COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 There are 7 articles on this page.

WHAT IS A GEOGRAPHICAL COMMUNITY?(article 1)

A science dictionary defines community as a group of organisms living in a certain habitat, having an effect on each other, and reaching a state of equilibrium through a food web.

How does this apply to a community of people? Living in a certain habitat is quite straightforward. Having an effect on each other is also readily understood. What about reaching a state of equilibrium? Well, it is to be hoped that the members of the community will at least get on with each other, even if all is not always peace and harmony. Through a food web sounds out of context when talking about people. People do not feed on each other, or do they. Not literaly, but there are other ways to feed on one another. For instance, emotions. If the community had a group within in that have achieved a success it is not unlikely that the wider community will be affected by that group's joy and pleasure. The whole community experiences a lift because of the group's achievment.

Likewise, if a section of the community is down and depressed, this emotion could transfer to the rest of the community, and create a form of depression that is communal. As communities experience ups and downs within their ranks, an overall balance should result. What happens if a community consists of a small group of people who are to a large extent self-contained? Does this lead to an emotion, most likely a down emotion, taking hold and staying like that for long periods of time.

A community is in essence any group of people who think of themselves as a community. It is not up to outsiders to tell this or that group that they are a community, wether they like it or not. People are creatures with free will, and they will decide what a community means to them. The community once defined by it's own members will become as the description in the science dictionary.

 

---

 

                            WHAT IS VOLUNTEERING? (article 2)

The lady who fetches her elderly next door neighbour's newspaper every morning when she fetches her own would not think of herself as a volunteer, but she is. She might think of herself as good neighbour.

Volunteering is about giving time, with a varying amount of effort  thrown in. Wether you give a couple of hours a week to a charity shop, give time to help at the library, make teas at the community cafe, help to tidy the beaches, or any one of a thousand and one other things you are being a good neighbour, because volunteering is being a good neighbour on a larger scale.

The whole community is your neighbour.

 

---

 

IS A COMMUNITY ENTITLED TO IT'S OWN IDENTITY?(article 3)

An interesting question. You would think that there would be no area where there would be any problem with a community having it's own identity. But, what about an area which others think of of being deprived and populated by people of low inteligance? Then the outsiders may only see the local community as being a group of people to make use of, to the benefit of the local community admittedly, but to be made use of none the less.

Where are the checks and balances to make sure that in taking advantage of the local people the outsiders do not cause untold harm to the individuals involved. In short there are no such checks and balances.

The local people are at the mercy of the outsiders, who lets face it are only going to have the local people's welfare at heart in as much as it effects the project being undertaken. Beyond that the unfortuante local people will be in danger of being thrown to the wolves if anything goes wrong.

In using the local people to carry forward the project the ousiders will also make sure that the outsiders view of what the local people 'want' is the one that will prevail. And so the community gets what the outsiders say it wants, not neccessarily that which it needs.

Community Development Workers are supposed to help the local people to become empowered. What if the CDW is employed by the outsiders? Then the CDW, whilst having sympathy with the local people, will owe their first loyalty to their employer. And so this coflict of interest can only be resolved with the CDW making sure that the local people are kept sweet, whilst all the time being aware of the true situation.

It would be nice if each group of local people had a CDW employed by themselves, who would be independant of the outsiders, but there is often no funding for this.

 

---

 

HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH APATHY?(article 4)

Will anyone with the answer to this question please send it to me! No I am not joking!

Apathy, or lack of interest, is the barrier that stands in the way of the success of any undertaking that the community attempts to become involved in.

What can lead to apathy. The idea that nothing is happening in the area. But, what if there is something going on and they don't join in. Well in the case of my local area there are a lot of families who are waiting to move, as they are put into the property by the local council when they realy want to be in other parts of the district. These tenants have no reson the settle in, and this causes an unsettling efffect.

How can one establish clubs ect, when those who may be about to volunteer to help will be offered another council property next week, and that will leave less people available to help than the club needs. Before the club has even established it may be closed down again.

This leads to dissatisfaction amongst the community in general, and even less people want to be involved, if being involved leads to dissapointment.

---

 

COUNCILS NEED AREAS TO STAY DEPRIVED (article 5)

This sounds like an odd thing to say. But think about it. Which areas attract the most funding. Areas of deprevation. This applies from whatever source the funding is obtained, local, national or european.

So, the council does not need an area to lose it's derprivation status, or a valuable source of funding is cut off. But are you saying that the money obtained as grants is only for the deprived area. You might think so in your inocence, but have you heard of 'creative accounting', yes, well there is a version of this that can make sure that benefits intended only for the deprived area are in use somewhere else.

Take an example. Grant funds come along to pay for a designated worker for the area of deprivation. All well and good, but what is there to stop the council asking that worker to help with tasks in other (non-deprived) areas under it's stewardship. Nothing at all. And so the hours can easily be eaten up.

Besides which, why kill the goose that lays the golden egg? The deprived area(s) within the council's domaine may be one of it's main source of income via outside funding. To allow the deprived area to reach a status that means it is no longer deprived denies the council money it can ill afford to be without.

---

 

JOINED UP THINKING (article 6)

The bane of many a project is consultation. All very well in thoery, consultation can dramaticaly slow down the process of establishing often desperately needed intiaitives.

The buzz phrase is 'joined up thinking'. This means whoever is in charge needs to talk to everyone else, before every move. The constant holding of meetings loses days, weeks, even years of time. The older mehod of consulting, and then getting on with it, may have led to the end result that didn't please all of the people, but it got there quicker. Now not pleasing all of the people, takes longer to achieve.

It is a sorry state of affairs when those in charge are so frightened of not pleasing one person, they fail to deliver anything for as long as possible. Being in charge, in any situation or capacity, means taking the risk of being unpopular, being critasied, being harranged in the street. Two sayings spring to mind, ' the buck stops here' and 'if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen'.

Communities need results, and the idea that the end result must please all of the people needs to be rejected, and common sense reinstated.

---

 

                             Holistic Approach (article 7)

Why do we talk about 'community' and then sectionalise it?

This is the modern approach, post the funding stream culture. Before the community in anyone's book comprised of everyone. The geographical community was all the people, from the newborn to the elderly. It was the community of the extended family.

When the community had to become dependant on funding streams, as the system changed, so each 'section' became more isolated, jealous and envious of the other 'sections'.

The united community was replaced with the segemented community, to the detriement of community unity. Now the older people moan that the kids get more money. The kids dont see why all the money should not be spent on them. The kid's parents want to see lots spent on thier kids, so they can send the kids out knowing they have somewhere safe to go.

The gap between the older people and the kids widens. Instead of the generations seeing the value in each other, they now view each other as rivals for what is available.

Various organisations try to bring the generations together, and this is good, but it is the day-to-day that needs to be addressed. Many older people are fearful of the kids in their 'gangs', and this is neither fair for the older people, nor is it beneficial to the older person's welfare and state of mind.

We need to build back the tollerance than existed, before the 'sections' of the community were thrown into competition with each other by a devisive system of funding .