Community Organizing as a Practice - Essay Example

?The current UK coalition government has invested ?14 million in a national programme of Community Organisers between and Critically discuss community organising as a practice and an area of policy for communities within England The present essay will explore the concept of “community organising” focusing specifically on community organising in the United Kingdom. The first sections of the essay will explore multiple conceptions of community organising, the origins of community organising, and the reasons for the government-imposed inception of this initiative at this time. Later sections will focus specifically on the cost, effectiveness, and specific details of David Cameron’s (2010) plan for community organising – both generally and in poverty-stricken areas. Finally, differences between community organising in the United States (USA) and the United Kingdom (U.K.) will be explored, as will the sustainability of community organising beyond the present Government. Definitions of “Community Organising” Although the term “community organising” seems fairly self-explanatory, there are multiple definitions, each with its own implications. Paul Bunyan (2013) describes multiple components of “community organising,” emphasizing: power of the collective masses, processes as opposed to conflicts, and the transcending of minor conflicts to allow people to unite and collectively engage. Bunyan (2013) places particular emphasis on power. He notes that power can be construed as the basis for community organising in three main ways: power within existing religious institutions/community organizations can be utilized to navigate important issues, power in terms of the us/them distinction can be harvested via group solidarity, and power through the aforementioned processes may be used to consolidate community relations and thus, contribute to political change. In David Cameron’s (2010) “Big Society” speech, he construes “community organising” in a similar way – increased social responsibility, the channeling of power away from central government to communities, and community cohesion. He suggests that communities, with advisement, funding, and mentoring, should “run” their own public services, for example, public parks, libraries, and post offices, according to their specific needs and values. American Saul Alinsky, whose name is almost synonymous with “community organising,” defines the concept by dividing people into the “haves and have nots,” and by noting distinctions between the public and private spheres. He illustrates the importance of having the community understand the connection between community issues and broader societal issues (for example, his Hot Lunch program). Thus, he emphasized the importance of greater representation for communities in the public sphere (Horwitt, 2010). Origins of Community Organising Community organising as a practice is thought to have originated with Saul Alinsky, and his mobilization and empowerment of many ordinary working Americans, to shape the course of their own communities and participate in decisions pertaining to them (Horwitt, 2010) Alinsky founded the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council (BYNC) in the 1940s, which was successful in uniting diverse groups living in the same Chicago stockyard locality, along the lines of common interests. The BYNC was successful in creating self-help services, for example, credit unions, in participating communities by negotiating with and strengthening links to the wider society. In this way, Alinsky aimed to combat despair in these areas by increasing participation and a sense of belonging (Horwitt, 2010). In England, the Citizens UK organization is an example of Alinsky’s philosophy. Notably, Brazilian educator Paulo Freire who used informal education to teach Brazilian peasants to read – not only literature, but also the social situation, is often cited as a community-organising theorist. Rather than taking Alinksy’s divisive approach (haves and have nots), Friere believed that the key to community organising was equality between members – each individual and group learning and teaching each other simultaneously (Friere.org, 2013). Community organising has benefitted from renewed focus and investment since the establishment of the Coalition Government in England, and Cameron’s (2010) “Big Society” speech. Specifically, the Office for Civil Society within the Cabinet Office is developing, implementing, and monitoring a community organizers program, which aims to train 5,000 organizers, use digital media, secure ongoing funding, and use the Locality organization to: find gaps in state provisions, mobilize local people to start groups, charities, and committees to fill the gaps, arrange consultations, and attempt to find funding for this work (Bird, 2011). Community Organising: Why Now? The current Coalition Government marks the first real interest in community organising in Britain for some time. Chanan & Miller (2011) argue that the concept of “Big Society” represents a forced and contrived approach to mobilization, as opposed to a natural point in evolution. Regarding funding, and although Cameron (2010) lent verbal support to community organising in a way that prior governments had not, interestingly, Chanan & Miller (2011) report that the budget for this sector has decreased by approximately a quarter since the present government took office. These authors reveal “vague” funding plans for training, action, research, and mobilization – as well as potentially complex applications riddled with “red tape (Chanan & Miller, 2011, p.11).” Cynics also suggest that there are many beneficial economic consequences associated with a) innovation and the self-funding of community organizations and b) informal learning within communities – not least, increased innovation, improved employability, decreased crime, decreased pressure on state-run health services, increased purposeful activities, and decreased depression and isolation (Chanan & Miller, 2011, p.10). In sum, and although possibly empowering, “Big Society” decentralizes not only power, but also responsibility (personal and economic) from government to community. Finally, Chanan & Miller (2011) suggest that Cameron’s (2010) conception of “Big Society” is part of a broader plan to “wean” organizations off expensive state grants, and to generate free labor. Realistically, most community organizations are run by volunteers, which means spending cuts for the government, if communities can be mobilized and trained to physically and economically provide their own services. Community Organising: The Solutions for Deprived Areas? Using independent analysis, Thomas (2010) asserts that approximately 33.3% of community organizations are based in England’s poorest areas – compared to 10% in the richest areas. The concept of the deserving vs. undeserving poor in English society may add dissention into the mix because “Big Society,” contrived by the “haves,” may be seen as a way of bestowing something new on the “have nots (Kenny, 2001).” Specifically, Mills & Robson (2010) who attended a community organising training focused on personal transformation in a deprived area of North East England assert that they were disturbed by the “harmful” and “manipulative” methods used to “dehumanize” the poorer factions of society. Further, they suggest that rather than integrating disturbed antisocial adolescents, and giving them a voice by way of empowerment, specific adults within the community were given license to further isolate them by way of surveillance and denigration (Mills & Robson, 2010). This suggests that there may well be a negative underside to community organising, which not only maintains the existing power structure, but creates power structures within poorer communities, which end up dissolving solidarity as opposed to strengthening it. Conversely, some approaches seem to have worked in these areas. For example, the Young Foundation (2012), a recipient of community organising funding, report that although the economically disadvantaged are reluctant to trust in myriads of “new strategies” bestowed on them by changing governments, the Foundation has successfully established an evidence-based protocol designed to enhance the mental and emotional functioning of young people. These evidence-based approaches, as well as the establishment of standardized practices, seem to warrant more consideration and merit than the “personal development” approach seen in North East England (Bacon, 2012). Locality: Where Has the Money Been Spent? Locality, the organization chosen to implement the training of 5000 community organizers at the expense of Citizens UK, is largely based on Freire’s approach to community organising, that emphasizes “consensus,” and “community animation (Bunyan, 2013, p.131). Locality represents a 2011 merger between the Developmental Trust Association and the British Association for Settlement Houses and Social Action Centres (Locality.org, 2011). It was chosen over Citizens UK to host the project because of its cheaper bid – and possibly because of Citizens UKs involvement with the prior Labour Government (CitizensUK.org, 2011). Locality comprises over 700 community organizations, and its mission includes: the promotion of community enterprise, instigation of social action in communities, and community asset ownership (Locality.org, 2011). Between 2011-2015, the government has promised ?15-20.5m in aid to Locality, for use primarily in training recruits (Hillier, 2012). The Cabinet Office invests ?7.5m in bursaries to help graduates from the community organising programs to find employment at the end of training. Within the 5,000 people set to be trained as organizers, only 500 are actually employed and paid by the scheme. Within the 500 employees, all have to find their own funding after receiving the bursaries during the first year. Locality reports that approximately 66% of the original cohort of recruits complete training- meaning money wasted (Hillier, 2012). Although it is too early to properly evaluate the Locality solution, Mark Parker (2012) notes some significant barriers to success: the demoralization of people in communities “barely holding it together,” and therefore disinterested in community action, dissidence from local people, and the lack of governmental funding after the initial funding period. More importantly, he notes that Locality appear to be “courting power at the highest level” and seem to have therefore abandoned the grass-roots approach and the communities the organization was intended to serve (Parker, 2013). Community Organising Transferability: USA Vs. U.K. Community organising in America seems to have all the hallmarks of success: many success stories, plenty of enthusiastic young people willing to take on the role of a community organizer, and plenty of existing community based organizations. Community organising in the U.K. is a different story. One of the reasons for the lack of transferability from the USA to the U.K. may be history. Community organizations were “founded” by American people, like Alinsky and to some degree Obama, as opposed to “announced” as a plan, or bestowed on the masses under the thin veil of transferring power (Horwitt, 2010). In some ways, the bestowing of community organising on British people is similar to the bestowing of democracy on autocratic nations – it meets with resistance and suspicion either way. Further, there seems to be some discrepancy in timing: many community organizations were founded in America when some, but not most, of the country was rooted in economic difficulties. Finally, the concept of funding and state-control is important. ACORN, one of the largest American conglomerations of community organizations, receives funding federally, at a state level, and from donors (ACORN, 2010). Funding at the state level means that local needs can be assessed. In the U.K., the centrality of power, and underutilization of local government as a means of resource allocation means that the same level of intimacy with local people cannot be achieved (ACORN, 2010). Community Organising vs. Community Development: Are They the Same? Although community organising and community development are inextricably linked, they are also distinct theoretical concepts. Firstly, community organization emphasizes social work, processes, flexible timelines, and adjust goals in line with needs of the community. Conversely, community development represents a planned program for change, employs outside expert personnel, is objective and time-bound, and is usually controlled via external sources. Community organization generally refers to the development of attitudes, people, and solidarity, whereas community development refers primarily to economic development (Abraham, 2012). In terms of the effects of each, community organising, when effective (for example, Alinsky), can serve as an important motivating factor for others – something written in the record books that the people, the masses, were able to “do” for themselves, as opposed to being subject to the desires of others. However, community development tends to be an area that communities may feel good about, but not responsible for (Abraham, 2012). The tying together of these two areas, in essence, the optimal outcome, arises when community organising leads to community development – when the local community members come together, form committees for projects, execute self-generated projects successfully, and remain a community organization (Abraham, 2012). Community Organising: The Potential to Make a Difference? At the present time, there is no empirical evidence to explicitly predict whether community organising will or will not work in the United Kingdom, and since the “Big Society” plan will not reach fruition fully until 2015, it is perhaps unfair to dispel its effectiveness so soon. Furthermore, it is a complex task to define the concept of “effectiveness,” since many indicators can be used. For example, improvements in community spirit, individual improvements, and improvements in skills are extremely difficult to research with any degree of accuracy. Also, what level does community organising need to reach before a sufficient return on investment is made? If ten more individuals in a community obtain a Bachelor’s Degree, is that enough? How can other factors be ruled out in terms of causation? (Chanin & Miller, 2011, p.20). One of the biggest issues that seem to lend itself more readily to measurement is sustainability. Current estimates indicate that funding is only promised through 2015. Therefore, it is important to attempt to measure progress as effectively as possible between this time and 2015 to determine whether more investment is needed in the interim, the future, or whether the project should be abandoned as part of the “Big Society” plan when the funding ceases (Locality.org, 2011). Currently, and as mentioned above, community training for organizers is compressed – sometimes four years of training is compressed into six months. Research into the effectiveness of this, as opposed to the extended program, would be useful in this regard. Also, present estimates indicate that only 500 of the 5000 community organizers will be “paid.” Naturally, if enough funding can be generated to pay the salaries of the remaining 4500 organizers, there may be some longevity in terms of participation. However, the inherent risk with investing so much money in the development of volunteer workers is that they may decide to take a “paid” job if the economy improves, taking them out of the communities they were intended to serve – along with the investment it took to train them. Further, only 66% of organizers complete the training successfully at this point, and this is before the funding (bursaries) run out – estimated to occur at the end of the first year of training. If communities and community organizers cannot find the capital to continue training these individuals, then the majority of the government funding will have been largely for naught – another failed policy along with many others, imposed by prior governments (Little, 2011). At the present time, the Coalition Government, and British politics in general, seem to be in an unstable position – hence the necessity of the Coalition Government in the first place. Thus, there is no guarantee that the next government will continue to invest in community organising, post-2015. The biggest question is whether or not four years is sufficient time to give community organising a change in the United Kingdom. In America, community organising has evolved since its formal inception in the1940s, to the larger, inspiring enterprise that can be seen today. It is doubtful in this regard, that a large injection of government capital, four years, and a wounded economy can constitute the same success in the United Kingdom. Conclusion In conclusion, the “Big Society” plan, involving community organising, mobilization, and the decentralization of power to local people may need more than the four years and the amount of money promised by Cameron’s Coalition Government. Although community organising has proven successful in America, with Alinsky and to some degree Obama both spearheading successful community-based action, America has allowed community organising to naturally evolve, and has therefore consolidated natural support over time among community members. In contrast, Cameron’s (2010) conception borders on community development – in its external conception and funding, has been ill-received by large factions of the populous, is transparent in its desire to decentralize the costs associated with economically-deprived areas, may serve to reinforce the extant power structure – as opposed to diminish it, and may be more idealistic than practical in nature. Although it is too early to assess the impact of training 5000 community leaders, the hope that 4500 will work on a voluntary basis, in exchange for training that they have to fight to fund, may prove too much for many of the individuals in the community. Furthermore, a lack of tools available to monitor effectiveness of this particular conception may mean that future governments are unwilling to invest money in its continuation. The prospect of poor communities, who oftentimes lack the basic necessities to live, feel demoralized and disaggregated from wider society, and view government intervention with suspicion, to mobilize themselves, without continued funding past 2015, might be a step too far. References Abrahams, S. (2012). Working with groups and the community. Social Work Journal, 12 (2) [online] http://www.scribd.com/doc/91788084/29/Difference-between-Community-Organisation-and-Community-Development Retrieved 2013-1-13 Bird, P. (2011) Community organizers briefing. Urbanforum.org [online] http://www.urbanforum.org.uk/briefings/community-organisers-briefing Bunyan, P. (2010) Broad-based organising in the UK: reasserting the centrality of political activity in community development, Community Development Journal, 45 (1), 111-127.  Bunyan, P. (2012) Partnership, the Big Society and community organising: between romanticizing, problematizing and politicizing community, Community Development Journal Chanan, G. and Miller, C. (2011) The Big Society and public service: Complementarily or erosion ? Brighton: Paces  CitizensUK.org (2011) UK Charity and subsidiary: Signed accounts. Citizensuk.org [online] http://www.citizensuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/CUK-2010-11-signed-accounts.pdf Retrieved 2013-1-13 David Cameron (2010 March). Big Society. Conference Speech presented at Westminster, London, UK. Detailed History of ACORN: The ACORN 80 Plan". ACORN. Archived from the original on 5 December 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-03. Detailed History of Paul Friere (2013). Paul Friere Institute. [online] http://www.freire.org/ Retrieved 2013-1-13 Hillier, A. (2012) Cabinet office to help community organizers with start up grant. Thirdsector.co.uk [online] http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/login/1156358/ Retrieved 2010-12-03. Horwitt, P. (2010) Saul Alinsky and the Industrial Areas Foundation. Progress.org [online] available at http://www.progress.org/alinsky.htm Little, M. (2011) Analysis: Why Alinksy’s supporters lost out Third Sector [online] available at www.thirdsector.co.uk  Kenny, S. (2001) Tensions and developments in community development. New discourse, new Trojans? Iacdglobal.org [online] http://www.iacdglobal.org/files/kenny.pdf Locality.org Homepage (2013) Who we are. Locality. [online] http://locality.org.uk/movement/mission-vision/ Retrieved 2013-1-13 Parker, M. (2013) Dissent in community. Southwark.org [online] http://southwarkorganising.wordpress.com/ Retrieved 2013-1-13 Thomas, J. (2010) Small society: Big ideas. NPC.org [onine] http://www.thinknpc.org/?s=community+organising Retrieved 2013-1-13 Read More