There are many communities and estates in our country where, traditionally, there has been high incidence of poverty, unemployment, crime and anti-social behaviour.
In the 1990’s, organisations known as Community Development Projects were set up in many of these areas to try and nurture all that is good in the estate and/or community.
These Projects that have stood the test of time are generally very positive initiatives that do good work, and (from my observations anyway) have an ethos of inclusion and synergy with those who matter most, that is very desirable in community work.
In respect of community development itself, I propose that a close look would reveal a critical mass of people resident in the community whose emotional distress is so acute that it prevents them functioning well.
In the Chapter on Trauma and Related Topics we explored how trauma seeps into teams and I don’t think it is too far-fetched to say that it seeps into communities too. It follows that if there was more happiness and at-ease relationships in homes the community would develop from within with far less external top-down assistance.
I remember reading in a book about community work (The Politics of Community Development, by Fred Powell and Martin Geoghegan, 2004), that 85% of community workers find the statutory sector (which includes the Pillar of the public and civil service, who are, mostly, their partners) difficult to work with.
That, I thought, is a huge percentage, and speaks for itself in respect of genuine partnership.
Of course, that is some years ago and perhaps community workers’ opinions might have changed over time – though from my own anecdotal evidence I doubt if it is significantly different.
But, I know from experience that many community workers find individuals within the statutory sector that they can work well with, and are of great assistance – I do anyway – though that had not been researched in the book.
Interestingly, the headline that the newspaper used for the review of the book (that prompted me to read it) was The Most Marginalised Still Believe They Have No Say.
It is a very telling headline – written in 2005, and clever enough to spark my interest. But it’s a headline that is absolutely true – in my opinion!
It is because of such statements, and similar pronouncements which I have heard all my career, that I encourage community workers not to get sucked into the ways of thinking of the Pillars. [1]
[1]. It is typical of Pillars thinking that many of these Community Development Projects, who had developed strong local identity and developed home-grown talent in a relatively short length of time, have been amalgamated and centralised, and much of their localness has been diluted.