Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systemic Evaluation of a Comprehensive Community Initiative Based on Boundary Critique in Mhakwe Ward in Zimbabwe

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Comprehensive Community Initiatives (CCIs) are designed as purposeful systems to empower communities for self development. There is a dearth on the number of empirical evaluative studies that interrogate the design of such systems; rather, focus has been on evaluating programmatic impacts. Understanding and enhancing the design of such systems is fundamental in enhancing their empowerment and emancipatory objectives. This study addresses three questions; firstly, what are the critical design factors for CCIs? Secondly, what are the potential distributive, ethical and social consequences of CCI designs? And thirdly what are the fundamental components of a framework for evaluating CCI designs? The Mhakwe CCI in Zimbabwe is used as a case study. The paper identified the critical design factors to include; enhancing interconnectivity of institutions, development actors and community; incorporating mechanisms for capacity development; enhancing collective purpose; developing measures for community empowerment; addressing power imbalances and incorporating perceived risks. Social consequences of the design impinged on the willingness to share knowledge and participation in dialogue by the affected. The paper recommends key components of a framework for evaluating CCI design to; incorporate perceptions of both the affected and the involved; view CCIs as purposeful systems; be based on boundary critique and apply multi methodological approaches. The paper ends by suggesting important factors in ensuring sustainability of CCIs and recommends the integration of sustainability factors in designing CCIs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The concept of purposeful social systems stems from the seminal work of Parsons and Luhman and provides conceptual tools that incorporate the crucial role of purposefulness and self-reflectiveness at a socio-cultural level of systems organisation (Ulrich 1983: 326; Viskovatoff 1999). A system is purposeful if it allows self reflection of normative content by both those involved and those affected by its design. This ensures that the design benefits the intended beneficiaries.

  2. In the context of this paper, a systemic approach entails that the sum total of various components/sectors in a CCI produce emergent properties that result in greater social transformation than each of the isolated component/sector.

  3. These include communities being instruments of their own change; community organising for sustainable development; operating at multiple levels; multi sectoral approaches; multi stakeholder engagement, building community assets, and viewing communities as partners rather than recipients for external support.

  4. These figures are based on the consumption expenditure approach that uses per capita consumption expenditure indices combine with household characteristics such as asset ownership and access to social services (Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency 2013).

  5. The main Author was involved in Action Research with the Mhakwe CCI from 2004 to 2010.

  6. These were monthly reports compiled by the Mhakwe Development Trust Administrator.

  7. The community ran a quarterly newsletter, The Voice of Mhakwe.

  8. There was a high risk of the researchers being viewed as facilitators during KII, FGDs and administration of the structured questionnaire since the main author was involved in action research in the Ward. This might have brought biases in the responses as some respondents might have provided information on the basis of expecting favours with regards to project benefits.

  9. Ulrich (1983: 334) argues that if a system is not designed as a purposeful system, it will save purposes and people other than those intended by the design. Purposefulness is characterised by self reflection and incorporation of views of the involved and the affected.

  10. The Ward plan indicates that the planning phase took approximately 3 years from 2004 to 2007.

  11. All χ 2 Tests of Independence in this paper are based on the 95 % confidence interval (n = 65).

  12. The Mhakwe Development Trust was established in 1998 as a ward technical advisory committee to coordinate the then ward electrification project. It was initially named Mhakwe Development Association before registering as a Trust in 2006. The Trust currently coordinates all development activities in the ward in liaison with traditional leaders and the Councillor. Its leadership include retired civil servants, village heads, school heads, councillor and one-businessperson representative.

  13. These are respected members of the community with various knowledge and capacities. They include retired civil servants, and leaders of various community based organisations.

  14. These included minutes of village development committee meetings, reports by Mhakwe Development Trust and field notes.

  15. This question had 8 categories; knowing through Councillor, Village Head, Government Officials, Church leaders, NGO workers, Mhakwe Development Trust, Chimanimani RDC and WK Kellogg Foundation Facilitators.

  16. Although MDT reported to the WK Kellogg Facilitation office, there was a challenge in trying to balance empowerment of MDT as a decision maker and drawing lines of accountability.

  17. Mistrust grew when a spot audit on MDT commissioned by the Facilitators indicated irregularities and misuse of funds allegedly due to poor financial monitoring systems by MDT executive.

  18. Community Based Monitoring and Evaluation has been found to significantly improve accountability of service providers to communities and improve project impacts (Bjorkman and Svensson 2009: 736).

  19. Smith (1998) identifies three aspects of empowerment; liberation, self-efficacy and self-determination.

  20. In the context of Zimbabwe it is the lowest unit of social organization. In the 2012 population census it was defined as a person or group who stayed the census night together in a dwelling unit, whether or not related by blood or marriage. The number of members varies, but the minimum from the National Census (2012) is 4 persons per family.

  21. A village comprises a number of families, and in rural areas these could individual families with a relationship or not, a common totem (as identity) or not. It is headed by a village head or ‘Sabhuku’ meaning holder of a book where families are registered/village register).

  22. A ward comprises several villages, and it may have up to 30 villages.

  23. These were mostly out of school youths and civil servants trained in various skills including ICTs, leadership, financial management, monitoring and evaluation, proposal writing etc. and conducted training of trainers to institutionalise skills with the community.

  24. There was no significant association of this perception between the involved and the affected (\(\chi_{7}^{2} = 6.3275\); P = 0.502).

  25. These were conducted with selected representatives of; the affected, traditional leaders, youths, and women during the period 21–23 August 2013 in Mhakwe ward.

References

  • Ahmeda S, Ali SM (2006) People as partners: facilitating people’s participation in public–private partnerships for solid waste management. Habitat Int 30(2006):781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsop R, Heinsohn N (2005) Measuring empowerment in practice: structuring analysis and framing indicators. World Bank Policy. Research working paper 3510

  • Baum HS (2007) How should we evaluate community initiatives. J Am Plan Assoc 67(2):147–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkman M, Svensson J (2009) Power to the people: evidence from a randomized field experiment on community based monitoring and evaluation in Uganda. Q J Econ 124:735–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown P, Garg S (1997) Foundations and comprehensive community initiatives: the challenge of partnerships. University of Chicago, Chaplin Hall Centre for Children

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin RJ (2001) Building community capacity: a definitional framework and case studies from a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Aff Rev 36(3):291–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin RJ (2003) The challenge of two-tiered evaluation in community initiatives. J Community Pract 11(1):61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conning J, Kevane M (2002) Community-based targeting mechanisms for social safety nets: a critical review. World Dev 30(3):375–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad C, Daoust T (2008) Community-based monitoring frameworks: increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ Manag 41:358–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flood R, Jackson MC (1991) Critical systems heuristics: application of an emancipatory approach for police strategy toward the carrying of offensive weapons. Syst Pract 4(4):283–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner B, Lalani N, Plamadeala C (2010) Comprehensive community initiatives: lessons learned, potential and opportunities moving forward. Wellesley Institute, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Newell S (2003) Knowledge integration processes and dynamics within the context of cross-functional projects. Int J Project Manag 21:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibem EO (2011) Public-private partnership (PPP) in housing provision in Lagos Megacity Region, Nigeria. Int J Hous Policy 11(2):133–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssens W (2006) Measuring perceived black economic empowerment in the South African wine industry. Agrekon 45(4):381–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayne T, Strauss J, Yamano T, Molla D (2002) Targeting of food aid in rural Ethiopia: chronic need or inertia? J Dev Econ 68:247–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joseph M, Ogletree R (1988) Community organizing and comprehensive community initiatives. J Sociol Soc Welf 25:71–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge K, Bauld L (2001) Strong theory, flexible methods: evaluating complex community based intiatives. Crit Public Health 11(1):19–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jun K, Musso J (2013) Participatory governance and the spatial representation of neighborhood issues. Urban Aff Rev 49(1):71–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubisch AC (2005) Comprehensive community building initiatives—ten years later: What we have learned about the principles guiding the work. New Directions for Youth Development, No. 106. Summer 2005:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubisch AC, Auspos P, Brown P, Dewar T (2010) Community change initiatives from 1990–2010: accomplishments and Implications for future work. Community Investments 22(1):8–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Latterfy C, Mahoney C (2003) A Framework for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives. Health Promotion Practice 4(1):31–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litchenstreira G, Lyons TS (2001) The Entrepreneurial Development System: transforming Business Talent and Community Economies. Economic Development Quarterly 2001(15):3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckett, K. (2006). An Assessment of the Application of ‘Critical Systems Heuristics’ to a Policy Development Process. System Practice Action Reserach (2006) 19, 503-521

  • Makhoul A, Leviten-Reid E (2010) Determining the value of comprehensive community initiatives. Philanthropist 23(3):313–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathieu J, Goodwin G, Heffner T, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers J (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and perfomance. J Appl Psychol 85(2):274–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArdle J (1989) Community development tools of trade. Community Q 16:47–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. Kluwer/Plenum, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mwanza D (2001) Where theory meets practice: a case for an activity theory based methodology to guide computer system design. In: Proceedings of INTERACT’ 2001: eighth IFIP TC 13 conference on human-computer interaction, 9–13 July 2001, Tokyo, Japan. The Open University

  • Petersen DM (2002) The potential of social capital measures in the evaluation of comprehensive community-based health initiatives. Am J Eval 23(1):55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock RM, Whitelow G (2005) Community-based monitoring in support of local sustainability, local environment. Int J Justice Sustain 10(3):211–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappaport J (1987) Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory for community psychology. Am J Commun Psychol 15(2):121–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero R (2002) The relevance of Ulrich’s critical systems heuristics for social planning and evaluation. Cuad Adm Bogota Columbia 15(24):41–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons M (2004) Facilitation of practice development: a concept analysis. Pract Dev Health Care 3(1):36–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirianni C (2007) Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic design. J Am Plan Assoc 73(4):373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skoufias E, Davis B, DeLaVega S (2001) Targeting the poor in Mexico: an evaluation of the selection of households into PROGRESA. World Dev 29(10):1769–1784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stagner M, Duran M (1997) Comprehensive community initiatives: principles, practice and lessons learned. Future Child 7(2):132–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takahashi LM, Smutny G (2002) Collaborative windows and organizational governance: exploring the formation and demise of social service partnerships. Nonprofit Volunt Sector Q 2002(31):165–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (1983) Critical heuristics of social planning. Wiley, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc 54(4):325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W, Reynolds M (2010) Critical systems heuristics. In: Reynolds MA (ed) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 243–292

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Viskovatoff A (1999) Foundations of Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems. Philos Soc Sci 29:481–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • W. K. Kellogg Foundation Africa Program (2005) Expanding on the zoom site process model and integrating knowledge generation and the regional centre’s role in the program. Memio, Pretoria

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman BC, Mijanovich T, Silver D, Brecher C (2009) Finding the impact in a messy intervention: using an integrated design to evaluate a comprehensive citywide health initiative. Am J Eval 30(4):495–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams G (2004) Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and (re)politicisation. Third World Q 25(3):557–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams B, Hummelbrunner R (2011) Systems Concepts in Action: A Practitioner’s Toolkit. Stanford University Press, California

    Google Scholar 

  • Zakus J, Lysack C (1998) Revisiting community participation. Health Policy Plan 13(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (2013) Poverty, income, consumption and Expenditure Survey, 2011/2012 report. Harare, Zimbabwe

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Rural Development and Extension, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, 9300, South Africa

    Precious Tirivanhu

  2. Ruzivo Trust, 28 Greendale Drive, Harare, Zimbabwe

    Prosper B. Matondi

  3. Systems Design and Complexity Management, School of Marketing and Management, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia

    Daowei Sun

Authors
  1. Precious Tirivanhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prosper B. Matondi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daowei Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Precious Tirivanhu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tirivanhu, P., Matondi, P.B. & Sun, D. Systemic Evaluation of a Comprehensive Community Initiative Based on Boundary Critique in Mhakwe Ward in Zimbabwe. Syst Pract Action Res 29, 541–564 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9377-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9377-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation