The term “community” has multiple meanings depending on the intent of the user. Communities have varied populations, typically around 10,000 people, while neighborhoods are generally much smaller. Sometimes the term is used to identify a specific set of physical, cultural, and psychological characteristics shared by members of a particular group who interact with each other based on common goals and issues. In community development work, community refers to a group of people who reside in the same geographical location. Community is usually defined as an identifiable resident population base that shares certain structural and functional relationships. These communities may be situated in urban, suburban or rural areas.
The degree to which communities empower themselves is primarily a reflection of the quality and effectiveness of the horizontal relationships within the community as a whole. Sociological theories assume the critical importance of social networks in the community. A primary social network consists of sets of people who help and support each other for personal reasons, while a secondary social network comprises individuals in the community who associate with organized groups to pursue specific goals (Fischer 1996). Both social network levels are crucial to community empowerment.
In the United Kingdom, centralized government social programs have often failed to resolve problems at the community and neighborhood levels due to top-down approaches being their standard mode. What is needed are bottom-up approaches that guarantee a large measure of community control by residents, enabling them to initiate community-based adult education models relative to both real and felt needs. All social networks must be recognized for facilitating and enhancing increased local participation.
Some past social scientists referred to certain communities as disorganized.” However, this contradicts what “community” implies – organization. One prevailing stereotype about underdeveloped communities is that residents are “apathetic.” This stereotype is dangerous because it blames victims without examining other complexities that would reveal a more realistic assessment of these communities. What appears as apathy may actually reflect other underlying problems.
Community mobilization can be a long and tiring process, especially in neighborhoods where many citizens have not been involved in collective action. A significant number of people resist ideas for social change and feel powerless about doing anything. Some do not see any problem or issue that arouses their interest, while others admit there is a problem but do not believe that there is a solution. Many other residents in the neighborhood offer the common excuse: “I’m too busy with other things!” All of these responses demonstrate the unwillingness of people to be involved. However, caution must be exercised when assuming that community apathy is the underlying theme because it can be counterproductive to building a neighborhood organization for action.
Foley (1995) suggests analyzing six elements when assessing apathy in relation to leadership strategies:
1. Planning is a crucial step in determining the effectiveness of a project. The central question that needs to be answered here is, “Was it effective?” To ensure success, it’s important to allocate enough time for planning. This allows leadership to identify the needs of residents and present them in a creative and forceful manner that can inspire collective action.
2. Preparation.
Neighborhood leaders are often poorly prepared to execute processes that have a direct relationship to the unique needs of the population. They often panic when met with resistance and indifference, and conflicts frequently arise but are not resolved through negotiations. As a result, the neighborhood is blamed for its apathy.
3. Sponsorship.
Sometimes projects fail because the names of persons and groups associated with the sponsorship of the project evoke a negative reaction from the residents at large. Careful scrutiny of sponsorship by the leadership and their sensitivity to predictable group values improve the possibility of selecting acceptable sponsors.
Timing is crucial for the success of a project or campaign. Even a well-planned initiative can fail due to bad timing. It’s important to consider the convenience of residents when scheduling activities, rather than just focusing on the leadership’s availability. To ensure effective scheduling, leadership should be aware of competing activities and conditions throughout the year.
Leadership style is crucial in working with adult residents. Autocratic leaders are generally resisted, and presenting a plan or activity as the only solution backed by unyielding leadership authority is likely to fail. Effective leadership strategies should prioritize openness and patience, with an emphasis on the democratic process.
6. Approach.
The wrong approach to social action can elicit group opposition instead of cooperation. Community action approaches must be tailored to local attitudes, values, and conditions. A textbook approach may not be effective with a specific population. Therefore, any approach should be flexible and readily adaptable as conditions dictate.
The six elements mentioned above indicate that there are several factors to consider before defining the residents of a community. These elements serve as a tool for evaluating neighborhood leadership. What is commonly referred to as apathy may actually be due to a flaw in one or more of these six elements. This highlights the importance of having effective leadership for achieving collective goals.
The ideal of a participatory democratic society can only be achieved through local control. As central governments grow and expand their control, the opportunities for meaningful political activity by the masses decrease (Kotler 1969). The fight for local control is a global phenomenon. The goal of community power requires people to question constitutional charters and ruling oligarchies’ control. They must demand cooperation and greater resource sharing, which are necessary for developing their communities. This strategy has implications for both industrial and non-industrial countries.
Traditionally, neighborhoods were seen as independent political units that set their own customs and standards and made decisions about taxing, zoning, and other matters. However, as urbanization has spread throughout the world, neighborhood control has undergone a major transformation. Today, neighborhood residents are members of political units controlled by a centralized authority and are thus subject to its political control. City council members and other professional politicians from the party in power make important decisions affecting the quality of neighborhood life.
The pendulum for change has been swinging towards a resurgence of resident demands for local control for many years. Demands for neighborhood control of public social programs have been growing in the United Kingdom over the past twenty-five years.
According to Glazer (1991), the issue of community control is part of a major trend against the increasing bureaucratization and centralization of local government. Warren and Warren (1997) suggest that community control is a response to the political modernization of cities, as it offers a means of making urban bureaucracies more responsive to their clients’ needs (p. 33). However, central government is generally not organized to resolve problems in a timely manner. In some cases, decentralized neighborhood government can exacerbate problems by creating an additional bureaucratic layer.
The Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) system is a neighborhood government model. It consists of twelve single-member districts (SMDs), each with approximately 2,000 residents. An ANC representative is elected by each SMD to serve on the commission. These representatives are required to hold meetings with their constituents at least four times per year to gather feedback on issues affecting the area.
ANCs receive annual funding from the City Council, which covers administrative expenses but not resident programs or services.
Over the past decade, residents have had mixed reactions regarding the efficiency of the ANC model of neighborhood government. Many African-American residents believe that most ANC representatives have been co-opted by the City Council to minimize organized protest and other demands from residents. However, many other residents support progressive ANCs in the city who speak out and bring political and community pressure to bear on issues such as zoning, unfair business practices, housing speculation, rent control, public school issues, and taxes. The election of an additional 350-plus quasi-politicians” who claim to represent community residents has created another layer of bureaucracy. This has also lengthened government reaction time due to the requirement for neighborhood hearings.
The idea of local control is not new or unique. People have a natural capacity to develop appropriate action responses to solve many of their own problems. Central government has a vital role to play, as it is most efficient when it has sufficient time to offer specialized assistance and mount large-scale programs and services. Communities face vested interests and political complexities as they demand their proportion of control. A balanced approach requires collaborative strategies and linkages, which are necessary to prevent one from dominating the other. Warren and Warren (1997) pose the question: With so many vested interests at stake, how is such a delicate balance achieved and maintained?” (p. 36).
Community-based organizations are local support systems initiated, controlled, and maintained by neighborhood residents to achieve various process- and task-oriented goals of community development. Some organizations aim to tackle issues related to crime and drugs, while others focus on promoting economic development or rallying citizen support for a particular political issue. Some lobby for greater resources from public helping and support systems. Task-oriented organizations typically have a shorter life cycle than process-oriented ones and will usually disband after completing their objectives. Nevertheless, there are thousands of neighborhood organizations that have existed continuously for over fifty years.
In his work published in 2001, Mico discusses the organization and workings of community-controlled organizations. In the United Kingdom, there are three prevalent types: community-based organizations (CBOs), community action agencies (CAAs), and community development corporations (CDCs).
The building of effective community-based organizations cannot be accomplished without local leadership. Every community has its own array of indigenous leaders. At the formal level, they may be people serving in appointed and elected positions such as local ministers, teachers, village chiefs, ward representatives or former politicians. At the informal level, they may come from the ranks of ordinary grassroots citizens who happen to be charismatic and persuasive, possess natural leadership attributes, are streetwise and are linked to a network of many potential followers in the community.
The single thread that connects both groups is their capability to mobilize neighbors by arousing resident interest, influencing people to get involved, changing attitudes and awakening their natural interest for self-determination. The formal and informal levels of neighborhood leadership exist in all communities. Sometimes they intersect and cooperate in resolving community problems while at other times they maintain separate postures.
In defining and describing neighborhood leadership sociologists have used three basic approaches: asking a cross-section of people in the neighborhood who are making important contributions to the community; identifying persons in leadership roles within organizations within and outside the community; analyzing specific issues faced by the community and identifying persons who played important roles in resolving these issues.
Hunter (2003) used a power structure” approach which identified leaders across four elements: business, government civic associations and society activities. However Hunter’s most important finding was that “the patterns of leadership and power in minority communities differ from those found among white communities” (p.100). Warren & Warren’s (1997) studies revealed that there are three levels of neighborhood leadership:
Officers of local organizations hold formal leadership roles and are appointed or elected to their positions. They may also be part of the informal network.
2. Neighborhood activities are individuals who have established a track record of initiating action. Usually, these people are not members of an organization but operate within the sphere of a network of followers. Many of them can be found in the neighborhood.
Opinion leaders are individuals who have a significant influence on others in their community. They are recognized as experts or knowledgeable about a specific issue, and residents seek them out for advice, information, or guidance. Unlike formal group members, opinion leaders tend to be independent and prefer sharing information rather than being involved in organizational activities.
Special attention should be given to the informal network as it represents the majority of residents. When external agencies approach or identify neighborhood leaders in the news media, they are usually individuals from the formal leadership stratum. These leaders” are typically selected by sources outside of the neighborhood and may not have enough support and following within it. Therefore, there is a real danger that they will not have a critical mass of support from the community. Leaders representing both formal and informal levels play critical roles in dividing labor relative to social action.
The structure of neighborhood leadership tends to reverse itself when viewed in black and white neighborhoods. In the black community, women tend to be more formal leaders while men take on informal leadership roles. The opposite is true for the white community. However, it’s important to link both formal and informal levels for optimal development and action towards achieving neighborhood unity. It’s worth noting that a diversity of leadership styles exists in all communities. The ultimate goal of leadership is not just developing individual leaders but building a synergistic leadership climate that allows all styles to flourish, leading to effective action and unification of community organizations (Black Community Development Project).
Mobilizing people involves meeting them and explaining why they should be involved in a community organization. The ability to mobilize people for involvement through participation is basic to community development. Generally, people who are informed about a community issue and are interested in resolving it feel that they can be more effective in working with a group. A nationwide survey conducted in the United Kingdom found that 74 percent of those surveyed would rather associate with others to exert influence than act alone (Popple and Quinney, 2002). One of the keys to citizen participation is convincing people that the community issue is one of common concern. Ross and Lappin (1997) discuss this aspect of participation as capitalizing on feelings of discontent with existing conditions, which fuels the need to organize, plan, and take action. Committed participation at the group level results when a sufficiently large group of people arrives at a consensus regarding the need for and direction of social change.
There are certain value assumptions that neighborhood leadership should understand in efforts to promote citizen participation. Cary (2000) states them as follows: “(1) People within the community should actively participate in community change; (2) Participation should be as inclusive as possible; and (3) Participation should occur through democratic organizations.” Three necessary conditions for participation must be present if these value assumptions are to be realized: freedom to participate–autonomy; ability to participate; willingness to participate” (p. 145).
Studies of political participation focus on identifying groups that are easy to mobilize and finding ways to engage those who express support for an organization but do not fully participate. According to Milbrath (1997), only about 8% of the population is involved in community organizations, 14% contact government officials, 30% work with others on local issues, and a mere 3% claim they would participate in public demonstrations (pp. 18-19). Federally sponsored community development organizations report that only 13-14% of the population claims any form of involvement (Steggert, 1995).
Some studies indicate that participation in political and social organizations is higher among highly educated individuals and members of the majority group. The wealthy tend to participate more than the poor, and white-collar workers are more likely to participate than blue-collar workers (Steggert, 1995). However, these findings can be misleading when it comes to the participation of black citizens. Much of the research has focused on political issues at national and regional levels or on larger social structures. Undereducated low-income blacks and other minorities have traditionally been passive participants in national politics because those issues are outside their realm of experience and immediate community-based needs. Minorities respond with enthusiastic levels of participation to an arena of concrete, visible concerns such as their own block” (Wanderson, 2001 p. 37). People from higher economic classes feel directly affected by major political issues; therefore they participate more.
“But when people are interested in particular local problems, they will participate irrespective of class or race” (Rubin and Rubin 1996 p. 133).
At the community and neighborhood levels, higher levels of participation are possible assuming that neighborhood leadership can highlight issues and reach a consensus on their severity for planning, action, and participation. Sustained participation is an objective of the overall goal of participation. It depends on recognizing important measures that determine how involved people are in the democratic process of decision-making. Careful consideration and sensitivity must be exercised to include this ideal. Understanding group needs concerning the decision-making process can facilitate a democratic system.
Leaders and facilitators of groups have the responsibility to display certain skills and attitudes in their attempts to create an atmosphere of openness and inclusiveness. It is essential to understand the basic needs of people in groups. The following is a list of group needs:
Sense of belonging
Share in the planning process.
Reasonable group goals.
Worthwhile group activities.
– Input in making group rules.
Clear expectations of membership should be established.
Challenging tasks.
Sense progress.
– Information.
Confidence in the leader.
Most people, regardless of socioeconomic level or group nature, have ten simple needs. However, some members may find it harder to fulfill certain needs than others. For instance, a sense of belonging requires feeling welcome and needed without objection. The leader’s behavior and some group members’ actions determine whether this need is met. To achieve consensus decision-making, the group should display task and maintenance functions. Task functions relate to the group’s purpose content while maintenance functions deal with morale, feelings, conflict resolution and cooperation promotion for harmony creation where everyone can contribute.
Every group has to make decisions continuously: big or small; easy or hard; right or wrong but always decisions. Decision making is a pattern of relationships among members that every individual influences significantly through information sharing, loud objections or expressions of approval/hostility/envy/admiration/contempt/condescension that can affect an impending decision remarkably.
Therefore it’s no wonder that many groups struggle with decision making- some become paralyzed when faced with a decision; others argue interminably over minor points; others rush into voting only to reverse their decision later on or fail in carrying it out while others appoint committees/saviors instead of deciding themselves. Most difficulties encountered by groups in making decisions revolve around one of these factors:
Fear of consequences can arise in some groups when faced with an impending decision, leading to divisions and disagreements. However, openly acknowledging these fears can help find effective ways to deal with them.
Conflicting loyalties can arise when individuals hold memberships in multiple groups. This can often lead to divided loyalties among group members. However, creating an atmosphere where these conflicts can be openly discussed without threatening the individual is crucial for their resolution.
Interpersonal conflict can arise in groups of any size due to personal differences that provoke feelings of affection or antipathy among members, which can hinder sound decision-making. In such situations, it is often helpful for a member who is not involved in the conflict to bring the real problem into bolder relief.
Methodological blundering can hinder effective decision-making within a group. This can happen when rigid procedures limit the expression of differing opinions, or when personal opinions are used instead of adequate data. Additionally, if a group does not test for consensus before making decisions, it may lead to further problems.
Inadequate leadership occurs when a facilitator fails to fulfill their responsibilities. This can happen when they restrict the free expression of opinions or do not provide assistance in selecting appropriate decision-making methods.
Effective decision-making by a group based on consensus is both realistic and possible, but it is not easy. There are five basic steps that a group can take to arrive at a decision with some assurance that it represents the mind of the group as a whole and will be acted upon. It is also essential to be aware of what may help or block each step and what may cause its omission.
Defining the problem is a crucial process that involves sharpening the focus to ensure clarity, internalizing its various implications, clarifying it, and elaborating on it.
Suggesting alternative solutions involves getting ideas from all members on the various options to solve the problem.
Testing the alternatives involves examining all available data, previous experience, possible consequences, relevance to the problem, and members’ attitudes. This process is crucial in making informed decisions.
Choosing among alternatives is the process of reaching a decision by selecting one of the alternatives or a combination of alternatives that will provide a solution to the defined problem.
Planning for action involves making detailed plans to carry out a decision by examining its implications and testing the proposed action’s relevance. It is essential to note that the planning step may lead to rethinking the decision and returning to one of the prior steps in the decision-making process.
The crucial element of citizen participation is incorporated as an organizational and leadership goal that is central to community development. Identifying issues is key to mobilizing people. A major assumption is that citizens will come together, regardless of socioeconomic strata, if they perceive the issue(s) to be significant. While a mass-base appeal is desirable, community-based organizations need only attract a critical mass of citizens for effective development efforts (3 888).
References
Cary L. J. (ed.). (2005). Community Development as a Process. Journal of the Community Development Society, 36.
Fischer, C.S. (1996). The Urban Experience. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Foley A.S. (1995). Community Apathy: Leadership Pamphlet No. 3. Aldershot, UK: Adult Education Association of the U.K.
Glazer, N. (1991). The Limits of Social Policy.” Commentary, 52(3), 12-15.
Hunter, F. (1953). Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Kotler, M. (1969). Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Levitt M. J. and Feldbaum E. G., 1990. Of, By, and For the People.” Boulder: Westview Press.
Mico P. R. (2001). Developing Your Community-Based Organization. Praeger Publishers.
Milbrath, L. (1997). Political Participation. Routledge.
Popple, Keith and Quinney, Anne (2002). Theory and Practice of Community Development: A Case Study from the United Kingdom.” Journal of the Community Development Society, 33.
Ross M. G. and Lapin B. W. (1997). Community Organization: Theory, Principle, and Practice. New York: Harper & Row.
Rubin, H. J., and Rubin, I. (1996). Community Organizing and Development. Praeger Publishers.
Steggert F. (1995) wrote a book titled Community Action Groups and City Governments” published in Cambridge, MA by Ballinger.
Wanderson A. (2001) presented A Framework for Participation in Community Organizations” in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, volume 17, issue 1, pages 27-58.
Warren R. B. and Warren D. I. (1997). The Neighborhood Organizer’s Handbook. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
The Black Community Development Project’s annual reports can be found at http://www.bcdp.org.uk/information/annual-reports.php. This information was retrieved on January 15, 2006.
