LESSONS FROM PARTICIPATORY COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN

HONDURAS

Stephanie Patzer
M.Sc. Rural Planning and Development
University of Guelph

Under the guidance of

Dr. Ryan Gibson

August 10, 2018

Acknowledgements 2
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
Chapter 2: Literature Review 6
Informal Settlement Upgrading 6
Participation in Development 8
Theorectical Justification 9
Flexible Interventions and Facilitative Attitudes 11
Use of Social Capital 15
Strategic Politicization of the NGO 18
Conclusion 21
Chapter 3: Methodology 22
Case Study 22
Data Collection 25
Observation 25
Document Review 26
Key Informant Interviews 26
Data Analysis 28
Chapter 4: National and Local Contexts 28
Poverty Reduction in Honduras 28
Community organizations 30
TECHO 31
TECHO’s Model of Intervention 32
TECHO Honduras 35
Community Case Studies 35
El Ciprés, Lepaterique, Francisco Morazán 36
El Porvenir, San José, La Paz 37
Chapter 5: Empirical Results 39
TECHO Honduras’ Community Engagement 39
Flexible Project Design and Facilitative Attitudes 39
Use of Social Capital 44
Strategic Politicization 48
Chapter 5: Conclusion 51
References 57

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

2
I would like to thank several organizations and individuals who supported and facilitated this
research project in a variety of ways. First, I would like to thank the significant financial support
from Social Science and Human Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The Canadian Graduate
Scholarship (Master's program) allowed me to focus on learning and research that went beyond
the university campus.

I would also like to thank the University of Guelph for a very warm and personalized academic
experience that permitted me to pursue this research topic. I received invaluable academic and
personal support from a number of people from the faculty of the School of Environmental
Design and Rural Development, but I would like to firstly thank Dr. Ryan Gibson for his on-going
guidance in research design and encouragement while I was in Honduras. The geographical
barrier in communication did not feel like one during the research process. I would also like to
thank Dr. John Devlin who provided critical thematic input and constructive criticism that
ensured the basis of the research was sound. Dr. Helen Hambly, although she may not know it,
also made a significant mark on this research project by reminding me that I'm "not getting any
younger" and that while pursuing this research project may take a lot of time and effort to
realize financially and logistically, it would be worth it if it mattered to me. This single piece of
advice was pivotal in deciding to pursue this project.

I would also like to extend my thanks to Cuso International who facilitated my contact with
TECHO Honduras and who also provided significant financial and logistical support for the
leading up to and during this project.

I would also like to express my utmost gratitude to the staff and volunteers TECHO Honduras
who graciously allowed me to study their model of intervention, and work alongside them in
their office throughout the course of the research period. It has been an unforgettable
experience working with such passionate and capable youth. In addition, I would like to thank
the communities of El Ciprés and El Porvenir that allowed me into their community meetings,
provided me with valuable information and made me feel welcome in their spaces.

Last but not least I would like to thank my family for never doubting in my ability to complete
this project and to my friends Pallak Arora, Lesya Nakoneczny, Johanna Querengesser and
Barbara Fletcher for helping me stay sane and keep my doubts and fears in perspective.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

3
 Informal settlements are common in most of the Global South and are unquestionably

part of the development patterns that exist in Latin America. While the positive attributes of

informal settlements are being recognized, residents of informal settlements do not choose to

live in the difficult conditions of such settlements; they are forced to make homes out of the

available land and available resources that they find.

A variety of interrelated factors have led to the creation of informal settlements in peri-

urban and urban centres around the world. Among those factors, population growth,

mechanization of agricultural production, lack of affordable housing, underpaid work,

displacement due to conflict, natural disasters or climate change, and eviction from customarily

inhabited land in rural areas have driven rural populations to cities. In most cities around the

world, neither governments nor private housing markets have been able to provide affordable

housing, or the necessary accompanying services, to those migrating to the cities, resulting in

informal settlements. It is estimated that one in eight people live in informal settlements (UN-

Habitat, 2016), therefore it is no exaggeration that this is a substantial problem in today’s

society.

The phenomenon of the informal settlement can be found around the globe. Informal

settlements are typically characterized as being a grouping of households that have one or more

of the following characteristics: lack of security of tenure of land or dwelling, lack of basic

services and city infrastructure, housing that is not in compliance with planning and/or building

regulations, or housing in geographically and/or environmentally hazardous areas (UN-Habitat,

2016). The list of characteristics illustrates some of the obvious challenges that the residents of

informal settlements face. Poverty (UN-Habitat, 2016), low quality of health (Shortt & Hammett,

4
2013), high incidence of crime (Brown-Luthango, et al., 2017), and low levels of educational

attainment (Marais & Ntema, 2013) are also common in informal settlements.

The improvement of such settlements has been undertaken by governments,

nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and the residents themselves. NGOs play an important

role in filling in gaps in the provision of goods and services left undelivered by public and private

entities. The most common approach used by NGOs for upgrading informal settlements has

been a participatory approach. Generally speaking, a participatory approach seeks to include

beneficiaries in the development and implementation of projects and programs that impact

them.

TECHO presents a unique case of current facilitated community development practice. It

is a youth run organization, operating in 19 countries in Latin America, which seeks to facilitate

community development in informal settlements. TECHO engages youth between the ages of 16

to 30 years old in the coordination and support of the development projects selected by the

communities with which they work. This research studies the case of two rural communities

working with TECHO in Honduras, El Ciprés and El Porvenir. The focus of this research is the

participatory planning and development model that the organization has developed, called

mesa de trabajo. TECHO’s mesas de trabajo are working groups that consist of community

members of informal settlements and youth volunteers who collaborate on identifying,

prioritizing and resolving problems that act as barriers to overcoming poverty and low quality of

life. TECHO’s mesa de trabajo model is the cornerstone of the work that TECHO does and

reflects a facilitative and participatory approach to community development.

The objective of the research is to examine two of the mesas de trabajo that TECHO

Honduras has developed in two different communities in rural and peri-urban areas. The results

5
of the case study highlight how both TECHO and the community members manage to execute

community development best practices as described in the literature as well as reveal important

lessons learned while overcoming and circumventing barriers that they face. In addition, the

study contributes to further improving their methodology for facilitating community

development as well as identify lessons learned from their current practices.

The following section presents a literature review that provides a brief introduction to

informal settlement upgrading, followed by deeper dive into the literature on participation in

community development. It highlights the key elements that can be distilled out of the academic

debate that has been evolving since the idea of participation in development was mainstreamed

during the 1970s. The next section after the literature review provides an explanation of the

methodology used in the study, which is followed by a brief layout of the context of the case

study. Finally, the paper demonstrates how TECHO Honduras implements participatory informal

settlement upgrading programs that puts into practice the key elements of participatory

development practice.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

INFORMAL SETTLEMENT UPGRADING
Poverty in informal settlements is multi-dimensional. Many countries still use the uni-

dimensional measure of personal income to gauge the rate of poverty; however, it is now widely

accepted among international development organizations and within the social research

community that well-being depends on a variety of factors and that income can not necessarily

generate high quality of life if certain basic services are not available (OECD, 2017; Smale &

O’Rourke, 2018). Other factors such as nutrition, health, housing, security, employment,

education, clean environment and social networks all contribute to a healthy quality of life

6
(UNDP, n.d.). More often than not, living conditions in informal settlements includes few, if any,

of these aspects. As such, cycles of poverty are repeated through generations who find

themselves stuck spending all energy and resources on surviving day-to-day (UN, 2015; TECHO-

Honduras, 2014).

A variety of approaches have been used to improve the living conditions in informal

settlements. An approach dominant in the 1950s and 1960s was the government-imposed and

delivered ‘demolition and replacement’ method, which consisted of destroying informal

settlements and delivering housing units to the displaced families, as had been implemented in

the Global North post-World War II (Abbott, 2002). However, this approach did not keep up with

informal settlement growth and overcrowding being experienced in the Global South. The

interventions that followed sought to correct the faults of the previous approach by shifting

away from public housing to a self-help model, where informal settlement dwellers controlled

the production of their housing. In this wave, two approaches emerged: sites-and-services and

in situ slum upgrading (Amado, 2016). The sites-and-services model consists of public

investment in the provision of greenfield lots and social and basic infrastructure services for

families to use and build their own homes. In situ informal settlement upgrading generally

consists of informal settlements being left in their original location, and upgrading the

immediate housing and environment. The original aim of the in situ informal settlement

upgrading model was for the relevant government body to bring services to vulnerable

populations where they are and to arrange for legal title to land while they improve their

housing, while the inhabitants of the settlement upgraded their homes (Amado, et al., 2016).

Subsequently, the concept of informal settlement upgrading has evolved to an integrated

approach that involves cooperation among the various stakeholders that are affected, from civil

society, and the public and private sectors. This current approach also looks beyond the physical

7
infrastructure and seeks to improve the social, economic, and environmental conditions found

in the settlement.

Even though informal settlement upgrading has been implemented all over the world,

there is no specific methodology in which to refer. As previously mentioned, the concept is

essentially “any sector-based intervention in the settlement that results in a quantifiable

improvement in the quality of life of the residents affected” (Abbott, 2002, p. 307). As such, the

goals and methodologies used in informal settlement upgrading programs vary widely, and

many of the programs are undertaken by NGOs and multinational development organizations

where there is no real or perceived support for informal settlement residents from the relevant

government bodies. Rather than having a specific methodology, these programs are guided by

the main principle of facilitating self-help of people who live in informal settlements. Thus, they

are able to improve their circumstances when they are presented with better options for taking

care of themselves and for increasing their income.

PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT
The notion of participation is almost universally promoted in planning and development

theory and practice. It has been encouraged in a variety of fields such as environmental

management (Reed, 2008), health planning (Hipgrave, et al., 2013), and infrastructure and

natural resource development (Havel, 1996). However, participation is not easily defined. The

concept, in development and planning contexts, is generally accepted to be the involvement of

people in projects and development that impact their lives (IAP2, n.d.). Diversity in its definition

begins in specifying who participates in what activities, and how they participate (Cohen &

Uphoff, 2011). As a result, authors such as Arnstein (1969), Fung (2006) and Cohen and Uphoff

(2011) have created frameworks through which clearly definable elements of participation can

be identified and assembled. Those elements include, the type of participants, their level of

8
involvement, and the way in which the participants are participating. Arnstein’s seminal Ladder

of Citizen Participation (1969) is a linear range of participation as a function of power sharing,

consisting of eight rungs: manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership,

delegated power and citizen control. Fung (2006) expands upon Arnstein’s ladder by adding two

other dimensions to form a framework called a “Democracy Cube”. The Democracy Cube is a

three-dimensional framework with three scales: participant selection, communication and

decision, and authority and power. The rubric presented by Cohen and Uphoff (2011) includes

even more elements. Their framework entitled “rural development participation” is focused

specifically on participation used in development projects. It includes similar elements of

participation as the Democracy Cube: who, how and what kind of participation. These elements

are called the ‘dimensions’ of rural development participation. In addition to these, a fourth and

fifth dimension are included that account for the context in which the participation is occurring.

The fourth dimension disaggregates the characteristics of the development intervention as a

whole. The fifth dimension categorizes the external environment into historical factors,

physical/natural factors, and societal factors. In using this multi-dimensional framework, Cohen

and Uphoff argue that participation cannot be clearly defined; it is not a ‘thing’. Participation

can only be defined by the specification of the elements of which it is comprised.

THEORECTICAL JUSTIFICATION
Since being mainstreamed, some researchers have argued that the term participation

has been used as a buzzword to give external interventions legitimacy and to mask the top-

down “business as usual” practice of development (Cornwall & Brock, 2005). Despite this, a scan

of the literature regarding the use of participation in development reveals two theoretical bases

for the need of participation in development. One theory is based on the argument that those

‘in need of development’ are owed the right to self-determination of their developmental ends

9
as well as process. Chambers (1983) offers a normative argument for the participation of

beneficiaries in their own development as their right. His argument is based on the belief that all

individuals are owed the right to self-determination, including the vulnerable and marginalized.

Participation is a mechanism that should be used by those on the receiving end of development

assistance and accepted by those offering the development assistance in developing countries,

such as development donors and governments. Kapoor (2005) and Abbas (2012) further the

idea of participation as a right by arguing that values and conditions within societies change

over time and space. They state that any legitimate construct and sense of well-being of an

individual or group can only be determined by that individual or group. Within the context of

North-South cooperation, Cooke (2004) suggests that the participatory approach has the

potential to contribute to productive and positive development if it is used to improve the

originally paternal ideologies of international development. Therefore, it is imperative for

development to be led by the people undergoing the development. They both argue that any

intervention devised by external parties is by default colonialist, perpetuating the control of

power of the Global North over the Global South.

The other dominant theoretical basis found in the literature, participation is believed to

increase effectiveness of development interventions by increasing the ‘uptake’ by the

beneficiaries. Through participation, beneficiaries may develop some sense of ownership of a

development intervention by investing time, gaining knowledge and invoking some level of

control over decision-making; programs in which an individual participates, may consider them

to be a part of their ‘extended self’. Pierce et al. (2001) theorize that there are positive and

causal relationships between the amounts of control a person has over an object (material or

immaterial), the extent to which a person intimately knows an object, the extent to which an

individual invests themselves into the object, and the degree of ownership that a person feels.

10
Thus, when individuals who are targeted for receiving development programs participate in the

design and implementation of those programs, their commitment to the program and their

follow through on the objectives of the program are expected to increase.

The mainstreaming of participatory practices in planning and development has

generated a wide but polarized body of cases and opinions regarding its use (Cooke & Kothari,

2001). There have been many development NGOs that have used participation in projects and

programs that have been deemed unsuccessful. However, the conclusion that can be drawn

from this on-going debate is that the ‘participatory approach’ has the potential to contribute to

productive successful development. From an analysis of this literature, three key elements have

been found to be fundamental to participatory development: (1) flexible interventions and

facilitative attitudes, (2) use of social capital, and (3) strategic politicization of the NGO.

FLEXIBLE INTERVENTIONS AND FACILITATIVE ATTITUDES

The first fundamental element that successful participatory interventions require is

flexible and facilitative planning and implementation. There is evidence that the use of flexible

and facilitative approaches improve the outcomes, both in terms of acceptance of the activity as

well as the quality of the outcomes. Such flexibility and facilitativeness can be reflected in a

variety of ways, but has been mainly documented in the literature as it relates to participant

selection, and facilitative intervention selection and implementation.

Flexible Participant Selection

The selection of participants or beneficiaries for any project or program is often a very

difficult task. A common assumption that is made in the design and implementation of

participatory development projects is that ‘community’ involvement will result in outcomes that

are favourable to the ‘community’ (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). However, the people who make up

a community, often have varying viewpoints, values and aspirations, which can be the source of

11
divisions and conflicts. Within what often appears to be a small and homogeneous group may

exist important social and economic conflicts, which influence the behaviour of the people

within them. This phenomenon is illustrated in a case study of a Mexican community’s struggle

to work together on a rural tourism program aimed at fostering sustainable rural development

(Clausen & Gyimóthy, 2016). In a government-funded program that aimed to provide support

rural development projects by increasing tourism and improving local infrastructure, a condition

was placed that required the creation of a committee made up of community members. Within

the town of 13,000 people, of whom all were invited to participate in the committee, existing

divisions in the community translated to the committee; local Mexican elites, North American

tourism entrepreneurs, local Mexican workers and local government officials all present on the

committee advocated for funding projects reflective of their competing interests. Therefore,

allowing participation to flourish can require extra time and human and financial resources.

Decision-making that allows for the surfacing of local ideas is often more complex and drawn-

out than command and control style program management style allows for.

Furthermore, residents of informal settlements often rely on and trust informal

networks rather than formally established institutions to meet their needs (Swapan, 2016). The

presence of such informal networks, if not known prior to designing a participatory project, may

lead to the need to incorporate additional players into the project due to the interconnectivity

of the lives of the members of the community. Targeting what is considered to be one ‘group’

within society, the solicitation of participation from that group is near impossible without

excluding some people who believe they are a part of it (Turnout et al., 2010). For example, in

Bolivia, the targeting of indigenous peoples for resource extraction consultation process

exposed the difficulty in practically separating people into distinct ethnicities for the purpose of

consultation (Fontana & Grugel, 2016). In that context, there are fluid and constantly changing

12
boundaries between indígenas (indigenous from the lowlands), originarios (native from the

highlands), and campesinos (peasants). During the implementation of the consultation process,

it was found that mainly political differences mark the separation between groups rather than

biological differences, as the indígenas and originarios live very similar lives to the campesinos

and the campesinos are predominantly of indigenous origin. The important difference that lies

between indigenous and peasant identity is their position towards rejecting decolonization and

returning to the traditional community structures and lifestyles of the Andes. The result of pre-

selecting and restricting the participation from one group turned out to be difficult to practically

implement and created divisions between already marginalized but co-existing groups.

Therefore, anticipating changes in participants/beneficiaries in participatory interventions is

important to ensure interventions target beneficiaries as correctly and as inclusively as possible.

Facilitative Intervention Selection and Implementation

Flexibility in intervention selection and implementation is also essential to a

participatory delivery. Projects that allow for community deliberation and decision-making

throughout the intervention process require long time horizons with the ability to allow a

project and process to materialize out of the unique context for which it is intended. In

development, where problems are often ‘wicked’ and complex, innovation, that is the process

of inventing solutions, requires trial and error (Lindblom, 1959). This process of ‘muddling

through’ is not compatible with the dominant results-based management approach to

development (Gamble, 2008). This requires a shift in culture for many development donors,

including the World Bank. Recognizing and accepting the uncertainty of the direction of a

project as well as its ultimate impact is difficult to sell in this era of neoliberal or market-

oriented management present in all sectors. However, flexibility in funding is a common

request from NGOs (Government of Canada, 2017). NGOs who want to allow for such flexibility

13
are often faced by the demand by donors to create rigid and linear plans that quantify the

intended impact of interventions. In the case of MISEREOR, a German international cooperation

organization, an internal management shift took place in which it changed its organizational

philosophy and administration to be more facilitative and less prescriptive. This resulted in

funding for programs that over longer periods of time and that did not require detailed plans

prior to funding (MISEREOR, 2017).

Allowing participation throughout the project delivery process also requires NGOs to

provide an enabling environment. Throughout a participatory process of problem assessment

and project implementation, unforeseen causes and solutions to issues afflicting a given group

or community can emerge that may alter the focus of an intervention. Yalegama et al. (2016)

identify key success factors for participation from the perspective of the communities working

with the highly successful Gemidiriya microfinance project in Sri Lanka. One of three key success

factors for participation in development from the perspective of the community was the

enabling environment for community-led development from the project donor and

implementer. Their characterization of an enabling environment includes on-going and

consistent technical assistance while leaving decision-making power regarding project affairs

with the village organizations created as part of the project. Close support and monitoring from

the NGO was found to provide emotional encouragement as well as operational momentum to

the project without discouraging the village organizations during difficult times. The other two

key success factors from the Gemidiriya project were the measuring of project outcomes by the

committed community members and consistent community engagement throughout the

duration of the project. The two other success factors point to the next key element discussed in

the current literature review: the use of social capital of the community.

14
 In summary, participatory processes substantially increase the number of unknowns and

the possibility for change during the planning and implementation of development. However,

contrary to technocratic project management discourse, this is not negative. It only requires a

different mindset to be able to adapt to inevitably changing contexts and to manage relatively

long project cycles without losing sight of the ultimate goal of improving quality of life of the

participants.

USE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

In addition to the way spaces for participation are supplied, the demand for such spaces

has been found to be an essential condition for executing effective participatory engagement.

The combination of the existence of strong social capital and the demand for support from

external entities has demonstrated potential for avoiding poorly received participatory policies

and programming.

Although it is a concept that is widely used and highly regarded, social capital has been

called an umbrella concept that is not easily defined (Claridge, 2004). It generally refers to

“networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation

within or among groups” (OECD, 2001, p 41.). One conceptualization of social capital

concentrates on civic engagement, “which comprises the activities and networks through which

people contribute to civic and community life, such as volunteering, political participation, group

membership and different forms of community action” (OECD, 2001, p 41.). The important

aspects that strengthen social capital are shared knowledge of these networks, as well as the

obligations and expectations created by those networks (Rydin & Pennington, 2000), which set

roles that divide work and responsibilities between community members. The existence of

social capital also means that networks and media of communication exist within the

15
community to share and receive information that is necessary to garner motivation and organize

action.

Several studies have investigated the effect of social capital in participatory

developmental interventions around the world (Portes and Landolt, 2000). These studies

identify a variety of ways that the existence of social capital had a positive impact on the

intervention. For example, Das (2014) identifies the impact that existing social networks have on

creating solidarity between women in a community in India seeking the provision of water.

Within this community, there was a relatively high level of existing social capital among the

female population before the intervention was introduced, where they organized meetings and

protests against the lack of water supply and drainage infrastructure in their community. The

study found that the women’s primary motivation to participate in the water supply scheme

project was their group solidarity. They felt that they could influence decisions in their local

government by acting as a collective. The mutual support and dependence also helped convince

their husbands to let them participate in the project by explaining how the other women were

participating as well. Their solidarity helped them individually resist, sometimes violent, refusal

of their partners’ permission to let them participate. Knowing that their group members needed

more members to effect change helped them endure the difficult battle of gaining support from

their partners.

Similarly, the study of an NGO that promotes women’s rights in Kolkata, India highlights

how the lack of existing social capital impeded participation in services (Bháird, 2013). The NGO,

Shikha, working with women in the slums of Kolkata, found that because women were married

at a young age and would move to the house of their spouse, they were often isolated and had

no support to resist sexual, emotional and physical violence. Due to the fact that the women

16
generally accepted their role in the household and were expected to take responsibility for the

abuse they received, they were not interested in participating in workshops and training that

they felt was not related to their reality. Over time and by being flexible in their approach, the

NGO workers created trust between them and the women from the slums, the women felt less

anxious to interact with the NGO and each other. As a result, the women who began to

participate in the activities arranged by the NGO, formed relationships among them.

Subsequently, from those relationships, the NGO could create programs that were practical for

improving the gender inequalities within the slums.

The consideration of social capital is also an important factor for determining the

scalability of projects. Projects that are found to be successful in one area may not be

transferrable to seemingly similar contexts, such as slums in the same city if the level of social

capital is not the same or adequate (Hasan, 2006). For this reason, it is important of external

entities, such as NGOs, to attempt to assess the level and nature of the social capital present in

a community of interest (Tanwir & Safday, 2013). Hippert (2011) demonstrates how this

knowledge is important prior to introducing interventions into any population. The researchers

studied how a Bolivian government policy established in 1994 aimed at increasing the

participation of women in political arenas by legally mandated citizens to voice their opinions in

municipal organizations. It was found this obligation overburdened women because their

regular duties were not delegated to others while their husbands had to travel long distances to

find work. In many cases, the women, who were encouraged to apply for political positions,

stated that they would rather see their husbands take the position in order to keep them closer

to home, which would help reduce the women’s work. The induced participation of women in

this situation did not account for the overarching social norms, which led to the added burden

that the women faced due to the lack of nearby employment opportunities. Other participatory

17
policies and programs that have been studied have been found to not sufficiently assess the

willingness and ability of women to participate. In many of these cases, the lack of women or

the perceived inequality between men and women is seen as a ‘technical problem’ and thus the

addition of women into formal or informal positions of power or influence can abruptly upset

social structures, causing damage to those it is meant to help (O’Reilly, 2010). Thus, the

importance of cognizance of the impediments women face in accessing decision-making spaces

cannot be over-stated. Other marginalized peoples due to internal and external conditions such

as race, language and religion must also be considered in the assessment of the social dynamics

of any given community or population of interest.

Therefore, one cannot simply ‘add marginalized people and stir’ (Cornwall, 2003). A

thorough understanding of the social networks, or lack thereof, is critical to creating effective

and inclusive participatory spaces for making decisions and taking action. The reality is that the

poor have a high opportunity-cost for participating in activities outside of their usual lives. Those

who must make large sacrifices to attend meetings tend to only participate when they perceive

that there will be a direct benefit (Asian Development Bank, 2012; Beard, 2005; Das and

Takahashi, 2014; Mansuri & Rao, 2012).

STRATEGIC POLITICIZATION OF THE NGO

A politicized conceptualization of participation can be used to empower the

disenfranchised, as they are the ones who know their reality better than anyone else.

Participation becomes empowering when one recognizes that each individual has unique and

inherent knowledge and understanding of oneself and one’s environment. If individuals are

willing and able to organize themselves to collect data, share knowledge and problem-solve,

they can collectively demand, negotiate and attract investment from governments, private

18
companies and/or NGOs to improve their living conditions and access to opportunities. In other

words, it is powerful (Jacobs et al., 2015).

One of the most common critiques of the participatory approach is the way it has been

technocratically applied. That is to say, the application of participatory techniques without any

consideration of how that participation will affect the political landscape, removes the

association of participation with the redistribution of power. However, the participation of

marginalized people inevitably increases their level of empowerment, which may come with

benefit for them but risk (real or perceived) for those with power to lose. Therefore, it is

important for NGOs facilitating this participation and resulting empowerment to understand the

impact this redistribution of power may have in the political landscape and the possible

repercussions.

First, NGOs that use participatory practices should first keep in mind how participation

of disenfranchised people can be co-opted (Schönwälder, 1997). Cooke (2003) suggests three

forms of co-option of participation to wary of in development. First, participatory practices that

are technocratically applied typically can be used solely to increase the psychological

commitment and sense of ownership of the participants in a non-negotiable objective. This

coerces the participating group into believing in a predetermined mission, borrowing from

managerialist tactics. In this way, opportunities for resistance to control decreases because the

‘empowerment’ they have gained ‘removes’ the control imposed. A second form of co-option

identified by Cooke (2004) is that of the proletarianization of the poor. This process may be, in

some cases, a short-term solution to a community with low quality of life. However, the long-

term sustainability of an improvement is dubious as the rapid introduction of wage-based

economics into a community runs the risk of introducing new and unforeseen problems. For

19
example, when individually-oriented economic opportunity is abruptly introduced into

communities where traditions of familial lineage are the norm, diverging interests and

heterogeneity can be by-products to the increase in financial income that do not necessarily

translate into an overall improved quality of life in those communities (Platteau & Abraham,

2002). Lastly, a third form of co-option is found where organic participation growing from

strengthening and spreading of social capital in the grassroots, reflecting a deep and radical shift

in power is appropriated by a special interest group in order to maintain the status quo or to

advance a hidden agenda which only benefits a select few, undermining the focus of a social

movement. In Latin America, there is a tradition of co-optation of leaders of popular movements

and organizations into ‘state machinery’ in exchange for the ability to monitor their

development and demands (Rahier, 2012).

Without the genuine commitment of the dominant segment of a population to increase

equality within their society, both induced and organic forms of participation run the risk of

being co-opted. The potential of co-option poses a serious challenge that some critics see as

insurmountable through induced intervention. Because local authorities from within the

development context stand to lose in the devolution of power to the marginalized, those

authorities must be willing to act against their own self-interest (Cobbinah, 2015; Patel, 2016).

In light of this, external entities working with communities through participatory development

programs can impart on individuals and groups within those communities sustained

empowerment, by reshaping of political networks beyond the duration and location of a project

or program or determining the lack or weakness of the political capabilities of the poor. Political

capabilities, defined as “the institutional and organizational resources as well as collective ideas

available for effective political action” (Williams, 2004, p. 567), build the capacity necessary to

further upgrade marginalized communities beyond the scope of a project. It also can lead to

20
high percentage rates of participation and retention of participants if they are cognizant of the

way a project is part of a larger political disruption within the greater context (Bonnan-White et

al., 2013). Examples of such efforts to facilitate projects that attempt to increase the political

capacity of communities is the creation of maps and surveys of physical capital as well as

population and economic data of marginalized communities. It has been found that when

communities can quantify their need as well as resources, it has the potential to augment the

sense of financial and social capital that they have. Socio-economic data owned by communities

can be used to justify the need for infrastructure upgrades, as has been documented in

examples from Brazil, Namibia, and Zimbabwe (Banana et al., 2015; Colombo & Pacifici, 2016;

Muller & Mbanga, 2012). Part of the power that comes with the data is the collective ownership

of it. In contexts where political leaders publicly support projects in hopes of votes in elections,

geo-referenced population data can add weight to community-based organizations that wish to

get support for their projects (Jacobs et al., 2015).

CONCLUSION
Informal settlement upgrading has been the response from governments and the third

sector in combating the inadequate living conditions present in informal settlements around the

world. This is mainly due to the lack of capacity and resources of the public sector to provide

decent housing and basic services. Therefore, informal settlement upgrade programs that

facilitate self-help and multi-sector collaboration are the most common technique for confront

this global problem. As such, participation of residents of informal settlements play a crucial

part of these programs.

Participation in development interventions has been common practice for several

decades (Bháird, 2013). Therefore, there are numerous published studies that have drawn

important lessons from the experiences of organizations that have attempted to facilitate

21
participatory practices in development contexts (Participedia, 2013). The breadth information

available on the topic of participatory practices is a testament of the continued trial and error

that forms the global and on-going collective learning process that is underway. The present

review of the literature found that firstly, the concept of participation is extremely broad, which

can result in ambiguity in the academic as well as practical discussion of the topic. However,

three key elements have been distilled from that discussion: (1) flexible interventions and

facilitative attitudes, (2) use of social capital, and (3) strategic politicization of the NGO. The case

study presented in the following sections will present findings from an NGO in Honduras, whose

model of participatory informal settlement upgrades incorporates these three elements and

how these elements are carried out in the field.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
CASE STUDY
This research project is intended to study the application of a participatory intervention

model that seemed, from prior knowledge and grey literature, to explicitly incorporate three key

elements necessary for effective execution (presented in Chapter 2: Literature Review). In

focusing the study on the application a particular model in a particular context, the case study

approach was deemed appropriate. Case studies are appropriate for exploring, in detail, a

bounded system (Mayan, 2009). The bounded system can be an organization, an event, an

activity, a program or a person (Creswell, 1998).

For the purpose of this project, the implementation of the particular model of

intervention used by TECHO was chosen to be studied. The specific context of the application of

their model of intervention was selected to be its country program office in Tegucigalpa M.D.C.,

Honduras (Figure 1).

22
 Figure 1: Map of Tegucigalpa M.D.C., Honduras

This location was chosen primarily due to the researcher’s previous professional

experience in the region as well as the personal connection with TECHO Honduras, established

through the Canadian NGO (non-governmental organization) Cuso International. Through Cuso

International, it was possible to establish an agreement for conducting the research with TECHO

Honduras over the course of six months (March to August of 2018), including working from their

office and visiting their partner communities (informal settlements). Given that their head

office is located in the capital of Honduras, Tegucigalpa, and most of the communities with

which they work are also within a few hours’ drive from Tegucigalpa, it was determined that

access to both the head office as well as those communities would be feasible and secure.

23
 Due to time and resource constraints, two of the five communities where mesas de

trabajo are actively functioning with TECHO were selected to be studied. The two communities

are El Ciprés, part of the municipality of Lepaterique, Francisco Morazán (Figure 2) and El

Porvenir, part of the municipality of San José, La Paz (Figure 3).

Figure 2: Map of El Ciprés, an informal settlement in Lepaterique, Francisco Morazán

Figure 3: Map of El Porvenir, an informal settlement in San José, La Paz

24
 These two communities were chosen because they represent two extreme cases of

community organization. El Porvenir is a recently formed community where participation in

communal projects has been strong and existent since before TECHO began working with them,

whereas, the community of El Ciprés was a community with very little social cohesion prior to

TECHO’s arrival. Investigating the implementation of the same model of intervention in these

two cases provides important insight into the potential adaptability of the model. Further

description of the cases and their contexts is presented in Chapter 5: Empirical Results.

DATA COLLECTION
The data collection for this research project has taken place in three forms. As

previously mentioned, the researcher was invited to work directly from the head office of

TECHO Honduras in Tegucigalpa over the course of six months, from February to August 2018.

This arrangement had a positive impact on the ability to collect data. First, positive rapport

between the researcher and the staff and volunteers of TECHO was established through the

existing inter-institutional relationship between Cuso International and TECHO Honduras. In

addition, by being in the office everyday, the researcher was able to quickly build trust and

understanding with the staff and volunteers. As a result, access documents and information was

generously made available on an as need basis, which facilitated the planning of the study from

the beginning.

The data collected for this project were all of a qualitative nature. As is recommended

for conducting contextually rich data necessary for case studies, three methods of data

collection were used: observation, document review and key informant interviews.

OBSERVATION
Observation began immediately once the researcher started working in the TECHO

office. The TECHO staff invited the researcher to staff meetings, volunteer training sessions, and

25
institutional social events. The opportunities where the richest information was captured were

the field activities in which the researcher was able to participate. These activities included

housing construction weekends, census survey collection1 and the TECHO-community working

group meetings, called the mesa de trabajo. In total, the researcher was able to participate in

two construction weekends (February 23-25 and May 26-27), two census survey collection

weekends (May 5-6 and 19-20) and attended four mesas de trabajo (April 22, May 12, June 3

and July 1). Observations were documented in dated, handwritten field notes, which were

collected in two notebooks.

DOCUMENT REVIEW
A review of internal documents, not available in the public domain, also began at the

beginning of the research period in Tegucigalpa, and continued to occur intermittently

throughout the research project, as awareness of useful documents became known to the

researcher. Such documents include community project planning documents, community survey

documents, annual evaluations, published research reports, and institutional reports and

manuals. These documents were formally provided to the researcher upon request by the staff

of TECHO Honduras. External news articles were also reviewed as part of the research project,

however, these played a lesser role in the overall analysis. Many of the external news articles

were not found to be directly relevant to the case study and often were dubious in credibility.

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS

Finally, six semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants. These

participants were selected using purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is a method of

selecting interviewees based on their unique experience and knowledge in a particular event or

1 The census survey was a survey done of all the informal settlements in the metropolitan region
of Tegucigalpa, M.D.C. in May 2018. The survey collected data related to population, land
tenancy, accessibility to basic infrastructure and social services and security.

26
subject (Mayan, 2009). In accordance of good research practice when involving human

participants in academic research, ethics approval was sought and received prior to engaging

with the interviewees (Booth, et al., 2003). The Research Ethics Board of the University of

Guelph granted the researcher approval in May 20, 2018. No other research ethics board was

consulted because Honduras does not have a national framework for ethical conduct of social

research involving human participants. Therefore, the research project was conducted with the

principles of research ethics of Canada. As part of the application process, it was required to

create an interview guide outlining the list of questions that the participants would be asked.

This guide is provided in both English and Spanish in Appendix I.

Two staff, two volunteers and two community leaders were selected to be interviewed,

all of who agreed to participate. Of those six interviewees, three women and three men were

interviewed. The two staff members who were interviewed were the Director of Social Action

(June 20th), and the Director of Community Engagement (June 20th). The volunteers who were

interviewed were the Community Coordinators of two communities (El Ciprés and El Porvenir),

both of whom have held their role for over a year. The interviews for the Community

Coordinators for El Ciprés and El Porvenir occurred on July 13 and July 16, respectively. Finally,

the two community leaders were two notably active community members from the

communities of El Ciprés (July 1st) and El Porvenir (June 3rd). Due to data saturation, no further

interviews were conducted. The interviewed ranged form half an hour to an hour in length. The

researcher conducted the interviews in Spanish, in which she is professionally proficient. The

interviews with the community members were done after community meetings, in an isolated

area outside of their respective gathering spots. The interviews with staff and volunteers of

TECHO were conducted in the TECHO office, during regular working hours.

27
DATA ANALYSIS
The analysis of the data collected during the study was on-going throughout the

research period. A content analysis was conducted on all relevant documents and interview

transcripts. This content analysis was conducted in order to compare the theory and practice of

participatory community development programs in informal settlements. Therefore, both a

conventional and non-conventional approach of content analysis was used (Yalegama, et al.,

2016). Conventional content analysis seeks to identify categories of themes or responses from

data provided in documents or interviewee opinions. In this case, the key themes found in the

academic literature (refer to Chapter 2: Literature Review) were the focus of the content

analysis. A table was created that separated the three themes and all the collected data were

categorized within that table, including interviewee comments, field notes and information

collected from the document review. In addition, other themes that were emphasized during

the data collection were also noted and included in the data analysis. The results of the data

collection and analysis are presented in the following chapters.

CHAPTER 4: NATIONAL AND LOCAL CONTEXTS

This section provides descriptions of the national and local contexts of the case study as

well as TECHO itself. First, a brief introduction of national poverty reduction programs is

described, followed by an overview of the nationally legally recognized community

organizational structure that is present in many communities across Honduras. Then,

descriptions of TECHO, its model of intervention as well as its operation in Honduras is

presented. Lastly, descriptions of the communities of El Ciprés and El Porvenir are presented.

POVERTY REDUCTION IN HONDURAS

28
 Honduras is the largest country in Central America by landmass and second most

populated, after Guatemala. It has a population of 9.11 million people, of which 61% live in

poverty (or live on less than $4USD per day) (World Bank, 2016). The national government has in

place several programs aimed at reducing poverty from a variety of angles. In all 18

departamentos of Honduras, the national government has implemented its VIDA MEJOR

program that is a series of projects that aim to improve quality of life and reduce poverty in a

multi-faceted way. These projects include the free delivery of eco-stoves, family gardens, bio-

sand filters and concrete floors. For single mothers and families living in extreme poverty (or

living on less than $1.90USD per day), the national government has also implemented

conditional money transfers and food bags, which have reached 270,000 families (El Libertador,

2018). The national government has also put in place a school snack program aimed at keeping

children in schools, which has reached 1.4 million children. Other poverty reduction strategies

taken by the national government has been the creation of employment. The CON CHAMBA

VIVÍS MEJOR program is focused on strengthening the agro-food sector, ensuring full

employment in industrial parks and providing financial and technical support to micro, small and

medium enterprises. The national government has also launched an employment programs

aimed at NINIs (unemployed youth who are not studying). The program, called ¡CHAMBA

AHORITA!, has set a goal of creating 100,000 jobs over four years for NINIs by subsidizing their

first three months of employment in private enterprises (UN, n.d.).

Unfortunately, these programs only begin to reach the estimated 5,557,100 people

living in poverty in the country. Therefore, a large number of NGOs are present in Honduras.

While no official count of the organizations of the third sector is published, it is estimated that

there are more than 16,000 NGOs operating in Honduras, according to Unidad de Registro y

Seguimiento Asociaciones Civiles, or Unit for Registering and Monitoring Civil Associations

29
(URSAC) (El Heraldo, 2014). These NGOs work in all fields of development including education,

health, environment, economic development and water and sanitation.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
An important part of the organizational landscape in both urban and rural communities

in Honduras is the presence of community boards or patronatos. Patronatos are legally formed

associations that are comprised of the residents of a community that occupied a physical space

who seek to maintain the common good, self-management of their needs and the defense of

their interests (La Gaceta, 2014). These patronatos are found in both formal and informal

settlements. According to both the Ley de Patronatos y Asociaciones Comunitarias and the Ley

de Municipalidades, municipal governments as well as national authorities must make

arrangements with the communities at all stages of any project or program that affects them. In

addition, all governmental entities of all levels are obligated to respect, protect and encourage

patronatos as spaces of democratic organization and community self-management. As such,

patronatos have the legal right to undertake community projects such as the construction

and/or maintenance of community infrastructure (roads, water distribution systems, schools,

etc.) subsequent to the delegation of the pertinent authority.

Another common type of community organizations in Honduras is the junta de agua or

water board. Before 2003, the Servicio Autónomo Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados

(SANAA) or the Autonomous National Aqueduct and Sewerage Service was the main provider of

water and sanitation services in the urban areas of Honduras. In the rural areas, local juntas de

agua were the main providers water and sanitation services, receiving technical support from

SANAA. Since the year 2003, Honduras has officially sought to decentralize the provision of

water in urban areas and grant local water boards in rural areas legal status by passing of the

Ley Marco del Sector Agua Potable y Saneamiento or the Potable Water and Sanitation Sector

30
Framework Law. The purpose of decentralization was to broaden the reach of services and to

increase transparency in the sector. The framework established the Consejo Nacional de Agua y

Saneamiento or the National Council of Water and Sanitation (CONASA) and the Ente Regulador

de los Servicios de Agua Potable y Saneamiento or the Regulatory Entity of Potable Water and

Sanitation Services (ERSAPS). CONASA is the national entity which sets policies and strategies for

the provision of potable water and sanitation services; ERSAPS is meant to set regulations and

standards of provision of those services. Under this framework, SANAA is meant to become the

technical arm of CONASA and devolve its role as provider to independent public-private

organizations who are supervised by the respective municipal government. However, this

framework has not been completely realized and the previous arrangement for provision is still

the common system in place. In other words, the provision of water and sanitation services,

where present, are mainly administered by community-based juntas de agua.

In any educational centre, whether public or private, there usually exists an Asociación de

Padres y Madres de Familia (APF) or Parents’ Associations. These APFs are made up of students,

teachers, parents and guardians of students of the educational centre. The purpose of the APF is

to discuss and contribute to the school’s operation in order to create the best possible learning

environment and learning outcomes. They also are responsible for monitoring the operation as

well as the educational indicators of the centre. APFs are legal organizations that must abide by

the federal regulations set out in the Reglamento de Participación de la Comunidad Educativa de

la Ley Fundamental de Educación y Acuerdo Ministerial N°. 1395-SE-2015.

TECHO
TECHO is one of many NGOs operating in Honduras. TECHO, meaning roof in Spanish,

began as a youth-run NGO in Chile in 1997. Its aim was to combat poverty in informal

settlements by constructing emergency dwellings. In the 20 years since its establishment, it has

31
opened offices in 21 countries in Latin America and continues to be a youth-run organization

focused on reducing poverty in informal settlements. While TECHO’s operations in each country

are adapted to the context, the model of intervention is same across the region. TECHO seeks to

overcome poverty through the collective action of youth volunteers and the residents of

informal settlements in the implementation of projects and programs. As such, its impact is two-

fold, executing projects and programs to improve the quality of life in informal settlements

while building capacity within youth (ages 16-30) as well as residents of informal settlements.

TECHO also strongly promotes volunteerism and relies heavily on youth volunteers who execute

a large percentage of the operations of the organization.

TECHO’S MODEL OF INTERVENTION

TECHO’s model of intervention is highly participatory and is based on collaboration with

community organizations. TECHO works on a community-level basis where it establishes a

participatory planning and development mechanism called a mesa de trabajo. TECHO’s mesas

de trabajo are working groups that consist of community members of informal settlements and

youth volunteers who collaborate on identifying, prioritizing and resolving problems that act as

barriers to overcoming poverty and low quality of life. TECHO’s mesa de trabajo model is the

cornerstone of the work that TECHO does and reflects TECHO’s facilitative and participatory

approach to community development.

TECHO’s model of intervention follows a loosely defined process that is guided by

principles and its ultimate objective of community development through the strengthening

community capacity and to developing housing and habitat initiatives (TECHO, 2018). The

process begins with the initial contact between TECHO and the members of an informal

settlement. The initial contact may be initiated either by TECHO or by the members of the

informal settlement. During this initial contact, TECHO and leaders of the community and/or

32
community organizations meet to fill out a community characterization questionnaire and to

present and discuss TECHO’s principles and goals. The community characterization

questionnaire is used as an exercise to reflect on the living conditions in the informal

settlements and the results are used by TECHO to assess how it can support the members of the

informal settlement. The characterization focuses on the size, history, land tenancy, housing

conditions, community infrastructure, surroundings, and community dynamics (presence and

activity of community organizations) of the informal settlement. Once the initial meeting is held,

the community leaders or group is responsible for disseminating the information to the other

residents of the informal settlement in order to gain support. If enough support is gained, a

community assembly is held where all community members are invited to hear directly from

TECHO staff and/or volunteers about their work and objectives, and to communicate their ideas,

concerns and support. In this initial meeting, the first tangible project is proposed, which is the

construction of houses for the most vulnerable families of the community. This first project is

used not only to improve the living conditions of the families who receive housing, but also to

build trust and a sense of collaboration between TECHO and the community. This stage of the

process usually takes between three to eight months.

Following the successful completion of the first project, TECHO and the community

members of the informal settlement create a mesa de trabajo. The mesa de trabajo is a working

group made up of community members and TECHO volunteers. The goal of the mesa de trabajo

is to lead the work that is done between the community and TECHO. The mesa de trabajo meets

regularly, between once and twice a month. The first action taken by the mesa de trabajo is the

do a household survey of the community that collects more detailed data related to topics

covered in the community characterization questionnaire. In addition to the household survey,

the members of the mesa de trabajo completes a community assessment that not only

33
identifies but analyzes problems present in the community. The result of the community

assessment is to determine the priority issues present in the community, as well as their causes

and consequences. Using the results of the survey and the community assessment, the mesa de

trabajo develops a plan of action that outlines the concrete actions that will be taken including

schedule, resources and responsibilities.

The plan of action is the key document used throughout the rest of the period (usually

one year). The mesa de trabajo then works to complete the actions outlined in the plan of

action. This part of the process is the least prescriptive due to the wide range of activities or

projects that result from the community assessments. During this stage, the community

coordinators attend the mesa de trabajo meetings and push along progress by following up on

actions to be taken and facilitate the delegation of tasks in order to complete the projects that

are undertaken. The community coordinators also meet with the TECHO staff to update them on

the status of projects, the general momentum of the mesa de trabajo and notify staff of any

issues that need to be resolved at an institutional level.

At predetermined times during this process, a monitoring questionnaire is completed to

assess the progress of the mesa de trabajo and to determine roadblocks or bottlenecks in its

progress. The mesa de trabajo will also redo the household survey after a substantial amount of

time in order to determine changes in the community since the initiation of the partnership.

From this evaluation, the mesa de trabajo determines whether the on-going presence of TECHO

is still beneficial to the community or if the community has built enough capacity to continue to

undertake projects on its own by either raising or appealing for funding on its own or the mesa

de trabajo has completed all the projects that TECHO has the capacity to support. However, the

34
mesa de trabajo is still being productive but requires support and facilitation from TECHO, the

assessment process is restarted and the process is repeated.

TECHO HONDURAS
TECHO has been operating in Honduras since 2010. Over the course of the last seven

years, TECHO Honduras has been active in 21 communities in six departamentos and has

mobilized over 18,000 volunteers in its various activities. In terms of tangible infrastructure

projects, TECHO Honduras has facilitated the construction and installation of over 1,000 housing

units, 440 household solar panels, 80 latrines, 3 kindergardens and is in the process of

completing a school.

TECHO Honduras currently has eight staff members and counts on 28 volunteers who

are part of their core team of volunteers. Each member of the core team of volunteers holds a

specific operational role within the organization. The staff and core team of volunteers are split

into two teams: the commercial team and the social action team. The commercial team is

responsible for fundraising and corporate partnerships, external communications and financial

affairs. The social action team is responsible for the volunteer management, logistics and

infrastructure and community engagement. TECHO Honduras has one staff member assigned to

community engagement. That staff member manages a team of volunteers who are assigned to

each community that TECHO Honduras is actively working in. For each community, 2-3

volunteers are assigned to be Community Coordinators. In addition to these volunteers, TECHO

Honduras also assigns a Regional Community Coordinator role to one volunteer per region,

whose responsibility is to oversee the overall progress of the communities in that region and to

be aware of other communities who may be suitable for working with TECHO Honduras.

COMMUNITY CASE STUDIES

35
EL CIPRÉS, LEPATERIQUE, FRANCISCO MORAZÁN
El Ciprés is a community of approximately 100 families that was established over 60

years ago. It sits on the outskirts of the city of Lepaterique, within an hour’s drive from the

capital, Tegucigalpa. However, though the road to the community from the main highway is a

dirt road, often flooded by rain, making it only accessible by all-terrain vehicles and on

horseback. The community members lives primarily from small-scale vegetable farms in order to

sell their crops in Tegucigalpa. The families of El Ciprés do not own the land that they live and

work on. They only have the legal right to use the land but cannot sell it, as it is part of the

nature reserve, Yerba Buena. The government controls the land and thus puts the families at

risk of being evicted due to changes in forest management policies. Many of the families of El

Ciprés live below the poverty line. Their houses are made of adobe and dirt floors. Most do not

have connection to electricity or latrines but do have a water tap that provides untreated water

from the mountains nearby.

Prior to TECHO’s arrival in El Ciprés, the community’s only external support had been

from the Spanish International Cooperation for a school building project. The municipality has

committed to various infrastructure improvement projects, such as the road to the community

but these commitments have yet to be carried out. The community also had and continues to

have a patronato, a junta de agua and an APF. TECHO arrived in El Ciprés in 2015 where it

initiated its presence in the community with the construction of several houses for families who

in most need of adequate shelter at the time. Through that experience, the staff and volunteers

of TECHO Honduras learned that the community members was quite divided and did not work

well together, thus not many community members participated in the construction project.

TECHO Honduras also learned that the patronato was not supported by many of the community

members.

36
 Following the first housing construction project, the staff and volunteers of TECHO

Honduras continued to meet with community members and the patronato to plan another

construction project and explained how TECHO aims to work with a cohesive community where

as many people as possible pitch in to all the projects, in terms of logistics and labour. A second

housing construction project was undertaken six months later where more housing units were

built for other families in need. This time, the community leaders including those from the

patronato were much more involved and contributed throughout the entire process. Shortly

after, TECHO Honduras launched the mesa de trabajo en El Ciprés and began to investigate

further into the community through mesa de trabajo meetings and through a household survey.

From the community assessment and household survey data, two projects were chosen upon

which to embark. First project was the construction of a fence to enclose the school property.

The second project was to arrange a carpentry course for several of the community members.

Both of these projects have been completed. Now, the mesa de trabajo is focused on two new

projects the construction of latrines for the community hall and for many of the families.

EL PORVENIR, SAN JOSÉ, LA PAZ

El Porvenir is a relatively new informal settlement in the outskirts of San José, La Paz.

The families that live there have lived there for 44 years as part of the community of Guayabal,

which had approximately 130 families. However, in 2016 approximately 40 families living in one

section of Guayabal decided to form their own community, El Porvenir, due to a feeling of

negligence and a strong desire to improve their situation.

La Paz is one of Honduras’ predominant coffee growing regions. The main occupation of

families in this area, including those of El Porvenir, is growing coffee. La Paz is part of a larger

ecological region called the corredor seco, or the dry corridor. This area has in the last 8 years

faced a worsening of already difficult climate, plagued mainly by droughts (FAO, n.d.), worsening

37
the conditions and situation in an already poor region of Honduras. Most families living in El

Porvenir own the property that their house is on, but they typically work other property owners’

coffee fields. Like the families in El Ciprés, most families live below the poverty line and live in

houses made of dirt or adobe. Many now have electricity due to a community-based project

that the community members organized since separating from Guayabal. Access to the

community is difficult due to its location high up in the mountains, connected to the main road

by a series of narrow dirt roads. Most families also have access to untreated water through a

piping system, however, many do not have latrines or any sanitation infrastructure.

TECHO started working in Guayabal in 2013, before El Porvenir began an independent

community, separate from Guayabal. Between 2013 and 2016, TECHO Honduras contributed to

the families who now make up the community of El Porvenir by constructing houses and some

shared latrines. Since 2016, it has established a patronato, a coffee producers’ association, a

junta de agua, and a women’s committee. Seeing the evidently high level of initiative and

internal organization between the community members, the staff of TECHO Honduras decided

to immediately create a mesa de trabajo with the community members of El Porvenir. The mesa

de trabajo has been ambitious and productive in its work. They have prioritized education,

recognizing that access to education in the community is difficult and lack of education in its

population has contributed to the community’s marginalization. In 2016, a kindergarden was

built, primarily due to the efforts and organization of the community members. The community

laid out a vision for its infrastructure projects. The kindergarden was the first communal building

to be built and serves as a community centre/meeting hall as well as the kindergarden. After

finishing that project, the mesa de trabajo began working on the building of a school. This task

required buying property and meeting with the education secretariat to register the school and

arrange for teachers to be sent to the school. This project is on going and has taken substantial

38
effort on the part of the community members as well as TECHO Honduras. Future projects

projected for the community include a small primary health centre and the construction of

latrine and the installation of solar panels for every household.

CHAPTER 5: EMPIRICAL RESULTS

TECHO HONDURAS’ COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Though the purpose of this research project was not to confirm a hypothesis, the results

of the study do confirm the researcher’s initial understanding of TECHO’s model of intervention

as a model that incorporates the key elements for participatory development practices, as

stated in the academic literature (Chapter 2: Literature Review). However, other important

elements emerged from the interviews with the staff, volunteers and community leaders and

will be discussed at the end of this section.

FLEXIBLE PROJECT DESIGN AND FACILITATIVE ATTITUDES

TECHO Honduras, as well as TECHO in general, has a flexible model of intervention. The

steps of their approach and engagement with communities reflects how very little of their

process is prescribed. From the description of the model provided in Chapter 4, it is clear that

the most prescriptive part of the process are the tools used to collect data from the community

and the plan of action document created in the mesa de trabajo. In all other aspects of the

process, the community approach and execution is done according to the volunteers and

community members’ desires. Some examples of this include the selection of time, date and

location of meetings. In all the communities working with TECHO Honduras, mesa de trabajo

meetings are held on Sunday mornings, as that is when the majority of community members

have leisure time. The community members choose the location of the meetings. In El Porvenir,

the meetings are now held in the kindergarden, whereas in El Ciprés, the meetings are usually

39
held in the community centre. When the community centre is being used for another purpose,

the schoolroom is used instead. Special consideration is also given to the time of year. The

communities located in La Paz often stop meeting during the coffee harvest season as most

community members are extremely busy with harvesting activities. One interviewee from

TECHO stated how the organization learned and adapted to this circumstance:

“… we are conscious of the periods where, for example in the rural

community in terms of coffee, when the families are all, everyday from
Monday to Sunday working and this resulted in an impediment for the
mesas, so we are very aware of those periods in the community… there,
yes, it’s a bit difficult to organize ourselves at that time of the year, or to
execute anything with the mesa de trabajo at that time. Now we have that
more clear.”2 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.)

Participant selection is also completely open and voluntary. Every mesa de trabajo

meeting is open to any community member who wishes to participate. This openness has

helped encourage people who were not active in any community organization prior to the mesa

de trabajo become involved. One Community Coordinator explained that when the mesa de

trabajo first started, the core members were a group of three to five people who tended to

attend all community organization meetings. But after meeting other community members who

appeared to have the will and capacity to contribute, they were encouraged to join and did so.

“… now the President [of the mesa de trabajo] is very young and active. This
is good because it’s not the same people that there were when I entered

2
“… estamos consciente de cuales son periodos por ejemplo en las comunidades rurales a nivel de café,
cuando las familias están todos los días de lunes a domingo trabajando y eso resultó en un impedimento a
las mesas, entonces tenemos muy en cuenta cuales son esos periodos de la comunidad … allí sí, nos
cuesta un poquito organizarnos en esas épocas del año, o ejecutar algo sobre todo en la mesa de trabajo
en esas épocas. Ahora eso se tiene más claro.”

40
 [my role]. When I entered, it was always the same five people.”3 (July 13,
2018, Personal Interview.)

The nature and scope of projects are decided in the mesa de trabajo meetings. Other

than the housing construction projects, TECHO Honduras does not impose any particular kind of

project on a community. Instead it allows the projects to arise from the community. “The

assessment is completely from the community, like the assessment is born, done by and fed into

by community participation and it is what they perceive of their own community and what they

tell us at the end of the day.”4 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.) All the projects undertaken in

the community other than the housing construction projects were born out of mesa de trabajo

meetings. That being said, the housing construction projects have been noted to be helped in

the growth of the community overall.

“… it has impacted. I would say a large percentage because I always stress

that when one has to be thinking about building a house, one stops doing
other things, one stops going to patronato meetings, stops doing the things
and activities that they have to.”5 (June 3, 2018, Personal Interview.)

TECHO attempts to carve out projects desired by its partner communities that can be

proposed to the government, aid agencies and private foundations for funding. An

example of this is the school that is, at the time of writing, being completed in El

Porvenir. A private foundation was approached by TECHO to fund the construction of

the school, which the foundation ultimately accepted. TECHO’s wide spectrum of

alliances with external partners allows them to strategically ‘sell’ projects to

3
“…ahora la presidenta es muy jóven y activa. Eso es algo bueno porque no son las mismas personas que
habían cuando yo entré. Cuando yo entré, eran las mismas cinco personas de siempre.”

4 “El diagnóstico es meramente comunitario, ósea el diagnóstico nace, se realiza y se nutre de la

participación comunitaria y de que ellos perciben de su comunidad y nos aportan al final. Entonces creo
que eso, esa mesa de trabajo, ese diagnóstico que da vida a ese plan de acción.”
5 “…ha impactado, yo digo que en un gran porcentaje porque yo siempre resalto algo que uno ese por

estar pensando a construir una casa, uno deja de hacer otras cosas, deja de ir a reuniones del patronato,
deja de ir a todas las cosas y actividades que uno tiene que hacer.”

41
organizations or companies who are looking to contribute socially to society or show

corporate social responsibility.

The facilitative nature of TECHO’s approach to informal settlement upgrading is quite

evident. From observation, the mesa de trabajo meetings only followed very loose agendas. In El

Porvenir, the meetings were co-chaired by community members and TECHO’s Community

Coordinators. In El Ciprés, the meetings were chaired by the Community Coordinator but the

goal of the meeting was to facilitate discussion regarding topics at hand and to come to a

concensus between community members. One Community Coordinator expressed:

“That is what we try to do. I think we are mediating entity. Not just me but
also the other volunteers. Because they speak with us. They express
themselves to us. And what we try to do is to have them express
themselves to each other so there isn’t a ‘he said, she said’.” 6 (July 13,
2018, Personal Interview.)

The function that TECHO seeks to perform in the community is to assist in systemizing the ideas

and efforts that the community members put forward so that improvements that the

community members envision actually come to fruition. TECHO from its staff to its volunteers

imparts a culture of catalyzing change and creating enabling environments for positive change

within informal settlements.

Some interviewees reflected that sometimes being flexible is not a choice, but a result

of adapting to the circumstances within which TECHO Honduras finds itself. It can be difficult

during certain times of the year to physically reach the informal settlements due to the poor

conditions of the roads in combination with heavy rains. Even in large all-wheel drive vehicles, it

is difficult to climb the hills on muddy roads without getting stuck. Therefore, mesa de trabajo

6
Eso es lo que tratamos de hacer. Creo que somos un ente mediador. No solo yo, pero también demás
voluntarios. Porque hablan con nosotros. Entonces se expresan con nosotros. Y lo que intentamos hacer
es que ellos se expresan frente a los demás para que no haya, él dijo, ella dijo.”

42
meetings get postponed and communication between the community members and TECHO

Honduras is reduced temporarily to telephone calls or text messages between the community

coordinators and the main contact people from the mesas de trabajo. Another factor that

creates some instability for the TECHO Honduras to be able to reach the informal settlements

where they work is its financial status. Like many NGOs, TECHO relies on a combination of

funding sources to maintain its operations and to execute its projects. Most of the funding for

TECHO Honduras is on a project-to-project basis. For example, a private company or an

international cooperation entity will sponsor a bounded project, such as the construction of 20

houses in a particular informal settlement. Very little funding is available for sustaining the on-

going work with the community members between projects. This is a particularly difficult

situation for TECHO Honduras as the volunteer community coordinators who are the

representatives of TECHO who always attend the mesas de trabajo only travel in privately

contracted transportation, due to security risks. Honduras’ inter-city public transportation is

quite insecure so TECHO Honduras must hire cars or transportation services each time they visit

a community. Unlike in other countries where TECHO is present, their community coordinators

can travel independently in public transportation for a fraction of the cost.

However, TECHO staff and volunteers mentioned that adding some structure to the

process has helped guide both the community members and volunteers in maintaining order in

the meetings as well as execution of projects mentioned it. TECHO Honduras has recently

implemented a requirement to assign roles in for the members of the mesas de trabajo. It was

mentioned that the addition of roles has helped the delegation of tasks as well as

communication between mesa de trabajo members. “Key elements, I think, well defined roles;

that has helped us a lot recently … because they define the responsibilities that each person has

43
for what we are trying to accomplish.”7 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.) While keeping the

mesa de trabajo as an open meeting to all community members, the addition of fixed roles for

certain members has added clarity as to how the actions taken by the mesa de trabajo will be

carried out and by who.

USE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

All interviewed staff and volunteers identified internal organization among the

community members with whom TECHO Honduras works, as paramount to a functional mesa de

trabajo, and intervention in general. In fact, TECHO Honduras has made it a criterion for working

with a community. This decision was justified this way:

“Other countries probably [do], but in TECHO Honduras those are decisions
that we have been taking, it has been difficult to work in communities
where was no community organization. It was highly complicated and
required a lot of resources focused only on organization. … It is due to our
institutional capacity and because we see that there are other communities
that already are organized where we can save those steps and time in these
other communities. We know that there are communities who live in very
precarious situations and that already have that internal organization so
that’s where we are going to go, before investing elsewhere, knowing that
we could skip a step.”8 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.)

That being said, TECHO Honduras does not have a precise benchmark for measuring the level of

internal organization of the communities with whom they work. However, in the household

survey, the interviewees are asked if they are aware of the existence of internal organizations

7 “Elementos claves, creo que roles muy definidos; eso nos ha ayudado muchísimo últimamente, …
porque allí definen las responsabilidades que tiene cada persona para que lo que queremos trabajar.”
8
“Algunos países probablemente sí, pero en TECHO Honduras son decisiones que hemos ido tomando, y
se nos dificultó en algunos momentos trabajar con estos asentamientos donde no existía organización
comunitaria. Fue sumamente complejo, y requerió muchos recursos en únicamente ese eje de
organización. … Es por capacidad institucional y sí vemos que hay una comunidad que ya tiene esa
organizacion donde podemos ahorrar esta cantidad de pasos y tiempo en esta comunidad, porque
sabemos que hay comunidades que viven en situaciones muy precarias y que tienen esa organización
interna entonces allí vamos a llegar, antes de invertir en acá, sabiendo que podemos saltar un paso.”

44
such as a patronato, a junta de agua or any other community groups. They are also asked if

those groups are supported by the community, if any of the groups have undertaken an

community-level projects and how involved the community was in the execution of those

projects. In this way, TECHO Honduras can get a sense of the existence and reach of any

community groups as well as the perception of those community groups by all the community

members.

TECHO Honduras also evaluates its intervention in informal settlements on the basis of

the demand for support by the community members. Similar to measuring social capital within

the community, it is proven to be very difficult to determine with a high level of certainty the

willingness of the community members to execute projects together, for the overall

improvement of the wellbeing of community. It is primarily by talking to community members

that volunteers and staff gage their interest and commitment to contributing to the execution of

projects, which includes the process of starting and sustaining the mesa de trabajo. “That is also

very subjective and it very much based on our perception of the spaces that we can create in the

community.”9 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.) One measure that TECHO Honduras has

implemented in order to substantiate the desire of the community members to work with

TECHO Honduras is the requirement of a letter stating so. The letter must say that the

community is interested in collaborating with TECHO Honduras and the letter must be signed by

the majority of community members (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.).

TECHO Honduras also undergoes an initial, pre-mesa de trabajo project, which almost

exclusively consists of constructing houses for the most vulnerable families within the

community, in order to gage the level of internal coordination and trust between the

9 “Eso también es muy subjetivo y es muy a percepción a los espacios que podemos tener en la
comunidad.”

45
community members. The experience in El Ciprés, for example, has been that many community

members participate in the activities families are only interested in projects that directly benefit

their family and their family only, such as houses, latrines and household solar panels. “When

they [TECHO] says that there will be more projects, many people arrive, 30, 40. But when they

see that there aren’t any projects yet, they all pull out.”10 (July 1, 2018, Personal Interview.) It

was also put this way:

“Not everyone collaborates. Because like I say, there are some who only
pull for themselves. For example, we did the housing construction. And
some families that received houses have not returned.”11 (July 13, 2018,
Personal Interview.)
The lack of sense of common good and collectiveness has impeded the progress of the mesa de

trabajo and has impacted the projects that the community has chosen to embark on. The

members of the community have struggled to get sustained support for project development.

Members of the community have tended to only show up to participate in events when they are

occurring but not during the planning phases. The level of cooperation and commitment to

community development projects in El Ciprés has increased since TECHO began working in the

community, but still requires improvement in order to independently organize and execute

projects.

This, however, has not made the mesa de trabajo ineffective. Instead of giving up on the

community due to apparent internal differences between residents of El Ciprés, TECHO has

suggested projects that do not require as much communal investment and that are designated

for several individual families: latrines for the community centre and latrines for the most

vulnerable families in the community. By continuing to work together on common goals, albeit

10 “Cuando dicen van a venir más proyectos, ya juntan bastante, 30, 40. Pero cuando ya miren que ya no
hay proyectos, ya se retiran.”
11 “No todos colaboran. Porque como te digo, hay unos que solo halan para donde ellos. … Por ejemplo,

hicimos la construcción de casas. Y ciertas familias que recibieron casas ya no vuelven.”

46
with many discussions and tension, the expectation is to improve the discord between

community members in order to be able to collectively embark on bigger projects in the future.

Therefore, TECHO Honduras’ long-term investment in a community is one that does not

necessarily demonstrate its progress visibility or immediately.

TECHO’s commitment to the community is felt within the community. Skepticism and

distrust felt by community members as a result of broken promises made by other entities has

impacted the way TECHO works. It is also for this reason that TECHO has incorporated a pre-

mesa de trabajo construction project in every community in which it works.

“We open the mesa de trabajo after the constructions mainly because
then the community will know us, will get to know us, will know very
clearly how we works, how much we work and that we complete our
work. We don’t promise something and then not finish it. We complete
our projects entirely.12 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.)

The community members who were interviewed corroborated the trust between TECHO

Honduras and the two communities.

“…other organizations have left us some fear to be able to work with

organizations of this kind because the community doesn’t believe that the
organization will complete the project, when at the end it’s not
guaranteed. So TECHO has differentiated itself from those other
organizations.”13 (June 3, 2018, Personal Interview.)

TECHO Honduras, staff as well as volunteers, are quite conscious of the level of social

capital is present in the communities where they work, and how the level and nature of that

social capital impacts the work that they try to accomplish with the community members. This

12 “Nosotros abrimos la mesa de trabajo luego de las construcciones, sobre todo por eso porque la
comunidad sabe de nosotros, ya conoce ya de nosotros, muy clara de cómo trabajamos, en cuanto a
cómo trabajamos, de que si es un trabajo cumplido, no es prometimos algo y no se hizo sino que
trabajamos a cabalidad.”
13 “…otro organismos nos ha dejado algún temor de poder trabajar con algunas organizaciones de ese

tipo porque a la gente no se le crea ese tipo de que va a levantar un proyecto cuando al final no es cierto.
Entonces el TECHO ha diferenciado ese tipo de organizaciones”

47
insight has proven to be critical for the model of intervention to be able to be applied in

communities where inter-personal relationships between community members are existent but

not always positive and constructive.

STRATEGIC POLITICIZATION
TECHO’s approach towards working in informal settlements is deeply rooted in its belief

of self-determination. TECHO avoids representing the community members with whom it works.

Instead, as an institution, TECHO seeks to amplify the voices of those living in informal

settlements. “We do not want to be the voice of the [informal] settlements either. The people

and the families that live in the settlements have their words, their voice. We can only bring

them closer to the spaces where they can be heard, but we never want to be the voice. The

complete opposite.”14 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.). The same perception was hear form

the community members.

“With respect to the flexibility that exists between us and TECHO, it has
been very good, very excellent, because they do not come to impose, they
don’t come saying you guys have to do this, that this has to be there.
Instead everything comes out of the mesa de trabajo and the patronato.”15
(June 3, 2018, Personal Interview.)

The actions it takes within the community is firmly based in the belief that those living in

the conditions of vulnerability and poverty are best suited to identify the problems in their lives

and environment as well as the solutions to resolve those problems. A TECHO staff member

stated:

14 “No queremos ser voz de asentamientos tampoco. La gente y las familias que vive en asentamientos
tienen sus palabras, su voz, únicamente, podemos acercarlas a los espacios donde pueden ser
escuchados, pero nunca pensamos ser la voz del asentamientos, todo lo contrario.”
15 “De grado de flexibilidad que existe entre nosotros con TECHO, ha sido muy buena, muy excelente,

porque no vienen a imponer, no vienen a eso tienen que hacer ustedes, que aquí que allá, sino que todo
sale de la mesa de trabajo, incluso el patronato.”

48
 “… the problems are known and recognized by the inhabitants of the
[informal] settlements, and the solutions to those problems are within the
inhabitants of the [informal] settlement. So we believe that this
participatory model allows us to make better decisions between the
inhabitants as well as the institution, with respect to the problems that
exist there.”16 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.)

Even once the community members who make up the mesa de trabajo complete the community

assessment and create a plan of action, this plan of action and in particular the actions to be

taken in the short-term must be approved by the majority of the community members.

“…the decisions made within the mesa de trabajo, the case of El Porvenir,
are communicated within the community. They [the decisions] are
presented to everyone and if the community accepts then we do it. If not,
well then we don’t do it.17 (July 16, 2018, Personal Interview.)

Consent from the majority of the community is of utmost importance to TECHO.

However, TECHO Honduras is aware of that in some cases, community dynamics are not

inherently egalitarian. Due to the nature of the patronato system that is in place in Honduras,

there automatically exists a group of individuals who hold positions of power that impact the

community. For that reason TECHO Honduras does not directly work with the patronatos.

“We create a separate space because we know that sometimes decision-

making can be quite centralized in a community, which can be detrimental
to that community. It’s because sometimes opinions can be limited and
input can be diminished that would otherwise be useful for the projects. So
the idea of the mesa de trabajo is to always include the [existing]
community groups as a base but to leave the space open to other people
who didn’t have the opportunity to join those organizations. If they have
the will, if they have the drive to work, they can join those spaces and

16 “…las problemáticas se conocen y reconocen por los pobladores de los asentamientos, y también las
soluciones de esas problemáticas están en los pobladores y pobladoras del asentamiento. Entonces
consideramos que este modelo participativo nos permite tomar mejores decisiones en conjunto tanto
pobladores como la institución a respeto a las problemáticas que existen allí.”
17 “…esas decisions que se toman dentro de la mesa de trabajo, en el caso de El Porvenir se socializan con

la comunidad. Las presentan a todos y si las acepta toda la comunidad pues, se desarrolle el proyecto. Si
no, pues, no lo hacemos.”

49
 contribute to the growth of their community.”18 (June 20, 2018, Personal
Interview.)

In order to get a relatively credible level of consent from the community, the model of

intervention is adapted to the level and nature of internal organization that is present. The

perception of the existing community groups by the community members is an especially

important consideration for TECHO Honduras with respect to how it facilitates the mesa de

trabajo. The validation that any community group has or does not have within that community

impacts how TECHO Honduras seeks approval from the community. In El Porvenir, where the

patronato is very much validated by the community, the mesa de trabajo will make plans and

proposals that are pertinent to the projects that the community members and TECHO Honduras

can execute together. Then, as previously mentioned, those plans and proposals are presented

at the patronato meetings. The members of the patronato, in this case, voted in by the

community members and thus represent the community. In the patronato meetings, the

decisions are made there whether or not to support the plans and proposals. Whereas in

communities where the patronato is not validated by the community, the decisions are made in

the mesa de trabajo and are communicated to the patronato via community members. Any

disagreement that arises from the decisions taken are then evaluated and discussed in the

subsequent mesa de trabajo meetings. For large projects such as a new school or health centre,

the Community Coordinator will convene a community assembly to discuss the project and get

majority community approval.

18 “Nosotros creamos un espacio aparte porque sabemos que a veces puede ser centralizar tanto la toma
de decisiones en una comunidad que puede ser un poco perjudicial para la misma comunidad. Es que a
veces puede limite mucho la opinion, tambien se reduzca mucho los aportes que pueden recibir para
algun proyecto entonces la idea de la mesa de trabajo es siempre incluir a esa organizacion comunitaria
como base pero dejar el espacio abierto tambien para que otras personas que no tuvieron la oportunidad
de sumarse a esa organizacion puede participar, si tienen la voluntad, si tiene las ganas de trabajar, que se
pueden sumar a esos espacios pero tambien aportar al crecimiento de su comunidad.”

50
 As an NGO workings in the third sector, focused specifically on informal settlements,

TECHO, and by association TECHO Honduras, seeks be and be seen as an organization that

“works in the field, from the field, alongside the inhabitants, never above or below them, always

alongside people … not behind a desk.”19 (June 20, 2018, Personal Interview.) As an NGO that is

present in 21 countries in Latin America, it also seeks to be known as a reference in issues

related to informal settlements in the region. That being said, one of the institutional focuses as

well as its approach to its work in the field is to work in partnerships. Generally speaking, TECHO

is open to working with any entity that shares their values and who are willing to collaborate

with the community to undertaken any of the projects that are desired by the community

members. In Honduras, these partnering entities have been diverse in nature, including

municipal and national government departments, media companies, banks, multinational

companies, other multinational NGOs, and individual professionals. TECHO sees partnerships as

not only necessary but synergistic, producing greater impact together than working on the same

issues within the country.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Participatory development is practiced all over the world. The application of

participatory practices in informal settlement upgrading is expected due to the multi-sectorial

approach that the concept is based on. Several studies have documented the advantages and

disadvantages of participatory approaches. These studies have highlighted the key elements

necessary for enabling effective and appropriate participation in informal settlement

interventions. These elements are (1) flexible interventions and facilitative attitudes, (2) use of

social capital, and (3) strategic politicization of the NGO.

19 “trabaja en el terreno, desde el terreno, junto a los pobladores, nunca sobre ellos, ni tampoco de abajo,
siempre trabajamos a la par, junto a gente … estamos detrás de un escritorio.”

51
 TECHO, the NGO born and based out of Chile, has been practicing participatory informal

settlement upgrading programs and projects since 1997. It is now operational across Latin

America, in 19 countries. The three key elements mentioned above were identified as being part

of its institutional culture and operations. For that reason, TECHO was chosen to be studied in

order to learn how these elements are operationalized in the contexts where they work.

TECHO’s Honduran program office, and specifically its work in one rural and one peri-urban

communities, is the case that was chosen to be studied, due to the researcher’s existing

connection to the organization and experience in the country.

The investigation found that TECHO does indeed implement the key elements found in

the academic literature. In practice, the application of these elements was admittedly difficult to

execute and are done so in ways that are not completely reliable or that guarantee success.

However, adapting a mindset that accepts uncertainty is one of the characteristics of facilitating

effective and respectful participation. The following table outlines the best practices found in

the academic literature and description of its application by TECHO in Honduras.

Table 1: Summary of key findings from the academic literature and the case study

Best Practices Application

1. Flexible interventions and facilitative attitudes
- Creating spaces for participation requires -TECHO tries to create relationships with
flexibility. When projects are designed with a communities, and not only work in
rigid framework, they run the risk of leaving communities for a single project. The TECHO
out people and ideas that would otherwise be work model serves as a guide to the process of
relevant input to the project. The initial working with a community. That guide is not
assessment of a community’s needs, capacity very prescriptive. It does not include fixed
and internal organization can be mistaken. timelines or defined projects. It prescribes the
Therefore, maintaining an open policy for way to collect data from the community to
accepting participants throughout the begin to understand the problems and
engagement can help include more people establish the mesa de trabajo. The mesa de
who may not have understood the value of the trabajo is the key mechanism that allows open
initiative at the beginning. The cost of participation and continuous discussion
participation, especially in vulnerable between community residents and TECHO

52
populations, is high because most of their time representatives. The problematization and
is spent on making money or surviving. With prioritization of projects have a fixed process,
time and exposure to a project, even the most but the way of making decisions within the
vulnerable are can be willing to get involved mesa de trabajo also adapts to the context.
and bring with them their valuable life Communities that already have an established
experience and conceptualization of problems way of making decisions as a whole can
faced in the community. continue to be managed and communities that
- To create spaces where the sharing of ideas do not have a way of making decisions among
and experiences is valued, an external entity the villagers can decide within the platform of
must use a facilitative attitude. The the mesa de trabajo how to best to make
representatives of that entity should serve as decisions on behalf of the community.
guides through a development process instead - Regarding facilitation culture, community
of experts on development issues. These leaders continue to work with TECHO and
representatives, instead of imposing solutions, invest in the mesa de trabajo because they do
help to systematize the opinions and ideas not feel pressured by TECHO. Rather, they feel
that arise from the participants. This kind of supported in their own efforts to improve their
facilitation is ideal but requires a lot of time, communities. In addition, the community
and is not linear, so flexibility is necessary for coordinators who facilitate the mesa de
facilitation, and vice versa. trabajo are very clear that the problems as
well as the solutions that come from the
residents are the ones that must be taken into
account. Their attitudes and work in the field
reflect the culture of respect for the self-
determination of residents of informal
settlements that is widespread within the
social action team of TECHO Honduras.

2. Use of social capital

- In addition to paying attention to the way - The existence of social capital within the
spaces for participation are offered, partner communities of TECHO Honduras is
consideration must also be paid to the very important for the success of the work
demand for such spaces. In other words, the model. As a national strategy, TECHO
ability and willingness of people to participate Honduras tries to work exclusively with
is just as important as the way you facilitate communities where validated community
their participation. An external entity that (internal) organizations already exist. Given
wants to intervene in a community in a that social capital is not tangible or visible,
participatory way must investigate the level of TECHO does not use a specific measure to
social capital that exists in the same quantify the level of cooperation and trust
community. Social capital refers to existing among the inhabitants of the communities
social networks which are recognized as norms where it works. However, they have adopted
and values that are understood and shared by ways of estimating internal organization via
people in the community that facilitate surveys, informal conversations and the
cooperation between them and with other requirement of a letter of agreement signed
groups. by the majority of the community that
- The existence of social capital is important confirms the willingness to work with TECHO.
for the effectiveness of participatory
development processes because it means that - Also, TECHO recognizes the importance of
there is already trust among the members of creating social capital between the community

53
the group, and organization respecting the and the institution. According to the
distribution of work. In addition, it can community leaders, TECHO has differentiated
motivate vulnerable people who face itself as an institution because of the follow-up
obstacles to participate, such as women, if and compliance with the work they have
they feel they have group support and / or shown. Examples of how this has been
that they have an important role in a process achieved include: the pre-mesa de trabajo
of positive change. Where the level of social project where TECHO and the community
capital is low, an external entity can try to build homes for the most vulnerable families,
create social capital among the individuals of a the allocation of 1-3 community coordinators
community, starting with the creation of trust per community, and the mesa de trabajo that
between people from the community and the meets 1-2 per month. That is why the villagers
external entity, and then between people from have confidence in what TECHO says and they
the same community. feel that they can speak honestly to the
community coordinators, who represent
TECHO. In addition, the lines of
communication between the community
leaders and the volunteers and staff of TECHO
are open and informal, so the community
leaders do not feel abandoned, even during
periods of low activity.
3. Strategic politicization of the NGO
Participation can result in the empowerment - The control over the decision making during
of those who participate when the distribution the interaction between TECHO and the
of power is taken into account. If participation community is shared. In addition, TECHO takes
techniques are used without a distribution of into account the distribution of power within
power to the participants, it is unlikely that the communities. In cases where the
they will be empowered. Therefore, power community has an internal organization
must be considered in the dynamics of a space (patronato) that is verified by most of the
of participation, in terms of the distribution of community, the mesa de trabajo functions as a
decision-making about the intervention. In committee subsidiary to the patronato where
addition, any external entity that promotes the they can manage community projects. In
empowerment of a community through an communities where the internal organization
improvement of living conditions, social capital is weak or is not validated by the community
and / or political capacities of the inhabitants members, the mesa de trabajo functions as a
of a community, can find resistance for those parallel entity that collaborates in the same
who have control in that context. That way and interacts with other internal
resistance can be openly expressed or it can organizations. Therefore, they try to find
manifest itself in the form of co-optation, projects that are approved and validated by
where the marginalized population is invited more people, and therefore can impact and
to spaces of participation where their voice is reach more people.
heard but their opinions are not valued. So, a
strategic position taking into account the - TECHO does not try to be or represent the
dynamics of power within the context where voice of the inhabitants of the partner
participation is occurring can help achieve communities. Instead, it tries to bring the
results that reach far beyond the duration of residents from informal settlements to the
the intervention. spaces of influence where they can be heard.
In addition, TECHO puts an emphasis on
working in partnerships and networks. TECHO

54
 seeks to create alliances with entities who can
support projects necessary for the community
but for which TECHO does not have the
capacity or resources to support. In addition,
TECHO tries to be a reference in the sector of
development in informal settlements and also
a link between the same informale
settlements and other development
organizations.

TECHO’s international operation includes continuous reflexive and self-evaluative

processes, so as it continues to work in this sector, collecting feedback from the field from more

than 1,000,000 volunteers working in over 600 communities, it is likely that this NGO will get

closer and closer to developing a rigorous, effective and legitimate way of facilitating the

upgrading the growing number of informal settlements in Latin America.

This way of working requires more time and human and financial resources, as

opposed to traditional development models where resources are allocated to highly structured

and time limited projects and where the relationships between development entities and

project beneficiaries are more formal and systematic. Many times the execution of projects with

the residents of informal settlements is a process of trial and error, where the results of projects

do not always go as originally expected, and are not necessarily visible or immediate.

The high level of participation in TECHO’s model of intervention also implies that

TECHO as an organization operates with a lot of uncertainty in terms of financing and planning

of activities. The internal planning of TECHO Honduras is a continuous process that is not done

only once a year, but on an as needed basis. This requires their staff, volunteers and donors to

be highly flexible and adaptable.

TECHO manages to execute this working model with the recognition that the

development process in any context, and perhaps even more in informal settlements, is not

55
linear. Within the long-term investment in the informal settlements that TECHO does, the

volunteers and staff of TECHO together with the residents of the informal settlements define

specific projects that fit within the traditional framework of project management used by

international NGOs and companies that want support social projects. In doing so, TECHO have

managed to implement a human orientation to community development that makes them an

exemplary model for other organizations in this sector.

56
 REFERENCES

Abbas, H. (2012). People-led transformation: African futures. Development, 55(4), 519-525.

Abbott, J. (2002). An analysis of informal settlement upgrading and critique of existing methodological
approaches. Habitat International, 26, 303-315.

Amado, M., Ramalhete, I., Amado, A. & Freitas, J. (2016). Regeneration of informal areas: An integrated
approach. Cities, 58, 59-69.

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35 (4),
216-224.

Asian Development Bank (2012). The Neighborhood Upgrading and Shelter Sector Project in Indonesia:
Sharing Knowledge on Community-Driven Development. Retrieved from:
https://ideas.repec.org/p/asd/wpaper/rpt124757.html

Banana, E., Chitekwe-Biti, B., & Walnycki, A. (2015). Co-producing inclusive city-wide sanitation
strategies: lessons from Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe. Environment & Urbanization, 27(1), 35-54.

Beard, V. (2005). Individual determinants of participation in community development in Indonesia.

Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 23(1), 21-30.

Bháird, C. (2013). The complexity of community engagement: Developing staff-community relationships

in a participatory child education and women’s rights intervention in Kolkata slums. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 389-404.

Bonnan-White, J., Hightower, A., & Ameena, I. (2013). Of coucous and occupation: A case study of
women’s motivations to join and participate in Palestinian fair trade cooperatives. Agriculture
and Human Values, 30, 337-350.

Brown-Luthango, M., Reyes, E., & Gubevu, M. (2017). Informal settlement upgrading and safety:
experiences from Cape Town, South Africa. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 32,
471-493.

Chambers, R. (1983). Rural Development. London: Longman.

Claridge, T. (2004). Social capital and natural resource management: An important role for social capital?
Unpublished Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/literature/definition/#note8c32404de60581ab8cdfa9b7
0b95b3ad

57
Clausen, H. B. & Gyimóthy, S. (2016). Seizing community participation in sustainable development:
Pueblos Mágicos of Mexico. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3, 318-326.

Cobbinah, J. (2015). Power relations in community participation: Does it really matter? Journal of
Economics and Sustainable Development, 6(13), 144-150.

Cohen, J. & Uphoff, N. (2011). Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through
specificity. In A. Cornwall (Ed.), The Participation Reader (pp. 34-56). London, U.K.: Zed Books.

Colombo, V. & Pacifici, M. (2016). Mapping informality: A participative experience in São Paulo, Brazil.
Revista CIS, 21, 46-93.

Cooke, B. (2004). Rules of thumb for participatory change agents. In Hickey, Samuel, and Mohan (Eds).
Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation (pp. X-X). Place of publication: Giles. Zed Books.

Cooke, B. (2003). A new continuity with colonial administration: Participation in development

management. Third World Quarterly, 24(1), 47–61.

Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: a new tyranny? London, UK: Zed Books.

Cornwall, A. (2003). Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory
development. World Development, 31(8), 1325–1342.

Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005). Beyond buzzwords ‘poverty reduction’, ‘participation’ and
‘empowerment’ in development policy. Place of publication: UNRISD overarching concerns-
Paper.

Das, P. (2014). Women's participation in community-level water governance in urban India: The gap
between motivation and ability. World Development, 64, 206-218.

Das, P., & Takahashi, L. (2014). Non-participation of low-income households in community-managed

water supply projects in India. International Development Planning Review, 36(3), 265-291.

El Heraldo. (2014, April 7). Según URSAC más de 16 mil fundaciones y ONG operan en Honduras.
http://www.elheraldo.hn/pais/571632-214/segun-ursac-mas-de-16-mil-fundaciones-y-ong-
operan-en-honduras

El Libertador (2018). Gobierno de Honduras expone en Ginebra programas sociales.

http://www.web.ellibertador.hn/index.php/noticias/internacionales/29-lo-ratifica-la-onu-
centroamerica-lo-sabe-y-lo-sufre-que-hacer

FAO. (n.d.). Estudio de caracterización del corridor seco de Centroamerica: Tomo I.

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/tomo_i_corredor_seco.pdf

Fontana, L., & Grugel, J. (2016). The politics of Indigenous participation through "free prior informed
consent": Reflections from the Bolivian case. World Development, 77, 249-261.

58
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66, 66-
75.

Gamble, J. (2008). A Developmental Evaluation Primer. Retrieved from:

https://volunteer.ca/content/developmental-evaluation-primer

Government of Canada. (2017). 2016 International Assistance Review: What we heard. Retrieved from:
http://international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-
priorites/what_we_heard-que_nous_entendu.aspx?lang=eng

Hasan, A. (2006). Orangi Pilot Project: The expansion of work beyond Orangi and the mapping of
informal settlements and infrastructure. Environment & Urbanization, 18(2), 451-480.

Havel, Vaclav. (1996). The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Retrieved from:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/289471468741587739/The-World-Bank-
participation-sourcebook

Hipgrave, D., Alderman, K., Anderson, I., & Jimenez Soto, E. (2014). Health sector priority setting at
meso-level in lower and middle-income countries: Lessons learned, available options and
suggested steps. Social Science & Medicine, 102, 190-200.

Hippert, C. (2011). Women's spaces, gender mainstreaming, and development priorities: Popular
participation as gendered work in rural Bolivia. Women's Studies International Forum, 34, 498–
508.

IAP2. (n.d.). IAP2 Core Values. Retrieved from: https://www.iap2.org/?page=corevalues

Jacobs, F., Jordhus-Lier, D, & Tsolekile de Wet, P. (2015). The politics of knowledge: Knowledge
management in informal settlement upgrading in Cape Town. Urban Forum, 26, 425-441.

Kapoor, I. (2005). Participatory development, complicity and desire. Third World Quarterly, 26(8), 1203-
1220.

La Gaceta. (2014). Decreta: Ley de Patronatos y Asociaciones Comunitarias. Decreto: 253-2013.

Retrieved from: https://www.tsc.gob.hn/leyes/Ley_patronatos_asocia_comuni_2014.pdf

La Gaceta. (2017). Reglamento de Participación de la Comunidad Educativa de la Ley Fundamental de

Educación y Acuerdo Ministerial N°. 1395-SE-2015. Retrieved from:
https://tzibalnaah.unah.edu.hn/bitstream/handle/123456789/5877/20170608.pdf?sequence=2
&isAllowed=y

Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of "muddling through". Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.

Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2012). Can Participation Be Induced? Some evidence from Developing Countries.
World Bank. Retrieved from: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11973

59
Marais, L. & Ntema, J. (2013). The upgrading of an informal settlement in South Africa: Two decades
onwards. Habitat International, 39, 85-95.

Mayan, M. (2009). Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.

MISEREOR. (2017). Strengthening People-Driven Change Processes in Asia. Retrieved from:

https://www.misereor.org/fileadmin//user_upload/misereor_org/Publications/englisch/strengt
hening-people-driven-change-processes-in-asia.pdf

Mohan, G., & Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory development and empowerment: The dangers of localism.
Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 247.

Muller, A., & Mbanga, E. (2012). Participatory enumerations at the national level in Namibia: The
Community Land Information Programme (CLIP). Environment & Urbanization, 24(1), 67-75.

OECD (2001), The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris: Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd.org/site/worldforum/33703702.pdf

OECD. (2017). How's Life? 2017: Measuring Well-being. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/media/bli/documents/how_life-2017-sum-en.pdf

O'Reilly, K. (2010). Combining sanitation and women's participation in water supply: an example from
Rajasthan. Development in Practice, 20(1), 45-56.

Participedia. (2013). About Participedia. Retrieved from: https://participedia.net/en/about

Patel, K. (2016). Sowing the seeds of conflict? Low income housing delivery, community participation
and inclusive citizenship in South Africa. Urban Studies, 53(13), 2738-2757.

Platteau, J.-P., & Abraham, A. (2002). Participatory development in the presence of endogenous
community imperfections. Journal of Development Studies, 39(2), 104–136.

Pierce, J., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298-310.

Portes, A. & Landolt, P. (2000). Social Capital: Promise and Pitfalls of its Role in Development. Journal of
Latin American Studies, 32(2), 529-547.

Rahier, J. (2012). Introduction. In J. Rahier (Ed.), Black Social Movements in Latin America: From
Monocultural Mestizaje to Multiculturalism (pp. 1 -12). New York, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Rao, V., & Ibáñez, A. (2005). The social impact of social funds in Jamaica: A ‘participatory econometric’
analysis of targeting, collective action, and participation in community-driven development.
Journal of Development Studies, 41(5), 788-838.

60
Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review.
Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–31.

Rydin, Y., & Pennington, M. (2000). Public participation and local environmental planning: The collective
action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5(2), 153–69.

Schönwälder, G. (1997). New democratic spaces at the grassroots? Popular participation in Latin
American local governments. Development and Change, 28, 753-770.

Shortt, N., & Hammett, D. (2013). Housing and health in an informal settlement upgrade in Cape Town,
South Africa. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 28, 615-627.

Smale, B. & O’Rourke, D. (2018). Capturing quality of life with the Canadian Index of Well-being.
Retrieved from: https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-index-wellbeing/sites/ca.canadian-index-
wellbeing/files/uploads/files/smale_and_orourke_.pdf

Swapan, M. (2016). Who participates and who doesn't? Adapting community participation model for
developing countries. Cities, 53, 70-77.

Tanwir, M. & Safday, T. (2013). The rural woman’s constraints to participation in rural organizations.
Journal of International Women’s Studies, 14(3), 210-230.

TECHO. (2018). Modelo de Trabajo en Comunidades. Santiago: TECHO.

TECHO-Honduras. (2014). Estudio multidimensional de la pobreza: Un acercamiento desde la percepción

de los pobladores.

Turnhout, E., Van Bommel, S., & Aarts, N. (2010). How participation creates citizens: Participatory
governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society, 15(4): 26.

UN-Habitat. (2016). Slum Almanac 2015-2016. Retrieved from: https://unhabitat.org/slum-almanac-

2015-2016/

United Nations. (2015). Habitat Issue Papers – Informal Settlements. Retrieved from:
https://www.unhabitat.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Habitat-III-Issue-Paper-22_Informal-
Settlements.pdf

United Nations. (n.d.). Retrieved from: Principales programas en ejecución por la Presidencia de la
República. https://www.un.int/honduras/es/honduras/principales-programas-en-ejecucion-por-
la-presidencia-de-la-republica

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (n.d.). Human Development Index.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

Williams, G. (2004). Evaluating participatory development: Tyranny, power and (re) politicisation. Third
World Quarterly, 25(3), 557–78.

61
World Bank. (2016). Country Profile: Honduras. Retrieved from:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/reports/reportwidget.aspx?Report_Name=CountryP
rofile&Id=b450fd57&tbar=y&dd=y&inf=n&zm=n&country=HND

Yalegama, S., Chileshe, N., & Ma, T. (2016). Critical success factors for community-driven development
projects: A Sri Lankan community perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 34,
643-659.

62