The term Capacity Building per se, was first coined by the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro.  It was defined by that conference as providing communities with the inspiration, information, skills and resources to create their own solutions to current problems and to harness ideas for the prevention of future problems.  More specifically, …  a fundamental goal of capacity building is to enhance the ability to evaluate and address the crucial questions related to policy choices and modes of implementation among development options, based on an understanding of environment potentials and limits and of needs perceived by the people of the country concerned". Capacity Building - Agenda 21’s definition (Chapter 37, UNCED, 1992.)

Historically the relationship between communities and agencies, such as State or Local Government are either

•    Top Down or
•    Bottom Up

Neither of these are capacity building, let alone Dynamic Capacity Building.

There is a third model for the relationship between local people and their agencies, and the operative word indeed is relationship.  The new term is …
•    Inside Out 

Although of course, there will always be and indeed need for both Top Down and Bottom Up.  There are very important aspects, which agencies will always have to “deliver” and there will always be ginger groups (“bless their hearts”) pushing for change.  Of course the reality of ongoing TD and BU approaches can be influenced by the best of IO style too.  Moreover and most practically, the smart move is to turn the traditional duo of TD and BU into a trio - the TDBUIO trio complete and balanced by the inclusion of Inside Out projects between agencies and communities.

Inside Out approaches are especially suited to issues relating to community and environment and where participation and a sense of belonging are priorities.  In community enhancement circles, Inside Out refers to “building from the inside out”.  But even this, while good, still has a vague whiff of them and us.  So we also like to visualise Inside Out as being also a little bit entwined – no unlike the amazing dance of the mating Tiger slugs of Sydney.  Try to pick which one of those is which!  Phew!  We define the Inside Out/Entwinement model for agency and community relationships as being comprised of the three Rs – Risk, Respect and Relationships – both ways.

Risk
It is a Risk to cede participation and belonging and dare it be said, a level of control to a community group.  It is feels even riskier to provide resources, but these “risks” are key.  It’s a risk for people to “trust” for whom the relationship in the past may have been adversarial – planning disputes, fines from the library, local political rivalry, etc.

Respect
Respect is also fundamental.  We call it “giving the community a peck on the cheek”.  It is about spending time with community, and it does take a little more time with people than traditional approaches time – but it is time most powerfully invested.  That extra time is rewarded with manifold outcomes that keep on coming out!  That time and relationship ensure the shift from Transmission to Transformation.  The nature of IO time spent with community needs to be altruistic and philanthropic way that permits you to actually become close to people and have a good time with people.  Radical but very effective.

Relationships
It is the numerous relationships formed which are the holy grail of the IO model.  Unlike the single arrows, which might depict the Top Down or Bottom Up models, the arrows in the IO model are a veritable phalanx of arrows, resembling a bowl of pointy spaghetti.  The relationships keep it interesting and unpredictable yet totally on course.   The relationships serve a human survival need, which is as strong as food and water – social connectedness.  Socially connected people live longer happier and healthier lives.
As the ice breaks and the relationship grow, levels of enjoyment rise and, as is said by the sages – if it ain’t fun it ain’t sustainable.

The IO model and its complex of relationships is the most fertile ground for Capacity Building but more importantly, it automatically spawns Dynamic Capacity Building – group driven, self-nourishing potentially perpetual learning and growth.  This is known in education as self-actualisation and in community change thinking as self-empowerment. 

DCB describes a state whereby individuals go beyond learning and skills acquisition and gain increasing proficiency in and motivation to learn how to learn.   This in turn becomes a self-nourishing and “self capacity building building” (scbb) cycle directed and driven by its participants – ie:  Dynamic Capacity Building.  Because the focus of the group is always changing, relevant because interesting new relationships are created and the phalanx of relationships constantly revitalised.

Equally, the relationships that underpin DCB also drive DCB by servicing a human group’s most powerful yearning – for a sense of belonging.  We know in this modern age that community connections are withering.  However, where a community self defines and creates a course for its own experience thus making a project even more relevant and locally controlled critical stanchion of community enhancement.