Community Organization and Development

from its history towards a model for the future

Steve Clarke

• Publisher: University of Wales Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781786830500
• eBook ISBN: 9781786830524
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

This book traces the development of community development/organization as it evolved separately in Britain and the United States, and how the social and political situations in each country determined the various shapes and directions it took. In presenting a comprehensive history of the subject, Community Organization and Development draws on local and international factors that have helped to shape its application and fortunes across varied settings. Recent economic and social pressures, the changing demographics of developed economies, and the rise of social and cultural diversity all contribute to the need for a comprehensive model that can be deployed to effect the necessary social changes required for sustained change with stability. The history of this intervention technique throws up many examples from which insight can be gained for the present time, and Wales is used as an example of how national policy and local development could be combined for maximum effect. Community development should become reliable and quantifiable, and the comprehensive model developed here demonstrates how and when it should be deployed.

1

---

Background to community development and its relevance to sustainable planning

Methodology issues, definitions and the challenges facing an ageing society

The underlying questions

Around the globe, community development is practised in many settings – rural, urban, developed economies, developing economies, long-term, short-term – with diverse forms and value systems. Nevertheless, the claims are that it actually conforms to a basic vision across this wide terrain (Midgley, 1995). Weil puts it thus: ‘the essential purpose of strengthening communities and services and pressing for access, equality, empowerment and social justice…’ (Weil, 2013, p. xi). The difficulty with development of any kind is that, for it to be relevant and effective, it is dependent on the local context and situation for its priorities and methods. Consequently, the language used to describe and explain what is going on can be extremely localised to a culture or geography. The different ways in which it has developed, therefore, may now act as much as barriers to meaningful communication between those practising the same ‘art’ in different locations and/ or from within different cultures. In the United States, for example, creating a ‘consensus’ means something completely different for disciples of the late Saul Alinsky than it does for graduates of Michael Eichler’s Consensus Organizing Center at San Diego State University (Alinsky, 1972; Eichler, 2007). For the one it means ‘we agree amongst ourselves against “them”’, whereas for the other it means ‘we all agree, inclusively’. One person’s ‘conflict’ is another person’s ‘consensus’. In the UK, these words are hardly ever used, perhaps because there is a certain coyness about being explicit about the role of professional organisers. In the British approach, ‘process’ is more important than defining the concrete objectives (Ledwith and Springett, 2010). Social engineering is held to be a taboo role for this kind of ‘social worker’ and it is now rare to find a ‘social worker’ who has even heard of community development. In the parlance of international development agencies, however, the targeted funding of intervention in local cultures and environments is taken as for granted in order to accomplish ‘beneficial’ outcomes for the local population and for society as a whole (Islam, 2015; Department of Social and Economic Affairs, 2014).

Can the gulf between these idealistic and pragmatic differences be bridged? In the face of the social and economic problems facing all societies and the need for there to be agreement, common purpose and understanding between like-minded professionals, there is an urgent need for consensus around the way thinking and practice might progress. This volume will undertake to come to grips with where and why some of these differences occurred, how a synthesis of thinking might be forged and how consistency over time and place might be regulated.

One of the practical reasons that this might be needed is encapsulated in the situation facing older people in developed societies. Vulnerable older people need sustainable support. This can be variable over time and also intimate in nature. So, can we design a model of community development that will provide a viable framework for this? Can such a model be applied across geographical and cultural boundaries through the use of universally recognised frameworks and measurements? This is a reasonably straightforward question, but it disguises many complex issues. These issues and the questions they raise will be expanded and discussed in the subsequent Chapters. In this section, the aim is to set out a framework, through which this task might be pursued, and to describe, as well as define, many of the basic terms and frames of reference that have to be used in getting into the subject. Unfortunately, the terminology in this subject area is an arena where fashion, ideology and practice usage change continuously. This makes a time-line analysis of the material a task requiring continuous adjustment and redefinition of terminology.

Example: President Obama was a Community Organizer before he became a Member of the US Senate. In America, Community Organization is a generic term, within which community development is a specific practice sector. In America, to be a community organizer is to be contracted into a paid, leadership role that has to deliver a consensus outcome, or, alternatively, to create organised strategies for conflict (see below). In any event, the role is one of paid, organisational leadership that enables the community to achieve any of the social, political, or economic objectives that they, the community, might agree (Ganz, and Hilton, 2010). Did the fact that Barack Obama worked for a ‘faith-based’ organisation have any effect on the way he worked or the sort of objectives that were prioritised while he was there? It is this sort of question that needs some transparency through the application of a framework analysis.

In the US, the ‘theory’, and creation of practice models is expressed through the generic portal of community organization. In the UK, the generic term is ‘community development’, where, to make matters more difficult, the term community organisation (with an ‘s’) means ‘working developmentally with a number of established organisations’. In the U.S., this is called social planning. Whereas, in the UK, community organization means working through a conflict model of development, it can sometimes be called community action, or social action. As the dictionary is ambivalent about the usage of a ‘z’ or an ‘s’ in the word ‘organisation/ organization’, the definition of terms and location of usage is going to have to be specified carefully. In this work, community development will be used as the generic term, unless otherwise specified.

Resource materials for the research

This analysis has been greatly aided by the new transparency and availability of source materials from government agencies. In the case of the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the (regional) Welsh Government, a great depth of material is readily available through their websites, as all official documentation is in the public domain. This feature also applies to most official sources in the UK (NHS, for example), and also to many of the prominent Voluntary Organisations. The latter material is especially important for it is on the Internet that much of the ongoing commentary and analysis of state policy is posted by the not-for-profit sector, and, in some instances, by the for-profit sector as well. All public policy in this field of study is heavily analysed and scrutinised by the independent, non-state sectors, and thus state policies receive highly critical, public appraisal.

The same approach exists towards communication with the public across the technologically developed world with whom the British are accustomed to communicate (basically, the ‘Old’ Commonwealth). Additionally, there is a wealth of material in the United States of America, where every policy and service option appears to have been attempted and evaluated across the decades by many States and institutions. Of even greater significance to us, however, is the archive of historical material on community organization. From the very earliest days of experimentation with community organization, Americans have been writing books about their experience, and much of the earliest material is now available on the Internet through: www.archive.org. This archive covers government-sponsored work as well as voluntary sector activities, particularly religious organisations. Significant documents have emerged providing detailed insights into the efforts of American institutions, using problem-solving approaches, to deal with the most pressing problems of their times. These include: poverty (Residents and Associates, 1903); agricultural and rural communities (Lever/US Dept of Agriculture, 1913); the work of Edward Devine (1904; 1916); the first organised texts on the methods and objectives of community organization (Hanifan, 1914; Clarke, 1918; State Council for Defense, 1918; Follett, 1919; Hart, 1920). Wilson demonstrated how this organizing had by now assumed professional status (Wilson, 1919), and in the 1920s, McMechen pointed us in the direction of what we now call community social work (McMechen, 1920). McClenahan described how complex the role might be when real leadership had to be disguised in the name of carving a consensus out of confusion. Tactics and strategies had to be varied according to the setting of the work (McClenahan, 1922). Thus, when the Lane Committee (1940) was set up by the US National Conference of Social Work to formalise community organization within American Social Work, it was armed with a wealth of texts and practice examples. This Committee set out formal definitions and instructions for community organization. It attempted to highlight the theoretical progress that has been made to date and to draw a line under the development in the field up to the beginning of the Second World War. This was an opportune moment because the ensuing economic and social change the War brought about were to have profound influences on the future of community organization. Nevertheless, we can discern from these early works some of the symptoms of lax definition and omission, which continue to bedevil communication and understanding within social policy concerning community development today.

Despite the fact that contemporary American community development/organization workers contribute regularly to the (British) Community Development Journal (CDJ) about current practice in the United States, there is scant mention of American approaches, theories, models or practice in the British literature. This may signify that some of the salient themes found in current social policy in the UK, and as is reflected in practice analysis in the literature, displays little cross-fertilisation across national boundaries. Community development practice, as reflected in current policy, is focused upon issues such as partnership, inter-organisational practice, etc. Consequently, the absence of American experience from the internal British discussion on these subjects shows that the essential values purported by the occupation do not extend as far as international co-operation and/or the mutual recognition of much intellectual exchange.

This discrepancy arises historically, because American (and other foreign) material passes more or less without comment in the annals of community development in the UK and the Commonwealth. The first, and, in reality, the only significant mention in the UK literature of the early American experience appears in the Colonial Office booklet/Report on British plans to develop democratic institutions in the (mainly African) Colonies and Empire holdings (Colonial Office: Advisory Committee, 1943). It is explained that (p. 54, paraphrased) in the southern states of the USA, there is work going on in the ‘extension’ field among disadvantaged Afro-Americans. Black and White live alongside each other but with insurmountable economic and social barriers between them. Health and other specialised workers (agriculture, education, for example) worked alongside each other as a Field Service Unit. They demonstrate how a local school can become a focus for joint action and how the general community can move forward together. They ‘awaken the people to a sense of their needs’… and how to meet them.

This publication marks the dawn of British literature on community development, spawning the Community Development Bulletin, the forerunner of the CDJ. The ‘Bulletin’ was specifically designed to act as a communication vehicle for British Colonial development administrators, District Commissioners, and the like, as they pushed their respective colonial dependants towards Independence. Based at London University, the Bulletin was edited for most of its life by Professor T. R. Batten, who wrote the earliest texts for British overseas development workers (see Batten, 1957; etc.). These texts attempt to translate policy into a framework that is somehow an ‘approved practice methodology’. In investigating the heirs to these early works, we shall see that, in many respects, things have not moved on very far. Luckily, these texts are readily available (the exception being the CD Bulletin).

England and Wales: the role of the state and the development of social policy

Of critical importance today is the question of the role of the State in the process of financial and social support for communities, particularly the situation of older people. In light of the build-up of excessive demand for social, residential and community support for an increasingly ageing population, a mechanism is required to ensure that the necessary support can be generated (Acheson, 1998; HM Government, 1999; National Assembly for Wales (NAforW), 2001; Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), 2003c; Ministry of Health, 2014a, b). Both within and outwith government circles, there is general agreement that the continued reliance by the state on a network of benefits and social services to provide social and financial support for the vulnerable members of society is costly, variable in benefit and difficult to manage successfully. Specifically, for those trying to reduce the influence of, and burden on, the state in these matters, it has not proved malleable or responsive enough (Auditor General, 2006; WAG, 2003a). Thus, the possibility of a fresh approach to this question might be welcomed by those planning future social policy. Part of the way forward is to engage the client groups themselves in the exercise of planning and delivering services. The WAG Strategy for Older people put it thus: ‘To enhance the engagement with and participation of older people in society and at all levels of government’ (WAG, 2003c, p. 14). It is interesting to note the direction from which this initiative is coming – from the top down, and not vice versa (Bury, 2008).

For well over a decade, there has been a continuing crisis in public finances (Wanless, 2002). This has been generated by a steadily increasing public expenditure on health and welfare services, a general lack of growth in the tax base in a sluggish economy, a legacy of fiscal confusion and increased national debt. In the UK as a whole, net government debt has risen from 38% of Gross National Product to just over 60% in 2010 (Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2010) and to 86.2% by January, 2015 (ONS, 2015a, b). This process continues to worsen despite budget control over public spending. Figures for Regional Governments are distorted due to the Barnet Formula funding structure and the responsibility for debt interest by the UK Treasury (Twigger/House of Commons Library, 1998). The Government is now obligated nationally and internationally to reduce public expenditure drastically in order to create a more viable economy for the future prosperity of the nation. These internal austerity policies and its dependence on stagnant international markets for exports, consign the economy to slow progress for some time to come.

In light of this, in the welfare sector, consequent upon a demographic shift towards an older population, together with a measurable and predictable increase in the number of these people living at the margins of financial sustainability, pressure on public services is likely to become more intense than ever (WAG, 2007a; Independent Commission for Social Services, 2010). This question is dealt with in detail below, in Chapter 5. From the study of the policies, both national and international, it will be seen that there are some, albeit not many, explicit references and exhortations to administrations that they should seek alternative and expanded approaches to providing support for their vulnerable populations (Centers for Disease Control, 2007; Chief Medical Officer, 2004; Dahlgren and Whitehead, 2006; Whitehead and Dahlgren, 2006; Department of Health, 2009; Norman, 2010; Welsh Assembly Government, 2003a; WHO 1986; 1997 b, c). Where explicit direction is given, however, there is also guidance as to how and when it should be administered. According to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), this should start with the engagement of the community in the planning, initiation and evaluation of any community-based activities in the name of transparency, relevance and sustain-ability (NICE, 2015). This is in support of the Department of Health’s holistic policy for the ‘New’ Public Health in England, where the responsibility for health is shifted towards the engagement of the local community and away from the clinical services (Dept of Health, 2011). Health and Well-being Boards will have the responsibility for this process of community engagement (Dept. of Health, 2011, p. 2). The National Health Service requires the same shift in thinking and service delivery at the community level if its forward planning is to make any headway. Fresh and creative initiatives, which cut across the previously demarcated boundaries in Primary Care, have to be brought in. A good example of this is the Dementia Friendly Communities being built locally by the Alzheimer’s Society (National Health Service, 2014, p. 15; Green and Lakey, 2013).

A limiting force in this process is that the State, from the national level, has certain limits to its powers to intervene at the local level. These powers have been delegated to local government across centuries of struggle, negotiation and as a consequence of the advance of democracy and active citizenship at all levels. In the case for the ‘New Public Health’ in England, however, the Department of Health will retain a strong direct linkage with the new Local Authority Health and Well-being Boards (Dept of Health, 2011, p. 4). The creation of the Scottish Government (Scotland Act 1998) and the NAforW (Government of Wales Act 1998) opened up a fresh approach to transparency in the relationship between regional government and the local civil admini...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Dedication
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• List of Figures
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1: Background to community development and its relevance to sustainable planning
• 2: The historical development of community development to 1940
• 3: Community development in the modern era – an international perspective
• 4: Community development in the modern era – community development in the UK
• 5: Conclusions and final analysis
• Bibliography