Challenges and Opportunity in Community Practice - Literature review Example

Challenges and Opportunity in Community Practice {Insert university name} {Insert student’s name} {Insert instructor’s name} June 8, 2012. Challenges and Opportunity in Community Practice This essay highlights the meaning of community and community work, relations with the state as well as the impacts of the contracting and neo-liberalism in comparison with a number of frameworks. It is evident that understanding the concept of community has been challenging as a result of various reasons. According to Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) community is a physical space where individuals live be it a large urban area, neighborhood or along the streets. However, the mentioned approach has been countered by scholars who hold the belief that community is identity of people in a given area for instance the Melbourne community in Australia and it does not refer to the geographical unit but to the cultural identity of the Australian within Melbourne. Community has been also called people with common social bonds. Kenny (2006) defines community has warm and positive connotation. However, according to policy makers community is an idealized version of any existing form of social life (Kotval, 2005). In defining the community work, Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) point out that it is the process of assisting the local people to not only decide ad plan but also to plane and take various actions with an aim of meeting their needs using the available outside resources. Kenny (2002) adds that it is the process of assisting the local services to become accessible, usable, and effective to the needs of the people/community. Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) further add that community work is forecasting all the necessary adaptations with an aim of meeting the emerging social needs in a circumstance that is constantly changing. Understanding community is essential as it will assist in understanding the needs and the desires of the community. The term empowerment is used to describe the education process in the community work and it one of the frameworks that s used in understanding the concept. Sociologists regard community work intervention as an education process/concept and cannot be undertaken by the professional workers only without partnering with the clergy, planners, administrators, health workers, social workers, and teachers among other key players within the community (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). The framework points out those society divisions are holistic. The following section will highlight the framework under which community work is carried out. According to Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) empowerment is a process that is continuous and make people to be in a position to not only understand but also to upgrade and apply their capacity with an aim of having a better control as well as gaining power over their lives. Hence, it is evident that empowerment provides individuals and the groups with ability to make choices as well as gaining control over the resources that they require for the purpose of improving their daily lives. Therefore, the element of empowerment is an educational process that does not control individuals directly but permit them to exercise their choices. Kenny (2006) in his definition describes the concept of empowerment as a collective process that occurs in an open forum but there exists a shared control over the curriculum. Community work is carried out by non-formal educators with an aim of liberating the people and creating the culture in which groups and individuals become critically conscious. Hence it can be concluded that community work entails educational activities, for instance social workers in an informal setting educating the community on ways of preventing diabetes. In developing a program for the community it is important to involve the community and make them come up with the policies of the program (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). This is because the process will assist in correct identification and prioritizing the needs of the community. The mentioned aspect will make them feel a sense of belonging and thus take an active role in the program implementation. For instance, in developing programs preventing long term complications for individuals with type 2 diabetes in one of the Saudi Arabia hospitals, the program managers encouraged the target group to identify their need and suggest ways of However, in the current world there is a different perspective and it is regarded as a political activity. Mowbray (2005) in his study describes the diminishing influence of education in community work. Hence, community work as an educational activity has been confined to existing theories as the practice focus on the process goals which are a reflection of the ideologies of the individual community workers, the national/local government, and the sponsoring organization (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). However, contemporary explanations regarding community work are mainly described within the context of various political ideologies (Hoatson, 2001). A number of community work frameworks are prescribed to certain political leanings, for instance self-reliance and self –help, as well as the avoidance of dependency is regarded as a conservative ideology, while various neighborhood organizations are aligned to the political left of the reformist or liberal an aspect that is a challenge to successfully implementation of community work (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). In conducting community work, the element of liberation is important. Liberation aims at making the community free from all forms of social hegemony which consists of oppression and inequality which can be socially, politically, economically, culturally and health wise. Hence, liberation is concerned with addressing issues regarding oppression and inequality as well as readdressing power balance within the society (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). Nonetheless, it is essential for community workers to commence from a neutral aim while endorsing community education within a given community. According to (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011), the key goal of community work is to redistribute available resources from the most powerful in the society to the weak as they are likely to benefit individuals living in outer city estates, inner city places, or people who belong to groups which are discriminated against by the society such as black people, the poor, children, women and even gays (Turner, 2009). Hence, the author describes not only the process of community development but also the groups under which the process is being applied (Lahiri-Dutt,, 2004). But according to Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) there exist fundamental conflicts within the community work which include: the interest of the rich versus those of the poor, between landlords and tenants, between unemployed and employed, between those with homes and the homeless and the unequal society. Therefore, for successful completion of community it is essential to engage the community. Rawsthorne & Howard, (2011) defines community engagement as the process of making the community to be involved in the process of community empowerment. Working as a social worker in the hospital, the concept of community engagement referred to the process of the community involving themselves with the health workers on their own terms. However, engagement in health activities unlike in other fields is often concerned with getting community leaders or health workers on one side for the purpose of targeting high priority areas to make them embrace particular health services. Consultations regarding priorities and needs as well as development of health services, and programs delivery started with the processes and the structures that were designed by the local health personnel in accordance with the national or state priorities (Lahiri-Dutt, 2004). There are various ways of engaging the community. One of the ways that was applied in the hospitability in reducing diabetes was instrumental approach. According to Lahiri-Dutt ( 2004) instrumental approach is used by health practitioners. In practice, the mentioned type of engagement is used to attain the instrumental ends needed by the health workers, but it fails to attain developmental partnership that will be effective in meeting the needs of the community and health professionals (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). Even though there might be a high level of community involvement, the health professionals find it challenging to get the marginalized groups and the frequent users in any form of consultation (Niebank, 1999). The mentioned element was one of the challenging things in working with diabetes patients in Saudi Arabia with an aim of reducing long-term complications. This is because; the target groups from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds were not involved in the consultation. On the other hand, health practitioners viewed the target group/community as reluctant to be involved in the whole process. According to Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) apart from community engagement, capacity building is also essential in any given community practice. Mayo & Rooke (2008) define capacity building as individual’s capacity within a certain community to take part in actions which are mainly based on the interest of the communities, both as groups and individuals, networks and organizations (Meekosha & Mowbray,1990). However, it is not based on the ability of the people to act in their employers, personal or family’s interest, which are taken care of in other spheres. On the other according to Taylor, Edwards, Champion, Cheers, Chong, Cummins, & Cheers (2012) community capacity building as the resources, support, and activities which strengthen abilities and skills of individuals and the community groups to take both leading roles and effective actions in community development. Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) add that it is essential to perceive community capacity building as three key types of activity. One of these is the developing skills whereby training and learning opportunities for groups and individuals, in addition to sharing through mutual support and groups with an aim of developing knowledge, confidence and skills. As a social worker, I noted that capacity building was essential in encouraging active lifestyle and health diet in individuals with type 2 diabetes. For instance, the individuals and groups were educated on the risks of diabetes and management techniques. Another key activity is developing structures. It is important for the social workers to develop the strengths of the targeted community groups and organizational structures, networks and interest communities. Finally, developing structure is whereby the players avail practical support with an aim of enabling the development of skills and structures. Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) their work points out that community capacity building is mainly conducted with an aim of attaining specific purpose while the community development processes issues the wider context. Collins (2010) adds that the goal of community development in every context is to collectively result into justice and social change by involving the communities. In working as a social worker with individuals with type 2 diabetes with an aim of preventing long term complications, the importance of identifying responsibilities, rights, needs, and opportunities was essential. Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) adds that planning, taking action as well as organizing is some of the key elements in community practice. Finally, it is essential to evaluate the impact and the effectiveness of the actions. In discussing government and policy development in community practice, Collins (2010) pointed out that community empowerment has become one of the government policies. For instance in the fight against type 2 diabetes and development of long term complications, Saudi Arabia governments has created slogans such as “together we can make it” with an aim of bring the government and the community together, as well as encouraging public bodies and other non-governmental organizations to take various activities that will influence the decisions of the local people. One of the advantages of partnering is effective community mobilization. Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) it is essential for the key players to partner with one another for the purpose of realizing the key goals of the initiated community program. According to Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) there is a connection between political values and community development, however most community development practices/programmes have failed to address this concept. According to Collins (2010) community development characteristics is usually contextual and linked to specific social context and is a concept that is constructed. Mayo. & Rooke (2008) further add that political dimensions in community practice encompass relationships and roles, the function of the state as well as the structural dimension of the needs of the community. Consequently, Niebank (1999) points out that power redistribution results into improved community participation. For instance if the community is given the power to identify teir need and take part in policy implementation, they are likely to feel a sense of belonging and thus take an active part in the program. Niebank, (1999) in his study points out that there are distinct conceptions of citizenship which have been inscribed in the concept of community practice/development. In regard to this, it is evident that there has been intersection between politics and policy between the state and the formal institutions as well as the communities’ informal practices. Hence, it is essential for the purpose of ensuring that community workers are not flattered or forced into asking the most debilitated or weakest communities to take part in most active citizenship roles. In more profound sense, Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) points out that government should ensure participatory democracy in development of policies aimed at ensuring successfully completion of community practices/programs. However, the question is whether democracy provides people with the opportunity to learn about political policies and processes as well as influencing them or if it is a mere means of co-option or incorporation. Mayo. & Rooke (2008) argue that neither is regarded as inevitable but what can be regarded as the decisive role of structures and institutions in encouraging individuals and groups not only to express their self-interest but also an aspect of communality. In regard to the mentioned, an egalitarian and just society can only be a product of inclusive political culture, structure, and policies. In the development of policies associated with community programs, elements of politics are usually evident in particular the relationship between the state and the civil society or key players in a given sector in which power is at the centre. However, it is essential that public participation is encouraged so that they feel a sense of belonging. Mayo. & Rooke (2008) noted that for a long time the existing g traditional relationship between the state and the community is that the state was perceived as the providers while the community as the recipients making the community not to be fully involved in matters affecting them. According to Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) it is important that the community is given the freedom to take part in the program as well as in the formulation of policies particularly in matters affecting them. The challenging issue is the threat which is associated with the state building instead of community development thus opening doors between the communities and the state instead of permitting the communities to come in the corridors of power and hence be in a position to identify needs (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). The element of partnership between the key players, the government, and the community is essential in developing and implementing. Rawsthorne & Howard (2011) outline the principles and importance of partnership in the community development. Partnerships in community practice are formed with an aim of serving certain purposes and the goals may change over time. Additionally, all the partners have to agree upon goals, values, mission, partnership accountability, and measurable outcomes (Turner, 2009). It is essential that the relationship between the partners involved is based upon the element of respect, commitment, mutual trust, and genuineness (Kotval, 2005). Finally, for successfully completion of a community program, partnership with the government is essential in any community practice as it enables the available resources to be shared with an aim of attaining the programs goals (Rawsthorne & Howard, 2011). For instance in establishing a program aimed at preventing development of long term complications of type 2 diabetes, the hospital partnered with the Saudi Arabia government whereby the government resources were used in reaching the community and public institutions used to organize seminars and conferences on diabetes. References Collins, P. (2010) The new politicsof community, American Sociological Review, Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 7–30. (e-reader) Hoatson, L. (2001) Community development practice surviving new right government: A British and Victorian Comparison, Community Development Journal, Vol.36, No. 1, pp. 18-29. (e-reader) Kenny, S. (2006). Developing communities for the future, 3rd edition, South Melbourne: Thomson, Chapter 5 (e-reader). Kenny, S. (2002) Tensions and dilemmas in community development: new discourses, new Trojans?, Community Development Journal, Vol. 37(4), pp. 284-299 (e-reader) Kotval, Z. (2005) The link between community development practice and theory: intuitive or irrelevant? A case study of New Britain, Connecticut, Community Development Journal, Vol. 41(1), pp. 75-88 (e-reader) Lahiri-Dutt, K. (2004) ‘I plan, you participate’: A southern view of community participation in urban Australia, Community Development Journal Vol 39 No 1 pp. 13–27. (e-reader) Mayo, M. & Rooke, A. (2008) Active learning for active citizenship: participatory approaches to evaluating a programme to promote citizen participation in England, Community Development Journal, Vol.43(3), pp. 371-381. Mowbray, M. (2005) Community capacity building or state opportunism? Community Development Journal Vol 40 No 3 pp. 255–264.(e-reader) Meekosha, H. & Mowbray, M. (1990) ‘Reconstruction to Deconstruction:The Transformation of Community Work in Australia’, Community Development Journal,Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 3 37-344. (e-reader) Niebank, P. (1999) Communitydevelopment training: an industry discovering itself, Community Development Journal, Vol. 34(1), pp.58-69. Rawsthorne,M.&Howard, A. (2011). Working with communities: critical perspectives. Champaign,Ill: Common Ground Publishing.Chapter 7 and 8(e-reader) Taylor, J., Edwards, J., Champion,S., Cheers, S., Chong, A., Cummins,R. & Cheers, B. (2012) Towards a conceptual understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community and community functioning, Community Development Journal, Vol. 47(1), pp. 94-110 (e- reader) Turner, A. (2009) Bottom-up community development: reality or rhetoric? the example of the Kingsmead Kabin in East London, Community Development Journal Vol 44 No 2 pp. 230–247. (e-reader) Read More