Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI) - Part II

[Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique]

In an earlier blog titled, "Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI)", I had stated that I would continue with this blog that would state the main differences between CLCP and Targeted or Traditional Interventions (TI). Accordingly, in order to better understand CLCP and TI, I present a compare and contrast table:

 

Table comparing CLCP and TI

	Community Life Competence Process	Targeted Intervention
1	Community mobilizes members and identifies strengths - Asset Based “What’s right here?”	Implementing NGO partners do a needs assessment and identifies issues -Deficit Based “What’s wrong here?”
2	Community decides what it wants to work on and dreams can change	Issues may differ from the community’s and are restricted, like: Health, HIV, Education
3	Community decides where it wants to go – Community driven	Donors pre-decide what community needs – donor driven
4	Internally Fueled by “people like us”, with same culture and resources	Externally Fueled mainly by “experts” or internal authority
5	Down-up, Inside-out	Top-down, Outside-in
6	Community assesses its current situation - Begins with analysis of demonstrably successful Solutions	Implementing NGO or Researchers do a baseline - Begins with analysis of underlying causes of Problem
7	Solution Space enlarged through discovery of actual parameters	Solution Space limited by perceived problem parameters
8	Community Ownership and strengths makes the response. Bypasses Immune System as solution shares same “DNA” as host	Donor’s ownership and priorities dictates the response. This triggers Immune System “defense response”
9	Community sets its own targets and plans action – Flexible target, goals and programs	Implementing NGO develop log frame, action plan, and indicators - Fixed target, goals, programs
10	Community acts	NGO provides services and or referral links
11	Community assesses their progress, learns and adapts	Implementing NGO monitors, donors evaluate
12	Communities share experiences, learn, capture good practices, and transfer, as well as, disseminate them through social networks	NGO analyze and synthesize their own opinions and lessons and rarely disseminate
13	Establishes a strong contributory Knowledge Management culture	Sets up an Management Information System reporting culture
14	Program is unrestricted as community depends on its own resources	Program is restricted and highly dependent on external resources and funds
15	Sustainable and does not end until community decide to change program	Not sustainable, and all project activities ends at project end-line

 

 I would like everyone to suggest changes, edits, additions, and deletions,

With best regards,

Rafique



[Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique]

Dear Rituu,

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. I have included transfer in point 12 as you can see, now.

 

Moreover, I have put in a new point under 13 about KM in CLCP. Wonder how I missed that earlier. Also, ealborated point 8 with an additional line on community ownership and strengths making the response in CLCP.

Looking forward to more suggestions.

[Rituu B. Nanda]

Dear Rafique,

 

Great! Could we add in point 12- community transfers the approach as well.

 

Regards,

Rituu