The Quarterly

Volume 1, Number 3

Investing in the Whole Community:
Strategies for a Caring Society
Sherri Torjman

This article is based on a paper presented in Toronto, Canada at the Ontario Trillium Foundation Caring Communities conference, October, 1998

Recent obsession with the fiscal housekeeping of the nation has taken its toll. Unemployment remains high, social programs have been cut drastically and environmental concerns have all but fallen off the agenda. Yet for all the bad news of recent years, there are still many groups and organizations engaged in a search to rekindle the desire and capacity of people to care for and about each other. There is a search for a caring society.

A caring society actively builds the capacity of communities to care about their members and the natural environment in which they live. Building community capacity involves both social intervention and social investment. It is about more than addressing social problems. Its purpose is to improve the quality of life for all.

There is no single correct answer or 'pat formula' for community investing. My framework should be considered a springboard for discussion rather than a definitive blueprint. I will present the elements of a comprehensive strategy as seven discrete but interrelated actions, but I am under no illusion that these component parts are easy to carry out. In fact, one could argue that this is a difficult time to promote caring communities.

Concern for human and environmental well-being took a back seat to the fiscal bottom line during the deficit-slaying years. But it looks like the fiscal agenda will continue to rule-at least for the next few federal budgets. It appears that the Asian flu is Ottawa's major health concern and the looming threat of global recession has caused other key public issues to recede.

In some regions of the country, there are growing expressions of mean spiritedness that appear surprisingly un-Canadian. We see the evidence in municipal ordinances that criminalize panhandling. Several local councils are debating how to remove squeegee kids-the new urban 'blight'-off the streets [Schafer 1998]. We used to talk about waging war on poverty; now many governments are waging war on the poor through various forms of 'welfare warfare' [Torjman 1997c].

Even the more moderate shifts in Canadian values are somewhat troubling. The recent Sex in the Snow account of values in this country at the end of the millennium found that, over the past 15 years, Canadians have moved to a more individualistic, less social posture [Adams 1997: 49].

It is difficult to promote the notion of a caring society in what appears to be a less compassionate world. In fact, some would argue that the very talk of building community capacity is a dangerous trend. It is seen as a way of reducing public responsibility by letting governments off the hook, letting them do less because someone else is doing more.

Others contend that building community capacity to solve deeply-rooted and complex problems, such as poverty, homelessness or crime, can have an opium-like effect. It can dull the anger and pain that force fundamental social change through conflict and confrontation. Still others claim that building community capacity is an 'emperor's-new-clothes' idea. Fundamentally, there is nothing there. It is just a lot of talk that lacks real substance in both theory and practice.

While I understand these arguments, I think they must be critically assessed. I personally do not accept the notion of waiting for government to do everything. Government has a crucial role to play-perhaps more than ever in light of an insecure economy and turbulent labour market. But there are many actions that communities can and should take to solve problems and to improve the quality of life.

In fact, there are some things that communities can do far better, quite frankly, than governments. In some cases, governments-with their myriad rules and regulations-actually are responsible for the problems communities are trying to tackle.

Take, for example, the hardship that Ottawa creates for refugees by accepting them to Canada and then taking years to process their papers. Thousands of refugees live in the country in a state of 'legal limbo'-sometimes for up to 12 years. As a result, they experience a range of problems because of the restrictions they face, e.g., they cannot vote, take out loans for postsecondary education or work in certain professions, such as education and health care [Brouwer 1998].

I also disagree with the claims that building community capacity blunts resistance to unacceptable economic and social conditions, such as extreme poverty or homelessness. There are far too many people with no roof over their heads and far too many hungry children. Should we do nothing about these conditions while waiting for governments to act? Such an approach is diametrically opposed to the vision of a caring society that community capacity building seeks to create.

Finally, the critique that building community capacity is all talk but no substance is an incorrect assessment of the problem. There is probably too much substance embedded in this concept. Building community capacity is an amalgam of many fields: anthropology, environmental science, political science, law, organizational development, finance and business, social policy, strategic planning, recreation, music, art and drama.

In short, building community capacity is a holistic approach to solving problems and to improving the quality of life. It is precisely this complexity which makes the concept of building community capacity so rich and compelling.

Conceptual framework

Community capacity-building may have its roots in a wide range of fields. But there is an overarching conceptual framework that unites these individual disciplines: sustainable development.

The primary objective of sustainable development is to improve the quality of life by building on the intrinsic links among economic, social and environmental well-being. Its underlying theme in a nutshell: It is "pro-people, pro-nature and pro-jobs" [United Nations Development Programme 1994: 4].

Sustainable development also is concerned with intergenerational equity-i.e., responding to the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It promotes intergenerational linkages by encouraging all generations, present and future, to make the best use of their capabilities and resources [National Round Table 1993].

The challenge arises in trying to operationalize the concept of sustainable development. How do we work with such a broad conceptual framework? The first step is to state clearly the underlying value to which sustainable development gives rise - the ethic of care.

Underlying values

The theme of care was used as a key organizing concept for the international Independent Commission on Population and Quality of Life, co-chaired by Monique Bégin, former Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Commission argued that the ethic of care is a core value that lies at the heart of all action to effect environmental change and to improve social well-being and the quality of life.

The Commission also noted that the domination of the market-based economy has occurred at the expense of the ethic of care. We need to balance the obsession with GDP growth by an equally important matter: caring for people and the environment [Independent Commission 1996: 116].

The notion of responsibility is embedded in the ethic of care. Clearly, we all have rights as citizens and it is essential for governments to protect these rights. But we also have responsibilities as citizens-obligations to each other, our families, communities and the environment. Responsibility is an equally important part of citizenship.

Governments can play a crucial role in promoting a shift in societal values. They can provide the moral leadership that reinforces the concepts of stewardship, responsible citizenship and the associated notion of care.

Of course, moral leadership requires that actions be consistent with rhetoric. The concept of care implies far more than lip service. Recent massive cuts to some major social programs have raised serious doubts about governments' authority to provide moral leadership, especially when it comes to the ethic of care.

Strategies for Community Investing

The theoretical notion of sustainable development and the underlying value of care comprise the foundation for investing in the whole community. I use the term 'community' broadly to include both geographic communities and communities of interest and of relations, such as persons with disabilities, the Chinese or Greek community, and the gay and lesbian community. And, of course, there are thousands of burgeoning electronic communities, now made possible by technology.

Both the literature and models of exemplary local work point to seven major strategies for community investing:

Strategy #1: Poverty reduction

Reducing poverty is the first and most important investment that any caring society should make as a prelude to other forms of community investment. And Canada has a serious poverty problem-a national average rate of near 18 percent at last count. The poverty rate has been rising over the past few years despite falling unemployment and healthy economic growth.

Poverty has a devastating impact. It represents a serious disinvestment in society because of its potentially profoundly negative impacts on physical and mental health, educational attainment and social well-being. The deprivation hits children especially hard [Steinhauer 1995].

A major goal of sustainable development is to reduce and eradicate poverty, which the United Nations calls the "greatest threat to political stability, social cohesion and the environmental health of the planet" [United Nations Development Programme 1994: 20]. Poverty is both caused and exacerbated by the unequal distribution of land as well as other resources and assets [World Commission 1987: 29].

Governments play the central role in reducing poverty through income redistribution. Progressive income taxes and transfers in the form of income programs have significantly narrowed the gap in the labour market earnings of rich and poor. However, governments' capacity to fight poverty and inequality is being tested by growing inequality of market income (i.e., income from employment, investments and other private sources). Earnings have become more insecure and, for many Canadians, more inadequate in the face of an increasingly turbulent economy.

So our first job is to strengthen social programs. But there are other actions that communities can take to reduce poverty. These actions fall into four major streams: meeting basic needs, removing barriers, building skills and promoting economic development [Torjman 1998a]. This framework was formulated as part of Opportunities 2000, a poverty reduction initiative being undertaken by the Lutherwood Community Opportunities Development Association in Waterloo Region.

Strategy #2: Broader concept of investment

The concept of investment is not new. But it has been interpreted far too narrowly. Money markets and money marketeers have dominated the language of investment.

Investment typically is defined in fiscal terms. The notion of 'capital' usually is understood as accumulated monetary stocks held or saved for future investment or expended on such items as plant and equipment, buildings and vehicles [Spellerberg 1997: 43]. The concept of capital as a form of monetary currency is easy to understand because spending and investing money are part of everyday reality. Financial capital can be readily measured. It is either there, or not. And for much of the 1990s, governments bemoaned the fact that the money was 'not there.'

But investment is a far broader concept than the one typically used. The broader notion of investment means creating and employing all forms of capital-natural and built, human, cultural and social capital-that are equally important to economic, social and environmental well-being.

These forms of capital represent significant sources of wealth. Yet they are often undervalued or devalued. In fact, they are usually not even recognized in the first place. Because these forms of capital are more difficult to quantify and measure than financial capital, they tend to be overlooked in policy discussions and are not even counted in our formal notion of wealth as represented by the GDP (the sum total of goods and services produced and sold).

GDP is, at best, an incomplete measure of the health of an economy and society. Worse still, it is a blunt and misleading barometer that counts as positive some very negative events, such as spending to clean up oil spills and other environmental disasters. It fails to account for degradation of the environment and natural systems. It ignores the hours of time spent in informal caregiving and in volunteer effort in communities [Intergovernmental Panel 1995: 5].

1. Natural and built capital

   Natural and built capital refers to the natural resources and the physical assets in communities, including land, parks, schools, community centres, libraries, public housing, shopping malls and other physical properties. Community land trusts are an example of natural capital. They are nonprofit corporations that separate the ownership of land from the ownership of buildings and other improvements to the land. Their purpose is to hold a body of land permanently in trust for the benefit of the community, help communities gain greater control over local resources and expand access to these resources for lower-income residents [Concordia University 1995].

   Social housing is an example of built capital. Social housing often is considered to be a liability to a community because housing 'projects' purportedly reduce the value of the property in the neighbourhood; however, some communities in the US have begun to use their social housing stock as the foundation for substantial community investment. The value of public housing is being calculated as equity to obtain bank loans for community economic development and additional affordable housing.

2. Human capital

   Human capital refers to the wealth inherent in human resources: knowledge, skills, time, energy, interest and commitment. There are countless models of programs that build on the strength of human capital. And recent figures issued by Statistics Canada show that one in three Canadian adults volunteers regularly; their collective contribution exceeds $16 billion worth of paid work [Picard 1998: D2]. The knowledge, skill and expertise of retired and elderly Canadians, in particular, can make a significant contribution to society. Retired Canadians also have a wealth of knowledge that they can share as business mentors for young people.

   'Sweat equity' is another form of human capital. Habitat for Humanity is an example of an organization that uses sweat equity to create affordable housing. Each project is supported by volunteer labour including the new homeowners, community volunteers and company employees. Local and national businesses donate cash, building materials, builders' trade skills, food services and warehouse storage space.

3. Cultural capital

   Cultural capital helps link members of a group through the bonds rooted in common values: language, customs, traditions, beliefs and arts. It also can provide protection from outside groups and can be drawn on in times of hardship. The concept of cultural capital is becoming more important in a globalized world. The more integrated we become in an economic sense, the greater the pressure to assert individual and local distinctiveness through cultural expression-the greater the value of our cultural capital. This phenomenon has been named the 'global paradox:' "The more people are bound together economically, the more they want to otherwise be free to assert their own distinctiveness" [Naisbitt 1994: 10].

   Culture in the form of drama, music and art is being used increasingly as a way to raise awareness about relevant social issues and to help people speak out on issues, such as racism. The arts can provide an effective means to rally the community to deal with major concerns, effectively helping to create social capital.

4. Social capital

   Social capital refers to social connections and the associated norms and trust that enable community members to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. These networks and bonds of trust have been found to increase a society's productive potential [Putnam 1993]. In short, social capital is good for business.

   The concept of social capital raises important funding issues. Investment in the whole community means building the capacity of organizations rather than single, isolated projects. And here's where a buck is not a buck. A dollar contributed to the core activities of a group or organization helps build its capacity far more than funds directed towards individual projects. Grant funding is more conducive to building social capital than is a system of contracts for service. Grants help create and sustain local networks with a core building block of social capital [Robinson 1997: 41].

   Through the network of bonds and trust that social capital creates, it also contributes to social cohesion. The notion of social cohesion-or social stability-is gaining attention in light of labour market trends that are driving a growing wedge between the rich and poor throughout the industrialized world [Blakely and Suggate 1997].

   But let's be clear: The growing gaps between the 'have' and 'have nots' cannot be closed simply by creating strong bonds in communities. Social cohesion is no cure for poverty.

Strategy #3: Civic engagement

Civic engagement is the third key strategy for community investing. Strong and caring communities start with the citizen as the base.

Civic engagement-or broad participation in decision-making-is a prerequisite for achieving sustainable development. Sustainable development identifies poverty as the major threat to humanity. Poverty is caused by the grossly inequitable distribution of resources. It is exacerbated by the inequitable access to decision-making processes that control the flow of resources. While civic engagement is one remedy, poverty must be attacked fundamentally at its heart through effective employment and redistribution policies made by governments.

A discussion of the need for improved civic engagement must acknowledge that, in relative terms, Canada is a fortunate country. In many nations, civic engagement focusses on far more fundamental issues of democracy.

Canadians have many opportunities for political participation including membership in political parties, voluntary associations, special issue campaigns, public demonstrations and representation to parliamentary committees. But there are signs of declining confidence in the traditional paths of political influence [Abele et al 1998]. And some of the traditional methods of civic engagement, such as consultation and polling, are being used as a tactic to delay substantive change. The flurry of activity around a consultation process can mask the fact that nothing is actually happening. For example, the federal government has spent millions on finding out what actions it should be taking around disability. But the actions are complex-and they cost money. Consultation effectively can become the substitute for action, in which case it actually slows progressive change.

The shift from meaningless consultation and sometimes vacuous engagement-usually a snapshot of public opinion captured at a particular moment in time-to genuinely deliberative and interactive citizen engagement will require a fundamental change [Abele et al 1998: 1-2]. True citizen engagement involves dialogue and listening, the expression and exchange of views, group and individual deliberation, reflection and learning.

Strategy #4: Problem-solving

At the end of the day, civic engagement is really about involving citizens actively in discussing and arriving at consensus around key issues.

Community problem-solving lies at the heart of building community capacity. The 'problem' to be solved may be a negative one such as high unemployment, poverty or crime prevention. But it may also be a positive one, such as how to promote a community's appreciation of the arts or how to beautify a neighbourhood.

Community problem-solving does not mean that any one person or group has the answer to a certain problem. Rather, it is a process of finding a solution apropriate to the community. That solution is found by engaging key players from different sectors-sometimes referred to as 'stakeholders'-in helping make decisions that ultimately will affect them.

Conflict resolution represents another form of community-based problem-solving. Conflict resolution mechanisms seek nonviolent solutions to economic, social and environmental problems such as racial tension, domestic violence and conflict related to commercial interests (e.g., protection of fishing areas from overuse by sport fishers). But the existing channels for mediating conflict locally, nationally and internationally are seriously overloaded. It is essential to invest in the infrastructure to resolve problems with civility [Henderson 1978: 243].

Despite the wide variety of community-based problem-solving models, they all have one important element in common: They all engage in some form of collaborative work to achieve their goals. The formation of alliances and partnerships is the fifth major strategy for community investing.

Strategy #5: Partnership

A partnership is a voluntary arrangement between two or more parties that agree to work cooperatively towards mutual objectives. It is an arrangement in which there is shared authority for, and responsibility and management of, the work. There is joint investment of resources (e.g., time, work, funding, expertise and information); shared liability and risk-taking; and accountability for the partnered project [Health Canada 1997: 2].

Partnerships sometimes are discussed as though they are alliances within the same sector or between different sectors in a defined geographic area, but these arrangements can include parties from different communities, provinces or countries. They may be regional, national or international in scale.

Unfortunately, the term 'partnership' now has become so overused that it appears to have lost its meaning. Because the term is being bandied about so loosely, it is important to be clear about the relationships that these arrangements exclude: Partnerships do not include mediations or negotiations although these skills are essential to the success of any working arrangement. Nor do partnerships include dialogue among organizations for the sole purpose of information exchange. There is no partnership without a sharing of risk, responsibility, accountability and benefits [Frank and Smith 1997: 7].

There are many advantages to partnerships; in fact, they are virtually a requisite for community-based initiatives that seek holistic and multisectoral solutions. Partnerships can harness previously untapped resources in new and creative ways, thereby increasing the investment in a given area.

Partnerships and collaboratives help raise awareness of pressing social problems, such as poverty and family violence. They also embody a clear and important message: Tackling community problems and improving the quality of life more generally are the concern of the entire community, not solely of governments or the social sector.

Major concerns about partnerships include public sector divestiture, power imbalances and ethical issues [Torjman 1998b]. Many nonprofit groups question their ability to be equal players, especially with business partners who may wield substantial economic power and political influence.

Community groups often face ethical and moral dilemmas working with partners whom they hold responsible for many of the social, economic and environmental problems these groups seek to address. Some organizations are using ethical screens to help determine the appropriateness of a future partner.

Partnerships are not a panacea for solving all community concerns. Nor should they be viewed as a replacement for government intervention. Partnerships and collaboratives should never be expected to replace the role of government in redistributing income and making essential social investments.

Practical issues also have become a major concern. Because of the variety of resources that partnerships are able to harness, funders increasingly are expecting groups to form alliances either as a spinoff of the project or even as part of the application process. Applicants must arrive with a partnership already in place-with a deal already made-prior to submitting their proposal. While the expectation may not be compulsory, it nonetheless counts heavily in the funding decision.

The problem is that the development of a partnership requires a substantial investment of time and resources, a pressure rarely recognized by funders. It may take many meetings with several organizations before a suitable arrangement is struck. There is neither recognition of this work nor compensation for the invested time and resources. The 'opportunity cost' of seeking suitable partners may be very high [Torjman 1988b].

At the end of the day, organizations may feel that the investment in a partnership was not worth the effort. Too much time may have been spent for too little return. At the very least, funders should recognize the up-front resources required for successful partnership, possibly by funding the initial exploratory work. The time invested in establishing a firm foundation will be saved in the long run by increasing the probability of success [Frank and Smith 1997: 13].

On a related note, funders often create unrealistic expectations around evaluation. There is extraordinary concern with outcomes and measurable results. Clearly, outcomes are important, especially from the perspective of funders who are keen to see that they get good mileage for their money.

But the apparent obsession with outcomes-based evaluation has detracted from the equal importance of process. Ironically, it is process that we are talking about when we refer to both community-based problem-solving and partnerships. The outcomes of community-building efforts are often an improved process, i.e., greater capacity to accomplish goals and a heightened sense of community.

Strategy #6: Leadership development

It takes strong and effective leadership to promote civic engagement, encourage community problem-solving and establish strong partnerships.

Typically, we define too narrowly the notion of community leader. Leaders come not only from the community development sector, but also from the arts, recreation, business and labour. Leaders can be educators, politicians, religious officials, government administrators or individual citizens of any race, colour or ethnic heritage [Thomas 1998: 78].

As part of a Caledon Institute study on building community capacity, we conducted a national survey on leadership development to identify the key areas of knowledge and skill required by community leaders [Torjman 1998a]. What we heard was very important: Community development leadership does not start with technical knowledge and skills. It begins with values and vision grounded in democracy and empowerment.

In addition to clear values, there are desirable leadership qualities: ability to connect with other people, entrepreneurial spirit, patience, confidence, integrity, humility, passion, tenacity, a sense of humour, ability to honour and work with differences, willingness to learn from mistakes and ability to handle failures.

We also learned that there are two major streams of skill central to community leadership. The first set of skills includes interpersonal and communication skills. The second area focusses on organizational and political skills: coalition-building, problem-solving and linking social issues with relevant policies.

Training for these skills can take the form of teaching, mentoring, coaching and modelling [Mattessich et al 1997: 38]. In building leadership capacity, the major question is not so much how to train leaders but rather how to inspire them. Community leaders also told us that they need an "opportunity to blossom."

A major goal of building community capacity is to "create space" for identifying concerns, venting anger and acknowledging frustrations in order to create common ground and assume leadership roles. We heard that "capacity is built from sharing experiences face to face." This physical and emotional space helps leaders come together and realize that there are, in fact, resources and strengths in their communities.

There are a number of initiatives under way with respect to leadership development.

A noteworthy example is the work of the Community Foundations of Canada that convened "Growing to our Potential-The Community Leadership Workshop."

Community development is complicated, controversial work. It frequently involves confrontation because it deals fundamentally with shifts in power and resources. Emotional support is crucial. Community leaders told us they "need opportunities to talk to each other-to network and share stories."

Storytelling is not a new method of learning; in fact, it has long been used in aboriginal communities. Storytelling is a way to share experiences-especially those of elders. One respondent in the Caledon survey noted that in some traditions, including her own African culture, telling stories, not writing reports, is the key method of learning.

In his study of Canadian civilization, John Ralston Saul talks about civic storytelling as a way of countering the public mood of discouragement and despair. Civic storytelling, when undertaken in a thoughtful and non-sentimental way, is critical to the public articulation of different models of hero. Civic storytelling is also essential to spreading good news of civic work and to evaluating best practices [1995: 24].

In recognition of the importance of storytelling, Caledon started the community stories series to document creative local efforts. We wanted to provide a vehicle for community leaders to write about and share their experiences. We wanted not only to give national profile to these efforts but also to reduce the waste of scarce resources through continual 'reinvention of the wheel.' We wanted to promote the documentation and replication of best practice.

Each story is unique in its method and approach, but its overall purpose is the same: to harness local resources to reduce poverty and promote economic, social and environmental well-being. Taken together, the series represents an important body of community work to share and celebrate.

Strategy #7: Celebration

Finally, it is important for communities to celebrate their strengths and successes. We pay so much attention to what is wrong and what needs to be fixed. We spend far too little time recognizing the efforts and initiatives that are going well. Celebration can take the form of verbal or written recognition.

But there are other ways for communities to celebrate their members, their leaders and their achievements. The arts have long been an important part of community celebration. Community events, such as festivals, parades and block parties, are important not just because they are fun. They keep people in touch and reinforce the networks and associations that create constructive change. They are part of the glue that holds together the community fabric [Kanter 1995].

It is also important to recognize the work of individuals. At Caledon, we initiated the real leaders series to tell the stories of people who make exemplary contributions to their communities. Perhaps the most important message of a caring society is that every individual has a gift to offer. Every person in a community can do something or give something that will help improve its quality of life. It is through these contributions that we can begin to reinsert the well-being of people and the health of the environment into the public discourse-the two areas that are the real bottom lines of a caring society.

References

Abele, Frances, Katherine Graham, Alex Ker, Antonia Maioni and Susan Phillips. (1998). Talking with Canadians: Citizen Engagement and the Social Union. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development, July.

Adams, Michael. (1997). Sex in the Snow: Canadian Social Values at the End of the Millennium. Toronto: Penguin Books.

Brouwer, Andrew. (1998). Refugees in Legal Limbo. Caledon Institute of Social Policy, October.

Concordia University. (1995). "Community Land Trusts." Montreal: Institute in Management and Community Development.

Frank, Flo and Anne Smith. (1997). The Partnership Handbook. Prepared for the Department of Human Resources Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Health Canada. (1996). Guidelines for Working with the Private Sector. Ottawa: Health Promotion and Programs Branch, September.

Henderson, Hazel. (1978). Creating Alternative Futures. New York: Berkley Publishing Corporation.

Independent Commission on Population and the Quality of Life. (1996). Caring for the Future. Report of the Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. (1995). World Class: Thriving Locally in the Global Economy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Mattessich, Paul W. and Barbara R. Monsey with assistance from Corinna Roy. (1997). Community Building: What Makes it Work. A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building. St. Paul, MINN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Naisbitt, John. (1994). Global Paradox. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (1993). Toward Reporting Progress on Sustainable Development in Canada. Report to the Prime Minister. Ottawa, December.

Putnam, Robert. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Robinson, David (ed). (1997). Social Capital and Policy Development. Wellington, NZ: Institute of Policy Studies.

Saul, John Ralston. (1995). The Unconscious Civilization. Toronto: House of Anansi Press.

Schafer, Arthur. (1998). Down and Out in Winnipeg and Toronto: The Ethics of Legislating Against Panhandling. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, August.

Steinhauer, Paul. (1996). The Primary Needs of Children: A Blueprint for Effective Health Promotion at the Community Level. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, April.

Thomas Jr., R. Roosevelt. (1998). "Diversity in Community." In Frances Hesselbein et al. (eds). Community of the Future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 71-82.

Torjman, Sherri. (1998a). Community-Based Poverty Reduction. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, February.

Torjman, Sherri. (1998b). Partnerships: The Good, The Bad and the Uncertain. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Partnerships: New Alliances for Learning, Trondheim, Norway, June 27-July 1. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, May.

Torjman, Sherri. (1997c). Welfare Warfare. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, November.

United Nations Development Programme. (1994). Human Development Report 1994. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Brundtland Commission).