Evolving of Community Development Projects in the UK - Research Paper Example

Marxist and Neo-Marxist State Theory and the Relationship Between Local State and Community Development Workers According to Day (2006), community development is a term used to refer to the practice of civil activists, citizens involved in social development endevours and the professionals responsible for building a stronger local community (p. 59). Community workers main role is the empowerment of both individuals and groups. Empowerment is achieved through the provision of skill-based training required to facilitate the change in these individuals’ and groups’ societies. These skills are often developed by the formation of large social organizations or groups working towards a common goal (Day, 2006). Day further explains that it is important that community workers understand how to work together with these groups and individuals and at the same time understand how to influence the community position within the larger social settings like whole states or country (2006: p.70). Marxism; a philosophy that attempted to tackle political issues that emerged in the nineteenth century was driven by internal conflict and the ideologies of likeminded philosophers led by Karl Marx. The primary focus of this movement was on human liberation from social and economic inequality achieved through political reform. Marxists and neo Marxists focus has been on the abolition of social and economic inequality that results from wage labour and industrial revolution. The focus was and is on the working class as the agent of revolutionary change in the politics. Marxism views the state as an institution where the first class citizens rule through repression of other classes. A state is intrinsically dictatorial and Marxists believe that when the differences between the classes ceases to exist, the state will also disappear leading to a communistic regime. A successful transition requires the repression of the capitalists further diminishing their power to re establish control of the society. The state therefore needs to be run by the middle class who are the workers who organize themselves, eliminate the state, take over the production, collectivize these production activities and create a classless society governed by the workers (Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence, 2003: pp.10-14). Community development is characterized by the change in the relationships that exist between ordinary citizens and those in the position of power (Day, 2006). This change enables every individual to participate in the identification of the issues that affect their lives. According to Day (2006), community development is aware that every community has an immense amount of knowledge and experience which when wisely used and channeled into collective action could facilitate the achievement of social and economic goals (p.90). The main role of community workers is collaborating with the community to identify their needs and building relationships with individuals or organizations capable of addressing these needs (Day, 2006). They create the opportunities for the community to acquire new skills while working as a whole and not individually and in doing so, foster social and economic equality and inclusion. According to Butcher (2007), the approaches to community development include community participation, asset-based community development, community based planning, community empowerment, faith-based community development, community mobilization, community driven development and community capacity building (p.78). Post World War II was dominated by calls for independence against the colonial rule of the British. These campaigns were concerned with political and social changes that were necessary especially for the countries that had previously been under colonial rule. The growth of community organizations independent of the government agencies would bring about better life for the entire community (Holmes, 2011). There was need for active participation of members of the community through their own initiative or by the use of incentives to motivate participation. Holmes (2011) explains that the election of the Labour Party into office after World War II was associated with the period of immense gains for the middle or working class (p.23). A number of linked social programs for example, housing, health, education, social welfare and maintenance of income signified a major shift towards the much-needed social reform. The UK government also realized that it was necessary to sustain welfare provision to facilitate economic growth (Holmes, 2011). Late 1950s and early 1960s saw the emergence of practical and theoretical experiments and community development work was considered a standalone occupation (Baldock, 1977). Baldock (1977) explains that before this realization, there existed groups of workers referred to as community wardens, council of social services secretaries and new housing development workers with no related occupational identification whatsoever (p.34). The term community worker came to be used in the UK by community workers and those projects that focused on work with local groups in an attempt to set and achieve the community goals (Baldock, 1977: p.56). The 1960s was rife with the development of new towns coupled with efforts rediscover poverty. This led to the introduction of community development support to mitigate social and economic poverty. The recognition that poverty was widespread was the main concern in the UK in the 1960s and 1970s. There were debates on collective participation in aspects of poverty eradication. At this time, the democratic government of the US declared that they war at war against poverty and subsequently the UK was motivated to wage a similar war using cheaper initiatives like community participation and self-help. In Marxism, community was considered a homogenous entity that did not belong to the state or capital. In the late 1960s, the US writers and philosophers increasingly wrote about community work and this further affected UK’s theory and practice regarding the same (Baldock, 1977). A number of factors influenced the US community work. The most influential of which was the influx of foreign workers from many different countries. Secondly, the country was undergoing rapid industrialization that had begun from the early 20th century. Early American community work theories emphasized on the necessity of social welfare to intervene and deal with the negative results of economic growth in the 1960s. The US definition of community work was formulated as a means to fill the gap that existed in the UK theory and further emphasized on the need of a classless view of the community through community work. The year 1968 was the transformational point for community work in the UK (Harris, 2001). The factors influencing community work had been in play for over 20 years and this system depended on the tax collected from the citizens. According to Harris (2001), this system was not based on the ability of the community to pay but on the existing needs of the community (p.112). Consequently, there was marked economic growth but there were concerns that more people could not access the services that they needed and had reverted to poverty compared to the middle and upper class (Harris, 2001: p.120). These prompted the growth of social programs to attempt, reach deeper into the community, and involve the working class further raising concerns of political unrest. At this time, self-help groups had emerged and raised demands for increase in income. According to Harris (2001), the Labour Party which was in power in the 1960s was under immense pressure and the local government was seen to be increasingly efficient in ensuring that community services reached the target population and as such considered an obstacle to progress. The political life was growing in strength with groups being formed and demands formulated (Harris, 2001: p.189). These demands had evolved beyond the need for social amenities to politically motivated statements like calls for making land and housing communal. In the 1970s, community workers were generally employed by voluntary and nongovernmental organizations interested in achieving order while delivering services and social amenities instead of focusing on the political reforms advocated for in the 1960s. The community development sector underwent rapid development in the 1970s (Butcher, 2007: p.45). This was seen with the emergence of locally run organizations and community projects. These developments have been associated with the development of urban social programs and more recently programs that advocated for social inclusion. The National Lottery was also founded to support the youth at risk as well as to foster community capacity building (Butcher, 2007). The optimism associated with community work in the 1970s wore off with community development workers realization that most of the development problems could not be solved locally. This situation was worsened by the widespread budget cuts in 1974 because of the oil crisis. Community workers had gained political awareness with the realization that the state had curtailed the local council actions. Community development workers are employed by the local government and voluntary or nongovernmental organizations (Butcher, 2007). The central government or independent bodies fund them. Since 1970, other agencies like the police, healthcare providers, planners and architects who work with impoverished or disadvantaged people have adopted the term community. Butcher (2007), explains that these agencies were influence by the community development theories as well as Marxist’s state theory and approach. The roles of community development workers have evolved over the years. Some of the skills developed to enable community workers to work with local communities and in particular, the disadvantaged include informal education methods, community-wise organizations and group work (Butcher, 2007). There have been various programs involved in poverty alleviation in both the developed and underdeveloped countries. Structural analyses on the causes of poverty influence the role of community workers (Butcher, 2007: p.78). Social and economic poverty is associated with inequality in the distribution of wealth, property and political power. Butcher (2007), states that community workers and their employers are driven by the need to mobilize people to effect social change. This involves the inclusion of the poor in political activities. In situations where the local government depends on the state or central government for more than half of the funding for expenditure, conflicts may arise over budgetary cuts mean that the funds allocated for community development activities are limited (Harris, 2001). Community workers need to examine the conditions within which they have to work. Harris (2001) explains that there are several questions that need to be addressed in the pursuit of social and economic equality that community workers advocate for (p. 145). The community worker needs to ask himself or herself how the demands of the control of community resources can be paired up with the state’s system of allocation of resources like funds. The role of the central government in allocation of resources for community mobilization is of concern when analyzing the impact that Marxism has on the relationship and roles between the local authorities and the community development workers (Harris, 2001). Community development had become increasingly incorporated in social work, law, planning, and youth work consequently increasing the number of job opportunities through creation or redefinition of job positions (Harris, 2001). Within this new and unified local government, the social work departments came to being from the reorganization of the local authority services regarding welfare. According to (Harris, 2001), welfare provides the context from which community work originates and ideologies have been developed around welfare (p. 160). Housing issues was the focus of community action and activists mainly community workers employed desperate measures to protest against the lack of adequate housing (Harris, 2001). Council of social service was a voluntary organization that was funded by the local councils in the 1960’s. Harris (2001) explains that the Council of Social Service together with the Community Center Wardens fought to facilitate the growth of social and welfare amenities. The role of community work should be that of facilitating a sense of communal spirit where there was need. When these local councils started facing attacks from activists because of their perceived failure in the delivery of community services, the local councils switched tactics and began employing community workers as well as sponsoring the growth of community work though indirect funding (Harris, 2001). The local councils provided funding to semi autonomous community programs. At this time, the central UK government in collaboration with the local council began to fund more community-oriented projects. This reaction by the state government as well as the disgruntled local council was to be expected. This was clearly observed from the Community Development Project; an experiment carried out to help the local and central government deal with the emerging problems that accompany urban management. However, these community development projects were rapidly dismantled by 1975. In many countries, local councils have been used effectively for the provision of resources to voluntary and nongovernmental organizations as a means for the governments to delegate their role in the development of community development strategies (Butcher, 2007). Community workers play the role of facilitating independent community development action as well as carrying out the wishes of local councils in the development of community development strategies. Butcher (2007) explains that the theories on community work and practices have had to develop better understanding of their roles and course of action. In many cases, federally distributed resources benefit the private interests of the rich few instead of the broader community (Butcher, 2007). This has been shown to encourage lawmakers in some cases to provide these privileged few with special favours further leading to capitalism. According to Butcher (2007), community work is supposed to be a means to progressive social and economic change and community workers need to clearly understand the nature and functioning of the country or state, the different ways of conflict resolution in society through the state mechanisms and the available opportunities to enable positive and progressive change (p.111). In Britain, these changes have been mitigated through the changes implemented in the relationship between the local and central government. These changes have in some cases brought these two levels of government into conflict and posing dilemma for the theory and practicality of community development and change (Butcher, 2007). During the 1970s and 1980s, the UK central government actively regulated economic activity to achieve social ideals that favoured it (Butcher, 2007). This focus has since changed and the central government regulates the country’s social expectations with the aim of achieving economic growth. Butcher further explains that the number of opportunities for community work has been on the rise despite the threat posed by the ever constrained public expenditure on welfare and the increasing level of unemployment (2007: p.143) . According to Butcher (2007), a survey of UK community workers undertaken in 1980 showed that there were nearly 6,000 community workers in employment compare to about 1,000 employed in the early 1970s. Of the 6,000 community workers in the beginning of the 1980s, 60% had been employed by the voluntary or nongovernmental sector (p. 156). This increase in number of community development workers could be attributed to the fact that an increasing number of agencies had redesigned jobs through a system whereby new roles were assigned to those already in employment rather than employing new workers and changing the job content. Another explanation could be that the central government having introduced budgetary cuts on public expenditure and stressed the policies of community work required low paid employees to implement community work strategies and in doing so shift the cost allocated to providing welfare from the public or collective community to private stakeholders. The Community Development Projects had served to show the central government and local councils the downside of allowing community work to be controlled by non-government or voluntary organizations (Butcher, 2007). The local council and central government resolved to use community work to offer opportunities for managing social work. Studies in the 1970s showed that with the implementation of community development projects, the local councils had become more like business with officials furthering their needs and interests (Butcher, 2007). Community workers working for voluntary and nongovernmental organizations were increasingly incapacitated and underpaid. The policies in place made it impossible for community workers to work effectively further widening the gaps between the wealthy and the poor in society. State funded social and economic programs whose aim was poverty alleviation like the community development project tried to reconcile the differences between capitalistic needs while maintaining addressing the needs of the working class (Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence, 2003). Community workers encountered more contradictory demands from the local council and central government in the 1980s. With the Labour Party voted out of Office in 1979, the government spending on social and community programs was on the decline. Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence, (2003) explain that the following regime was more committed to massive and rapid cuts on community development expenditure and an increase in abuse of civil liberties of the citizens. In the 1980s, it was clear that government economic and social policies were to blame for the rapid deterioration condition in the urban settings. Additionally, the legal and economic status of local governments had been curtailed rendering them unable to respond to the emerging situation. To diminish the range of the local governments collective services, the central government introduced constraints to their financial and legal capabilities (Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence, 2003). The result was that the programs and progressive organizations like trade unions reacted by opposing the government action. According to Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence, the balance tilted in favour of the central government and other arms of the government and consequently undermining the policy strategies of the councils and progressive organizations (2003: p.49). The social and economic distress in the UK had hit the ceiling undermining the collective responses of the working class. Eventually, the central government having been unsuccessful in controlling the opposing activities of the community workers chose to abolish the local councils entirely ruling their activities illegal (Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence, 2003). According to Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence (2003) the 1980s saw community work acquire three components (p.78). Community workers chose an approach that involved helping the community take action on development and poverty alleviation using those resources that the local authorities had at their disposal as well as those that existed in the community itself. The second approach was that of creating political awareness and advocating for political change and responsibility. The third approach was that of improving community awareness of their needs (Gilchrist, Jeffs, & Spence, 2003). In the 1990’s, community work was more involving with economic development, capacity building and the involvement of the community (Gilchrist, 2004). Gilchrist further explains that community workers and local officials faced problems with the state curtailing development activities using budgetary cuts (2004: p.80). There was an increase in the level of unemployment as well as poverty. The shift was toward community care to try to alter the situation. Currently, there is a possibility of progressive change and community workers experience more complex and distressing situations (Gilchrist, 2004). Despite the government’s opposition of collective funding of public provision, there have been increases in opportunities for successful community work. References 1. BALDOCK, P. (1977). Why Community Action? The Historical Origins of the Radical Trend in British Community Work. Community Development Journal. 12, 68-74. 2. BUTCHER, H. (2007). Critical community practice. Bristol, Policy. 3. BRAYE, S., & PRESTON-SHOOT, M. (1995). Empowering practice in social care. Buckingham, Open University Press. 4. BRITISH ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS. (1971). The British journal of social work. [London], British Association of Social Workers. 5. CALHOUN, C. (2013). Community Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Hoboken, Wiley. http://msvu.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1187719. 6. DAY, G. (2006). Community and everyday life. London, Routledge. 7. FRANCIS, D., & HENDERSON, P. (1994). Community development and rural issues. Community Development Foundation. 8. GILCHRIST, A. (2004). Community cohesion and community development: bridges or barricades? London, Community Development Foundation. 9. GILCHRIST, R., JEFFS, T., & SPENCE, J. (2003). Architects of change: studies in the history of community & youth work. Leicester, National Youth Agency. 10. HARRIS, V. (2001). Community work skills manual. Newcastle, Association of Community Workers. 11. HOLMES, B. (2011). Citizens' engagement in policymaking and the design of public services. Canberra, Parliamentary Library. 12. SHAW, M. (2004). Community work: policy, politics and practice. Hull, University of Hull. 13. UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL. (1972). Policy and politics. London, Macmillan Journals. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/api/volumes/oclc/2266303.html. 14. VARMA, S. N. (2011). Poverty, welfare and the disciplinary states. New Delhi, DPS Pub. House. Read More