HOPE and TEV International took divergent approaches to community development. HOPE involved the community in decision making and problem solving, encouraging self-sufficiency. In contrast, TEV primarily focused on information dissemination and implementing predetermined solutions, without community involvement in identifying problems or developing strategies. While HOPE respected local knowledge and facilitated community leadership, TEV saw its model as superior and did not customize its approach to the community's needs.

1. HOPE VIS-À-VIS TEV –
AN ANALYSIS
DIVERGENT APPROACHES OF
DEVELOPMENT
Chirag Garg
Puja Thakkar
Sampad Acharya

2. CONTEXT – FACILITATOR &
ADVOCATE
HOPE TEV International
An Organization with core importance on
People Centre development
TEV international had pre-decided goals
that aimed at providing technical support
and information dissemination, formal
training
Organisation was focusing in the process
and tried to include community.
Organisation was working as facilitator
Organisation was not involving community
in decision making. They were advocating
the idea, technology, information they have
Their efforts built capacity within the
community itself. Key decisions and process
were handled by the community
By the way of providing actionable
information, the organisation was trying to
train the individual farmers about new
agricultural technologies

3. THE PROBLEM
HOPE TEV International
HOPE has been invited by the people.
Community was knowing the problem and
shared member-accountable leadership.
TEV surveyed and tried to identify the
problems. The community was not involved in
problem finding. Community was only used as
lever without being involved in the process.
Encouraged the community to go for the
further findings and to dissect the problem to
find the root cause.
Encouraged community to find the solutions
for the problem.
Disseminated the existing information to the
community. The solution to the problem was
suggested to the community and I was not
from any of the community members.
Acted as Facilitator and help the community
to better understand the problem
TEV international informed the community
about the problem by acting as advocates. It
said that the community is using old aged
technologies, inadequate agricultural
process- low crop yield, poor human nutrition

4. APPROACH TAKEN
HOPE TEV International
Giving people information by engaging them
to discover their knowledge.
Limited amount of agriculture related
information amongst the rural masses.
Critical thinking Approach for learning and
self discovery
Information Dissemination approach to
educate the farmers
Educating youth, immunisation to children
Ex- Imam educating youth on AIDS
Women brought children for immunization
Large group of women working together
TEV believed that their model is superior and
no need to customize or adapt to the
requirements or the fitments of the
community.

5. STRATEGY ADOPTION
HOPE TEV International
Community has taken up all the leadership
roles in the program and was actively involved
TEV primarily focused on the implementation
part.
Since there was no community involvement
throughout the project, there was no feedback
system in place
Encouraged, facilitated the community to take
their own decision.
• Strong belief in self sufficiency
• Ensuring people participation
There was a Limited research plot.
• Training to the people is decided by TEV
and not by the community.
• Trickle down effect has not been ensured
by the community

6. EXPECTED OUTCOME
HOPE TEV International
Outcome was qualitative in nature Outcome was quantifiable in action
Expected Outcome is to make them self
sufficient and increase the capacity of the
community
There is weakening of self confidence since
the organization had not involved the
community in the decision making process
Helped the community to take their own
decisions
Only few individuals were trained -leads to
disturbance in the community

7. ATTITUDES AND VALUES
HOPE TEV International
Utmost respect for the local community Overlooking the community and its ideas
appreciating the work done by the youth of
the community.
Inability to include the local learning in their
approach
Never exerted superiority and never tried to
impose readymade answer or already
existent solution
Belief that their training model was superior
and need to be customized to requirements
of the local community

8. THANK YOU.
Chirag Garg UR15015
Puja Thakkar UR15032
Sampad Acharya
UR15037