The ABCD approach, develop by Kretzmann and McKnight in 1993, prioritises community assets over conventional focuses on problems and deficiencies. By emphasising successes, it fosters a positive vision for the future (Mathie & Peters 2014; Nel 2018). Kretzmann and McKnight (2005) argue that a community’s strength as a development leader lies in recognising and utilising local strengths. Strong communities effectively identify and value these capacities. The ABCD approach suggests that many social issues stem from unequal asset distribution. Instead of just addressing negatives, it promotes enhancing the community’s positive aspects (Yeneabat & Butterfield 2012).

The ABCD approach is a move from a problem- and needs-based approach to a strength- and asset-based view of communities (Kretzmann & McKnight 1993; Nel 2015). The asset-based approach stands in contrast to the needs-based approach in that ABCD is asset based with a focus on the strengths, assets and capabilities of communities. The asset-based approach is largely positive and can be regarded as a bottom-up approach, shifting the focus away from a passive stance, waiting for ‘expert services’ to move towards an enabling perspective (Kretzmann 2010; Lohoar, Price-Robertson & Nair 2013). Both individuals and communities have needs, but they also have the skills and assets to support their own well-being. However, in order to empower the person and community, these contributing factors must be fully mobilised (World Health Organization [WHO] & United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF] 2020).

Various authors (Kramer et al. 2012; Smyth & Vanclay 2017; Zetter & Watson 2016) have alluded to the five assets that make up a livelihood in community development cycles. Assets are typically viewed as stocks of assets that people accumulate and hold over time and that provide for future consumption, as articulated by Nel (2018). Assets can be classified into the following categories, namely: physical assets, human assets, social assets, financial and natural or environmental assets (Zetter & Watson 2016). The researcher believes these assets should be integrated at all levels of intervention, namely the micro, mezzo and macro, as well as in all government departments at national, provincial and local levels. Viewing a community from this perspective could bring about community development through interventions in one or more of the different systems. As such, the ABCD approach can bring sustainable change in the livelihoods of communities.

The ABCD approach posits that communities can effectively utilise external resources after mobilising their internal assets. It emphasises that communities should define their own agendas for acquiring additional resources (Kretzmann & McKnight 2005:3). Kramer et al. (2012) argue for independence from external experts to avoid a cycle of dependency. They caution that development initiated by outside forces is often unsustainable; instead, it should come from within the community, with members actively contributing their resources. The first step in an asset-based intervention is identifying and leveraging community assets. This empowers members to start projects based on their concerns, increasing the likelihood that they will continue even after external funding ends.

Moreover, donors and the government will not have the power to dictate, but they will work together with the communities (Kang’ethe & Chivanga 2015; Patel 2015). The fact that this approach is internally focused implies that concerns that need to be addressed and how they need to be addressed are in the hands of community members and not those of external community developers. Chambers (1994) argues that:

In order to address the issues facing the community, community members must decide which resources should be tapped and mobilised (Lohoar et al. 2013; Skhosana & Nel 2024). The researcher contends that the ABCD approach has a significant and sustainable development impact on poverty alleviation as it is an internal, bottom-up approach. It begins with what is present in the community, relying heavily on the assets and strengths of the community. It assists participants in obtaining more insight into their skills, talents, abilities and experiences.

The ABCD approach is based on the principle that individuals within a community will become motivated to take control and solve their problems through raising awareness. Once motivated, individuals can develop skills to build a collective community response to an issue. The approach was seen to be ‘citizen-led’ and driven by the community, thus acknowledging and building on what already exists and focusing more on people and not services (Green & Haines 2016). In other words, the approach enables the needs of individuals and communities to be met in a way that allows future generations to meet their needs as well. This emphasises moving away from merely rendering services to the people to engaging directly and purposefully with the people in planning how assets should be allocated to community members. Hence, the researcher maintains that community members and their communities should be regarded as rich in assets and not as problems in need of service.

With the ABCD approach in mind, the SLA is discussed further in the text as the two approaches are interlinked.

The SLA originated in the 1980s, influenced by Robert Chambers’ work on poverty and household livelihoods (Nel 2015; Patel 2015; Serrat 2017). It evolved from research emphasising that poverty is multi-dimensional, not merely a lack of income (ed. Hofmeyr 2012). Adopted by the Department of Social Development (DSD) in 2003 as a strategy to alleviate poverty (Kaeane & Ross 2012), the SLA focuses on enhancing community-level institutions and processes (Mclean 2015; Serrat 2010, 2017). Success is measured by sustainable improvements in livelihoods, though thorough analysis often requires more time and resources than many projects can provide (Chauya 2015). Understanding the diverse factors influencing livelihoods is essential for effective community strategies (Gondwe & Ayenagbo 2013).

The SLA emphasises fostering development spending within a broader policy context (ed. Hofmeyr 2012; Nel 2015). Similar to the ABCD approach, it sees low-income individuals as key contributors to their own development and encourages a supportive role for external stakeholders. The SLA focuses on identifying and leveraging people’s strengths to enhance their capabilities and sustain their livelihoods. De Haan (2017) notes the importance of examining the vulnerability context and relevant policies after assessing these assets. Unlike needs-based approaches that focus on what individuals lack, the SLA highlights the specific assets communities can utilise to overcome poverty (Mazibuko 2013; Serrat 2017), emphasising that communities can drive their own development.

There are two key factors for achieving sustainable development, as highlighted by Tango International (2009). Firstly, effective linkages between project components are essential, requiring a holistic approach to community issues. Secondly, active participation from all members is crucial, meaning that multiple factors, including economic, political, social and environmental, must be considered (Chauya 2015). Sustainable livelihoods should be the primary goal for improving lives, as assessed by the community’s standards (DSD 2009). Research by Morse and McNamara (2013) and De Haan (2017) supports this by showing that the SL framework helps households conceptualise their capabilities and assets for sustaining their livelihoods. It clarifies the various factors, assets, capabilities, threats and vulnerabilities across societal dimensions (human, social, political, economic and physical) at all levels that affect households’ sustainable well-being.

The SL approach, similar to the ABCD approach, identifies five major assets essential for achieving SL in households and fostering stronger, socially cohesive communities. Authors such as Serrat (2010), Kretzmann and McKnight (1993), Schenck, Nel and Louw (2010), Morse and McNamara (2013) and Patel (2015) have emphasised the importance of these assets in addressing poverty. However, it is important to note that the SLA is more focused on people than on assets.

The first type of asset is human assets, which encompass work experience, skills, talents, knowledge and the creative capabilities of individuals. The second type is natural assets, defined as access to land, water, agriculture and minerals. The third type is physical assets, which include food, livestock, jewellery, tools and machinery. Financial assets refer to money earned through working in the formal or informal sector, savings in the bank or benefiting from state social grants. Finally, social assets refer to social bonds, voluntary associations and the quality of relations among people within communities (Patel 2015). No single asset area can sufficiently increase livelihood outcomes, but a range of assets is needed for people to move towards greater economic sustainability.

The SLA focuses on a people-centred, holistic and dynamic development process that leverages community strengths while being sustainable. As described by Patel (2015), this approach promotes citizen participation and amplifies community voices in decision-making, contributing to democratic and accountable institutions. Key to addressing poverty, understanding these principles helps formulate effective interventions (Gambe 2015). The emphasis lies on community experiences, identifying strengths and creating strategies for SLs. Community members should actively recognise important aspects of their livelihoods, while interventions should aim to empower them and address their weaknesses by sharing knowledge and establishing decision-making structures. Development efforts must promote sustainable economic, natural, political, cultural and social environments. The SLA bridges the gap between macro and micro levels, highlighting how macro-level decisions impact individual lives, which is essential for sustainable development.

Based on the above background, it is evident that the two approaches contribute to the participation of community members and, thus, sustainable interventions. The ABCD approach aligns with the SLA by adopting a partnership model in which development initiatives are co-produced. In this model, community members play vital roles in the governance, design and facilitation of these initiatives (Brooks & Kendall 2013). The integration of the SL and ABCD approaches advocates a shift from the conventional understanding of assets as primarily economy driven, towards a focus on ‘releasing’ assets from people’s lived experiences and psychosocial attributes for poverty alleviation, which can include individual skills and local knowledge (Mathie & Cunningham 2010), individual experiences (Brocklesby & Fisher 2003) and aptitudes (Kretzmann & McKnight 1993). Asset-based community development may, therefore, be seen as offering the prospect of improving support for deprived or neglected communities by adopting a collaborative approach. The main thinking behind SLA and ABCD is the need to understand, build upon and further develop people’s existing strengths. Accordingly, the underlying principles of ABCD and the SLA approaches are complementary (Nel 2015) in that the ABCD approach helps to operationalise the SLA framework that draws from a full range of assets to generate a livelihood. The two approaches do not contradict other current development approaches; rather, they try to combine and take advantage of their strengths.

Asset-based community development’s focus on community strengths (Kretzmann & McKnight 1993) risks neglecting structural barriers like policies or market failures. Sustainable livelihoods approach explicitly incorporates external factors (e.g. institutions, trends, shocks) through its ‘vulnerability context’ (DFID 1998; Scoones 1998), providing a macro-level corrective. While ABCD mobilises assets, it lacks a systematic framework for translating them into livelihood outcomes. Sustainable livelihoods approach’s ‘livelihood pentagon’ (human, social, natural, physical, financial capital) (Chambers & Conway 1992) fills this gap by mapping asset-to-outcome pathways. The ABCD’s optimism about local capacity may underestimate systemic risks (Mathie & Cunningham 2010). Sustainable livelihoods approach’s explicit focus on vulnerability (e.g. climate shocks, economic instability) (ed. Carney 1998) strengthens resilience planning.

The SLA’s diagnostic tools can be technocratic (Scoones 2009), whereas ABCD’s participatory methods (e.g. asset mapping, storytelling) foster community agency (Mathie & Cunningham 2010), aligning with SLA’s people-centred goals. Sustainable livelihoods approach acknowledges social capital but often as a static asset and lacks detail on identifying these assets (Nel 2015; Sachikonye, Bvochora & Muchenwa 2016). Asset-based community development’s emphasis on collective action operationalises it dynamically, bridging theory and practice. Asset-based community development’s asset lens counters SLA’s occasional deficit orientation (Green & Haines 2016), ensuring analysis builds on existing successes.

While the limitations and strengths have been identified, the two approaches have the following synergistic benefits. The combined framework offers (Green & Haines 2016; Nel 2015):

Based on the above exposition, both approaches highlight the importance of considering a project’s impact on community functioning. They emphasise a person-centred perspective, viewing community members as active decision-makers in shaping their livelihoods. This integration is theoretically coherent, addressing critiques of ABCD’s structural blindness and SLA’s occasional detachment from local praxis. Empirical studies (Toner, Franks & Baker 2021) show that such hybrids improve development outcomes by merging empowerment and systemic analysis. This focus is essential for designing support activities that utilise community strengths. This process should be combined with the ABCD approach, allowing communities to recognise their strengths. Therefore, a community-led integrated model that incorporates all these assets is needed.

The first challenge identified was that the community lacked interest and was not fully involved in the projects. In line with this challenge, the participants had the following to say:

The CDP described the main challenge as a lack of participation and had the following to share:

The supervisor had the following to add:

The observed lack of interest and involvement from community members was because of their exclusion from the initial project stages, resulting in projects that did not meet their needs. Government-funded community projects should be tailored to these needs by involving community members from the beginning. Following the ABCD approach, the emphasis should be on the community’s existing assets, capabilities and skills, which can be mobilised to address challenges (Serrat 2010). The findings indicate how the community members felt neglected as they were not involved in decision-making. One of the community members bemoaned that no one from the government visited the project, although this had happened previously, and they are left to their own devices and have no information:

One community member bemoaned that no one listened to legitimate concerns:

The community members complained about the lack of involvement and poor communication by management. They were left in the dark because nobody was communicating with them. According to Green and Haines (2016), the community development process is a cycle in which participation should occur at every stage of the development initiative for the interventions to be effective. In summary, the focus should be on two main pillars of ABCD: activating community-driven development by revitalising local assets and connecting these assets to larger, influential structures (Petersen & Pedersen 2010). The ABCD approach emphasises community-driven development that leverages local assets, skills and knowledge for sustainable change. However, the study revealed significant shortcomings: community members were often excluded from decision-making processes, and projects were imposed without proper consultation. This lack of engagement led to poor communication, fostering distrust and dependency within the community. Additionally, the government’s deficiency-based approach, which focuses on identifying needs rather than harnessing assets, contradicts the principles of ABCD. The effective implementation of ABCD requires authentic participation at all stages (Petersen & Pedersen 2010), but the projects in question were largely controlled externally. This undermined the SLA, as beneficiaries were left without a sense of ownership over the initiatives. In conclusion, the integration of these approaches failed because the government did not transition from a top-down to a bottom-up strategy, rendering ABCD ineffective.

Mathie and Cunningham (2010) note that poor communication of project goals contributes to project failures, while the lack of communication between managers and staff fosters fear and distrust, hindering change. Developing innovative partnerships necessitates collaboration between external stakeholders and community initiatives. However, it is essential that the community assumes a leadership role in these efforts (Nel 2018).

The lack of assets and funds is a challenge in running projects, as mentioned by all participants in the study. One development centre manager lamented that:

Another development centre manager continued in this vein:

The lack of funding was confirmed by one of the community members:

The excerpts indicate that progress was stalled because of a lack of funding, resulting in regression despite minor improvements in poverty alleviation. Community members hoped that participation in projects would sustain their livelihoods, but many left without positive changes (Mazibuko 2013). This dissatisfaction highlights that government and non-government organisations often focus solely on economic development while ignoring the broader needs of communities. According to Mazibuko (2013) and Robert (2017), many South Africans feel they lack enough food and income. Additionally, community members frequently overlook their own assets, such as financial resources like stokvels and social grants, and often wait for external assistance instead of utilising these assets.

Both ABCD and SLA recognise the importance of financial, social and human assets. However, communities have primarily relied on government funding instead of mobilising their internal resources, such as stokvels (community savings groups) and skills exchanges. Consequently, projects collapsed when funding was no longer available, indicating a lack of SL strategies. Although ABCD promotes asset mapping, as proposed by Kretzmann and McKnight (1993), this practice was not implemented. Similarly, SLA’s five capital assets, social, natural, financial, physical and human, were largely overlooked. Furthermore, the emphasis was placed on the economic perspective, which ignored the significance of social capital, including community networks. In conclusion, the integration of these approaches was superficial. Projects followed a donor-driven model instead of empowering communities to utilise their existing assets.

From the above discussion, it seems the risk of relying on economic activities as a poverty alleviation strategy is of grave concern. The integration of the ABCD and SL approaches might be the solution to this oversight as the former places more emphasis on social assets because these are what underscore community associations and informal networks and can be instrumental in furthering development activities (Mathie & Cunningham 2010; Mayer, Siegel & Wright 2018).

The development centre managers said that a lesson they had learnt was that the capacity-building of beneficiaries was inadequate, which meant that beneficiaries could not run their businesses. The findings were echoed in the voices of the two development centre managers:

From the above submission, it was noted that the development centres, as non-government organisations, failed to address poverty and unemployment, let alone capacitate the community members. In some cases, the failure of projects and lack of capacity emanate from the dependency of NGOs on the government regarding funding. The participation and empowerment of communities in the initial approval, planning, execution and evaluation stages of community projects are therefore of paramount importance. The ABCD approach addresses the issues and challenges that communities confront by concentrating on their strengths and assets rather than ignoring the fact that communities characterised by poverty encounter obstacles and difficulties (Skhosana & Nel 2024).

The community members also responded to the question as to how they are being capacitated. In the focus groups, the following storylines emerged. One community member explained that the organisation helps with funding but stated that community members do not know how the funding is managed:

Gift supported Hilda’s explanation but added that beneficiaries have little say over how the proceeds are used:

Participants reported that their involvement in current projects did not lead to positive changes because of a lack of funding and unfulfilled promises. They received no training in financial management, and there was little connection between the technical training and financial practices. Consequently, development centre managers decided to handle funds on behalf of the community.

While both the ABCD and SLA stress the importance of skills development for self-reliance, the training programmes were short term and inadequate, often lasting only 1 month. This led to ongoing dependency and a lack of entrepreneurial support. Additionally, ABCD’s emphasis on local knowledge and leadership was absent, and SLA’s human capital development approach did not yield SLs. In summary, the two frameworks were poorly integrated, with training being externally imposed rather than community driven.

Ravhura (2010) argues that ignoring economic and business management perspectives limits the success of such programmes. A concentrated effort should be made to create assets that benefit the community members, largely by building and tapping into internal assets.

The project coordinators had a different perspective on sustainability and were basically of the opinion that there is a lack of sustainability because of a lack of participation and dependency. In line with this challenge, the project coordinator asserted that:

Another project coordinator further explained as follows:

The findings reveal that community members often act as recipients rather than change agents, perpetuating a cycle of poverty. They are not taught to provide for themselves but instead rely on government aid. To break this cycle, the focus should be on a community-led development strategy that empowers citizens by leveraging their assets and insights (Kretzmann & McKnight 1993; Mathie & Cunningham 2010). Relying on outsiders for community development can be impractical because of a lack of understanding of local dynamics and poor service coordination. Significant resources are wasted on the same communities instead of reaching other underserved areas (Mazibuko 2013). Both government and NGOs should view community members as equal partners and experts in their situations (Nel & Pretorius 2012). Encouraging community participation from the outset is crucial for programme sustainability, allowing communities to become self-reliant by using their knowledge and skills.

Sustainability requires community ownership through the ABCD approach and resilient livelihood strategies (SLAs). However, the following issues were observed: Projects were dependent on donor funding and lacked self-sustainability, beneficiaries became passive recipients rather than active change agents and there was no long-term planning or exit strategies in place. The principle of mobilising internal assets central to ABCD was overlooked. Additionally, the SLA’s goal of achieving livelihood resilience was not met because of ineffective asset utilisation. Grassroots innovation, as discussed by Seyfang and Smith (2007), was absent. In conclusion, the integration of these strategies failed because the projects were not designed for long-term impact; instead, they reinforced dependency rather than fostering empowerment.

It can be deduced that a bottom-up approach to project development is essential for ensuring sustainable growth in communities. It is important for communities to begin development processes by identifying their specific issues and assets. Seyfang and Smith (2007) emphasise the benefits of involving grassroots groups in addressing community challenges, as these groups can propose effective solutions for the sustainable development issues they face.

The potential strengths of the theoretical integration in the projects imply that ABCD’s asset-focused approach effectively emphasises the importance of leveraging local resources and strengths, which aligns well with SLA’s livelihood strategies that aim to enhance the capabilities of individuals and communities. When combined, these frameworks have the potential to address poverty in a holistic manner, ensuring that interventions not only improve economic conditions but also foster social empowerment, leading to more resilient and self-sufficient communities.

Notable failures in practice highlight that the top-down implementation of the integration model significantly undermined ABCD’s foundational belief in community-driven initiatives. By imposing strategies from higher levels without adequate input from local stakeholders, the programme lost vital community engagement and ownership. There was a notable overemphasis on financial capital, as promoted by SLA, which often overshadowed the importance of social assets highlighted by ABCD. This imbalance limited the development of community relationships and social networks that are crucial for sustainable growth. The lack of participatory planning meant that community members were largely viewed as passive recipients of aid, rather than as active partners in the decision-making process. This exclusion diminished the relevance and effectiveness of the interventions, as they did not reflect the actual needs and aspirations of the community. The focus on short-term interventions resulted in failure to create lasting livelihood pathways for individuals. Many initiatives were designed for quick results rather than nurturing long-term solutions, leaving communities vulnerable once the initial support was withdrawn.

The study reveals a conceptual mismatch; while ABCD and SLA could theoretically work together, in practice, the government’s deficiency-based approach dominated, rendering the integration ineffective. For future projects, a genuine bottom-up strategy must be adopted, where communities lead development using their own assets and strengths. The following are recommended for effective integration by the government and NGOs: