gets a piece. A larger pool may be better suited for addressing some of the deep rooted problems. We often hold Local volunteers and institutions to the same expectations as fully funded government programs with only a fraction of a percent of the financial support. Even when they do find a way forward it is easy for a group with deeper pockets to minimize the impact of their work or use their funds to shift the narrative. This does more harm than good as innovation within a community often starts at a ground level.

Every challenge is also an opportunity. It appears as if there is increasing alignment within local orgs and this solidarity should result in a spirit of collective work and an increased sense of community as a whole. This sense of Unity is vital as one of the Challenges that hold us back the most is conflict within the community itself or amongst the very people that should be leading the charge when it comes to lasting change.

It is easier to focus on hard numbers than the soft effects of politics and competition yet it should not be ignored. Outside investors can easily get confused in chaos resulting in poorly deployed capital investments or avoidance of an underserved community as a whole. Their is a certain level of acclaim that comes with being the face of change and the search for that light can corrupt some or lead others to reinvent the wheel as opposed to joining forces with something that is already working in hopes of displacing that group in the future. “Looking through a critical and historical lens will make it clear that conflict and developmental policy were always closer than they appear. Wars were often the greatest drivers of Technological and operational advancement and the disruption that comes from innovation is often a source of conflict.

Locality Development VS Social planning,

Internal dynamics ranging from political rivalries to fractured local leadership underscore a larger question: is the locality development model always the most effective path forward? While its emphasis on grassroots empowerment is essential, it’s worth considering how alternative models, like social planning, may address structural issues differently or more efficiently under certain conditions.

Every approach has its benefits and drawbacks as well as certain situations where one approach may be more effective than others. Locality is effective in overlooked, or underfunded communities where the only option is to save yourself. It also does well with building up others to grow a grassroots movement. Still there are benefits to a social planning approach where there is not such a need to build community wide consensus. There also is a larger pool of resources available and you can employ the brainpower of seasoned and well educated civil servants.

A good example of this would be the covid response where the American Government was able to take action through policy to provide economic stimulus to every citizen in the company. No Local org would be able to move money on that scale effectively. Another example is the implementation of Land Bank policy where select cities were able to adjust policy in a way that made effective stewardship of property less cumbersome and enabled developers to be more community conscious with less of a penalty.

For those who wish to dive deeper there are still some questions that remain. How do local orgs navigate power imbalances with government agencies or philanthropic funders? What happens when key community leaders leave or burn out? How can locality development initiatives be effectively evaluated over time? How replicable are grassroots models across communities with different demographics? I will explore some of these questions as i dive deeper into the theory of community organization. I intend to pick up this conversation with a dive into Social Planning as an approach to community change.

Sources:

Skov, Flemming, et al. "Impacts of 21st Century Climate Changes on Flora and Vegetation in Denmark." IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 8, no. 1, 2009, p. 012015. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/8/1/012015

Syahyuti. 2006. Thirty Important Concepts in Rural Development and Agriculture. Jakarta: Bina Rena Pariwara

Wang, J., Zhao, Y., & Li, X. (2023). Community participation and local development: Empowering grassroots initiatives for sustainable growth. Journal of Urban Management, 12(4), 123-135. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1757780223004705?via%3Dihub

Mac Ginty, R., & Williams, A. (Eds.). (2013). Conflict and Development. Routledge.

Weil, M. (Ed.). (2014). The Handbook of Community Practice (p. 215). SAGE Publications.