Dokumentumok

Nyomtatóbarát változat

Cím:	Community work in the UK
Szerző:	Gilchrist; Alison
Ország:
A kiadás helye:
A kiadás éve:
Kiadó:
Terjedelem:	9
Nyelv:	angol
Tárgyszavak:
Állomány:	Közösségfejlesztési partnerségépítés Közép-Kelet Európában
Forditas:
Megjegyzés:
Annotáció:
Leltár:
Raktári jelzet:	E

Community work in the UK
Alison Gilchrist

Historical overview

In the United Kingdom community work is a relatively new profession, but draws on three traditions each of which is at least a century old. The first of these is that of informal self-help and solidarity, the reciprocal support and sharing which characterise small-scale forms of social cooperation, including the extended family. The second strand represents a more organised form of mutual aid, whereby formal associations were established with a subscription affiliation to provide assistance and shared resources across a defined membership. Collective organisations such as the early craft guilds and friendly societies are examples of these. The third strand differs from the others in that it is based rather more on philanthropy, a desire to intervene on behalf of or in the service of others deemed `less fortunate'. The 19th century charities and Settlement movement are representative of this approach, which, like the first two approaches, often combined a campaigning dimension as well as explicit remedial educ
ation, `character building’ and somewhat condescending relief of hardship. Like many elements of welfare in the UK, the origins of community development are to be found in civil society, pioneered by voluntary organisations which were independent of the state, such as the early trade unions, churches and charitable foundations.

As the twentieth century gathered momentum, the state realised the value of this approach to social welfare and we begin to see the emergence of government-sponsored community development. This occurred at home and abroad. From the 1930s through to the 1950s there was a major re-housing programme with people being moved from the inner-cities to begin their lives afresh in newly built towns and peripheral estates. Community officers were appointed with the specific brief of working with the re-located residents to help them set up autonomous groups and projects which would create `community spirit' and re-kindle collective strategies for helping people to help themselves. These workers were frequently employed by social services departments and saw themselves as an `agent' of the welfare state, acting on behalf of the relevant authority rather than the local residents. Social integration and increased neighbourliness were the parallel and primary goals of community activity. Through the establishment of volun
tary groups, the `community’ was invested with responsibility for protecting individuals from the impersonal institutions of the modern state and providing opportunities for democratic participation.

During this period and into the 1960s, community work saw itself as the preventative branch of social work, emphasising individual development and collective welfare. It was thought that social problems arose through increased fragmentation and alienation and could be addressed by involving local residents in developing collective solutions. Community associations and other locally-based voluntary organisations were seen as potential managers of projects providing social facilities for the elderly, health education, advice, childcare. There was considerable emphasis on personal growth, suggesting that community involvement in itself was therapeutic (staving off mental health problems), morally worthy (encouraging mutuality and social responsibility) and educational (promoting the acquisition of skills and new understandings). Adult education classes and cultural activities were seen as `improving' the mind for sections of the population who had been disadvantaged by school, whilst recreational societies such
as youth clubs and sports associations were encouraged as a means of diverting people from a life of crime, idleness and social disaffection. It could be argued that it was during this period that community work became clearly associated with the development of `community’, meaning self-help groups and informal networks which characterise and support local social systems.

Community development as a means of smoothing potential disruptive transitions has also been used abroad. Post-war Britain needed to develop strategies for its overseas territories, struggling towards independence, which would allow them to achieve self-government whilst protecting colonial interests. The Foreign and Colonial Office (1943) proposed a definition of community development which was designed to facilitate a transfer of (democratic) power, without disruption to economic relations and indeed whilst ensuring the development (often through unpaid labour) of an indigenous infrastructure for transport, education and basic health and welfare. The approach was paternalistic, promoting strong local participation and consultation in order for these developments to be implemented within limited resources and without threat to the existing order. In 1948 the United Nations adopted a definition of community development which described it as “a movement to promote better living for the whole community with ac
tive participation and if possible on the initiative of the community”. However, it also recognised that “if this initiative is not forthcoming” community development provided “techniques for arousing and stimulating it”. Thus community development has long contained within itself a tension between the goals of the state and the aspirations of the `target’ community, with no guarantee that they would necessarily be aligned.

This internal strain was exacerbated in the 1970s with a number of social policy initiatives which required greater levels of public participation in decision-making, notably in relation to planning, education and health. These were accompanied by an increased focus on the neighbourhood and attempts to develop community-based local solutions to what were essentially problems caused by wider economic and political forces. The government set up a number of Community Development Projects in areas experiencing high levels of unemployment and deprivation. Community workers were employed to work with local people to achieve increased participation through improved
· consultation,
· confidence,
· collective organisation and
· communication
between residents or users of services and the welfare professionals that delivered them. Community involvement became a major plank of urban policy at this time, underpinned by assumptions that the problems experienced by `deprived communities’ were caused by some kind of cyclical deficit within the local population. This `community pathology’ approach finds echoes in current approaches to `capacity building’, regeneration and `neighbourhood renewal’ currently being promoted by Tony Blair’s New Labour government.

The Community Development Projects provided valuable experience and evidence for a more radical version of community work which became prominent in the 1970s. This was informed by both Marxist and anarchist analyses of the economic system, accompanied by the growing influence of equalities or liberation movements, particularly around anti-racism, gender equality and more recently, Disability rights. For some community workers, their role became an extension of the `class struggle’, with campaigns for a higher share of the `social wage’ and increased democratisation of the local state. Even though many community workers were paid for by the state, they tended to view local and central government as the `enemy’ and sought to build alliances between the community and other representatives of the working class, namely the trade unions. This inevitably created conflicts and the CDPs were eventually closed down. They left in their wake a number of influential research reports and a legacy of disillusioned commun
ities, `burnt-out’ workers and disenchanted politicians.

Meanwhile, a less confrontational version of community development, sometimes termed `community social work’ or `social planning’, continued to operate alongside the radical model. This was primarily concerned to promote self-help and voluntary organisations which would complement or improve statutory welfare services. The purpose was to establish and support community groups and networks to act as a kind of local safety-net and to provide a form of participatory democracy which could be used by the state in public consultation exercises.

With the election of the Thatcher government in 1979, there was an explicit transfer of responsibility for welfare from the `nanny state’ to `individuals and their families’, with an increased reliance on private and voluntary organisations to provide services. Unemployment rates rose to unprecedented levels and public money, administered by the Manpower Services Commission (and subsequently the Training Agency) was used to create short-term jobs and volunteering opportunities. During the 1980s much community work effort was diverted into such schemes, helping voluntary organisations to bid for and manage contracts to run job creation programmes and what had hitherto been local authority services. A growing commitment to `equal opportunities’ meant that funding became available for `communities of interest’, for example women-only projects or culturally specific services, such as for the local Bangladeshi community. Grants were made available for short-term projects which reflected prevailing political i
ssues, such as crime, drugs, HIV/AIDS or homelessness. As a consequence, community work became more specialist and more insecure, dependent on temporary employment contracts and often operating at the margins of larger institutions. Community workers employed by local authorities were increasingly used to monitor grants given to voluntary organisations, to arrange consultation exercises and generally act as the `eyes and ears’ of the state. Conversely, community workers employed in the voluntary sector became `project managers’, delivering services, drawing up business plans and accounting for the `investment’ through rigid and pre-determined performance criteria. Many might argue that this period represents the `dark age’ of community development.

The current situation

The election of New Labour three years ago heralded a renaissance for the idea of `community’. Many of the present government’s policy and funding initiatives emphasise the importance of involving local people or service users in the planning and management of programmes aimed at tackling `social exclusion’ and generally enhancing the `quality of life’ for disadvantaged communities. Most recently, the government has launched an ambitious national strategy for `neighbourhood renewal’ which combines the politics of increased community participation with a desire to improve the delivery of mainstream services, such as education, policing, housing and health. Embedded within this approach lies a commitment to producing `integrated and sustainable solutions’ to what are recognised as very complex and deep-rooted problems. In order to achieve this, the government wants to support practices which
· increase community activity,
· improve democratic leadership, and
· develop more inclusive partnership working.

Whilst current thinking tend to highlight the role of charismatic individuals taking on leadership and entrepreneurial roles, nevertheless the scope for community development interventions has expanded dramatically in the last few years. The demand for greater levels of community involvement has been accompanied by what are known as `capacity-building’ projects, designed to increase the skills, knowledge and confidence of local representatives and policy officers for their work on Partnership Boards, usually managing regeneration schemes. There has also been a growing expectation that residents and service users will be consulted about future developments in their living environment, with opportunities to identify shared concerns and suggest `local solutions to local problems’. The government would like to encourage people to make a more active contribution to society, as volunteers and citizens. It is therefore investing in the community and voluntary sector to assist those groups and organisations which
support self-help and philanthropic activity. However, the government seems reluctant to use the term `community development’ and it is worth examining three different models to see why this might be the case.

Consensus, pluralist and conflict approaches

Community work as a professional intervention has only recently been regarded as an instrument of state policy, designed to address perceived problems of alienation, poverty, social `imbalances’ and public order. The first approach assumes that there is a broad consensus about how these issues can be tackled and how society should be organised. Within this model state sponsored community development projects have been devised to:
· foster community responsibility for and involvement in local activities,
· facilitate the delivery of welfare services particularly to marginalised sections of the population through increased co-ordination of local agencies,
· mobilise local populations in the regeneration of economic and physical infrastructures, and
· encourage participation in `democratic' processes of consultation and project-management.

These have shared the belief that community or citizen involvement is a necessary and desirable ingredient for social progress and individual well-being. Community workers have been deployed to foster community spirit (for example through cultural activities) and to work with statutory agencies to ensure that the services provided match local needs. The goal for this model of community development is social harmony and appropriately delivered welfare.

An alternative model, sometimes known as the liberal or pluralist approach, contains a stronger sense that society consists of different interest groups and that these are competing to influence state decision-making to ensure that they receive a fair share of available resources. It aims for coherent public decision-making and social justice, but acknowledges that some sections of the population are disadvantaged in this struggle to be heard. The task of the community worker is to help these groups to organise themselves, to find a collective `voice’ and to put pressure on the policy-makers to pay more attention to their needs. This happens at local, regional and national levels, sometimes through specific campaigns but more often through sustained lobbying and education of democratic representatives such as MPs and local councillors. Voluntary organisations, being independent of the state, are important vehicles for this advocacy work, and they have also been instrumental in pioneering alternative forms of
welfare or highlighting areas of unmet need in the population.

The more radical version of community development is more explicit in identifying conflicts of interest within society and aligning itself with the poor and oppressed groups. It argues that the causes of poverty and disadvantage are to be found in the economic system and reflect historical patterns of discrimination which are embedded in social and political institutions. It focuses on inequalities between different sections of society, addressing issues around the exploitation, disadvantage and prejudice experienced by women, Disabled people, people from ethnic minorities, working class communities, gay, lesbians and bisexuals, and people at both ends of the age spectrum. Radical community work emphasises people’s civil rights and equality perspectives, seeking to develop political consciousness and powerful forms of collective organising to change policies and legislation in favour of these disadvantaged groups. Attempts to achieve greater equality and a re-distribution of power also occur at more local l
evels, for example within communities and organisations through the development of `equal opportunities strategies’ and raising people’s awareness of how discrimination operates within their own lives. Community workers using this approach see themselves as advocates and organisers, helping people, individually and collectively, to challenge the disadvantage at the roots of their experience and to demand better or fairer treatment.

Core principles

Whichever model is dominant within different organisations or state policies, there are certain characteristics of community work which distinguish it from similar professions. Perhaps the most important of these is its emphasis on `process’ rather than goals. This asserts that the way in which something is achieved is just as important as what is achieved. For example, it is not simply a matter of arranging an event or activity to benefit the community. Effective community development requires that such work should be carried out with, not for, the people concerned. It should encourage and develop participation in decision-making. It should increase people’s sense of empowerment, by helping them to learn new skills and knowledge, and to gain confidence in leadership or negotiating roles. The informal education aspects of community work promote learning from experience through shared reflection, modelling and debate. It encourages people to try new activities, to learn from each other and seeks to create si
tuations which boost people’s self-esteem and their desire to discover forgotten talents or acquire new abilities. Since people’s involvement in such activities is usually voluntary it is important that their experience is rewarding for them as individuals as well as benefiting the wider community.

This balance between meeting the needs of individuals and achieving collective goals is sometimes difficult to maintain, but represent an important core principle. Community development is primarily concerned with helping people to work together more effectively and equitably. This includes supporting people’s involvement in multi-agency partnerships with representatives from the private and statutory sectors. It also means developing networks, groups and organisations at the level of neighbourhoods, villages and estates, as well as within more dispersed populations who share a common interest or collective identity. Community workers play a vital role in helping people to make links and form useful relationships across organisational boundaries. They act as both catalysts and connectors, putting people in touch with one another and identifying opportunities for increased co-operation. This may require dealing with conflicts and misunderstandings between the agencies involved, but it is also about managing
differences to bring about positive changes in attitudes or working practices. Anti-oppressive strategies are becoming a central feature of British community development, and have developed methods and policies which simultaneously promote equality and honour diversity within society.

Conclusion

This has not been easy, and community development in the UK continues to be full of challenges and opportunities. New concepts (such as social capital) and old values (such as trust and solidarity) provide an exciting framework for future exploration. The formerly disregarded skills and expertise of community workers have recently acquired value within policy and practice discussions, and there is increased recognition that our experience has much to offer other professions in policy areas such as planning, economic regeneration, health promotion and crime reduction. It will be important to keep the core principles of community development in mind and to ensure that community work maintains its fundamental purpose which is to help people to help themselves. This involves collective organisation around shared aspirations and problems which they have identified, rather than issues that concern politicians and welfare services. This `bottom-up’ approach, as it is known, is what makes community development a di
stinct and valuable contributor to achieving a more just and stable society.

Dokumentumok