COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY

DSE – B – 04
Unit 1

Community Psychology is a field that goes beyond an individual focus and integrates social,
cultural, economic, political, environmental, and international influences to promote positive
change, health, and empowerment at individual and systemic levels (SCRA27.org). It has
emerged in different countries throughout the world (Reich et al., 2007). Many psychologists
wanted to find ways to help solve these pressing societal issues, and some therapists were
becoming increasingly disillusioned with their passive role in solely delivering the medical
model, office-based psychotherapy (Cowen, 1973). Community psychology represents a new
way of thinking about people’s behaviour and well-being in the context of all the community
environments and social systems in which they live their lives.

One of the most exciting aspects of community psychology is that the field is still developing
and defining itself. It is not easily reduced to the traditional sub-disciplines in psychology for
several reasons. First, community psychologists simultaneously emphasize both applied
service delivery to the community and theory-based research. Second, they focus, not just on
individual psychological makeup, but on multiple levels of analysis, from individuals and
groups to specific programs to organizations and, finally, to whole communities. Third,
community psychology covers a broad range of settings and substantive areas. A community
psychologist might find herself or himself conducting research in a mental health center on
Monday, appearing as an expert witness in a courtroom on Tuesday, evaluating a hospital
program on Wednesday, implementing a school-based program on Thursday, and organizing
a neighbourhood association meeting on Friday. For all the above reasons, there is a sense of
vibrant urgency and uniqueness among community psychologists—as if they are as much a
part of a social movement as of a professional or scientific discipline. The new and disparate
areas of community psychology are thus bound together by a singular vision: that of helping
the relatively powerless, in and out of institutions, take control over their environment and their
lives. Community psychologists must, however, “wear many hats” in working toward the
creation of social systems which: (1) promote individual growth and prevent social and mental
health problems before they start; (2) provide immediate and appropriate forms of intervention
when and where they are most needed; and (3) enable those who have been labelled as
“deviant” to live as dignified, supported, and empowered lives as possible, preferably as
contributing members of the community. For example, a community psychologist might (1)
create and evaluate an array of programs and policies which help people control the stressful
aspects of community and organizational environments; (2) assess the needs of a community
and teach its members how to recognize an incipient problem and deal with it before it becomes
intractable; or (3) study and implement more humane and effective ways for formerly
institutionalized populations to live productively in society’s mainstream.

At the 1965 Swampscott Conference in the US, the term “Community Psychology” was first
used, and it signalled new roles and opportunities for psychologists by extending the reach of
services to those who had been under-represented, focusing on prevention rather than just
treatment of psychological problems, and by actively involving community members in the
change process (Bennett et al., 1966). Over the past five decades, the field of Community
Psychology has matured with recurring themes of prevention (The focus on actions that stop
problems before they happen by boosting individual skills as well as by engaging in
environmental change), social justice (Involves the fair distribution of wealth, opportunities,
and privileges that provide equal opportunities for education, healthcare, work, and housing),
and an ecological understanding (Understanding the relationships between people and their
social environments (e.g., families, groups, communities, and societies) of people within their
environments. The goals of Community Psychology have been to examine and better
understand complex individual–environment interactions in order to bring about social change,
particularly for those who have limited resources and opportunities.

THE ROLE OF PREVENTION

One of the primary characteristics of the Community Psychology field is its focus on
preventing rather than just treating social and psychological issues, and this can occur by
boosting individual skills as well as by engaging in environmental change. There are two
radically different ways of bringing about change, which are referred to as first- and second-
order change. First-order change (Involves minor changes that lead to small, short term
improvements by focusing exclusively on the individuals) attempts to eliminate deficits and
problems by focusing exclusively on the individuals. A more effective approach
involves second-order change (Involves initiating more structural, long term, and sustainable
transformational changes).

There is a considerable appeal for a preventive approach, particularly as George Albee (1986)
has shown that no condition or disease has ever been eliminated by focusing just on those with
the problem. Prevention is also strongly endorsed by those in medicine who have been trained
in the Public Health model, where services are provided to groups of people at risk for a disease
or disorder in order to prevent them from developing it. Public Health practitioners seek to
prevent medical problems in large groups of individuals through, for example, immunizations
or finding and eliminating the environmental sources of disease outbreaks. Community
Psychology has adopted this preventive Public Health approach in its efforts to analyze social
problems.

An impressive example of prevention occurred with community efforts to change the landscape
of tobacco use over the past 60 years. Today, attitudes have changed toward tobacco use, and
community organizations aided by community psychologists made important contributions to
this second-order change effort that involved reducing tobacco use. This began with the
landmark Surgeon General’s Report in the 1960s, which summarized serious health problems
caused by smoking. Advocacy groups such as Action on Smoking and Health helped to create
non-smoking sections on planes and public transportation, and other organizations used
strategies to promote nonsmokers’ rights in public buildings, restaurants, and work areas. Still,
other work involved preventive school and community-based interventions as well as efforts
to reduce youth access to tobacco.

Preventive government policies can be fostered by community-based groups, with the support
of community psychologists. Policies that emerge from concerned individuals, community
activists, and coalitions are referred to as bottom-up approaches to second-order change.
Community psychologists have clear roles to play in dialoguing and collaborating with
community groups in these types of broad-based, preventive community change efforts.

A SOCIAL JUSTICE ORIENTATION

Community Psychology’s focus on social justice is due to the recognition that many of our
social problems are perpetuated when resources are disproportionately allocated throughout
our society; this causes social and economic inequalities such as poverty, homelessness,
underemployment and unemployment, and crime. Albee (1986) has concluded that societal
factors such as unemployment, racism, sexism, and exploitation are the major causes of mental
illness. In support of this, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett’s (2009) book The Spirit
Level documents how many health and social problems are caused by large inequalities
throughout our societal structure. Economic inequalities not only cause stress and anxiety but
also lead to more serious health problems. Studies of income inequality have shown how adult
incomes have varied by race and gender. Clearly, we need to look beyond the individual in
exploring the basis of many of our social problems. Yet, most mental health professionals,
including psychologists, have a tendency to try to solve mental health problems without
attending to these environmental factors.

Community Psychology endorses a social justice and critical psychology perspective which
looks at how oppressive social systems preserve classism, sexism, racism, homophobia, and
other forms of discrimination and domination that perpetuate social injustice (Kagan et al.,
2011). Clearly, there is a need to bring about a better society by dismantling unjust systems
such as racism. This systemic US racism is evident in confederate monuments and flags
displayed in prominent locations; high rates of discrimination in the healthcare system;
redlining; police brutality (e.g., murder of George Floyd); and the disproportionate number of
black, indigenous, and people of colour (BIPOC) in prisons.

In addition to identifying and combating systems that are unjust, community psychologists also
challenge more subtle negative practices supported by psychological research and practice.
Interventions developed for one group might not be appropriate and might even be harmful
when applied to other groups. For example, a person with a social justice orientation would
object to imposing intervention manuals, based on white norms, on students of colour. Such
materials would not be applicable or appropriate to the lived experiences of students of colour
(Bernal & Scharrón-del-Río, 2001).

The need for this social justice orientation is also evident when working with urban schools
that are dealing with a lack of resources, overcrowded classrooms, community gang activity,
and violence. Traditional mental health services such as therapy that deals with a student’s
mental health issues would not address the income resource inequalities and stressful
environmental factors that could be causing children’s mental health difficulties. Second-order
change strategies, in contrast, would address the systems and structures causing the problems
and might involve collaborative partnerships to bring more resources to the school as well as
support community-based efforts to reduce gang activity and violence. As an example,
Zimmerman and colleagues investigated what it takes to cultivate a safe environment where
youth can grow up in a safe and healthy context (Heinze et al., 2018). These community
psychologists found that improving physical features of neighborhoods such as fixing
abandoned housing, cutting long grass, picking up trash, and planting a garden resulted
in nearly 40% fewer assaults and violent crimes than street segments with vacant, abandoned
lots.
A SHIFT IN PERSPECTIVE: THE ECOLOGICAL MODEL
An aspect of Community Psychology that sets it apart from a more traditional Clinical
Psychology is a shift beyond an individualistic perspective. Community psychologists
consider how individuals, communities, and societies are interconnected, rather than focusing
solely on the individual. As a result, the context or environment is considered an integral part
when trying to understand and work with communities and individuals embedded in them.

This shift in thinking is referred to as an ecological perspective. Ecological means that there
are multiple levels or layers of issues that need to be considered, including the individual,
family, neighborhood, community, and policies at the national level.

For example, a person, who we shall call Jane, had been involved in an auto accident causing
severe pain, and subsequently became addicted to painkillers. When it became more difficult
to purchase these medications, she began using heroin to reduce the pain, became involved in
buying and selling illegal substances, became estranged from her family, and was caught and
sentenced to prison. At the individual level, Jane is certainly distressed and addicted to
painkillers, and this has now disrupted relationships with her family and friends.

But an ecological perspective would point to a number of factors beyond the individual and
group level contributing to this unfortunate situation. Healthcare organizations contributed to
this problem, as many physicians were all too willing to profit
by overprescribing pain medications to their patients. The pharmaceutical industry was part of
the problem as it reaped huge profits by oversupplying these drugs to pharmacies. At the
community level, the criminal justice system also shares blame for delivering punishment in
crowded, unsafe prisons for individuals clearly in need of substance use treatment. Finally, at
a societal level, federal regulators allowed opiate drugs like OxyContin to be sold for long-
term rather than just short-term use, and legislators inappropriately passed
laws extending sentences for those who are in prison due to offenses caused by substance use
disorders. These types of difficult and complex social problems are produced and maintained
by multiple ecological influences, and corrective second–order community solutions will have
to deal with these contextual issues.

Urie Bronfenbrenner (1977) described four layers of ecological systems that influence the
life of a child. At the center of the schema is the individual, and in ever-growing circles lie the
various systems that interact with and influence him or her.

The “immediate system” contains the person and is composed of the particular physical
features, activities, and roles of that person. This is called the microsystem. The microsystem
is the smallest unit of analysis in ecological theory. Depending on the focus of study it could
be an individual (a specific child) or group (pre-schoolers at a specific creche) and would
include all the people with whom the child(ren) would interact with on a regular and frequent
basis. Microsystems also include a playroom, a home, a backyard, the street in front of the
house, or a classroom. Microsystems could include the school or one’s family. These
microsystems directly influence the individual, and the individual can directly influence the
system.

The mesosytem is the second level in Bronfenbrenner’s theory and consists of the links
between two (or more) microsystems. For instance, the link between the preschooler and
teachers, peers, family, and neighbours would be examples of this level of analysis. Therefore,
the mesosystem, which holds the microsystems and where the microsystems interact with each
other. Examples of this would be places where one microsystem (school) and another
microsystem (family) come together. A mesosystem is a “system of microsystems”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 515). Note that the child/individual is an active member within the
mesosystem. Research has shown the advantages of clear and demonstrated linkages between
the school and the family for the child’s school adaptation and academic performance, and this
has led to direct calls for better collaboration between schools and communities (Adelman &
Taylor, 2003, 2007; Warren, 2005). In turn, there are also findings that schools seen as a part
of their community are more likely to be supported and less likely to be the target of vandalism.
Children who feel connected to family, school, and neighbourhood may feel the responsibilities
of membership and the supportiveness of their holistically integrated social and psychological
environment. The “system” then can lead to feelings of connection or disconnection among the
microsystems; to the collection of social, material, and political resources; or to the alienation
of the various components from each other.

The next circle out is the exosystem, and is the third level of analysis that is an extension of
the mesosystem that does not immediately contain the child or individual. It focuses on the
interconnection between the microsystem and settings that can influence the unit of study but
are rarely experienced directly. For instance, for the preschooler, relevant exosystems could
include the preschool’s management body, the parents’ place of employment, the local primary
health clinic, crime level in the community- all having an indirect influence. The exosystem
influences the mesosystem. Examples would be government agencies that influence the meso-
and microsystems (school boards, city councils, or state legislatures, which influence the
schools and families but do not have them as members) or work situations for family members
(who in turn populate the micro- and mesosystems).

At the furthest level outward is the macrosystem, which does not contain specific settings. It
includes the broader societal factors, such as culture, economic and political conditions that
any particularly rapid change would invariably affect the lives of each person in the society.
The macrosystem contains the laws, culture, values, or religious beliefs that govern or direct
the lower systems. Being in India brings certain cultural and legal assumptions that may differ
markedly from those in Vancouver, Canada; Barcelona, Spain; Auckland, New Zealand; or
Hong Kong, China.

Bronfenbrenner (1977) proposed that any conceptualization of a child’s development needed a

comprehensive examination of all these systems to provide an adequate understanding of the
processes that influenced the child. Interventions to address this progress should have a
comprehensive and conceptual basis addressing multiple levels. Anything less provides an
artificial perspective on what really happens in the life of an individual or a group of
individuals. Graphic descriptions of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model showed circles
embedded in larger circles. This described the nature of the systems embedded in larger
systems.

The ecological theory was developed by James Kelly (1966) who was one of the founders of
the field of Community Psychology. The purpose of his theory, is to provide a framework for
understanding the structure and function of community. This theory assists in learning how the
characteristics of the environment of the community can play a central role in the ways people
interact and relate to each other. Through this framework, we can consider the dynamics among
groups, organizations, and whole communities as they relate within certain settings, and help
guide thinking around the development of community interventions (Kelly, 1968). If the world
was complex and dynamic, it required concepts and processes that captured those qualities.
Among the ecological principles were interdependence, cycling of resources, adaptive
capacity, and succession.

With interdependence, the elements of an ecosystem are seen to be related to each other.
Changing one element affects all elements in some way. The principle
of interdependence helps us understand that any change in one component of a system can
affect changes in other components of the system as well, creating a domino effect. The concept
of interdependence is central to the theory and practice of Community Psychology because it
helps individuals to recognize that everything is interconnected. Action in the community
requires a calculation of various interacting parts. Resources, players, activities, traditions,
values, history, and culture are some of the interdependent elements of community psychology.

The second principle of Kelly’s ecological model is the cycling of resources. Cycling of
resources refers to the process of how communities identify, incorporate, and use different
types of resources that exist within their communities. Resources can be skills and expertise,
information, networks of social support, access to supplies or equipment, and socialization
processes that either deter bias (i.e., gender or racial) or provide events (e.g., celebrations) for
social and cultural cohesion. Using this principle, psychologists might either uncover existing
competencies in a setting or match individuals with the settings that provide the resources they
need. This follows the first law of thermodynamics, which states that the amount of energy in
a system remains constant: If there is an expenditure of energy in one area, it is the result of
transfer of energy from another area. In the ecological model, for resources to be dedicated to
one area, they must come from another area. Therefore, the community must choose where to
attend and where to expend its energy or resources. To provide more funds for education, some
roads may not be repaired; to provide more funds for roads, schools may have to get by with
less money. This becomes especially apparent in economically lean times.

The third ecological principle deals with adaptive capacity to a given environment. Those
who are better able to deal with their environment are more likely to survive, and those who
can deal with a broader range of environments should find more settings in which it is possible
to live. What matters is not just adaptation to one environment, but also the adaptive range that
enables the organism to survive across more situations. One might figure that the argument for
flexibility and openness to social and cultural variation would allow a person to do well in more
social and physical situations. Community cultures allowing us to learn and to live and to
change our living situations across a wide array of settings allow for more successful
adjustment to change. Adaptation refers to the process of change and how what might be
adaptive in one environment might not be in another. A child might be very extroverted and
sociable, and have many friends due to these characteristics. But the child’s popularity among
peers might not be valued by the teachers in the school, who might not appreciate it if this child
talks to others and socializes frequently in the classrooms. So, what might be very adaptive in
one type of setting might not be in another setting. Kelly (1979) found that schools enrolling
many new students each year facilitated more youth exploratory behavior than schools that
were stable in terms of enrollment. These types of findings help us understand this process of
adaptation, to better understand the factors that account for why certain environments are more
effective than others.

Kelly’s final ecological point is that of succession, which refers to the fact that communities
are in a constant process of change, and this process causes changing requirements for
adaptation. What is true about a person or setting today may not be true tomorrow. The process
of change and development within the community over time is inevitable, and communities
have an obligation and need to help residents meet the demands of changing environments. For
example, as populations within the community tend to age, newer and younger families can
work with older residents by sharing information and creating a more holistic environment for
all community members. Additionally, as new family groups from different ethnic
backgrounds become prevalent within the community, traditional institutions (i.e., school
systems and community businesses) will need to evolve and adapt to meet the demands of a
changing population. One thing follows another in a fairly predictable manner. Just as a college
student moves from freshman to senior, and spring follows winter, a decline in one industry
leads to opportunity for new industries, and particular groups of people decrease and other
groups increase in an area. Succession requires the community psychologist to pay attention to
these changes.

Aims/Principles of Community Psychology

Community psychology is not only a professional and scientific discipline. It is also a

philosophical or value orientation that is applicable to virtually any field or profession. The
community perspective challenges traditional modes of thought. It avoids “blaming the victim”
for problems or labelling people as “deviant” and looks at whole ecological systems, including
political, cultural, and environmental influences, as well as focusing on institutional and
organizational factors.

Acknowledging that many groups and individuals are suspicious of, or intimidated by,
professionals, the community approach encourages client/citizen participation and recognizes
the demand for local empowerment, bureaucratic decentralization, and self-help/mutual aid. It
simultaneously stresses the utility of research, not only for theory development, but for program
evaluation and policy analysis—and the omnipresence of values (implicitly or explicitly)
throughout society and even science.

An important aspect of the community orientation is its appreciation of the authority of

historical and structural contexts. Community psychology values and celebrates cultural
diversity. Community psychology emphasizes community and personal strengths and
competency, as opposed to weaknesses and pathology. One important area of theory and
research is the human stress process, its environmental causes (and how they can be prevented),
how individuals and groups vary in how they cope with it (including the use of family, friends,
and others for social support), and what kinds of negative, and even positive, outcomes can
occur (Dohrenwend, 1978).

Community psychology also emphasizes ecological thinking, which leads us beyond trying to
change individuals to consider ways to improve the fit, or interaction, between persons and
environments, which can have as important an effect on behavior and well-being as each factor
has separately. The ecological viewpoint requires “a concern with the relationships of
individuals to each other as a community; as a differentiated social grouping with elaborate
systems of formal and informal relationships” (Mann, 1978).

The community perspective includes a “focus on broader ecological levels than the level of the
exclusive treatment of the individual” (Heller & Monahan, 1977). Although community
psychologists tend to advocate social more than individual change, one can have less than
radical aims and remain within the community orientation. Most psychologists following the
community perspective see it as their mission, not to just tear down outmoded ideas and
practices, but to help create or improve service organizations and other institutions. They work
to achieve the goals of providing humane, effective care and less stigmatizing services to those
in need while enhancing human psychological growth and development.

To make human service organizations more effective and more humane, community-oriented
psychologists are interested in creating new settings and services consistent with the ecological
perspective. That perspective, and the actions that flow from it, differ from the medical model
in which the person in need defines his or her own problem and then seeks out help from a
professional helper, most often on a fee-for-service basis. The medical model is useful for many
people and for many problems. However, the medical model with its emphasis on highly
trained professionals is unable to provide for all in need. Moreover, certain forms of care may
contribute to the perpetuation of problems because of the way problems are defined in the
medical model as residing exclusively within the boundaries of an individual.

In the ecological perspective, human behavior is viewed in terms of the person’s adaptation to
resources and circumstances. From this perspective, one may correct unsuccessful adaptations
by altering the availability of resources. Thus new services may be created, or existing strengths
in social networks may be discovered and conditions changed to enhance the use of resources.
The ecological perspective encourages a search for resources instead of a search for
psychopathology. It encourages us to view others as having strengths that may be put to good
use in the service of their own development if resources are available. It may not be necessary
to undo psychopathology first. Community psychologists have also rallied around the theme
of prevention. The concept of prevention comes from the field of public health. Public health
professionals argue that the greatest advances result from preventing diseases instead of
treating them after they occur.

Community psychology directs attention to the larger context within which plans are developed
and implemented. The possibilities for gaining resources must be carefully evaluated. The
political climate supporting one type of programming at one time and another at another time
must be understood. What is feasible at one time and under one set of political and economic
conditions may often be approached only with great difficulty at another time or under other
circumstances (Levine & Levine, 1992).
Community psychology has been differentiated from traditional clinical psychology as
practiced in the following ways:

Clinical Psychology Community psychology

More likely to work with individuals More likely to work with groups and communities
Work likely to involve the diverse groups in a local
Work confined to clinical populations
community
More likely to take place in a
More likely to take place in a community setting
consulting room in a clinic
Focus on symptomatic change in the
Focus on community level change through
individual through individually-
collective action
focused therapies
Work influenced by psychiatric Work influenced by mapping needs at community
diagnosis level and identifying sources of oppression
Work influenced by ‘top down’ Work influenced by ‘bottom up’ feedback from
treatment guidelines (e.g. NICE) community collaborators
Evidence base privileges diverse research methods
Evidence base privileges RCTs especially those which emphasise community action
and participation
More likely to be short-term or time- More likely to be long term and build and grow over
limited time
Preventative and transformational in aim (e.g.
Reactive and ameliorative in aim advocacy, campaigning and acting to bring social
change)

Types of Communities

Definitions of community in sociology and in community psychology distinguish between two

meanings of the term: community as locality and community as a relational group (e.g.,
Bernard, 1973; Bess, Fisher, Sonn, & Bishop, 2002).

Locality-Based Community
This is the traditional conception of community. It includes city blocks, neighbourhoods, small
towns, cities, and rural regions. Interpersonal ties exist among community members (residents);
they are based on geographic proximity, not necessarily choice. When residents of a locality
share a strong sense of community, individuals often identify themselves by their locality, and
friends are often neighbours. In many nations, political representation, public school districts,
and other forms of social organization are delineated by locality.

Relational Community
These communities are defined by interpersonal relationships and a sense of community but
are not limited by geography. Internet discussion groups are communities completely without
geographic limits. Mutual help groups, student clubs, and religious congregations are defined
by relational bonds. Although relational communities may be based only on friendships or
recreation (e.g., sports leagues, sororities), many are organizations bound by a common task or
mission. Workplaces, religious congregations, community organizations, chambers of
commerce, labour unions, and political parties are examples.

Locality-based and relational communities form a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. Many
primarily relational communities are seated in a locality (e.g., universities, religious
congregations). An Internet discussion group where the members have never actually met each
other face-to-face anchors the purely relational pole of the continuum; a town or neighbourhood
represents the opposite locality-based pole.