History of Community Organization Explained.

 An Introduction

1. The history of community organization has its roots in the late nineteenth century. The Industrial  Revolution  in  England  in  the  mid-1800s  had  transformed its  economy  from  an agrarian  to  an   industrial  one.  This  in  turn  led  to  the  process  of  rapid  urbanization,  prompting  many  people  in   rural  areas  to  move  to  urban  areas  in  search  of livelihood.  The  urban  areas  with  industries   became centres for exploitation, sickness, accidents, disabilities, unemployment and other socio- economic issues. 
2. The families that strove to make ends meet found it difficult to survive in these  circumstances  and  were  left  with  only  a  few  options  to  sustain  themselves  in  the  industrial   centres; namely,  government relief, private charity or begging.  It was commonly held that such  individuals  and  families  were  a  failure  due  to  their  own  weaknesses  and  deficiencies,  and  that   their poverty and distress was born out of individual causes.  Formation of the London Charity Organization Society  When  a  particular  area  suffered  economic  distress,  many  working  people  were  rendered   unemployed and lacking any means to make an income. In response, several groups sprung up to  alleviate  poverty  and  help  such  individuals  and  their  families,  primarily  through  private  charity  and philanthropy. 
3. Most often these groups worked autonomously and without much coordination  among  each  other.  Hence,  some  individuals  and  families  succeeded  in  appealing  to,  and   receiving  help  from,  more  than  one  charity group.  There  was  a  need  for  coordinated  effort   among  these  groups  to  reduce  the  incidence  of  repeatedly  providing  support  to  the  same   individual  or  family.  
4. As  a  result,  the  first  Charity Organization Society  (COS)  was  formed  in  London in 1869, for ‘Organizing Charitable Relief and Repressing Mendicity’ (Roof, 1972). The  COS would address two issues: 'self-respecting families who were struggling to keep themselves  from  destitution  should  be  helped  and  encouraged,  and  that  charities  should  be  organized  and   coordinated, so that the best use could be made of resources' (ibid.)       
5. The COS laid emphasis on a scientific method to systematically identify and register applicants  for charity as well as supervise the administering of charity. This approach helped to distinguish  between  those  poor  that  genuinely  required  charity  from  those  that  did  not.  The  COS  believed  that  plainly  giving  out  charity  without  thoroughly  scrutinizing  the  real  causes  of  poverty  could   lead to permanent dependency and create a group of individuals or families that always relied on  charity for their survival. As a result, COS thrived in England in this period, keeping systematic  and centralized records of charity-seekers (through registration bureaus), stressing thorough and  objective investigation  as  well  as  professional  training  of  the  COS  personnel  and  focusing  on   coordination among various charities.    
6. Since the core objective of COS was to address the cycle of poverty rather than simply providing  relief, community  organization  was  its  most  important  aspect.  The  goal  of  the  COS  was  not   merely  charity,  but  helping  an  individual  or  a  family  to  gain  self-reliance  and  self-sufficiency.  Through its activities, the COS in each area became the nerve-centre of information, updates and  referrals for several services within the community. 
7. By 1875, the COS had a number of offices  all over, which had effective coordination with each other.  Charity  Organization  Societies  therefore  were  intervening  in  low-income  and  impoverished   urban  communities  to  identify  individuals  and  families  in  need  of  essential  services.  By   addressing  poverty  effects  on  individuals  by  providing  systematic  support,  its  attempt  was  to   strengthen emergent urban communities.  
8. Charity Organization Society in the United States of America  The London COS became the model for the United States, which at the time in 1877 was going  through  its  fourth  year  of  a  severe  economic  depression and  industrial  strife.  This  period  was  characterized  by  starvation,  suicides,  hopelessness  and  destitution.  In  Buffalo,  New  York;   Episcopal rector, Rev. Stephen Humphreys Gurteen and T. Guilford Smith along with a group of  friends decided to start the first COS in their city, with the dual objectives of, bringing order out  of the chaos created by the city’s numerous charities by offering district conferences at which the  agencies  could  discuss  their  common  problems  and  coordinate  their  efforts;  and  careful  investigations of appeals for help and a city-wide registration of applicants    
9.  It was believed that by inducing a rational system of scientific charitable administration, cyclical  poverty could be addressed and deserving poor could gain some support in their hardship so that  they  were  once  again  able  to  take  responsibility  (for  themselves  and  their  families)  to  become  self-reliant,  instead  of  giving  charity  to  the  undeserving  poor  who  would  learn  to  receive  alms   and then become dependent and idle.
10. The  COS  never  concerned  itself  with  the  larger,  structural  causes  of  poverty  such  as  the   economic causes that induce poverty in the first place. The Progressive era of the 1880s that was  characterized by a new wave of economic thought,  gave impetus to a questioning of the forces of  capitalism and its impact on labour and human life. Large groups of unemployed people took to  the streets condemning capital and emphasizing social reform. These were working people who  faced poverty for no fault of their own. The context that surrounded them was industrialization,  unemployment,  urbanization  and immigration  induced  by  capitalism.  They  demanded  that   charity be focused not on individual causes and personal issues, rather, it should look at striving  to  eradicate  the  social  causes  of  poverty.  
11. It  was  at  this  time  and  in  such  socio-political  context   that the “Settlement House movement” took birth. The goal of the Settlement houses was to meet  the  immediate  needs  of  the  working  class  in  their  own  neighbor-hoods  by  providing  them  with   services  and  basic  reform.  It  was  a  collaborative  practice  that  emphasized  community  building   and social action.  The Settlement House Movement  Toynbee Hall in Whitechapel was the first university settlement house established in London in  1884  by  a  group  of  middle-class  London  reformers.  It was  initiated  by  Samuel  Barnett who  believed  that  settlement  houses  were  ‘places  where  richer  students  could  live  alongside,  learn   about and contribute to the welfare of much poorer people’. 
12. The Settlement workers were mainly  middle class reformers, often women volunteers, who would locate themselves in houses in the  middle   of   urban,   poor,   working   class   neighborhoods.   They   conducted   research   in   the    surrounding communities and offered services to community members, such as language classes,  childcare, healthcare and meeting spaces.  Taking  inspiration  from  this  idea,  social  reformers  in  the  United  States  too  began  establishing   settlement  houses,  in  response  to  the  rapidly  growing  industrial  poverty  and  impoverishment.  The purpose of the American settlement houses was to ease the transition of immigrant workers    into  the  labour  force,  and  to  help  them  to  assimilate  middle-class  American  values.  
13. The  Neighbourhood Guild in New York was the first American settlement house founded by Stanton  Coit in 1886. This was followed by the establishment of the Hull-House in Chicago in 1889 by  Jane  Addams  and  Ellen  Starr.  In  1893,  a  nurse  and  progressive  reformer,  Lilian  Wald  founded   the  Henry  Street  Settlement  in  New  York.   By  the  1890s,  there  were  at  least  400  settlement   houses  in  the  United  States,  of  which  forty  percent  were  in  the  industrial  towns  of  Boston,   Chicago  and  New  York.  A  characteristic  feature  of  the  settlement  house  movement  was  that   several important leadership positions (in nearly half of the USA settlement houses) were filled  by women, which was unusual in its time, when women were not commonly seen as leaders in  business or government.   
14.  Settlement workers were progressive in their approach because they aimed to gain insights about  poverty  from  directly  experiencing  the  conditions  under  which  poor  people  lived.  They  also   aimed to enable the poor to form organizations to improve their situation. Some, aimed to build  workers  organizations  that  would  agitate  for  reform.  This  approach  was  a  sharp  departure  from   nineteenth  century  styles  of  charity  where  the  wealthy  maintained  clear  boundaries  and  upheld   their superiority in comparison with the poor. It tried to solve social problems and bridging the  class  differences  in  rapidly  industrializing  cities  of  USA,  by  acknowledging  that  poverty  was   caused by social and economic factors.  The Settlement House movement was at its peak around the 1920s. By locating themselves right  in the centre of urban poor working-class neighbourhoods, the Settlement Houses accomplished  a  lot.  
15. The  Hull-House  in  Chicago  provided  not  only  education  (classes  in  history,  art  and   literature) and services (creche, public baths, homeless shelter and community kitchen) but also a  space for political activism advocating for social legislation to combat poverty at          several           evels  in  politics. 
16. The  settlement  workers  in  other  areas  later  persuaded  municipal  and  state   governments to take responsibility for the programmes that they had initiated. They also lobbied  with local governments to pass reform legislations related to work place safety, minimum wages  and sanitation.   While  the  COS  had  instituted  the  ‘case-work’  method  of  social  work  practice,  the  Settlement  House movement had laid the foundation for community organization grounded in the idea of the  rich and poor living closely together and being interdependent. However, in the following years,    radical  social  workers  began  to  emphasize  the  inclusion  of  new  methods  in  keeping  with  the   socio-political changes of the time. Several innovative approaches were also evolving in the field  of  community  organization.  The  emphasis  was  now  turning  towards  control  by  community   members instead of agency-driven activities as in the case of the settlement houses of the 1930s.  It was against this background that Robert P. Lane’s 1939 report titled ‘The Field of Community  Organization’ (also called ‘The Lane Report’) proved to be a milestone in social work education.   The Lane Report, 1939 and Community Organization   
17. The  Lane  Report’ written  by  Robert  P.  Lane  situated  community  organization  practice  within   Social  Work  education.    It legitimated  community  organization  as  a  method  of  social  work   practice  by  presenting  a  systematic  and  comprehensive  description  of  the  roles,  activities,  and   methods in the field of community organization. The five propositions that emerged through the  process of Lane’s study were:   
18. The term ‘community organization’ refers both to a process and a field  
19. The  process  of  organizing  a  community  or  some  parts  of  it  is  carried  on  outside  as  well  as   inside the general area of social work  iii. Within Social Work, the community organizing process is carried on by some organizations  as a primary function, and by others as a secondary function  iv. the process exists on local, state and national levels, and also between such levels  v. those organizations whose primary function is the practice of community organization do not  as a rule offer help directly to clients (Lane, 1939: 496-97).  The report also defined the following functions for community organization (Austin and Betten,  1977):  a. fact finding for social planning and action  b. initiating, developing and modifying social welfare services  c. setting standards  d. facilitating interrelationships between different bodies concerned with welfare    e. developing public support and participation in social welfare activities  Radical Organizing  The late 1930s were marked by a militant labour movement of industrial workers in the United  States.  
20. This  movement  made  a  deep  and  lasting  influence  on  a  young  community-organizer  by   the name of Saul Alinsky, who worked with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. By 1939,  he became less active in the labour movement and began to move towards community organizing  in general. Over the next ten years, his concerted efforts at attempting to build a united voice of  discontent among fragmented slum communities gained him much popularity across the country.  Alinsky  developed  the  ‘Back  of  the  Yard  Neighborhood  Council’  (BYNC)  by  building  a  broad   coalition  of  union  leaders,  priests, small  business-owners  and  neighbourhood  residents.    
21. The   BYNC got jobs and services from corporations, the Chicago political machinery and the federal  government,  and it created  a  stable,  democratic  and  effective  organization  of  neighborhood   residents.  In Alinksky’s view, Community Organizations should be based on:  a. democratic decision-making  b. indigenous leadership  c. should be open to all members of the community  d. balancing of different interests    And  hence,  according  to  Alinsky,  Community  Organizations  must  have  a  relationship  with  the   neighbourhood,  they  must  build  on  existing  groups,  leadership  and  organization,  they  should   foreground community interests (no matter what these interests may  be), they must believe that  using  conflict  strategies  result in  the  greatest  gains,   and  that,  they  must  fight  for  concrete   victories because ‘winning built organization’.  
22. Alisnky’s  approach  has  also  been  criticized  for  different  reasons,  some  of  which  include,  its   injudicious dependence  on  neighborhood  elites,  its  emphasis  on  established  institutions  and   already present viable organizations (such as churches or ethnic organizations), its unwillingness  to take up issues that may cause disagreements and its exclusion of marginalized groups (BYNC  was  criticized  for  avoiding  race  issues).  However,  in  large  part,  it  is  widely  believed  that     Alinsky’s  approach  revolutionized  community  organizing  by  its  innovative  ways  of  organizing   the oppressed and the powerless.  
23. The War on Poverty Programme, USA  In  the  1960s,  the  USA  reeled  under  a  poverty  rate  of  nearly  twenty  per  cent,  and  its  economy   drained in the Vietnam war. Then US President Lyndon B. Johnson in his first State of the Union  speech  in  1964  declared  an    unconditional ‘War  on  Poverty’  through  a  comprehensive  social- welfare legislation titled ‘The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964’. Poverty became a matter of  national  concern  and  it  was  thought  that  this  programme  would  eradicate  poverty  in  the  USA.   The original objective of the programme was to:  - To sponsor neighbourhood self-help projects  - Promote social action  - Coordinate existing local services  - Provide new services  The  Office  of  Economic  Opportunity  (OEO)  was  established  as  part  of  this  programme,  to   administer  federal  spending  on  local  programmes  such  as  providing  food  stamps,  creating  Job   Corps  (which  provided  urban  school  dropouts  with  alternative  and  vocational  educational   programs),  providing  a  work-study  program  which  provided  poor  college  students  with  jobs  on   campus,  establish  VISTA  (Volunteers  in  Service  to  America),  and  HeadStart  (early  education   program for children of poor families). The OEO led to the mushrooming of a large number of  grassroots   organization   where   ‘maximum   feasible   participation’   was   stressed   and   hence,    Community Action Program Agencies (CAP Agencies) were created.  Community  Action  Program  agencies  moved  beyond  service  delivery  and  began  advocacy  and   organizing. The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) emerged from this process. The  NWRO  not  only  provided  services  to  the  community  such  as  running  child-clinics  and  school   lunch  programmes,  but  also  defended  and  advocated  the  needs  of  welfare  rights  recipients  (Valocchi, n.d.).  Within  the  USA,  Community  Organizing  practice  located  within  periods  of  expansion  and   contraction  of  civil  rights,  labour  rights  and  social  welfare  rights.  The  first  phase  of  expansion   have  been  1900-1918—  the  ‘Progressive  Era’—  characterized  by  pubic  investment  and  social     activism. The second phase of expansion was ‘The New Deal’ during 1933-1946 and the WWII,  and then followed the third phase from 1960-1975 as discussed above. The phases of contraction  of community organizing therefore have been 1877-1896, 1920-1929, 1948-59 and 1975-present.  Although the ‘War on Poverty’ programme was conceived as a top-down welfare programme, it  re-oriented itself to the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s.  
24. It  is  clear,   that  community  organizing  focused  on  community-based  practice.  It  was  about   particular  cultural  identities  and  specific  local  community  issues.  Many  grassroots  movements,   labour  movements,  women’s  rights  movements  and  in  recent  years,  also  anti-globalization  struggles have been anchored in community-based practice. The ideals and initiatives grounded  in  social,  economic  and  political  justice,  guide  community  practice  inside  and  outside  social   work. Let us now turn our attention to community organizing in India.  Community Organization in India  After  India  gained  independence  in  1947,  the  government  initiated  a  number  of  policies  to   restructure  the  village  society  and  bring  about  ‘development  from  below’.  There  were  two   objectives to this exercise:  
1. To reform agriculture and increase productivity    
2. To foster community development, local government and local development planning  The idea of the ‘village community’ was born. 
25. It was believed that development could only take  place if villagers themselves believed in it and made efforts towards this process. Hence, in 1945,  American  city  planner  and  architect  Albert  Mayer  met  Jawaharlal  Nehru  with  the  idea  of   building ‘model villages’ in India. Mayer envisioned that by improving the living conditions in  Indian  villages  through  economic  and  social  progress  and  ‘inner  democratization’  within  hierarchical  organization  of  the  village  society,  these  model  villages  could set  an  example for  ‘good  housing,  sanitation  and  community  structure’. 
26.  Under  the  direction  of  D.  P.  Singh  and  in   collaboration with an agricultural extension specialist Horace C. Holmes,  Mayer began the first  pilot development project in Etawah district of Uttar Pradesh in 1948. The main activities of the  Etawah  project  were education  of  villagers  (on  subjects  like  crop  yields  soil  conservations,   animal husbandry, sanitation and social education), training of village level workers, conducting  demonstrations, and coordination between various departments and agencies.    
27. The main innovation and contribution of the Etawah project was the notion of the Village Level  Worker (VLW) who was to be the link between the villagers and the government. The idea was  also to create a cadre of low-cost non-specialists from the village itself to balance the top-heavy  bureaucracy whose field officers were rarely able to visit all the villages in their charge. Hence,  the  principle  function  of  the  VLW  was  to  get  villagers  to  be  interested  in  government   development programmes.   Some  other  contributions  of  the  Etawah  project  included a  rural  newspaper  (to  inform  villagers   about modern agricultural practices), appointment of a ‘Rural Analyst’ (a trained anthropologist  who   would   communicate   the   unarticulated   needs   of   village   people   to   the   government),    development of brick-kilns and leather tanning industry and the promotion of literacy and small- scale village industries. According to Perkins (1997: 176) the Etawah project ‘was probably the  single  most  important  model  for  all  subsequent  development  work  in  India,  and  Nehru  took  a   personal interest in Holmes’s work.’ Not surprisingly, the Etawah pilot project served as a model  for the rural development programmes in India’s First Five Year Plan (1951-1956).  In  1951,  the  Etawah  model  was  scaled  up  and replicated  in  300  villages;  one  in  each  of  the  15   states; and later expanded to 5200 blocks. 
28. This scaling-up was possible due to the financial aid  provided by the Ford Foundation and later, through the signing of joint Indo-American Technical  Cooperation  Agreement.  A  Community  Project  Administration  Department  was  created  to   implement  and  monitor  the  programme.  This  department  was  subsequently  split  into  two  parts  with community development programme and the National Extension Service.   Perkins (1997) indicates that the successes of the Etawah project were mainly technical in nature  and  did  not  address  the  social  aspects  of  village  organization. Similarly,  the  nature  of  people’s   participation in the community development programmes in India has been inadequate, because  people’s  contributions  meant  providing  contributions  in  labour  or  in  kind.  For  poorer  people  it   was mostly in the form of ‘shramdan’ or contribution of labour to build and repair roads, wells,  schools and health centres.   In   order   to   strengthen   people’s   participation   in   local   self-governance   and   decentralized    administration, the Panchayati Raj system was formally instituted in 1992, with a vision of ‘gram  swaraj’  (village  self-rule).  
29. The  Panchayati  Raj  is  a  three-tier  system  of  governance  with  the   village panchayat as its basic unit, the Panchayat Samiti at the block level and the Zilla Parishad    at the district level. Taken together, they have the power to plan and to make their local demands  known to the state government. They draw up local development plans which fit into the general  scheme  of  community  development  and  adapt  the  Five-Year  Plans  to  local  conditions.  Prior  to   this,  most  planning  was  done  at  state  and  national  levels  by  ‘experts’,  i.e.  technocrats  and   administrators. 
30. Communicating to higher level authorities these ‘felt needs’ (and a local plan to  address  these  needs)  so  as  to  contribute  to  a  national  plan, required  time  and  extensive   consultation. The  Panchayati  Raj  system  provided  a  contrast  to  this  system  of  governance,  and   brought the community at the centre of community development.  One of the initial goals of community development was to create ‘village planning commissions’  which  envisaged  a  larger  role  for  local  institutions  in  the  planning  and  administration  of   development programmes. The VLW would work under Extension Officers, who would report to  Block Development Officers, thereby instituting an administration of ‘development from below’.  An important objective of the community development programme was to elicit the ‘felt need’ of  the  local  community.  However  these  needs  had  to  be  compatible  with  what  the  administrators   viewed as the known means for attaining economic and social progress. They were not designed  such  that  villagers  would  themselves  develop  and  administer  local  development  plans.  As  a   result,  the  community  and  the  administrators  often  seemed  to  have  conflicting  roles  in  their   approach  to  ‘development  from  below’.  There  has  been  a  history  of  tension  between  the   requirements of community development and the traditional roles and responsibilities of the state  and  the  national  administrative  services.  The  upwardly  responsible  roles  include  tax  collecting   and   law   enforcement,   while   the   downwardly   responsible   roles reflect   the   needs   of   the    community.    Dual   and   sometimes conflicting   roles   of   administrators   (such   as   the   block    development  officers-BDO  and  the  district  program  officers-  DPO)  manifested  themselves  in   enabling  communities  to  articulate  felt  needs  against  persuading Panchayat Samitis  and  Zilla  Parishads to accept government plans.   One   other   major   impediments   to   community   development   in   India   was   the   hierarchical    organization  of  rural  society.  While  the  national  policy  had  an  egalitarian  objective,  both   traditional leaders and new leaders had issues with the adoption of scientific values which were  viewed  as  western  imports.  Participation  by  local  centres  of  power  would  often  frustrate  and  dilute the goals of government development planning and administration. By the mid-1960s, the    enthusiasm  and  interest  in  community  development  and  Panchayati  Raj  institutions  began  to   fade.  
31. The  broad  understanding  was  that  only  the  rich  and  the  powerful  in  the  rural  society   benefitted from these organizations and programmes. Many critics believed that the community  development programmes  had  failed  to  instill  in  the  participants  the  ‘felt-need’  to  work  in  a   collaborative fashion, and to bring about a developmental change. Finally, in the late 1960s, the  onset of the green revolution with its emphasis on increasing agricultural productivity led to the  demise of the community development programmes in India.  Labour Unions in India  Labour  unions  are  a  form  of  organization  and  association  among  working  people  to  have  a   collective  voice.  In  India,  labour  unions  did  not  exist  before  1918.  In  a  1922  article,  Abani  Mukherji  details  the  trajectory  and  reformist  nature  of  the  then  Indian  labour  movement.  The   Nationalists  in  the  Indian  independence  movement  realized  the  power  of industrial  labour   movement  and  the  organized  force  of  the  trade  unions.  They  wanted  to  control  it    and  use  it  for   political  purposes,  i.e.  mainly  as  a  means  to  threaten  the  then  colonial  government. 
32. Due  to  its   roots in the pre-independence era, the development of labour unions in India became inextricably  linked to the growth of the anti-colonial independence movement. Even after independence, the  labour  unions  tended  to  have  overlapping  interactions  with  political  parties  while  they  engaged   in class-based organizing.   Ever since, the Indian labour unions in large measure have restricted themselves to representing  their  constituents  in  the  organized  economy  and  the  formal  sector.  For  effective  collective   bargaining,  they  sought  institutional  accommodation  through  their  links  with  political  parties.   
33. While  the  character  and  form  of  the  mainstream  trade  unions  and  the  central  trade  union   federations  has  remained  the  same  over  the  past  century,  one  of  the  biggest  blind-spots  of  the   large Indian trade unions is its non-recognition and exclusion of the growing informal workforce.  As  a  result,  while  twelve  federations  of  trade  union  exist  at  the  national  level,  only  one  among  these  represents  workers  in  the  informal  economy.  Besides,  even  though  these  12  federations   represent  a  majority  of  the  formal  workforce  (which  is  8%  of  the  total  workforce,  concentrated   mainly in public sector enterprises) they remain heavily fragmented, factionalized and splintered  due to several reasons.   
34.  Community  organizing  based  on  the  model  of  union-community  ‘coalition’  building, is  an   important  tool  to  collectivise  the  workers  operating  in  the  informal  economy,  which constitutes  92 per  cent  of  the  Indian  workforce  (NCEUS,  2007). While  formations  of  such collectivization  of informal workers in trade-union like structures are few and have small memberships (vis-à-vis  their  large  numbers  in  the  workforce),  they  are  fast  gaining  traction  all  over  India.  Collective   identity in these forms of organizing efforts is not a given, and therefore needs to be constructed.  Hence,  such  efforts  recognize  that  there  are  causes  of  injustice  other  than  class.  They  take  cognizance  of  inequalities  embedded  in  the  social  structure  and  institutions,  and  question  the   injustice  prevalent  in  unequal  social  relations. 
35.  They  also  lobby  for  social  security  and  other   policy  measures  to  alleviate  poverty  and  structural  inequalities  through  grassroots  mobilization.   In doing so, they activate the agency of the oppressed providing them the platform to articulate  their  collective  interests  on  issues  of  citizenship  rights,  work  and  workplace  rights,  women’s   rights  and  human  rights.  This  leads  to  an  effective  representation  of  the  issues  of  marginalized  workers to have a collective voice. Community organization plays a key role in this process.