Why CLCP is far better than Targeted Interventions (TI)

At the recently concluded CLCP Workshop, for all CARE staff working in EMPHASIS (our project name) held at CARE India office in New Delhi, from 18-21 October 2010, one of the participants asked me an explaination. His dilemma was that if we carried out the Community Life Competence Process there seemed to be an apparent disparity between EMPHASIS (our project) goals and objectives with those of the community. Consequently, I explained that:

In the Targeted Intervention Model only a few members in the Community would be interested in the EMPHASIS goals and probably they could achieve them during the project period, if our team worked in all the communities they identified the impact population. In this scenario the vast majority of the community members and their potential was largely untapped.

However, in the CLCP model all the members in the community working together achieve the EMPHASIS goals, which were only a small part of the entire Community dreams. Hence, as all members present in the community work to achieve all their dreams, achievement of the EMPHASIS goals was a by-product. In addition, one advantage was that EMPHASIS team members played the role of a facilitator only, so there was less work!

This is only one of the singular and inherent strong point of this strengths-based approach. There are many more, and I hope to list them here, drawing mainly from our documentation of the AIDS Competence process in villages of Northern Karnataka, in India a few years ago.

Views: 220

Comment

You need to be a member of Community life competence to add comments!

Join Community life competence

Comment by Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique on November 6, 2010 at 10:22pm
Dear Gaston,

In order to reply, to your question on any tool that we are using for tracking our CLCP by each of our six partner NGO we intend to use a simple excel sheet. The rows in this sheet contains the various locations and sub-locations the particular partner works in while the columns mention the tools of the CLCP cycle. Thus the sheet that we have developed looks like. We intend to use a Gnatt chart later on, but for now I will be thankful if you could suggest me any changes that you would like.

Comment by Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique on November 1, 2010 at 12:18am
Dear Anupam,
We owe a good degree of greatfulness to you, as it was in your area, namely the Saetbreya community near Bongaon, North Paraganas district of West Bengal, that we in the EMPHASIS team first started dream sessions in the community.
Finally, I must also thank you for challenging me to think on these lines. If not for your stimulating questions, I would not have been proded to think so,
Looking out for more such stimulus,
Comment by Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique on November 1, 2010 at 12:13am
Dear Gaston,
The whole of last week I was at the M&E conclave in Delhi, of which one of the funders was the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). I attended two-day workshops each on:
1)Strength based evaluation,
2) Appreciative Inquiry, and
3) Participative Evaluation,
There was also a two-day workshop on 'Outcome Mapping' which I did not choose. So, I must see the website you recommend.

However in all the workshops I attended, I made it a point to bring out the advantages of CLCP which is augumented with a paraphranelia of KM tools.

On your second note about other lessons learnt or tools that we are thinking of using, is the one of prioritizing the dreams, and then costing them. After envisioning the dream upto its achievement, I usually ask the participant how they will rate their dream in terms of achieving it. I help them to score depending on the dream against five theme. For example on the dream of "Livelihood" or 'Earning Money', the themes I ask them to score on are:
Themes & Scores:
Timeline 8
Investment 4
Priority 9
Involvement 3
Success 8
We can also represent the scoring the participant gives in a simple line graph as:

We know from the participant's scoring that the average on the five themes is 64%. (I have reduced the scoring in two themes)
We can also cross check this with the participant as to what he thinks is the probability of him achieving his dream,
Comment by Gaston on October 31, 2010 at 11:11pm
Great idea to group dreams in a Venn diagram. Really interesting. If you have other lessons learnt or tools you use during facilitation or the interpretation of results of sessions, please share.

Anupam, very well phrased. This was exactly how we articulated the added value of development during our last board meeting.
Comment by Anupam Das on October 31, 2010 at 10:30pm
This again proves that community is the best tutor. It's time that we shed off our existing notions and just go with the community in dealing with their issues. What we intend to do through our development projets should be in line with what the community concerned want for themselves in reality. Our concern should be whether we have been able to help them realise their potentials and fulfill their dreams. In turn they will do everything to meet our so called "Project Goals" and so on.

Thanks to Rafique for the lucid diagrammatic explanation.
Comment by Dr. E. Mohamed Rafique on October 30, 2010 at 10:57pm
Hi Laurence,
The EMPHASIS team has no other go but to accompany the community in whatever goals or dreams they folllow. Let me recount here my experiences from dream sessions that we facilitated in Saetbriya a village of Bangladeshis near Petropole on the Indo-Bangladesh border, as well as one among Nepalis in Rajiv Gandhi Camp, near Naraina in South west Delhi. I have depicted both the Community's aspirations in the form of a single Venn diagram, where the size estimation of the dream subsets were:
ID 48, Money 48
Security 44
Toilets 36
School 32
Tractors 28
Roads 24
P. Ground 20
Seeds 18, Hall 18, Drains 18, Water 18, College 18, Hospital 18
These sizes in the subsets, Consequently, I have used the font size to denote the subset size for a particular dream in the Venn diagram:

However, what we can see is that EMPHASIS goals are nowhere in the first twelve or thirteen priorities. Finally, in desperation, one of our female facilitators (Moushmi) had a separate FGD with the women in Narain village, and after a few prompts the women acknowledged their wish for good Sexual and Reproductive Health services
Comment by Gaston on October 29, 2010 at 5:07pm
Well explained Rafique. I also read that the logical framework is becoming less and less appropriate, especially for complex social interventions as CLCP. It simply doesn't capture the possible wealth of outcomes or the different levels. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and others are trying the 'Outcome Mapping' as an alternative. It seems to be better suited for CLCP. More on http://www.outcomemapping.ca/
Comment by Laurence Gilliot on October 29, 2010 at 3:55pm
Waw this is excellent! I love the diagramme, it is very clear.
So, whether the community wants to work on HIV, malaria, inclusion, water and sanitation or diarrhea, the Emphasis team will accompany them along the way?

About

The Constellation: who are we

The Constellation vidéo, where we journey in less then 2 minutes from space, through nature, to villages, in homes and back while exploring what the Constellation stands for. Thank YOU for being part of it. 

Social Media

Website: www.communitylifecompetence.org

Newsletter EnglishFrench Spanish  

Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Constellation/457271687691239  

Twitter @TheConstellati1

Instagram: constellationclcp

Youtube channel: The Constellation SALT-CLCP



© 2020   Created by Rituu B. Nanda.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service