. In the previous lecture we talked about different community characteristics, communities' perception of their identity, their locality, their social structure. In this lecture we are concerned with the concept of collective or community efficacy. The perception of residents about the strengths, the cohesion of their own community. In a way, we could compare this with, perceived self efficacy at the individual level. The individual, considers whether he or she is capable of performing a certain task, a specific behavior, collective efficacy. Looks at whether people believe the community is strong enough to help itself. Collective efficacy consists of four major components. A group of researchers from Harvard a couple of years ago undertook a study in Chicago. They develop scales to ask people the degree to which they thought there was social control in the community. Did people abide by certain norms of behavior? Did other members of the community encourage each other to comply? The people perceive that there was cohesion in this community, integration that people interact, that they do things together. Was there a sense of identity in that community, that people feel that they belonged? And these various factors, which are referred to in your class notes with a reference, were formed together as we said into a scale to measure how high or low, after interviewing people. They interviewed in several hundred neighborhoods or communities within the Chicago area. And the idea was to look at these perceptions, at the community level, of its own, collective efficacy and compare it with what was happening at the community level, in terms of the, social, health of the community. Information was available. from the government, from the police, about violent crime and statistics were used to compare the community's crime level with the community's perceived efficacy. And it was found that crime was less as perceptions of efficacy were higher. And this was true regardless of the economic status of the particular community. And this was seen then, collective efficacy was seen as an important indicator of levels of violence, of commitment to community action, of the strength of inter-group relations. We took this instrument and tried to see how it applied to some communities in Lagos, Nigeria, which we noted as the commercial capital. A project sponsored by the U.S Agency for International Development. Organized community coalitions in six low income communities, they brought together representatives form different community based organizations. Trade associations, religious associations, social clubs, together with local private health facilities to plan how they could improve the health of the community. This study was cross sectional, but we interviewed leaders from these different community associations who joined the coalition, and leaders who did not join the coalition. Now since this was cross sectional, we could not necessarily say that the chicken came before the egg or vice versa. But we did find that the perceived efficacy scores of the communities were higher among those interviewed whose groups joined the coalition then those whose groups that did no join. As I said, we could not say whether joining and participating increased their sense of efficacy, just as with self efficacy on the individual level opportunities to practice the behavior increases self efficacy. Or, that those leaders who felt strongly felt that their community was strong, was cohesive, were the type of people who would lead their organization to joining the coalition. But clearly, this measure of efficacy was associated with a level of involvement by those community group leaders. We also looked at difference in the scores among the communities, themselves, excluding the people who did not join, we found that there still were differences among the four communities, among four of the communities. Ajegunle is a lower working-class community. Quite ethnically diverse, people from all parts of Nigeria. It was originally established as a residential area for dockworkers. But it's very densely populated, very poor access to, to resources, water sanitation, etcetera low income area. This community had a lower perceived community efficacy or collective efficacy score. And people in. Explaining the reasons for their low ratings, said that, people in this community know each other, but they don't cooperate, okay. There was identity but not cohesion, not integration. There was a lack of trust among people. And as we said, this was the most ethnically diverse and lowest income of the communities. Another community was the indigenous section of Legos Island. The people who had lived there prior to the arrival of the British, their decedents. They were low income, somewhat marginalized. Spent their time in petty business and trade, trying to make money, and they also had a relatively lower score. People who were interviewed said, well, people won't take quick action as a community. But if someone is coming in, they certainly want to see a quick response or benefit. Okay. They won't organize themselves, but if someone's coming in with a program, they won't get involved unless they see some quick result. They described their neighbors as terrible and too sensitive, ready to fight at any time. They won't get involved in a project unless they can see a benefit coming to them. So this certainly augured poorly for, for the, the project in those areas. In contrast, we had higher scores, significantly higher scores, in two other communities. These were slightly more middle class. Even though they were ethnically diverse, they were more middle class. The, the respondents there were pleased with their community leaders. And what was interesting, we reviewed the minutes of their coalition partnership meetings. And found that in, this area, these two areas Mushi and Sulieri that were more middle class. They, they had more examples of outreach to the community. Campaigns on AIDS education, environmental cleanup. they organized projects such as fundraising for their group, they set up a loan and credit cooperative among their members. But they reported more cooperation. Their leaders were more willing to donate their time, whereas reviewing minutes of meetings from the other two, the Lagos Island, and the Ajegunle, there were more arguments and procedural issues. No evidence of any planning for real projects. So these efficacy scores were seen to be related to the actual performance of these groups. So higher efficacy is related to higher performance. The question we would have to ask our self is, how can we enhance this sense of efficacy. What can we do to strengthen identity cohesion in these communities so that they are in a position to want to and actually be able to carry out more self help programs. Just as we distinguish between self-efficacy as a perception and skill as the actual mastery of a new behavior, we can also distinguish between collective efficacy as a perception of what the community can do and community competency of what the community has in terms of skills, leadership resources, and evidence that they can actually carry out and manage a program. Community organization is a strategy that increases the problem solving capacity of a group. And makes them less vulnerable to manipulation from outside. Whether that's manipulation by agencies, politicians, etc. Community competency is demonstrated when community members collaborate effectively in identifying problems or needs in their community. Come to a consensus in setting goals and priorities, agree on ways and means to implement these. And collaborate effectively in the implementation, in carrying out the ideas. Clearly, the two communities in Lagos, the Mushi and Suru Lere community that were able to come together and make decisions. And their perceived efficacy score was higher. Whether they had a stronger sense of efficacy prior and that made them able to make these achievements to do this kind of planning, or whether the process of carrying out the planning heightened their sense of efficacy. We can't say in a cross-sectional survey. But clearly, looking through the minutes of meetings over a 15-month period, it was clear that the, that the leaders in two of the communities were more committed. So there must have been some level of perception. That the community was competent. Prior to the community taking on, these tasks, and succeeding with them. Competency has social change components. The issue of values, social control as we've mentioned, levels of participation. These enhance the community's capacity. And result in development outcomes. It's important to recognize that as the community feels confident and actually undertakes development activities and succeeds, this establishes an environment where individuals, themselves, are more willing, feel more confident to try to bring about changes. They may be more aware of the risks and benefits of existing programs. This may lead to greater intentions. People may seek out new health behaviors. And actually sustain them in a competent community that supports change and development. As we noted before, the community of course, is not just a collection of individuals but an interweaving of social networks. And in the community competency model, social networks clearly provide a mediating influence to help interpret to the individual. Broader changes and issues in the community help the individual make contact with community services and participate actively in community change through their networks and organizations. Community change so we've seen with our force field aims at goals to strengthen. The basic characteristics such as identity, cohesion, enhance collective efficacy thereby, and this results in a more competent community. Community competency looks at the interaction between social change at the community level and individual change. Theories are considered in terms of people adapting to change. Change arriving from conflict. The issues we talked about. Are the sorts of change externally driven? Are they internally driven? Are people reacting? Are they proactive, taking the initiative? These are characteristics of the different kinds of communities we've discussed before. And influence the individual level. The type of community people are in, the norms of social action, influence the individual's willingness to make change. Process of change in a community moves from examination of values, a normative re-educative approach if it's internally directed, participation in determining what needs to be changed, directing the change, building the capacity, and ultimately resulting in community development. So in a competent community, the normative re-educative approach, works, with people feeling confident to come together and examine their situation and bring about change. In a competent community, as we noted, the individual, him or herself has a greater sense of efficacy about bringing about change is more aware of health and social issues, is more likely to develop an intention to take health actions. We're willing to take the risk of trying new things. And if the community itself is in the process of change, and willing to entertain new ideas and new behaviors, the individual in that environment is more likely to maintain healthy behavior. So community competency is the interrelationship between individual and community change. It's mediated through social networks. It involves social interaction with networks, organizations, and institutions; and ultimately results in. A broader social, community, and individual capacity to address and solve problems. This is illustrated in the next slide. We can see the social change process across the top. See the individual change process across the bottom. And see the mediating influence of the interpersonal level. The level of social networks. Helping individuals interpret community change. Helping individuals participate in the process of bringing about community change. An example of community competence was seen in some communities in, Central America. That actually survived the disaster of Hurricane Mitch. Oxfam reported that prior to this hurricane since the 1980s, they have been working with developing and strengthening community organizations, local associations group, the norm of community change, individual change was established, leadership structures were there. After the hurricane, these structures, these associations went into action. Committees were formed, decisions were made. People helped themselves for kind of external help to get there to, to meet their daily needs, evaluate their progress, and in the context of a strong sense of responsibility to neighbors.