Module 6

UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Lesson 1 The Goals and Fields of Community Development

Lesson 2 History of Community Development in the Philippines

Lesson 1
(Reference material: Excerpts from Community Development: A Practice and a Discipline,
Emmanuel M. Luna, UP CSWCD)
Defining the community and the people we would like to work with is a lot easier than
“brushing through the forests” to find out where the people are going. A discourse defining
development can come out with a long shop list of appetizing and disgusting menu of
meanings, depending on the various ideological persuasions represented. As can be seen in
Chapter Four, Rethinking and Redefining Development, there are many ways at looking at
development and community development practitioners must have a clear understanding of
participatory development perspective.
At any rate, however pluralist our minds are and the society that we are in, there is a bottom
line for the things we people need and desire. We as persons would like to be respected and
recognized where our potentials and capabilities are enhanced. We want to be empowered so
that we can determine what we want, how to achieve it with persons we would like to be with,
hoping that in the end, we would become happier and peaceful in this world we live. I guess a
masa or in ordinary Filipino desires that too. Translated into a broader social development
jargon, community development means recognizing and building up the people’s innate
potentials and capabilities, enabling them to define their direction and participate in the
process of change through collective actions that will ensure the well-being or welfare
of the people.
Community development, then, is a process of transforming the marginalized communities so
that they may collectively act on their situations and on the external forces that undermine and
perpetuate the oppressive conditions. Unlike the traditional concept and understanding of
community development that have been considered obsolete (TWSC, 1990: 5) this concept
and practice of community development presupposes the heterogeneity and the stratification
in the communities. Any structural change should lead to greater fulfillment of these goals.
The main goal is social transformation and people’s empowerment. The socio-economic,
political, and environmental conditions of the communities have to be transformed to ensure
the people’s well-being and the community’s sustainability. The changes take place with the
community people themselves at the center of action.

1
To achieve these goals, there are three general ultimate goals of Community Development
namely:
▪ Enhancement of people’s potentials and capabilities
▪ Participation of the people through collective actions in the process of
change and transformation
▪ Promotion of the people’s well-being and welfare

Corollary to this, there are three interrelated fields of Community Development practice that
correspond to the goals, namely community education (CE), community organizing (CO),
and community resource and disaster risks management (CRDRM).

Fields of community development

Community Education (CE) - Community education is concerned with the enhancement of
the people’s potentials and capability. “Education is a potent force for social transformation in
terms of upliftment of people’s welfare and working towards forming alternative structures
and power relations” (Tungpalan, 1991: 2). People have inherent potentials that can be
developed towards individual and community transformation.
Community education has three elements. The first is the value formation or reorientation so
that the people may cultivate liberating and empowering community values. Besides the
“good manners and right conduct” values that are normally taught at home, in the school or
in the church, there are equally important social values such as the sense for equity, justice,
cooperation and collective concern, nationalism, gender sensitivity, environmental and risk
consciousness, and the like. In fact, these social values can counter balance the
domesticating, conforming and dependency creating values that have dominated the
powerless sectors of society.
Secondly, the people have to critically understand the community and the world they are in
the forces that led to and sustain such existence, and the way out from any oppressive
relationships. Freire calls this conscientization. “The discovery cannot be purely intellectual
but must involve action; nor can it be limited to mere activism, but must include serious
reflection: only then will it be a praxis” (Freire, 1970; 52)
Thirdly, to enable the people to translate their consciousness into operational and effective
actions, the people have to be equipped with the necessary skills for community work such
as community organizing, education and mobilization, human relations and communication,
risk reduction, peace building, conflict confrontation, planning and management of
community resources. Skills development also includes the ability to innovate and to master
appropriate technology and other expertise that have been traditionally held by the educated
elite and technocrats. These can be popularized, simplified, and brought down to the level of
the people’s understanding and capability such as those pertaining to health, energy,
economic production, media, and other technologies necessary for community development
processes.

2
Community Organizing (CO) – CO is the core method in community development. Without
it, one cannot conceive or engage in developing communities. “CO as a method which refers
to the activities aimed at the grouping of people to struggle for their common needs and
aspirations in a given locality. CO processes involve the following activities, which may
overlap and be repeated at a new level during the process of organizing: integration with the
community, social investigation, problem/issue spotting, ground work, meeting, role play,
mobilization, evaluation, reflection and setting up of the organization” (TWSC, 1990; 5-6).
This community development framework suggests three areas of CO namely area-based
organizing, sectoral or issue-based organizing, and networks, alliances and conditions
building (Figure 2). Community organizations, also known as people’s organizations, and
supra-organizations in the forms of networks, alliances and coalitions are the people’s
instruments in expressing their will and effecting changes through collective actions and
participation in decision making. Area based mass organizing is done within a given
geographic space such as villages, or groups of adjacent communities. The sectoral or
issue-based organizing is “the building of organizations, not by class, but by sectors such as
those of farmers, fisher folks, urban poor, tribal (indigenous people) sectors who are usually
confronted with common issues or a common enemy….” (TWSC, 1990;6). The area-based
and issue-based organizing can overlap. It is possible that community residents are
organized through area based and sectoral organizing. Both the types of people’s
organizations can unite and group together to form alliances, networks, and coalitions with
horizontal relationship. Similarly, groupings with vertical relationship can be formed also
through federations and confederations. Essentially, the formation of these supra-
organizations is for mutual support and for strengthening positions with respect to some
issues, tactically, and strategically (TWSC, 1990; 6).

Community Resource and Disaster Risk Management (CRDRM) – Community resources

such as land, urban services, credits and capital, forests, coastal and other natural resources
of the community have always been the source of issues in community development, for both
area based and sectoral organizing. (Figure 3). Community resource management (CRM)
includes the acquisition, generation, production, development and conservation, protection,
rehabilitation of community resources and the redistribution of benefits from the collective
management of these resources. Community disaster risk management (CBDRM) involves
the assessment of risks and vulnerabilities, the development of people’s capacities to enable
them to come out with plans and responses to mitigate disaster impacts and to effectively
responds to disaster events. Both CRM and CBDRM entail the involvement of the people in
the advocacy for policies and programs for resource and disaster risk management. These
would ultimately help ensure the well-being and welfare of the people.
The management of community resources includes the establishment of social enterprises
that will provide the basic social services such as housing, education, health, recreation,
transportation, etc. Community economic development is needed to transform the existing
economics by having alternative systems for production, processing and distribution of
goods, services, and benefits to the people. Similarly, community environmental
conservation, protection and rehabilitation are imperative to ensure a wholesome, livable,
sustainable, and ecologically – balanced habitat. There are social, economic, and
3
environmental risks that have to be properly assessed and managed to prevent or mitigate
disaster impacts. When the resource thresholds and the environmental limits are reached or
violated, disaster occurs. When economic risks are missed in the planning of livelihood
projects, losses can take place.
In the actual prcatice, these fields are intertwined and in most community development
programs, they emerge as program components.

Community Development Processes

There is no single approach to development. Chapter Five: Community Development
Approaches discusses this. However, in working with the people, community development
employs the scientific processes in problem solving, from the assessment and analysis of the
situation, problem identification, planning, implementation and evaluation of the processes
and their outcome. These processes are applicable in all the three fields, namely community
organizing, community education and community resource management.
Depending on one’s perspective and approach, the programs and activities in the community
can be distinguished from each other. Projects and activities may take place in the
community, but this does not mean that they subscribe in the framework. One source of
confusion is when all activities are branded as community development initiatives. When one
looks at the processes and outcomes thoguh, the activities may not be considered as
community development. There are community projects that end up with the people
becoming more dependent, frustrated and worst, exploited.
This calls for distinguishing community development from community projects and activities.
As already mentioned, community development has three integrated goals for the
enhancement of the people’s capacity, increasing their participationand ensuring their well-
being and welfare. Community development program must address all of these goals. On the
other hand, isolated projects and activities implemented in the communities but do not
pursue the goals of community development, as described, should be labeled as mere
community projects or activities.
Community education, community organizing and community resource and disaster risk
management are basic methods in CD. Programs and services that address a particular
need have to be done in collaboration with other programs to ensure an integrated
community development. For example, a non-governmental organization specializing in
education can partner “with another organization that can help in resource management,
while the people themselves take care of the organizing process.

Lesson 2 History of NGO Networking in the Philippines (Dinky Soliman)

The beginning of NGO networking in the Philippines, according to Alegre (1996), can be
traced from the formation of the Council of Welfare Agencies Foundation of the Philippines,
Inc. (CWAFPI), the forerunner of the present-day National Council of Social Development
4
(NCSD). As early as 1952, a group of social work leaders organized the Philippine National
Committee of the International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW). This eventually evolved
into the Council of Welfare Agencies Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. (CWAFPI), the
umbrella organization of the various welfare and civic organizations, e.g., the Catholic
Women’s Clubs, Boy/Girl Scouts of the Philippines, National Red Cross, etc. which, up to this
day, cater to such sectors as traditional women’s groups, children, the elderly, and persons
with disabilities.
The early organizational formation, however, is only one part of the story of networking with
particular focus on welfare agencies. Alan G. Alegre (1996) presented a comprehensive
discussion of the factors that contributed to the growth and development of networking in the
Philippine NGOs in his book Trends and Traditions; Challenges and Choices. This
observation is complemented by a chronological presentation of the formation of nine
mainstream national networks after NCSD in From the Present Looking Back: A History of
Philippine NGO by Karina David (1998). Hence, the history of networking in the Philippine is
better understood in the context of historical evolution of NGOs in the country.
The story of Philippine NGOs generally follows the trend of the world history of NGOs- from
relief and welfare endeavors to social reformation which eventually led to the transformation
approach. Alegre (1996) divided the history of NGOs into six distinct phases rooted in key
points in the country’s recent past, as follows:
American Colonial Period to Post WWII: Relief, Rehabilitation and Welfare
This period witnessed the emergence of voluntary, private initiatives that engaged mainly in
relief and reconstruction work to support a war-ravaged country. Considered to be the first
NGOs, their welfare endeavors continued even after normalization. Eventually, the welfare
work was geared toward social reform, colored with anti- communist motivation, which
concentrated on the problems in the countryside. The environment led to the setting up of the
pioneer NGOs in the country: the Institute of Social Order in 1947 and the Philippine Rural
Reconstruction Movement in 1952.

The Deepening Social Crisis and the Rise of New Social Movements (1965-1972).
A conglomeration of events shaped the global and national sociopolitical landscape which
affected the history of NGOs in the Philippines. On the one hand, there was a worldwide
questioning of the previous development approach; an emergence of new theories of
underdevelopment; highlight on revolutionary anti-colonial struggles; and change in the
social directions of the Catholic Church which played a key role in this stage of development.
On the other hand, as the Philippine social situation was rapidly deteriorating, there was a
resurgence of nationalism and student activism and a groundswell of public outrage, which
culminated in the First Quarter Storm. At this period, grassroots organizing dominated the
NGOs directions.
Two NGO networks were established during this time: the National Secretariat for Social
Action (NASSA) and the Philippine Business for Social Progress (PBSP) in 1967 and 1971,
respectively. NASSA served as a clearinghouse and coordinating mechanism for the

5
Philippine Catholic Church’s social involvement, while PBSP established itself as a network
among business corporations and NGOs they supported.
This period also witnessed the emergence of the community organization approach as an
alternative to the limitations of community development. This approach led to the
establishment of the Philippine Ecumenical Council for Community Organization (PECCO) in
1971. As a result, many NGOs were organized bearing the new orientation/approach.
In 1972, after a series of informal meetings, ten NGOs with more traditional business and
family foundations came together to form another network, the Association of Foundations
(AF).
Coping with Repression, Carving a Niche (1972-1978).
When the late President Marcos used a hard line stance to establish a New Society, the
NGO community was included in a systematic crack down on opposition groups. All legal
attempts at organizing for popular empowerment were paralyzed. NGOs responded to the
situation in various ways. While some went underground to wage armed struggle, others
were either coopted or forced to lie low. After an initial wave of repression, those that did not
join the underground movement continued with their commitment through institutional work,
which eventually came to be known as NGO work.
Three significant developments in the networking took place during this period. In 1974, the
National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) came together and adopted a
statement defining the priorities and strategies of the development work of the church and its
related organization. This development resulted to the formation of a body similar to NASSA-
the Commission on Development and Social Concerns. Four years after, as an offshoot of
the split of PECCO, a fellowship of pastors and lay workers to assist churches in
development efforts was organized into a network known as the Ecumenical Center for
Development (ECD).
In 1977, a network among cooperatives came into existence as a response to the
government’s attempt to regulate the cooperatives. Known as National Association of
Training Center of Cooperatives (NATCCO), the network was later renamed National
Confederation of Cooperatives, Inc. It was observed that these church-related networks were
more political compared to the first three networks established earlier, namely: National
Council of Social Development, Philippine Business for Social Progress and Association of
Foundations.
As seen by *Soliman (1990), this period witnessed the birth of secular NGOs established by
activists who had been working within the church umbrella wanting to institutionalize social
development work outside the church. Their endeavors concentrated on uplifting the
conditions of the people through cooperatives and provision of start-up capital for income-
generating projects. In the words of Alegre (1996), “the intersection of three efforts – the
church reaching out, the growing needs of POs, and the development concerns of secular
NGOs – gave birth to creative programs that showed NGOs coping amidst repression.”
The situation also became favorable to groups and organizations with political and
ideological leanings directly opposing the martial law regime. With their relatively advanced
coping mechanism, these groups became influential in the NGO movement. They even set

6
up different NGOs and exerted a considerable influence in the programs and projects of
existing ones to become more effective in the latter part of this period

Expansion and Innovation (1978-1983)

Learning from the past experiences, NGOs refined their strategies. This effort resulted to
qualitative increase in the organized mass movement, as reflected in the formation of more
alliances and federations of people organizations. The NGO movement itself experienced
tremendous increase in numbers. Human rights advocacy was broadened to include other
areas of concern like indigenous people’s rights, ecology/environment problems, and women
rights. As a result, more NGOs were organized bannering on respective sectoral issues.
This period also witnessed the utilization of new approaches and tools for development like
the micromedia, participatory action research, popular education, alternative medicine, and
appropriate technology.
Following the increased unpopularity and isolation of the Marcos regime in the international
scene, foreign funds flowed freely in support of development work. Many Northern NGOs
and funding agencies even went to the extent of setting up their Philippine desk making the
country their base of operations in Asia because of the bulk of projects being supported here.
Repression in various forms, however, was also intensified.
As NGOs grew in number, networking as a strategy became attractive because of its
effectiveness in lobbying and advocacy work. More regional and national networks were
formed during this period, e.g., Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human
Resources in Rural Areas (PHILDHRRA) which was established in 1983. Moreover, the other
regional and provincial NGOs were integrated into new networks. With these developments,
NGOs have become “key players in the country’s sociopolitical landscape.”

NGO Support to the Surging Mass Movement (1983-1986)

The Aquino assassination in 1983 became a rallying point of growing opposition and
outrages which gave birth to the “parliament of the streets.” It was a period of multi- sectoral
organizing and alliance building as regional and national federations and alliances of POs
were formed with NGO support. Similarly, NGOs strengthened their existing networks and
formed new ones to share resources and find security in their numbers amidst continuing
military harassment. NGOs’ support to the surging of mass movement culminated in their
participation in the Snap Election and the subsequent EDSA Revolt.
Ebbs and Flows of a Painful Transition (1986-1992)
The EDSA event and the wave of political democratization that followed changed the national
terrain overnight. Development efforts continued to flourish as NGO works increased
significantly amidst the newly won democratic spaces. In acknowledgement of their role in
organizing and mobilizing the popular forces before and during the EDSA Revolt, the
contribution of NGOs (and POs) to national development was formally recognized.
7
The 1987 Constitution clearly acknowledged the role of NGOs and POs in a democratic
society by including them in its key provisions. In a sense, the role of NGOs was
institutionalized, so much so that during the first years of Cory government, many of the
appointees came from the NGO community. Even funds from government and international
bodies were coursed through the NGOs. As a result, there was a proliferation of NGOs all
over the country, covering all possible areas and lines of work. Abad (1990) observed that
this made the Philippines one of the most dynamic NGO communities in Asia, if not in the
world.
Traditional politicians, entrepreneurs, and even government units that set up their own NGOs
for vested interests, however, took the situation. This was so prevalent that so-called
development NGOs were forced to band together to distinguish themselves from pseudo
ones. Two new networks were formed during the post EDSA period, namely: the Council for
People’s Development (CPD) and the Philippine Support Service Agencies (PHILSSA) in
1986 and 1988, respectively. Others strengthened their unity, stepped up their coordination
efforts and responded frequently to unfolding events as networks– and not merely as
individual NGOs.
The formation of the Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE NGOs) in 1990 was one of the
high points of this trend. In a move unprecedented in the history of the Philippine NGO
movement, ten of the largest NGO networks in the country, including the church-based
networks and the cooperative sector representing about 1,500 NGOs nationwide, came
together in the first ever National Congress of NGOs in December 1991.
The networks agreed to work on three areas of concern: (1) training a successor generation
of development NGO leaders; (2) Relating with government as a sector, especially the
military authorities in the national and regional level; (3) Relating with the donor community
both here and abroad.
Among other objectives, the following are worth mentioning: (1) to convene the different
Development NGO networks especially in confronting pertinent development issues
collectively; (2) to provide the venue for dialogue, linkages, and cooperation among the
member networks; and (3) to formulate and popularize an alternative development paradigm.
Represented in the congress were Philippine Partnership for the
Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas (PHILDHRRA), Philippine Support Service
Agencies (PHILSSA), National Confederation of Cooperatives (NATCCO), National Council
of Social Development (NCSD), National Secretariat for Social Action (NASSA), Philippine
Business for Social Progress (PBSP), Council for People’s Development (CPD), Ecumenical
Council for Development (ECD), National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP),
and Association of Foundations (AF).
This coalition resulted further in the ratification of a historic document – the Covenant for
Philippine Development. No wonder, some development workers considered this period as
the golden age of networking and coalition building in the Philippines because NGOs of
different orientations and historical context agreed to act as one in responding to the
opportunities and challenges of the new conjuncture.
Maturation and Renewal (1992 to the Present)

8
The NGO community has become an important actor in Philippine politics after the EDSA
phenomenon. This position was further strengthened by the Local Government Code of
1991. The Code highlighted the role of NGOs in the local governance process and provided
for their participation in the following areas: membership in local special bodies, partnership
with the government in joint ventures in development projects, and participation and sectoral
representations in local legislative bodies.
The Code requires the local government to allow accredited NGOs, POs, and, in some
cases, private sector individuals to take at least twenty five percent of the seats in local
development council and to have at least one seat in four other boards, dubbed local special
bodies: school board, health board, peace and order council, and pre qualification, bids and
awards committee.
The local government Code has also institutionalized NGOs as active partners in the local
governance. The LGU may enter into joint ventures with NGOs in the delivery of certain
basic services. NGOs or POs are also given preferential treatment with regards to the use of
acquatic resources and in the grant of franchise in the construction and operation of such
facilities. The LGU may also extend financial assistance to the NGO for its economic, socially
oriented environment and cultural projects.
NGOs play a very significant role in the recognition of “civil society” as an indispensable
partner of the government in development endeavors and in nation building. The legitimacy
and prominence of the NGO sector has been carried over up from the Aquino leadership to
the present administration. As in the past, people with links to the NGO movement have
been appointed to cabinet positions. NGO communities are also involved in numerous
consultative mechanisms as a distinct social sector.
Alegre (1996) noted that another indication of the NGOs continuing significance is the
increasing leverage of some of the larger and more established NGOs and the major NGO
networks and coalitions with various funding agencies and multilateral institutions, such as
the World Bank and other various United Nation-based commissions.